Journal of general internal medicine
-
Review Meta Analysis
Use of patient decision aids increased younger women's reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
As breast cancer screening guidelines have changed recently, additional investigation is needed to understand changes in women's behavior after using breast cancer screening patient decision aids (BCS-PtDAs) and the potential effect on mammography utilization. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effect of BCS-PtDAs on changes in women's intentions to undergo screening mammography and whether women deciding to begin or discontinue screening mammography displayed similar changes in screening intentions after using a BCS-PtDA. ⋯ The protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database, #CRD42016036695.
-
A practical instrument is needed to reliably measure the clinical learning environment and professionalism for residents. ⋯ The C - Change Resident Survey assesses the clinical learning environment for residents, and we encourage further study of validity in different contexts. Results could be used to facilitate and monitor improvements in the clinical learning environment and resident well-being.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial
Telephone-Delivered Behavioral Skills Intervention for African American Adults with Type 2 Diabetes: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Diabetes disproportionately affects African Americans and is associated with poorer outcomes. Self-management is important for glycemic control; however, evidence in African Americans is limited. ⋯ For African Americans with poorly controlled type 2 diabetes, combined education and skills training did not achieve greater reductions in glycemic control (i.e., HbA1c levels) at 12 months compared to the control group, education alone, or skills training alone. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier no. NCT00929838.
-
Prior cross-sectional research has found that generalists have lower rates of academic advancement than specialists and basic science faculty. ⋯ Between 1995 and 2012, generalists were less likely to be promoted than other academic faculty; this difference in advancement appears to be related to their lower rate of publication.