American journal of preventive medicine
-
Latino smokers are more likely than white non-Latino smokers to attempt cessation, but less likely to receive cessation advice from physicians or to use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). Proposed underlying causes have included lighter smoking, lower financial status, and less healthcare access. This study assessed these factors as possible explanations for disparate rates of smoking-cessation support. ⋯ Population-level differences in health status, smoking level, financial status, or healthcare access do not explain why Latino smokers less often use proven pharmaceutical aids to increase cessation. Further research is needed to understand these disparities, and greater effort is needed to deliver cessation support to Latino smokers seeking to quit.
-
Hearing and vision screening programs for school-aged children are common, yet little is known about their impact. ⋯ According to parent reports, most children had follow-up after an abnormal screen, and the majority of these children received treatment. Screening school-aged children for sensory impairment appears to be an important public health function.
-
There is a limited understanding of the social influences, such as the role of parents on youth sun-safe practices, that may reduce the risk of developing skin cancer later in life. ⋯ Sun-safe practices were correlated between parent-child pairs and parental factors exerted a positive role on youth sunscreen-use frequency. These data may guide further sociobehavioral and intervention research for the design of skin cancer prevention programs in schools and communities to improve levels of sun-safe practices.
-
Randomized Controlled Trial Multicenter Study Clinical Trial
The study designed by a committee: design of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project.
This article describes the research design of the Multisite Violence Prevention Project (MVPP), organized and funded by the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). CDC's objectives, refined in the course of collaboration among investigators, were to evaluate the efficacy of universal and targeted interventions designed to produce change at the school level. The project's design was developed collaboratively, and is a 2 x 2 cluster-randomized true experimental design in which schools within four separate sites were assigned randomly to four conditions: (1) no-intervention control group, (2) universal intervention, (3) targeted intervention, and (4) combined universal and targeted interventions. ⋯ The nesting of students within teachers, families, schools and sites created a number of challenges for designing and implementing the study. The final design represents both resolution and compromise on a number of creative tensions existing in large-scale prevention trials, including tensions between cost and statistical power, and between internal and external validity. Strengths and limitations of the final design are discussed.
-
Shared decision making is a process in which patients are involved as active partners with the clinician in clarifying acceptable medical options and in choosing a preferred course of clinical care. Shared decision making offers a way of individualizing recommendations, according to patients' special needs and preferences, when some patients may benefit from an intervention but others may not. This paper clarifies how the U. ⋯ For preventive services for which the balance of potential benefits and harms is a close call, or for which the evidence is insufficient to guide a decision for or against screening, clinicians should additionally assist patients in determining whether individual characteristics and personal preferences favor performing or not performing the preventive service. The USPSTF believes that clinicians generally have no obligation to initiate discussion about services that have either no benefit or net harm. Nonetheless, clinicians should be prepared to explain why these services are discouraged and should consider a proactive discussion for services with high visibility or special individual importance or for services for which new evidence has prompted withdrawal of previous recommendations.