PubMed · 10085910
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
B Westgate. Breast practice.. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.13.19.16.s31
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of touch screen system with information leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests. DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to intervention group (given access to touch screen and leaflet information) or control group (leaflet information only). SETTING: Antenatal clinic in university teaching hospital. SUBJECTS: 875 women booking antenatal care. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a leaflet providing information on prenatal tests. Women in the intervention arm also had access to touch screen information system in antenatal clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's informed decision making on prenatal testing as measured by their uptake of and understanding of the purpose of specific tests; their satisfaction with information provided; and their levels of anxiety. RESULTS: All women in the trial had a good baseline knowledge of prenatal tests. Women in the intervention group did not show any greater understanding of the purpose of the tests than control women. However, uptake of detailed anomaly scans was significantly higher in intervention group than the control group (94% (351/375) v 87% (310/358), P=0.0014). Levels of anxiety among nulliparous women in intervention group declined significantly over time (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The touch screen seemed to convey no benefit over well prepared leaflets in improving understanding of prenatal tests among the pregnant women. It did, however, seem to reduce levels of anxiety and may be most effective for providing information to selected women who have a relevant adverse history or abnormal results from tests in their current pregnancy.
This paper uses a new calendar design implemented in the Guatemalan Survey of Family Health to analyze diarrheal and respiratory illness among children. The calendar provides a much richer description of child illness and treatment behavior than do conventional data typically collected in health interview surveys. The resulting estimates reveal that Guatemalan children experience high rates of diarrheal and respiratory illness and that these illnesses often involve multiple symptoms that only partially overlap one another. In addition, estimates from the calendar demonstrate that the measurement of illness frequency is fairly complex and that classification of illness into distinct categories may not always be feasible or meaningful. Results regarding treatment behavior indicate that the vast majority of illnesses are treated and that mothers almost always receive advice regarding their children's illnesses from relatives. On the other hand, health providers are sought for advice and treatment in only about one-third of illnesses. When families do seek providers, they are more likely to rely on biomedical ones - especially pharmacists, doctors and personnel at health posts and centers - than traditional practitioners. By far, the most common form of treatment - recommended by both relatives and providers - consists of readily available Western medicines. In contrast, the use of traditional remedies appears to be relatively low.
OBJECTIVE: The Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) is an instrument that assesses quality of life in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. It has 32 items in four domains. The short form of the IBDQ (SIBDQ) was developed in Canadian Crohn's disease patients for use in clinical practice. Patients with ulcerative colitis might require a different form of the SIBDQ. Our aim was to design and validate a SIBDQ for patients with ulcerative colitis and to compare this to the Crohn's SIBDQ. METHODS: We recruited 122 patients with colitis as an initial sample. Using linear regression modeling, the 10 items that best predicted the total IBDQ score were identified. The colitis and Crohn's versions of the SIBDQ were compared by univariate linear regression with the total IBDQ score in two other cohorts of colitis patients. RESULTS: Ten items explained 97% of the variance of the total IBDQ score in our first cohort. These were items 1 and 9 (bowel); 7, 11, 21, 30 (emotional); 2 and 10 (systemic); and 12 and 28 (social). Only three items were shared with the Crohn's SIBDQ. The R2 for both SIBDQs with the total IBDQ score in the other cohorts were very high (> or =0.95), although the Colitis SIBDQ showed better internal consistency. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a SIBDQ for patients with ulcerative colitis did not reveal any clear advantage over the original version of the SIBDQ. Further studies are required to determine the role of the SIBDQ in routine clinical practice.