A Study of Bus Stop Accessibility: Public Health Students Working in Partnership with the Center for Independent Living

Over 54 million U.S. citizens report living with at least one disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act stipulates legislation that prohibits the discrimination of persons on the basis of disability. Rather than riding the bus in areas that offer a fixed-route bus system, individuals with disabilities often rely on expensive and limited paratransit services, or on family and friends. It has been proposed that with improvements in bus accessibility, riders with disabilities could use the fixed-route system more often and increase their options for independence and community participation. During their 2008 spring semester, participants in the University of Florida College of Public Health and Health Professions’ course, Assessment and Surveillance, partnered with the Center for Independent Living (CIL) of North Central Florida to conduct an accessibility study of the Gainesville, Florida fixed-route bus system. Students focused on factors that make bus stops user-friendly for persons with disabilities. This paper presents the rationale, methods, and findings from this accessibility study and efforts undertaken to forge a mutually beneficial partnership among UF-PHHP students and the CIL

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Urological Pharmaceuticals: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Print Media

Objective: To investigate direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs that are relevant to urological conditions. Evidence suggests that DTCA of prescription drugs increase pharmaceutical sales. Concern about such advertising methods has recently increased owing to the market withdrawal of heavily marketed drugs that were found to have serious health risks. Methods: Three consecutive issues of 26 popular magazines during a 3-month period were screened for urology-related DTCA. Advertisements were abstracted using a standardized evaluation form that was pilot-tested in a separate sample of nonurological advertisements. Variables analyzed included the type of advertisement, claims of effectiveness, references of research studies, inducements, and use of tables, figures, and pictures. Results: We identified 8 unique DTCA in 4 different magazines (Ladies Home Journal, Golf Digest, Sports Illustrated, and Good Housekeeping). All advertisements were disease-specific and targeted patients with benign prostatic hyperplasia-related symptoms (n = 3), incontinence (n = 3), or erectile dysfunction (n = 2). The median number of claims made per DTCA was 3 (range, 2-6). None of the claims made were supported by research data, as presented in tables or figures, or referenced peer-reviewed publications. The most common types of appeals addressed symptom control (8/8), lifestyle improvement (7/8), effectiveness (4/8), and dependability (3/8), while none addressed drug safety. Conclusions: DTCA of prescription drugs for urological conditions are found in select journals and focus on few highly prevalent conditions. None of the advertisement claims identified in this study were supported by research data. There seems to be significant room for improvement in the quality of information provided by urological advertisements

Duplicate presentations on prostate cancer at American Urological Association and European Association of Urology annual meetings.

PURPOSE: We determined the rate of duplicate research presentations at recent American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We cross-referenced all clinical research presentations related to prostate cancer presented at the 2006 American Urological Association and European Urological Association annual meetings with those presented at the corresponding annual meetings in 2005, 2006 and 2007 using a defined search strategy based on author names, abstract titles, study design and objectives. All data abstraction was performed in duplicate by 2 independent reviewers to ensure accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 282 and 312 abstracts on prostate cancer clinical research at the 2006 European Urological Association and American Urological Association annual meetings, respectively. The overall duplication rate of American Urological Association abstracts was 19.2% (60 of 312). Of duplicated abstracts 80.0% (48 of 60) were presented at the European Urological Association annual meeting the same year. Duplication of European Urological Association abstracts was identified in 20.9% (59 of 282). Authors who presented the same research (71 duplicate abstracts) at the 2 meetings altered the presentations in various ways, including a different study title in 40.8%, a different first and senior author in 14.1% and 18.3%, and increased or decreased sample size in 8.5% and 14.1%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately a fifth of clinical research abstracts on prostate cancer presented at the American Urological Association annual meeting were also presented at the European Urological Association meeting and vice versa. Inconsistencies between duplicate abstracts raise concerns about the integrity of the underlying studies. Stricter submission guidelines and improved dissemination of research findings from the 2 meetings may help limit this practice

Study characteristics of abstracts presented at the annual meetings of the southeastern section of the American Urological Association (1996-2005).

PURPOSE: We determined study characteristics, authorship and institutional origin of studies presented in abstract form at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings and identified predictors of full text publication. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All abstracts of poster and podium presentations from the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings from 1996 to 2005 were reviewed. A standardized evaluation form was developed and tested in 2 subsets of 50 abstracts, and then applied by 2 individual reviewers with specific coding instructions. Predictor variables analyzed included study origin, design, topic, domain, presentation form, number of patients, reporting of statistical analysis and gender. Univariate and multivariate analysis was applied using SPSS version 14.0. RESULTS: A total of 1,195 abstracts were found eligible for review. The mean number of abstracts presented per year was 120 +/- 16 (range 107 to 146). In clinical studies (1,068) approximately three-quarters of the abstracts reported case series (801, 75.0%). Cohort studies accounted for 11.2% of the abstracts and 4.0% were randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews/meta-analyses. Median followup was 64 months (range 17 to 126) and the overall publication rate was 33.5%. First and senior female authorship were identified in 6.2% (74) and 5.4% (64) of abstracts presented, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: A majority of studies presented at the Southeastern Section of the American Urological Association annual meetings continue to represent small case series that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. Only a third of studies are subsequently published in the peer reviewed literature. The percentage of abstracts with female authorship remains low suggesting that increased efforts to involve women in urological research are indicated

Levels of evidence in the urological literature.

PURPOSE: The concept of levels of evidence is one of the guiding principles of evidence based clinical practice. It is based on the understanding that certain study designs are more likely to be affected by bias than others. We provide an assessment of the type and levels of evidence found in the urological literature. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three reviewers rated a random sample of 600 articles published in 4 major urology journals, including 300 each in 2000 and 2005. The level of evidence rating system was adapted from the Center of Evidence Based Medicine. Sample size was estimated to detect a relative increase in the proportion of studies that provided a high level of evidence (I and II combined) from 0.2 to 0.3 with 80% power. RESULTS: Of the 600 studies reviewed 60.3% addressed questions of therapy or prevention, 11.5% addressed etiology/harm, 11.3% addressed prognosis and 9.2% addressed diagnosis. The levels of evidence provided by these studies from I to IV were 5.3%, 10.3%, 9.8% and 74.5%, respectively. A high level of evidence was provided by 16.0% of studies in 2000 and by 15.3% in 2005 (p = 0.911). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a majority of studies in the urological literature provide low levels of evidence that may not be well suited to guide clinical decision making. We propose that editors of leading urology journals should promote awareness for this guiding principle of evidence based clinical practice by providing a level of evidence designation with each published study