Inhibition-confrontation Model Of Coping And Uncertainty Orientation: Individual Differences In The Disclosure Of Traumas

Supporters of the inhibition-confrontation model of coping assert that inhibition of thoughts and feelings associated with traumatic life events requires the expenditure of physiological resources. This places the body under stress and results in an increased vulnerability to illness. By disclosing the traumatic event, it is believed that inhibition is released, reducing the strain on the body and the proclivity toward disease.;The primary purpose of the present study is to broaden this model by demonstrating that differences in uncertainty orientation will mediate the extent to which disclosure results in a release of inhibition for all persons. The theory of uncertainty orientation differentiates between those who are motivated to approach personally relevant and threatening information and those who are not. It is argued that disclosing a traumatic event reflects these characteristics. Therefore, it was predicted that the greatest release of inhibition and the greatest arousal would be exhibited when the disclosure process corresponded with an individual\u27s uncertainty orientation. A second goal of the study was to distinguish the implications of individual differences in uncertainty orientation from those of repression-sensitization and sex.;Participants discussed a traumatic event and a neutral event while continuous skin conductance and heart rate measures were obtained. In addition, physical health was assessed during the disclosure session and again, four months later for exploratory purposes.;As predicted, for those who disclosed a high intensity trauma, uncertainty-oriented persons exhibited less inhibition (as measured by skin conductance levels) relative to certainty-oriented persons. The opposite pattern was found for disclosers of low-intensity traumas. Further, uncertainty-oriented persons who disclosed a high intensity event exhibited a greater increase in arousal (as measured by heart rate) during the talking phase and a greater decrease arousal during the resting phase relative to their certainty-oriented persons counterparts. The opposite pattern was found for disclosers of low intensity events. No differences emerged as a function of discussion topic condition and few long-term health outcomes were found. However, this study provided evidence to distinguish uncertainty orientation from other individual difference measures, including repression-sensitization

What is the Best Way to Produce Consensus and Buy in to Guidelines for Rectal Cancer?

Evidence-based guidelines are important tools and common pathways for translating evidence into clinical practice. It is most urgently needed when significant heterogeneity in practice exist. Actively engaging opinion leaders in the process of evidence-based guidelines development is important for several reasons. These include allowing the collective views of the practice communities to be represented, resolving heterogeneity in practice through discussion, and allowing credible recommendations to be formulated. Most importantly, the process itself is a tool for facilitating dissemination and implementation. Recognizing the gap between practice pattern and guideline recommendations, and devising strategies to address it represent an important step toward maximizing concordance between guideline and practice. Evidence-based recommendations serve as important reference points, against which we can measure, debate, and innovate from

Can surveying practitioners about their practices help identify priority clinical practice guideline topics?

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are systematically developed statements designed to assist in patient and physician clinical decision making for specific clinical circumstances. In order to establish which guideline topics are priorities, practitioners were surveyed regarding their current practice. METHODS: One hundred ninety-seven practitioners in Ontario, Canada were mailed a survey exploring their current practice or opinion regarding the prophylactic use of anticonvulsant drugs in patients with malignant glioma who had never had a seizure. The survey consisted of seven questions regarding the relevance of a guideline on the subject to the practitioner's practice, the proportion of clinical cases involving anticonvulsant use, knowledge of existing guidelines on this topic, interest in reviewing a completed practice guideline and three clinical scenarios. RESULTS: There were 122 respondents who returned the survey (62% rate of return). Eighty percent of the practitioners who responded indicated that less than 25% of their clinical cases involved the use of anticonvulsants; however, only 16% of respondents indicated that a practice guideline would be irrelevant to their practice. Eighty percent of respondents volunteered to review a draft version of a practice guideline on the use of anticonvulsants. The survey presented the practitioners with three scenarios where anticonvulsants in patients with brain tumours may be appropriate: peri-operatively in patients without seizures, postoperatively in patients currently using anticonvulsants, and thirdly in patients not currently using anticonvulsants or undergoing surgery. In contrast to the third situation, the first two situations yielded considerable variation in practitioner response. CONCLUSION: The survey established that there is some variation present in the current practice of anticonvulsant use in the patients with brain tumours. Whether there is an optimal treatment practice has yet to be determined. Practitioners do seem to feel that a guideline on anticonvulsant use in warranted, and most practitioners would be interested in being part of the guideline development process

How can we improve guideline use? A conceptual framework of implementability

BACKGROUND: Guidelines continue to be underutilized, and a variety of strategies to improve their use have been suboptimal. Modifying guideline features represents an alternative, but untested way to promote their use. The purpose of this study was to identify and define features that facilitate guideline use, and examine whether and how they are included in current guidelines. METHODS: A guideline implementability framework was developed by reviewing the implementation science literature. We then examined whether guidelines included these, or additional implementability elements. Data were extracted from publicly available high quality guidelines reflecting primary and institutional care, reviewed independently by two individuals, who through discussion resolved conflicts, then by the research team. RESULTS: The final implementability framework included 22 elements organized in the domains of adaptability, usability, validity, applicability, communicability, accommodation, implementation, and evaluation. Data were extracted from 20 guidelines on the management of diabetes, hypertension, leg ulcer, and heart failure. Most contained a large volume of graded, narrative evidence, and tables featuring complementary clinical information. Few contained additional features that could improve guideline use. These included alternate versions for different users and purposes, summaries of evidence and recommendations, information to facilitate interaction with and involvement of patients, details of resource implications, and instructions on how to locally promote and monitor guideline use. There were no consistent trends by guideline topic. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous opportunities were identified by which guidelines could be modified to support various types of decision making by different users. New governance structures may be required to accommodate development of guidelines with these features. Further research is needed to validate the proposed framework of guideline implementability, develop methods for preparing this information, and evaluate how inclusion of this information influences guideline use

Written informed consent and selection bias in observational studies using medical records: systematic review

Objectives To determine whether informed consent introduces selection bias in prospective observational studies using data from medical records, and consent rates for such studies

E-learning interventions are comparable to user's manual in a randomized trial of training strategies for the AGREE II

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Practice guidelines (PGs) are systematically developed statements intended to assist in patient and practitioner decisions. The AGREE II is the revised tool for PG development, reporting, and evaluation, comprised of 23 items, two global rating scores, and a new User's Manual. In this study, we sought to develop, execute, and evaluate the impact of two internet interventions designed to accelerate the capacity of stakeholders to use the AGREE II.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Participants were randomized to one of three training conditions. 'Tutorial'--participants proceeded through the online tutorial with a virtual coach and reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II. 'Tutorial + Practice Exercise'--in addition to the Tutorial, participants also appraised a 'practice' PG. For the practice PG appraisal, participants received feedback on how their scores compared to expert norms and formative feedback if scores fell outside the predefined range. <it>'</it>AGREE II User's Manual PDF (control condition)'<it>--</it>participants reviewed a PDF copy of the AGREE II only. All participants evaluated a test PG using the AGREE II. Outcomes of interest were learners' performance, satisfaction, self-efficacy, mental effort, time-on-task, and perceptions of AGREE II.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No differences emerged between training conditions on any of the outcome measures.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We believe these results can be explained by better than anticipated performance of the AGREE II PDF materials (control condition) or the participants' level of health methodology and PG experience rather than the failure of the online training interventions. Some data suggest the online tools may be useful for trainees new to this field; however, this requires further study.</p

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Our first step was to conduct an iterative scoping review in the research area. This yielded three relevant high-quality systematic reviews. Serving as our evidentiary foundation, we conducted a formal update. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials, published between 2004 and 2010, were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies with 74 comparisons. The new studies ranged considerably in quality. Client reminders, small media, and provider audit and feedback appear to be effective interventions to increase the uptake of screening for three cancers. One-on-one education and reduction of structural barriers also appears effective, but their roles with CRC and cervical screening, respectively, are less established. More study is required to assess client incentives, mass media, group education, reduction of out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The new evidence generally aligns with the evidence and conclusions from the original systematic reviews. This review served as the evidentiary foundation for an implementation guideline. Poor reporting, lack of precision and consistency in defining operational elements, and insufficient consideration of context and differences among populations are areas for additional research.</p