Development and validation of the Treatment Related Impact Measure of Weight (TRIM-Weight)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The use of prescription anti-obesity medication (AOM) is becoming increasingly common as treatment options grow and become more accessible. However, AOM may not be without a wide range of potentially negative impacts on patient functioning and well being. The Treatment Related Impact Measure (TRIM-Weight) is an obesity treatment-specific patient reported outcomes (PRO) measure designed to assess the key impacts of prescription anti-obesity medication. This paper will present the validation findings for the TRIM-Weight.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The online validation battery survey was administered in four countries (the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada). Eligible subjects were over age eighteen, currently taking a prescription AOM and were currently or had been obese during their life. Validation analyses were conducted according to an <it>a priori </it>statistical analysis plan. Item level psychometric and conceptual criteria were used to refine and reduce the preliminary item pool and factor analysis to identify structural domains was performed. Reliability and validity testing was then performed and the minimally importance difference (MID) explored.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two hundred and eight subjects completed the survey. Twenty-one of the 43 items were dropped and a five-factor structure was achieved: Daily Life, Weight Management, Treatment Burden, Experience of Side Effects, and Psychological Health. <it>A-priori </it>criteria for internal consistency and test-retest coefficients for the total score and all five subscales were met. All pre-specified hypotheses for convergent and known group validity were also met with the exception of the domain of Daily Life (proven in an ad hoc analysis) as well as the 1/2 standard deviation threshold for the MID.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The development and validation of the TRIM-Weight has been conducted according to well-defined principles for the creation of a PRO measure. Based on the evidence to date, the TRIM-Weight can be considered a brief, conceptually sound, valid and reliable PRO measure.</p

Le FORUM, Vol. 39 No. 3

https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/francoamericain_forum/1046/thumbnail.jp

Understanding and assessing the impact of treatment in diabetes: the Treatment-Related Impact Measures for Diabetes and Devices (TRIM-Diabetes and TRIM-Diabetes Device)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>Diabetes is a debilitating illness requiring lifelong management. Treatments can be varied in terms of mode of administration as well as type of agent. Unfortunately, most patient reported outcome measures currently available to assess the impact of treatment are specific to diabetes type, treatment modality or delivery systems and are designed to be either a HRQoL or treatment satisfaction measure. To address these gaps, the Treatment Related Impact Measure-Diabetes and Device measures were developed. This paper presents the item development and validation of the TRIM Diabetes/Device.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patient interviews were conducted to collect the patient perspective and ensure high content validity. Interviews were hand coded and qualitatively analyzed to identify common themes. A conceptual model of the impact of diabetes medication was developed and preliminary items for the TRIM-Diabetes/Device were generated and cognitively debriefed. Validation data was collected via an on-line survey and analyzed according to an a priori statistical analysis plan to validate the overall score as well as each domain. Item level criteria were used to reduce the preliminary item pool. Next, factor analysis to identify structural domains was performed. Reliability and validity testing was then performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred and five patients were interviewed in focus groups, individual interviews and for cognitive debriefing. Five hundred seven patients participated in the validation study. Factor analysis identified seven domains: Treatment Burden, Daily Life; Diabetes Management; Psychological Health; Compliance and Device Function and Bother. Internal consistency reliability coefficients of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device ranged from 0.80 and 0.94. Test-retest reliability of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device ranged from 0.71 to 0.89. All convergent and known groups validity hypotheses were met for the TRIM-Diabetes/Device total scores and sub-scales.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Validation is an ongoing and iterative process. These findings are the first step in that process and have shown that both the TRIM-Diabetes and the TRIM-Diabetes Device have acceptable psychometric properties. Future research is needed to continue the validation process and examine responsiveness and the validity of the TRIM-Diabetes/Device in a clinical trial population.</p

Méthodologie et pratique de l'analyse de la caricature : le mccarthyisme et le New York Times, 1950-1954

This study of caricature in the press has two main objectives : to describe the sociopolitical representation of McCarthyism in the caricatures published in the New York Times between 1950 and 1954 and to suggest a general model in the analysis of the semiolinguistic modes of representation that are the mean of communication of all caricatures.Cette étude de la caricature de presse poursuit deux objectifs : montrer ce qu'ont été les représentations socio-politiques du mccarthysme dans les caricatures publiées par le New York Times de 1950 à 1954 et proposer un modèle général pour l'analyse des modes sémio-linguistiques de représentation par lesquels toute caricature communique.Este estudio de la caricatura de prensa persigue dos objetivos : mostrar lo que han sido las representaciones socio-políticas del mccarthismo en las caricaturas publicadas por el New York Times de 1950 a 1954, y proponer un modelo general para el análisis de las formas semio-linguísticas de representación a través de las cuales toda caricatura comunica .Lessard Denis, Mercier Suzanne. Méthodologie et pratique de l'analyse de la caricature : le mccarthyisme et le New York Times, 1950-1954. In: Communication Information, volume 3 n°3,1981. pp. 52-97

QUEL GENRE DE DROIT? AUTOPSIE DU SEXISME DANS LA LANGUE JURIDIQUE

Diriez-vous d’un tribunal dont on limite la compétence qu’on lui coupe les couilles? Diriez-vous d’une enfant violée qu’elle a vécu une « aventure sexuelle »? Diriez-vous de 30 avocates et d’un document qu’« ils » se trouvent dans la salle d’audience? Si vous avez répondu « non » à ces provocations, vous aimerez cet article. Si vous avez répondu « oui », vous en avez besoin.Nous traquons ici le sexisme dans la langue du droit. Effacer les femmes, pathologiser les mères, banaliser les violences : tels sont quelques-uns des effets discriminatoires de ce sexisme langagier que nous entreprenons de détailler sous toutes ses coutures.L’analyse du sexisme langagier doit devenir un champ d’étude en bonne et due forme. À cette fin, nous offrons une nomenclature des sexismes jurilinguistiques (lexical, grammatical, terminologique…), ainsi que deux nouvelles notions : la féminisation ostentatoire, un féminin marquée à l’oral, et le plafond de verre linguistique, cette obstination à nommer au masculin les femmes occupant de hautes fonctions.Notre étude offre des outils aux juges, avocat·es, notaires, légistes et autres practicien·nes du droit pour démasquer le sexisme caché dans leurs communications et se familiariser avec les nouveaux développements en matière de rédaction inclusive.Would you say of a court whose jurisdiction was reduced that it was “emasculated”? Would you say of a child who was raped that she enjoyed a “sexual adventure”? Would you say of a high-ranking woman that “he” got the job? If you answered “no” to these provocations, you will enjoy this article. If you answered “yes”, you need to read it.Here we track sexism in the language of the law. Erasing women, pathologizing mothers, normalizing violence: these are but some of the discriminatory effects of the linguistic sexism that we undertake to detail in its every shape and form.The study of linguistic sexism must become a proper area of research. To this end, we offer a nomenclature of jurilinguistic sexisms (lexical, grammatical, terminological), as well as two new notions: ostentatious feminines and the linguistic glass ceiling. The former qualifies feminine forms that are significantly different from the masculine. The latter refers to some people’s stubborn designation of women in power in the masculine form in French.Our study offers tools for judges, lawyers, notaries, legists, and other legal practitioners to unmask the sexism hidden in their commu-nications and familiarize themselves with new developments in inclusive writing