90 research outputs found
Addressing adult hearing loss in primary care
Aims To (a) determine the extent to which primary care providers screen adults for environmental or occupational hearing loss during the primary care visit and (b) determine what techniques are used to screen for hearing loss in the adult primary care patient. Background Although the prevalence of hearing loss is high, the frequency and techniques of screening for hearing loss among primary care providers are unknown. According to the U nited S tates P reventative T ask F orce, hearing screening promotes early detection, adequate treatment, and improved quality of life. Design It is a retrospective audit. Methods Thirty client records were randomly selected from two clinics in 2009 for this retrospective patient record audit. Results/findings Physical assessment of the structure of the auditory system was completed in all cases selected. Hearing acuity in all cases was determined by patient self‐assessment, as indicated on patient‐completed history forms; there was no documentation of objective assessment of auditory function. Conclusion Given the low correlation between perceived and measured hearing ability, assessment of hearing ability by patient report alone may result in failure to detect hearing loss. Research into the nature and extent of barriers to hearing assessment in primary care needs to be explored, and criteria for screening of adults in the primary care setting should be established.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/97161/1/jan6078.pd
Empowerment: An Idea Whose Time Has Come in Diabetes Education
We have learned much in the past 10 years about how to help patients to acquire diabetes-related knowledge and skills and how to use strategies to help patients change behaviors. However, the application ofknowledge and techniques should be guided by a relevant, coherent, educational philosophy. Empowerment offers a practical conceptual framework for diabetes patient education. Empowering patients provides them with the knowledge, skills, and responsibility to effect change and has the potential to promote overall health and maximize the use of available resources. It is an idea whose time has come for diabetes education.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/68779/2/10.1177_014572179101700108.pd
Trends in publications regarding evidence-practice gaps: A literature review
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Well-designed trials of strategies to improve adherence to clinical practice guidelines are needed to close persistent evidence-practice gaps. We studied how the number of these trials is changing with time, and to what extent physicians are participating in such trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a literature-based study of trends in evidence-practice gap publications over 10 years and participation of clinicians in intervention trials to narrow evidence-practice gaps. We chose nine evidence-based guidelines and identified relevant publications in the PubMed database from January 1998 to December 2007. We coded these publications by study type (intervention versus non-intervention studies). We further subdivided intervention studies into those for clinicians and those for patients. Data were analyzed to determine if observed trends were statistically significant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 1,151 publications that discussed evidence-practice gaps in nine topic areas. There were 169 intervention studies that were designed to improve adherence to well-established clinical guidelines, averaging 1.9 studies per year per topic area. Twenty-eight publications (34%; 95% CI: 24% - 45%) reported interventions intended for clinicians or health systems that met Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) criteria for adequate design. The median consent rate of physicians asked to participate in these well-designed studies was 60% (95% CI, 25% to 69%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We evaluated research publications for nine evidence-practice gaps, and identified small numbers of well-designed intervention trials and low rates of physician participation in these trials.</p
Early Detection of and Screening for Colorectal Neoplasia
There are approximately one million new cases of colorectal cancer (CRC) per year worldwide, with substantial associated morbidity and mortality. The long natural history of colorectal neoplasia affords the opportunity to use preventive measures to improve survival in this disease. Currently screening for adenomatous polyps and early-stage cancers is the best methodology for improving survival. The increasing knowledge of CRC pathogenesis and its natural history is allowing the development of new tools to identify patients who will benefit most from colon cancer screening and the defining of appropriate surveillance intervals. The guidelines for screening for colorectal neoplasia have recently been substantially revised by several organizations based on developing technologies and a growing body of data on the efficacy of CRC screening
Efficacy and safety of oral recombinant calcitonin tablets in postmenopausal women with low bone mass and increased fracture risk: a randomized, placebo-controlled trial
Digital ankle-brachial index technology used in primary care settings to detect flow obstruction: a population based registry study
Young pregnant women's views on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In pregnancy, untreated chlamydia infection has been associated with adverse outcomes for both mother and infant. Like most women, pregnant women infected with chlamydia do not report genital symptoms, and are therefore unlikely to be aware of their infection. The aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of screening pregnant women aged 16-25 years for chlamydia as part of routine antenatal care.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>As part of a larger prospective, cross-sectional study of pregnant women aged 16-25 years attending antenatal services across Melbourne, Australia, 100 women were invited to participate in a face-to-face, semi structured interview on the acceptability of screening for chlamydia during pregnancy. Women infected with chlamydia were oversampled (n = 31).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Women had low levels of awareness of chlamydia before the test, retained relatively little knowledge after the test and commonly had misconceptions around chlamydia transmission, testing and sequelae. Women indicated a high level of acceptance and support for chlamydia screening, expressing their willingness to undertake whatever care was necessary to ensure the health of their baby. There was a strong preference for urine testing over other methods of specimen collection. Women questioned why testing was not already conducted alongside other antenatal STI screening tests, particularly in view of the risks chlamydia poses to the baby. Women who tested positive for chlamydia had mixed reactions, however, most felt relief and gratitude at having had chlamydia detected and reported high levels of partner support.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Chlamydia screening as part of routine antenatal care was considered highly acceptable among young pregnant women who recognized the benefits of screening and strongly supported its implementation as part of routine antenatal care. The acceptability of screening is important to the uptake of chlamydia screening in future antenatal screening strategies.</p
Applying strategies from libertarian paternalism to decision making for prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening
<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the recent publication of results from two randomized clinical trials, prostate specific antigen (PSA) screening for prostate cancer remains a controversial issue. There is lack of agreement across studies that PSA screening significantly reduces prostate cancer mortality. In spite of these facts, the widespread use of PSA testing in the United States leads to overdetection and overtreatment of clinically indolent prostate cancer, and its associated harms of incontinence and impotence.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Given the inconclusive results from clinical trials and incongruent PSA screening guidelines, the decision to screen for prostate cancer with PSA testing is an uncertain one for patients and health care providers. Screening guidelines from some health organizations recommend an informed decision making (IDM) or shared decision making (SDM) approach for deciding on PSA screening. These approaches aim to empower patients to choose among the available options by making them active participants in the decision making process. By increasing involvement of patients in the clinical decision-making process, IDM/SDM places more of the responsibility for a complex decision on the patient. Research suggests, however, that patients are not well-informed of the harms and benefits associated with prostate cancer screening and are also subject to an assortment of biases, emotion, fears, and irrational thought that interferes with making an informed decision. In response, the IDM/SDM approaches can be augmented with strategies from the philosophy of libertarian paternalism (LP) to improve decision making. LP uses the insights of behavioural economics to help people better make better choices. Some of the main strategies of LP applicable to PSA decision making are a default decision rule, framing of decision aids, and timing of the decision. In this paper, we propose that applying strategies from libertarian paternalism can help with PSA screening decision-making.</p> <p>Summary</p> <p>Our proposal to augment IDM and SDM approaches with libertarian paternalism strategies is intended to guide patients toward a better decision about testing while maintaining personal freedom of choice. While PSA screening remains controversial and evidence conflicting, a libertarian-paternalism influenced approach to decision making can help prevent the overdiagnosis and overtreatment of prostate cancer.</p
Ageing in general practice (AGP) trial: a cluster randomised trial to examine the effectiveness of peer education on GP diagnostic assessment and management of dementia
Extent: 9p.Background: Dementia is increasing in prevalence as the population ages. An earlier rather than later diagnosis allows persons with dementia and their families to plan ahead and access appropriate management. However, most diagnoses are made by general practitioners (GPs) later in the course of the disease and are associated with management that is poorly adherent to recommended guidelines. This trial examines the effectiveness of a peer led dementia educational intervention for GPs. Methods: The study is a cluster randomised trial, conducted across three states and five sites. All GPs will complete an audit of their consenting patients aged 75 years or more at three time points - baseline, 12 and 24 months. GPs allocated to the intervention group will receive two educational sessions from a peer GP or nurse, and will administer the GPCOG to consenting patients at baseline and 12 months. The first education session will provide information about dementia and the second will provide individualised feedback on audit results. GPs in the waitlist group will receive the RACGP Guidelines by post following the 12 month audit Outcomes: Primary outcomes are carer and consumer quality of life and depression. Secondary outcomes include: rates of GP identification of dementia compared to a more detailed gold standard assessment conducted in the patient’s home; GP identification of differential diagnoses including reversible causes of cognitive impairment; and GP referral to specialists, Alzheimers’ Australia and support services. A “case finding” and a “screening” group will be compared and the psychometrics of the GPCOG will be examined. Sample size: Approximately 2,000 subjects aged 75 years and over will be recruited through approximately 160 GPs, to yield approximately 200 subjects with dementia (reducing to 168 by 24 months). Discussion: The trial outlined in this paper has been peer reviewed and supported by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. At the time of submission of this paper 2,034 subjects have been recruited and the intervention delivered to 114 GPs.Constance D Pond, Henry Brodaty, Nigel P Stocks, Jane Gunn, John Marley, Peter Disler, Parker Magin, Nerida Paterson, Graeme Horton, Susan Goode, Bronwen Paine and Karen E Mat
- …
