Search

BackgroundAlthough several patient education materials on colonoscopy preparation exist, few studies have evaluated or compared them; hence, there is no professional consensus on recommended content or media to use. ObjectiveThis study aims to address this need by developing and evaluating a new video on colonoscopy preparation. MethodsWe developed a new video explaining split-dose bowel preparation for colonoscopy. Of similar content videos on the internet (n=20), the most favorably reviewed video among patient and physician advisers was used as the comparator for the study. A total of 232 individuals attending gastroenterology or urology clinics reviewed the new and comparator videos. The order of administration of the new and comparator videos was randomly counterbalanced to assess the impact of presentation order. Respondents rated each video on the following dimensions: information amount, clarity, trustworthiness, understandability, new or familiar information, reassurance, information learned, understanding from the patient’s point of view, appeal, and the likelihood of recommending the video to others. ResultsOverall, 71.6% (166/232) of the participants preferred the new video, 25.0% (58/232) preferred the comparator video, and 3.4% (8/232) were not sure. Furthermore, 64.0% (71/111) of those who viewed the new video first preferred it, whereas 77.7% (94/121) of the participants who viewed the new video second preferred it. Multivariable logistic regression analysis also demonstrated that participants were more likely to prefer the new video if they had viewed it second. Participants who preferred the new video rated it as clearer and more trustworthy than those who preferred the comparator video. ConclusionsThis study developed and assessed the strengths of a newly developed colonoscopy educational video.

The Boston Naming Test (BNT) has been proposed as an embedded performance validity test (PVT), though replication is needed to provide further empirical support of its simultaneous use as a cognitive ability measure and embedded PVT. This cross-sectional study examined BNT performance in a mixed neuropsychiatric sample of 137 patients with/without cognitive impairment. Four independent criterion PVTs classified 109 (80%) as valid and 28 (20%) as invalid. BNT raw and demographically-corrected T-scores were significantly higher among the valid group with small effect sizes (ηp2 = 0.04-0.05). Raw/T-scores differentiated valid/invalid groups, but with low classification accuracy (areas under the curve [AUCs] = 0.68/0.63), and unacceptably weak sensitivities (i.e. 7%/18%). When separated by impairment status, raw score accuracy appreciably increased (AUC = 0.87; 61% sensitivity/89% specificity) among unimpaired patients, whereas T-score accuracy, while significant, remained low (AUC = 0.68; 21% sensitivity/89% specificity). Conversely, among impaired patients, neither the raw (AUC = 0.59) nor T-score (AUC = 0.60) accurately identified invalid performance. In sum, BNT scores were not able to differentiate valid from invalid performance when cognitive impairment was present, and therefore showed limited overall utility as embedded PVTs. These findings further caution against inferring performance validity from measures in which a single score is used to assess both cognitive ability and validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several treatments for anxiety are available, which can make treatment decisions difficult. Resources are often produced with limited knowledge of what information is of interest to consumers. This is a problem because there is limited understanding of what people want to know when considering help for anxiety. Objective: This study aimed to examine the information needs and preferences concerning treatment options for anxiety by assessing the following: what information people consider to be important when they are considering treatment options for anxiety, what information people have received on psychological and medication treatment in the past, how they received this information in the past, and whether there are any differences in information needs between specific samples and demographic groups. Methods: Using a web-based survey, we recruited participants from a peer-support association website (n=288) and clinic samples (psychology, n=113; psychiatry, n=64). Results: Participants in all samples wanted information on a broad range of topics pertaining to anxiety treatment. However, they reported that they did not receive the desired amount of information. Participants in the clinic samples rated the importance of information topics higher than did those in the self-help sample. When considering the anxiety treatment information received in the past, most respondents indicated receiving information from informational websites, family doctors, and mental health practitioners. In terms of what respondents want to learn about, high ratings of importance were given to topics concerning treatment effectiveness, how it works, advantages and disadvantages, what happens when it stops, and common side effects. Conclusions: It is challenging for individuals to obtain anxiety-related information on the range of topics they desire through currently available information sources. It is also difficult to provide comprehensive information during typical clinical visits. Providing evidence-based information on the web and in a brochure format may help consumers make informed choices and support the advice provided by health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Several treatments for anxiety are available, which can make treatment decisions difficult. Resources are often produced with limited knowledge of what information is of interest to consumers. This is a problem because there is limited understanding of what people want to know when considering help for anxiety., Objective: This study aimed to examine the information needs and preferences concerning treatment options for anxiety by assessing the following: what information people consider to be important when they are considering treatment options for anxiety, what information people have received on psychological and medication treatment in the past, how they received this information in the past, and whether there are any differences in information needs between specific samples and demographic groups., Methods: Using a web-based survey, we recruited participants from a peer-support association website (n=288) and clinic samples (psychology, n=113; psychiatry, n=64)., Results: Participants in all samples wanted information on a broad range of topics pertaining to anxiety treatment. However, they reported that they did not receive the desired amount of information. Participants in the clinic samples rated the importance of information topics higher than did those in the self-help sample. When considering the anxiety treatment information received in the past, most respondents indicated receiving information from informational websites, family doctors, and mental health practitioners. In terms of what respondents want to learn about, high ratings of importance were given to topics concerning treatment effectiveness, how it works, advantages and disadvantages, what happens when it stops, and common side effects., Conclusions: It is challenging for individuals to obtain anxiety-related information on the range of topics they desire through currently available information sources. It is also difficult to provide comprehensive information during typical clinical visits. Providing evidence-based information on the web and in a brochure format may help consumers make informed choices and support the advice provided by health professionals., (©Matthew T Bernstein, Kristin A Reynolds, Lorna S Jakobson, Brenda M Stoesz, Gillian M Alcolado, Patricia Furer. Originally published in JMIR Formative Research (https://formative.jmir.org), 12.05.2022.)

Background: There has been limited research on the information needs and preferences of the public concerning treatment for depression. Very little research is available comparing samples and opinions when recruitment for surveys is done over the Web as opposed to a personal invitation to complete a paper survey., Objective: This study aimed to (1) to explore information needs and preferences among members of the public and (2) compare Clinic and Web samples on sample characteristics and survey findings., Methods: Web survey participants were recruited with a notice on three self-help association websites (N=280). Clinic survey participants were recruited by a research assistant in the waiting rooms of a family medicine clinic and a walk-in medical clinic (N=238) and completed a paper version of the survey., Results: The Clinic and Web samples were similar in age (39.0 years, SD 13.9 vs 40.2 years, SD 12.5, respectively), education, and proportion in full time employment. The Clinic sample was more diverse in demographic characteristics and closer to the demographic characteristics of the region (Winnipeg, Canada) with a higher proportion of males (102/238 [42.9%] vs 45/280 [16.1%]) and nonwhites (Aboriginal, Asian, and black) (69/238 [29.0%] vs 39/280 [13.9%]). The Web sample reported a higher level of emotional distress and had more previous psychological (224/280 [80.0%] vs 83/238 [34.9%]) and pharmacological (202/280 [72.1%] vs 57/238 [23.9%]) treatment. In terms of opinions, most respondents in both settings saw information on a wide range of topics around depression treatment as very important including information about treatment choices, effectiveness of treatment, how long it takes treatment to work, how long treatment continues, what happens when treatment stops, advantages and disadvantages of treatments, and potential side effects. Females, respondents with a white background, and those who had received or felt they would have benefited from therapy in the past saw more information topics as very important. Those who had received or thought they would have benefited in the past from medication treatment saw fewer topics as important. Participants in both groups expressed an interest in receiving information through discussion with a counselor or a physician, through written brochures, or through a recommended website., Conclusions: The recruitment strategies were helpful in obtaining opinions from members of the public with different concerns and perspectives, and the results from the two methods were complementary. Persons coping with emotional distress and individuals not specifically seeking help for depression would be interested in information to answer a wide range of important questions about depression treatment. The Clinic sample yielded more cultural diversity that is a closer match to the population. The Web sample was less costly to recruit and included persons who were most interested in receiving information., (©Matthew T Bernstein, John R Walker, Kathryn A Sexton, Alan Katz, Brooke E Beatie, Mobilizing Minds Research Group. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 24.04.2017.)