Psychometric Evaluation of the HIV Stigma Scale in a Swedish Context

Background HIV-related stigma has negative consequences for infected people's lives and is a barrier to HIV prevention. Therefore valid and reliable instruments to measure stigma are needed to enable mapping of HIV stigma. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HIV stigma scale in a Swedish context with regard to construct validity, data quality, and reliability. Methods The HIV stigma scale, developed by Berger, Ferrans, and Lashley (2001), was distributed to a cross-sectional sample of people living with HIV in Sweden (n = 194). The psychometric evaluation included exploratory factor analysis together with an analysis of the distribution of scores, convergent validity by correlations between the HIV stigma scale and measures of emotional well-being, and an analysis of missing items and floor and ceiling effects. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α. Results The exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution, similar to the original scale, with the dimensions personalised stigma, disclosure concerns, negative self-image, and concerns with public attitudes. One item had unacceptably low loadings and was excluded. Correlations between stigma dimensions and emotional well-being were all in the expected direction and ranged between −0.494 and −0.210. The instrument generated data of acceptable quality except for participants who had not disclosed their HIV status to anybody. In line with the original scale, all subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach's α 0.87–0.96. Conclusion A 39-item version of the HIV stigma scale used in a Swedish context showed satisfactory construct validity and reliability. Response alternatives are suggested to be slightly revised for items assuming the disclosure of diagnosis to another person. We recommend that people that have not disclosed should skip all questions belonging to the dimension personalised stigma. Our analysis confirmed construct validity of the instrument even without this dimension

EXPLICIT: a feasibility study of remote expert elicitation in health technology assessment

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this recordBACKGROUND: Expert opinion is often sought to complement available information needed to inform model-based economic evaluations in health technology assessments. In this context, we define expert elicitation as the process of encoding expert opinion on a quantity of interest, together with associated uncertainty, as a probability distribution. When availability for face-to-face expert elicitation with a facilitator is limited, elicitation can be conducted remotely, overcoming challenges of finding an appropriate time to meet the expert and allowing access to experts situated too far away for practical face-to-face sessions. However, distance elicitation is associated with reduced response rates and limited assistance for the expert during the elicitation session. The aim of this study was to inform the development of a remote elicitation tool by exploring the influence of mode of elicitation on elicited beliefs. METHODS: An Excel-based tool (EXPLICIT) was developed to assist the elicitation session, including the preparation of the expert and recording of their responses. General practitioners (GPs) were invited to provide expert opinion about population alcohol consumption behaviours. They were randomised to complete the elicitation by either a face-to-face meeting or email. EXPLICIT was used in the elicitation sessions for both arms. RESULTS: Fifteen GPs completed the elicitation session. Those conducted by email were longer than the face-to-face sessions (13 min 30 s vs 10 min 26 s, p = 0.1) and the email-elicited estimates contained less uncertainty. However, the resulting aggregated distributions were comparable. CONCLUSIONS: EXPLICIT was useful in both facilitating the elicitation task and in obtaining expert opinion from experts via email. The findings support the opinion that remote, self-administered elicitation is a viable approach within the constraints of HTA to inform policy making, although poor response rates may be observed and additional time for individual sessions may be required.This paper presents independent research funded by the National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for the South West Peninsula

Diagnosis and management of people with venous thromboembolism and advanced cancer: how do doctors decide? A qualitative study.

The treatment of cancer associated thrombosis (CAT) is well established, with level 1A evidence to support the recommendation of a low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) by daily injection for 3-6 months. However, registry data suggest compliance to clinical guidelines is poor. Clinicians face particular challenges in treating CAT in advanced cancer patients due to shorter life expectancy, increased bleeding risk and concerns that self injection may be too burdensome. For these reasons decision making around the diagnosis and management of CAT in people with advanced cancer, can be complex, and should focus on its likely net benefit for the patient. We explored factors that influence doctors' decision making in this situation and sought to gain an understanding of the barriers and facilitators to the application of best practice

Implementation and evaluation of the post-practicum oral clinical reasoning exam

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019. Nurses with effective clinical reasoning skills have a positive impact on patient outcomes. For this reason it is imperative that students understand and are able to demonstrate application of the clinical reasoning process. While clinical reasoning is often taught and assessed in preparation for clinical placements, a post-practicum assessment can help to identify if and to what extent students’ clinical experiences influence their learning. The aim of this chapter is to provide a detailed overview of the development of a post-practicum clinical reasoning exam, guidelines for educators interested in adopting this novel approach, and results from the initial evaluation of the exam. The post-practicum clinical reasoning exam for nursing students was conducted in the following manner: Students were provided with a verbal clinical handover and the healthcare records of four patients. In the individual face-to-face oral exam that followed, students were required to describe how they would prioritise, plan and manage the care of the four patients using the clinical reasoning cycle as their organising framework. The exam was marked by a trained staff member, and immediate summative feedback was provided. On completion of the oral exam students were invited to complete a short evaluation survey with closed and open-ended questions. Quantitative data was statistically analysed and qualitative data was thematically analysed. There were 471 students enrolled in the clinical course; of these, 181 participated giving a response rate of 38%. The mean satisfaction score was 3.03 out of a maximum of 5 indicating a moderate level of satisfaction with the oral exam. Three themes emerged from qualitative analysis: ‘Better than written assessment items’, ‘Authenticity of the approach’ and ‘The need for better preparation’

How Do Homeopaths Reason and Make Decisions? Integrating Theory, Practice, and Education

BACKGROUND: Homeopathy is a major modality in complementary and alternative medicine. Significant tensions exist between homeopathic practice and education, evident in the diversity of practice styles and pedagogic models. Utilizing clinical reasoning knowledge in conventional medicine and allied health sciences, this article seeks to identify and critique existing research in this important area. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A literature search utilizing MEDLINE,(®) Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), and CINAHL(®) (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) was conducted. Key terms including clinical thinking, clinical reasoning, decision-making, homeopathy, and complementary medicine were utilized. A critical appraisal of the evidence was undertaken. RESULTS: Four (4) studies have examined homeopathic clinical reasoning. Two (2) studies sought to measure and quantify homeopathic reasoning. One (1) study proposed a reasoning model, based on pattern recognition, hypothetico-deductive reasoning, intuition, and remedy-matching (PHIR-M), resembling much that has been previously mapped in conventional medical reasoning research. The fourth closely investigated the meaning and use of intuition in homeopathic decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these four studies provide valuable insight into what is currently known about homeopathic clinical reasoning. However, despite the history and breadth of practice, little is known about homeopathic clinical reasoning and decision-making. Building on the research would require viewing clinical reasoning not only as a cognitive phenomenon but also as a situated and interactive one. Further research into homeopathic clinical reasoning is indicated