Chicago, IL; Sacramento, CA; Silver Spring, MD; and Durham, NC, capturing a sociodemographically diverse sample with specific attention to ensuring inclusion of Hispanic, African-American, and elderly participants. Of 1774 people recruited, 75% participated: 961 took part in a deliberative method and 377 participants comprised the RMO control group. To assess effectiveness of the deliberative methods overall and of individual methods, we evaluated whether mean pre-post changes on a knowledge and attitude survey were statistically different from the RMO control using ANCOVA. In addition, we calculated mean scores capturing participant views of the impact and value of deliberation. Participating in deliberation increased participants' knowledge of evidence and comparative effectiveness research and shifted participants' attitudes regarding the role of evidence in decision-making. When comparing each deliberative method to the RMO control group, all four deliberative methods resulted in statistically significant change on at least one knowledge or attitude measure. These findings were underscored by self-reports that the experience affected participants' opinions. Public deliberation offers unique potential for those seeking informed input on complex, values-laden topics affecting broad public constituencies.

OBJECTIVES: Involving stakeholders in research helps ensure that research is relevant and responsive to stakeholder needs while improving the quality of the research. This research was conducted as part of AHRQ's Community Forum project which was charged with identifying emerging strategies and state of the art methods for engaging stakeholders. METHODS: We developed a conceptual framework for stakeholder engagement that informed this literature scan and assisted in organizing findings. The scan included a search of peer-reviewed literature, using academic databases as well as an Internet search of grey literature and Web sites. Our final review included 23 peer-reviewed articles, 15 grey literature documents, and 43 Web sites related to stakeholder engagement. To supplement our scan, we conducted 11 interviews with individuals experienced in the field of stakeholder engagement. Our technical experts also suggested organizations and Web sites to explore in our literature review. RESULTS: We identified many promising methods of involving stakeholders in research. One example is using online collaborative platforms to enable interactions between an organization and its stakeholders through a virtual space. These allow users to share information, work together, and provide feedback to stakeholders about how their input is being used. Other examples include product development challenges, utilizing existing online communities, and grassroots community organizing. Selected recommended practices from our review include gaining trust of stakeholders before involvement and maintaining throughout; selecting stakeholders for whom the decision or research has important consequences; and educating stakeholders on their roles, their responsibilities, and the topics being discussed. A limitation to our findings is that there are limited evaluation data measuring outcome effectiveness of these methods. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholder involvement is critical to health care research. This presentation will highlight selected effective and creative approaches to stakeholder engagement. OBJECTIVES:To analyze the profile of care for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in health centers in border areas of Central America. METHODS: A crosssectional study in a sample of 3357 people received medical care for some STIs in 13 health centers in border areas of Central America, during 2007-2010. Doctors were trained and supplied medicines, condoms and HIV testing (basic package of health care). The sample of users was characterized according to sociodemographic variables and the associated factors with the probability of receiving the basic package of care for STIs were analyzed using additive probit regression models. RESULTS: Of the total users, 66% had 25 to 59 years old, and 93% of users were women. The most frequently diagnosed STI were Candidiasis, Bacterial Vaginosis, Trichomoniasis, Gonorrhea and Syphilis. 60% of prescriptions for these STIs were adhered to the international recommendations. 53.1 % of users received only medicines, 5.8 ...

No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundThe Scale to Assess Unawareness in Mental Disorder (SUMD) is widely used in clinical trials and epidemiological studies but more rarely in clinical practice because of its length (74 items). In clinical practice, it is necessary to provide shorter instruments. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the abbreviated version of the SUMD.MethodsDesign: We used data from four cross-sectional studies conducted in several psychiatric hospitals in France. Inclusion criteria: a diagnosis of schizophrenia based on DSM-IV criteria. Data collection: socio-demographic and clinical data (including duration of illness, Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, and the Calgary Depression Scale); quality of life; SUMD. Statistical analysis: confirmatory factor analyses, item-dimension correlations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients, Rasch statistics, relationships between the SUMD and other parameters. We tested two different scoring models and considered the response ‘not applicable’ as ‘0’ or as missing data.ResultsFive hundred and thirty-one patients participated in this study. The 3-factor structure of the SUMD (awareness of the disease, consequences and need for treatment; awareness of positive symptoms; and awareness of negative symptoms) was confirmed using LISREL confirmatory factor analysis for the two models. Internal item consistency and reliability were satisfactory for all dimensions. External validity testing revealed that dimension scores correlated significantly with all PANSS scores, especially with the G12 item (lack of judgement and awareness). Significant associations with age, disease duration, education level, and living arrangements showed good discriminant validity.ConclusionThe abbreviated version of the SUMD appears to be a valid and reliable instrument for measuring insight in patients with schizophrenia and may be used by clinicians to accurately assess insight in clinical settings.