Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Checklist”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,477 records · Page 82Linked to original sources
PubMed2003

Toward complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The STARD initiative.

Our objective was to improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in the study, and to evaluate its generalizability. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Steering Committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. The search for published guidelines regarding diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, using evidence whenever available. A prototypical flow diagram provides information about the method of patient recruitment, the order of test execution, and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalisability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in healthcare.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1990

Self-administered written prompts to teach home accident prevention skills to adults with brain injuries.

This study evaluated the use of written checklists and task analyses as self-administered prompts to teach home accident prevention skills to 4 adults with brain injuries. Subsequent to baseline, participants used written checklists that identified potential in-home hazards but did not prompt behaviors necessary for hazard remediation. Written individualized task analyses, incorporating specific behavioral steps for correcting hazards that participants had failed to remediate during the checklist phase, were used to prompt appropriate responding when necessary. These were subsequently faded to transfer stimulus control to the natural conditions. A multiple probe technique across participants and settings was used. Results indicated that the checklist alone was sufficient to increase appropriate responses to many of the potential hazards. Individualized task analyses, when needed, resulted in appropriate remediation of all potential hazards. Generalization to untrained potential hazards occurred to some degree for all participants. Follow-up results showed that most skills trained were maintained over a 1-month period.

Accidents, Home↗
PubMed1993

Nutrition and health risks in the elderly: the nutrition screening initiative.

OBJECTIVES: The Nutrition Screening Initiative is a national collaborative effort committed to the identification and treatment of nutritional problems in older persons. METHODS: A 14-item checklist of characteristics associated with nutritional status was administered to a random sample of Medicare beneficiaries, aged 70 years and older, in New England. Regression analysis was used to derive item weights that would predict poor nutrient intakes and low perceived health status. Sensitivity and specificity values were reviewed to define low, moderate, and high nutritional risk scores. RESULTS: A revised checklist containing 10 yes/no items was adopted. Scores of 6 or more points defined persons at high nutritional risk. Twenty-four percent of the Medicare population was estimated to be at high nutritional risk according to the checklist. Among those in the high-risk group, 56% perceived their health to be "fair" or "poor" and 38% had dietary intakes below 75% of the recommended dietary allowances for three or more nutrients. CONCLUSIONS: The Nutrition Screening Initiative Checklist is a brief, easily scored instrument that can accurately identify noninstitutionalized older persons at risk for low nutrient intake and health problems.

Aged↗
PubMed2004

Screening for mental illness in primary care clinics.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the prevalence of mental disorders in inner city outpatient clinics and to improve the diagnosis of mental illness in primary care. METHODS: The Problem Oriented Patient Report (POPR), a patient self-report checklist, was administered to 362 outpatients at two inner-city Buffalo primary care clinics. Patients' completed POPR checklists were evaluated to identify those with potential mental illness diagnoses and were available for the physicians' review during the patients' visits. After the visit, clinical charts were reviewed to determine the frequency of new mental illness diagnoses among continuing and new patients. RESULTS: The screening checklist (POPR) revealed potential mental illnesses in 148/362 outpatients, of which 98% had not been identified by the physicians who had reviewed the patients' completed POPR forms. Only five new diagnoses of mental illnesses were independently made by clinics' physicians-all in follow-up (continuing) patients. CONCLUSIONS: The physicians in the two clinics did not diagnose mental illnesses in their patients, even when written checklists of self-reports were available to them. Differences in staff attitudes may influence the data collection process, and patients' as well as physicians' responses. A weakness of this study is that the POPR might generate false positive results. Even if this were the case, the rate of previous diagnoses was still extremely low.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalisability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organisations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Algorithms↗
PubMed1998

Cultural competence in three human service agencies.

This paper summarizes findings from applications of the Agency Cultural Competence Checklist in three human service agencies. This checklist was developed on the basis of published literature and culture-specific agencies were chosen to document checklist findings in settings known to be culturally competent. As anticipated, all three agencies were culturally competent in attitudes, although the range of services differed. This paper provides some baseline data for using the checklist in mainstream agencies in which predominantly Euro-American providers serve minority populations.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
PubMed2002

On the incremental validity of MMPI-2 Psychopathology-5 scales over the revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting personality disorders.

The hypothesis that the MMPI-2 Psychopathology-5 scales are better predictors of personality disorders than the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales was tested using Personality Adjective Checklist personality disorder scales with a 9-point response format. The three inventories were completed by 258 introductory psychology students (113 men and 145 women) for partial course credit. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was performed for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale by entering the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales as a set in the first step and the Psychopathology-5 scales as a set in the second step. Incremental validity of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory scales for predicting each Personality Adjective Checklist scale was measured by the R2 change at the end of the second step in the hierarchical multiple regression analysis. Incremental validity values ranged from .01 to .09, with a median of .03, and were significant for only five Personality Adjective Checklist scales. Such results provided very little support for the hypothesis of relative superiority of the Psychopathology-5 scales over the Revised NEO Personality Inventory domain scales for predicting personality disorders.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in the study and to evaluate the generalizability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the reporting the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding, and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale, and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Algorithms↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Delivering health education programs: a model.

The OPT/EVALUATE delivery model provides a system for applying principles of organizational management to the problems of administering health education. Whether one is a new health educator, or part of a health education team, solving operational problems calls for expertise in a variety of fields. Most health educators are not prepared for program administration functions. The article includes a diagram of the OPT/EVALUATE model and an Action Step Checklist. The checklist may be for professional self-assessment, for guiding internships and on-the-job training experiences, or for systematically coordinating a health education project. Each section of the checklist is explained in the article with resources for further reading. Individuals can adapt the OPT/EVALUATE model to their own work setting and target populations. The importance of the checklist steps will vary from project to project. Some specific steps may need to be added.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM Statement].

BACKGROUND: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) Conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: The QUOROM group consists of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. RESULTS: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. it is organized into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with 'trial flow', study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. INTERPRETATION: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.

Meta-Analysis as Topic↗
PubMed1975

Measuring adaptive behavior: the dynamics of a longitudinal approach.

The Adaptive Behavior Checklist was administered annually to the residents of the Miami (FL) Sunland Training Center for 4 consecutive years. As a means of assessing adaptive behavior, this checklist, was used to provide feedback as to the progress made by the residents, thus monitoring the effectiveness of the institution in achieving certain behavioral objectives. Data from a longitudinal study are presented along with the means by which the results were communicated to the staff. Correlations of the checklist with standard IQ scores were discussed as was the effectiveness of a revision of the Adaptive Behavior Checklist.

Adolescent↗
PubMedDate not supplied

[Validation of a scale for responsibility (Salkovskis Responsibility Scale)].

Appraisal of inflated responsibility for harm is the cornerstone of Salkovskis's cognitive theory for obsessive compulsive disorder. The aim of our study is to present the validation study of the French translation of the R scale. The present study compared 50 subjects with obsessive compulsive disorder, 37 patients suffering from social phobia and 183 control subjects on a responsibility questionnaire (R scale). The cognitive hypothesis of Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) specifies two levels of responsibility-related cognitions: responsibility assumptions (attitudes) and responsibility appraisals (interpretations). The R scale evaluates the responsibility assumptions. Such attitudes should reflect the more generalized tendency to assume responsibility in a given situation, particularly situations involving intrusions and doubts. It is possible that such assumptions may be less specific to OCD. The inclusion of social phobia subjects in the present study allows evaluation of the specificity of any findings to OCD. Patients were diagnosed and classified according DSM IV criteria. The control subjects were taken in the general population. No formal interview was conducted. The three groups were compared for sex, age and educational level. Before treatment, all the participants filled in the Responsibility Scale of Salkovskis (27 items), the Beck Depression Inventory (21 items), the Beck Anxiety Inventory and the Bouvard's Obsessive Compulsive Thoughts Checklist. The results indicate that the two anxious groups scored significantly higher than the control group on Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories but no significant difference was observed between the two anxious groups. OCD patients scored significantly higher than both social phobic patients and control subjects on the Obsessive Compulsive Thoughts Checklist (OCTC). The social phobic group scored this checklist significantly higher than the control group. In sum, the three groups were different on obsessive compulsive thoughts. On the washing subscale of the Obsessive Compulsive Thoughts Checklist, the OCD patients differed significantly from the control group and the social phobia patients. No difference was observed between the social phobia subjects and the control group. On the two other subscales of the OCTC, the checking and the responsibility scales, the three groups were different: OCD patients scored significantly higher than both social phobic patients and control subjects; the social phobic patients scored higher than the control group. Results support the reliability (test retest) and the internal consistency of the questionnaire. Patients with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) and social phobia subjects had significantly elevated score on the total scale compared to control subjects. However social phobia patients did not differ from patients with OCD. So, the responsibility for harm, evaluated by the R-scale seems not to be specific of OCD. This finding does not support the results of two studies (28, 30). But these two studies compared OCD patients with an anxious group including panic disorder with agoraphobia, generalized anxiety disorder and social phobia. The correlations with a measure of OCD symptoms were higher than the correlations with anxiety and depression. Finally, the factor structure was only studied on the control group. The exploratory factor analysis indicates that the R scale is a two-dimensional scale, reflecting a need to prevent risks and the belief that one has power to harm. The first dimension is less specific to the pathology than the second. Only patients with OCD had significantly elevated score on the "need to prevent risks" compared to the non-clinical group. The two anxious groups differed on "the belief that one has power to harm" from the non-clinical group but social phobia patients did not differ from patients with OCD. In sum, the two subscales of the R scale did not discriminate OCD patients and social phobic subjects. Further research is needed to replicate the present findings and to confirm the two dimensions of the R scale. Overall, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that responsibility beliefs are important in the experience of obsessional problems. However, responsibility assumptions such as the belief that one has the power to harm are shared with social phobia.

Adult↗
PubMed2001

Mental health problems and symptoms among male adolescents attending a teen health clinic.

The purpose of this study was to examine the frequency and nature of mental health problems and symptoms among a group of 51 inner-city male adolescents attending a teen health clinic at a large county hospital in the southwestern part of the United States. They were administered a problem area checklist and a problem symptom checklist. The problem area checklist covered a range of mental health issues, including peer/friendship, relationship, and family problems; problems with money, time, and the law; substance use; and eating disorders. The problem symptom checklist queried participants about anger, nervousness, depression, fear, loneliness, suicide, aggression, and self-esteem. The results indicated that these young males experienced significant mental health problems and symptoms, such as relationship problems, problems with time and money, and symptoms of anger, depression, and aggression. Further, scared/afraid feelings correlated with five of the eight problem areas. The authors recommend investigating ways to target young males who present at such clinics in order to address their mental health problems and symptoms, as well as studying how their environment affects their overall health.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2002

Screening young children for autism and other social-communication disorders.

Autism is a severe, multifaceted disorder of childhood that affects a large number of young children, causing social and communication disorders. Identification at a young age allows early treatment and the possibility of an improved outcome for these children and their families. This article reviews three screening instruments (Table 1): The Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT), the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT), and the Infant/Toddler Checklist of Communication and Language Development (CHECKLIST). These instruments may be used in the primary caregiver's office as an initial attempt to identify children who should be further examined for autism and other social-communication disorders.

Autistic Disorder↗
PubMed2003

[Reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy according to a standard method; the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD)].

The objective of the 'Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy' (STARD) initiative is to improve the reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy, so as to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalibility of its results. The group searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies. This was used to draw up a list of potential items. During a consensus meeting, a group of researchers, medical journal editors, and members of professional organisations reduced this list to a usable checklist. Wherever possible, evidence from the literature was used to justify the decisions made. The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which a list of 75 potential items was extracted. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist. A generic flow diagram was drawn up to provide guidance on the method for including patients, the order in which tests were to be conducted and the number of patients to undergo the test being evaluated, the reference standard, or both. A scientific publication can only be assessed when the reporting is both correct and complete. Use of the checklist and flow diagram will improve the quality of reports produced, to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journal editors and other interested parties.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group.

OBJECTIVE: To improve the accuracy and completeness of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy in order to allow readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalizability of its results. METHODS: The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) steering committee searched the literature to identify publications on the appropriate conduct and reporting of diagnostic studies and extracted potential items into an extensive list. Researchers, editors, and members of professional organizations shortened this list during a 2-day consensus meeting with the goal of developing a checklist and a generic flow diagram for studies of diagnostic accuracy. RESULTS: The search for published guidelines about diagnostic research yielded 33 previously published checklists, from which we extracted a list of 75 potential items. At the consensus meeting, participants shortened the list to a 25-item checklist, by using evidence whenever available. A prototype of a flow diagram provides information about the method of recruitment of patients, the order of test execution and the numbers of patients undergoing the test under evaluation, the reference standard, or both. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluation of research depends on complete and accurate reporting. If medical journals adopt the checklist and the flow diagram, the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy should improve to the advantage of clinicians, researchers, reviewers, journals, and the public.

Advisory Committees↗
PubMed2003

The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. The Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Group.

The quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy is less than optimal. Complete and accurate reporting is necessary to enable readers to assess the potential for bias in a study and to evaluate the generalisability of the results. A group of scientists and editors has developed the STARD (Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy) statement to improve the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy. The statement consists of a checklist of 25 items and flow diagram that authors can use to ensure that all relevant information is present. This explanatory document aims to facilitate the use, understanding and dissemination of the checklist. The document contains a clarification of the meaning, rationale and optimal use of each item on the checklist, as well as a short summary of the available evidence on bias and applicability. The STARD statement, checklist, flowchart, and this explanation and elaboration document should be useful resources to improve the reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies. Complete and informative reporting can only lead to better decisions in health care.

Advisory Committees↗