Although the rising incidence of breast cancer has prompted a surge of intervention strategies aimed at increasing women's use of mammography screening, the majority of patient-directed interventions have not been driven by relevant theoretical work on persuasive health communication. The authors evaluated an intervention derived from prospect theory that was designed to increase women's adherence to recommendations for annual mammography screening. They sent 1 of 3 reminder letters (positive frame, negative frame, or standard hospital prompt) to 929 randomly selected women who were due for mammography screening and had been identified as having either a positive or negative family history of breast cancer. The primary hypothesis that women with a positive history would be more responsive to negatively framed messages, whereas women with a negative history would be more responsive to positively framed letters, was not confirmed. The lack of support for predictions derived from prospect theory raises important questions about the generalizability of laboratory research to natural settings.
This investigation assessed the nature of research published in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (PSPB) during the past 20 years (1976-1996) compared to another major journal in the field, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP). Articles in both journals have tended to become longer, to contain more studies, to be authored by more collaborators, and to employ a greater diversity of statistical analyses. Research in both journals has relied heavily on experimental designs using college undergraduates as participants, although the temporal pattern of this reliance is somewhat different in the two journals. Articles in PSPB have consistently emphasized the domain of attitudes and social cognition more than those in JPSP. The implications of these patterns are discussed in terms of their significance for progress in the field and their impact on the career experiences of researchers.
OBJECTIVES:
Multitarget stool DNA (MT-sDNA) testing has grown as a noninvasive screening modality for colorectal cancer (CRC), but real-world clinical data are limited in the post-FDA approval setting. The effect of previous colonoscopy on MT-sDNA performance is not known. We aimed to evaluate findings of colorectal neoplasia (CRN) at diagnostic colonoscopy in patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, stratified by patient exposure to previous colonoscopy.
METHODS:
We identified consecutive patients completing MT-sDNA testing over a 39-month period and reviewed the records of those with positive tests for neoplastic findings at diagnostic colonoscopy. MT-sDNA test positivity rate, adherence to diagnostic colonoscopy, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of MT-sDNA for any CRN and neoplastic subtypes were calculated.
RESULTS:
Of 16,469 MT-sDNA tests completed, testing returned positive in 2,326 (14.1%) patients. After exclusion of patients at increased risk for CRC, 1,801 patients remained, 1,558 (87%) of whom underwent diagnostic colonoscopy; 918 of 1,558 (59%) of these patients had undergone previous colonoscopy, whereas 640 (41%) had not. Any CRN was found in 1,046 of 1,558 patients (PPV = 67%). More neoplastic lesions were found in patients without previous colonoscopy (73%); however, the rates remained high among those who had undergone previous colonoscopy (63%, P < 0.0001). The large majority (79%) of patients had right-sided neoplasia.
DISCUSSION:
MT-sDNA has a high PPV for any CRN regardless of exposure to previous colonoscopy. Right-sided CRN was found at colonoscopy in most patients with positive MT-sDNA testing, representing a potential advantage over other currently available screening modalities for CRC.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.