The Autism - Tics, AD/HD and other Comorbidities inventory (A-TAC): further validation of a telephone interview for epidemiological research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reliable, valid, and easy-to-administer instruments to identify possible caseness and to provide proxies for clinical diagnoses are needed in epidemiological research on child and adolescent mental health.</p> <p>The aim of this study is to provide further validity data for a parent telephone interview focused on Autism - Tics, Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), and other Comorbidities (A-TAC), for which reliability and preliminary validation data have been previously reported.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Parents of 91 children clinically diagnosed at a specialized Child Neuropsychiatric Clinic, 366 control children and 319 children for whom clinical diagnoses had been previously assigned were interviewed by the A-TAC over the phone. Interviewers were blind to clinical information. Different scores from the A-TAC were compared to the diagnostic outcome.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Areas under ROC curves for interview scores as predictors of clinical diagnoses were around 0.95 for most disorders, including autism spectrum disorders (ASDs), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), tic disorders, developmental coordination disorders (DCD) and learning disorders, indicating excellent screening properties. Screening cut-off scores with sensitivities above 0.90 (0.95 for ASD and AD/HD) were established for most conditions, as well as cut-off scores to identify proxies to clinical diagnoses with specificities above 0.90 (0.95 for ASD and AD/HD).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The previously reported validity of the A-TAC was supported by this larger replication study using broader scales from the A-TAC-items and a larger number of diagnostic categories. Short versions of algorithms worked as well as larger. Different cut-off levels for screening versus identifying proxies for clinical diagnoses are warranted. Data on the validity for mood problems and oppositional defiant/conduct problems are still lacking. Although the A-TAC is principally intended for epidemiological research and general investigations, the instrument may be useful as a tool to collect information in clinical practice as well.</p

Learning physical examination skills outside timetabled training sessions: what happens and why?

Lack of published studies on students’ practice behaviour of physical examination skills outside timetabled training sessions inspired this study into what activities medical students undertake to improve their skills and factors influencing this. Six focus groups of a total of 52 students from Years 1–3 using a pre-established interview guide. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analyzed using qualitative methods. The interview guide was based on questionnaire results; overall response rate for Years 1–3 was 90% (n = 875). Students report a variety of activities to improve their physical examination skills. On average, students devote 20% of self-study time to skill training with Year 1 students practising significantly more than Year 3 students. Practice patterns shift from just-in-time learning to a longitudinal selfdirected approach. Factors influencing this change are assessment methods and simulated/real patients. Learning resources used include textbooks, examination guidelines, scientific articles, the Internet, videos/DVDs and scoring forms from previous OSCEs. Practising skills on fellow students happens at university rooms or at home. Also family and friends were mentioned to help. Simulated/real patients stimulated students to practise of physical examination skills, initially causing confusion and anxiety about skill performance but leading to increased feelings of competence. Difficult or enjoyable skills stimulate students to practise. The strategies students adopt to master physical examination skills outside timetabled training sessions are self-directed. OSCE assessment does have influence, but learning takes place also when there is no upcoming assessment. Simulated and real patients provide strong incentives to work on skills. Early patient contacts make students feel more prepared for clinical practice

Do physician outcome judgments and judgment biases contribute to inappropriate use of treatments? Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There are many examples of physicians using treatments inappropriately, despite clear evidence about the circumstances under which the benefits of such treatments outweigh their harms. When such over- or under- use of treatments occurs for common diseases, the burden to the healthcare system and risks to patients can be substantial. We propose that a major contributor to inappropriate treatment may be how clinicians judge the likelihood of important treatment outcomes, and how these judgments influence their treatment decisions. The current study will examine the role of judged outcome probabilities and other cognitive factors in the context of two clinical treatment decisions: 1) prescription of antibiotics for sore throat, where we hypothesize overestimation of benefit and underestimation of harm leads to over-prescription of antibiotics; and 2) initiation of anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), where we hypothesize that underestimation of benefit and overestimation of harm leads to under-prescription of warfarin.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>For each of the two conditions, we will administer surveys of two types (Type 1 and Type 2) to different samples of Canadian physicians. The primary goal of the Type 1 survey is to assess physicians' perceived outcome probabilities (both good and bad outcomes) for the target treatment. Type 1 surveys will assess judged outcome probabilities in the context of a representative patient, and include questions about how physicians currently treat such cases, the recollection of rare or vivid outcomes, as well as practice and demographic details. The primary goal of the Type 2 surveys is to measure the specific factors that drive individual clinical judgments and treatment decisions, using a 'clinical judgment analysis' or 'lens modeling' approach. This survey will manipulate eight clinical variables across a series of sixteen realistic case vignettes. Based on the survey responses, we will be able to identify which variables have the greatest effect on physician judgments, and whether judgments are affected by inappropriate cues or incorrect weighting of appropriate cues. We will send antibiotics surveys to family physicians (300 per survey), and warfarin surveys to both family physicians and internal medicine specialists (300 per group per survey), for a total of 1,800 physicians. Each Type 1 survey will be two to four pages in length and take about fifteen minutes to complete, while each Type 2 survey will be eight to ten pages in length and take about thirty minutes to complete.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This work will provide insight into the extent to which clinicians' judgments about the likelihood of important treatment outcomes explain inappropriate treatment decisions. This work will also provide information necessary for the development of an individualized feedback tool designed to improve treatment decisions. The techniques developed here have the potential to be applicable to a wide range of clinical areas where inappropriate utilization stems from biased judgments.</p