Validity and reproducibility of resting metabolic rate measurements in rural Bangladeshi women: comparison of measurements obtained by Medgem and by Deltatrac device

Objective:To assess reproducibility and validity of resting metabolic rate (RMR) of Bangladeshi women as measured with the MedGem device and using the Deltatrac metabolic monitor as a reference; and (2) to evaluate the FAO/WHO/UNU basal metabolic rate (BMR)-prediction equations. Design:In each of two sessions, resting oxygen consumption was measured in triplicate by MedGem and in triplicate by Deltatrac device. Setting:Matlab area, the rural field research area of the Centre for Health and Population Research, Bangladesh (ICDDR,B). Subjects:A total of 37 nonpregnant, nonlactating women, aged 27.64.5 y, BMI 20.83.1 kg/m2 participated. Results:The difference in oxygen consumption by MedGem and Deltatrac device was significantly level dependent. Within-subject within-session variations (expressed as CV) were 9.0 and 3.0% (

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology: Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement. METHODS: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later. RESULTS: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items. CONCLUSIONS: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice

Patient and physician shared decision-making behaviors in oncology:Evidence on adequate measurement properties of the iSHARE questionnaires

OBJECTIVES: We have developed two Dutch questionnaires to assess the shared decision-making (SDM) process in oncology; the iSHAREpatient and iSHAREphysician. In this study, we aimed to determine: scores, construct validity, test-retest agreement (iSHAREpatient), and inter-rater (iSHAREpatient-iSHAREphysician) agreement. METHODS: Physicians from seven Dutch hospitals recruited cancer patients, and completed the iSHAREphysician and SDM-Questionnaire-physician version. Their patients completed the: iSHAREpatient, nine-item SDM-Questionnaire, Decisional Conflict Scale, Combined Outcome Measure for Risk communication And treatment Decision-making Effectiveness, and five-item Perceived Efficacy in Patient-Physician Interactions. We formulated, respectively, one (iSHAREphysician) and 10 (iSHAREpatient) a priori hypotheses regarding correlations between the iSHARE questionnaires and questionnaires assessing related constructs. To assess test-retest agreement patients completed the iSHAREpatient again 1-2 weeks later. RESULTS: In total, 151 treatment decision-making processes with unique patients were rated. Dimension and total iSHARE scores were high both in patients and physicians. The hypothesis on the iSHAREphysician and 9/10 hypotheses on the iSHAREpatient were confirmed. Test-retest and inter-rater agreement were>.60 for most items. CONCLUSIONS: The iSHARE questionnaires show high scores, have good construct validity, substantial test-retest agreement, and moderate inter-rater agreement. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Results from the iSHARE questionnaires can inform both physician- and patient-directed efforts to improve SDM in clinical practice

Comment on 'Psychological distress in patients with cancer: is screening the effective solution?'

Screening for psychological distress in patients with cancer is currently being debated in the British Journal of Cancer. Screening has been recommended, as elevated levels of distress have been consistently observed and clinicians tend to overlook the need of psychological support (Carlson et al, 2012; Carlson et al, 2013; National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2013). On the other hand, it has been argued that screening should not be implemented, as the true benefit of screening and subsequent treatment of psychological distress is far from being definitively proven (Coyne, 2013). Recent findings on human resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events (PTEs) provide a new perspective on detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer. Humans show strong resilience in the face of potentially traumatic events, such as cancer diagnosis and treatment (Bonanno et al, 2011). This observation leads us to propose two alternative approaches towards detecting and treating psychological distress in patients with cancer: ‘screening for psychological distress’ and ‘supporting resilience and case finding’