The manuscript examines the influence of contextual factors on whether and for whom a colon polyp diagnosis might be a teachable moment, as indicated by engagement with a proactively delivered intervention. Baseline and 8-month follow-up data were analyzed from a two-site behavioral intervention trial with patients in Massachusetts and North Carolina, USA who had recently undergone polypectomy for pre-cancerous colon polyps and were randomized to a behavior change intervention condition (N=591). Intervention "buy-in" was used as an indicator of response consistent with the polyp identification serving as a teachable moment. Cancer worry, personal risk, health-related self-identity and other sociodemographic factors were tested to predict intervention buy-in. As predicted, those who were most worried about colon cancer were most likely to engage in the intervention. One indicator of personal risk, number of risk behaviors, was significantly and negatively associated with buy-in. Predictors of intervention buy-in and cancer worry were not consistent. We recommend that expanded measures of affect and health-related self-identity should be considered in future research to understand the motivational potential of health events for increasing engagement in effective behavior change interventions.

No abstract

BackgroundUnderstanding physician perspectives on the intersection of race and genomics in clinical decision making is critical as personalized medicine and genomics become more integrated in health care services. There is a paucity of literature in the United States of America (USA) and globally regarding how health care providers understand and use information about race, ethnicity and genetic variation in their clinical decision making. This paper describes the development of three scales related to addressing this gap in the literature: the Bonham and Sellers Genetic Variation Knowledge Assessment Index--GKAI, Health Professionals Beliefs about Race—HPBR, and Racial Attributes in Clinical Evaluation—RACE scales.MethodsA cross-sectional, web survey of a national random sample of general internists in the USA (N = 787) was conducted. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to assess the construct validity of the scales. Scale items were developed through focus groups, cognitive interviews, expert advisory panels, and exploratory factor analysis of pilot data.ResultsGKAI was measured as a count of correct answers (Mean = 3.28 SD = 1.17). HPBR yielded two domains: beliefs about race as a biological phenomenon (HPBR-BD, alpha = .69, 4 items) and beliefs about the clinical value of race and genetic variation for understanding risk for disease (HPBR-CD alpha = .61, 3 items). RACE yielded one factor (alpha = .86, 7 items).ConclusionsGKAI is a timely knowledge scale that can be used to assess health professional knowledge of race and human genetic variation. HPBR is a promising new tool for assessing health professionals’ beliefs about the role of race and its relationship with human genetic variation in clinical practice. RACE offers a valid and reliable tool for assessing explicit use of racial attributes in clinical decision making.

This study sought to identify attributes of treatment important to haematologists in making their decisions regarding optimal care for inhibitor patients in the United States. A conjoint analysis using a discrete choice experiment was conducted to elicit factors that are most important to haematologists. Twelve product attributes were chosen based on published literature and expert opinion: risk of human viral infections, possibility that the titre of the inhibitor may rise, reduction in the likelihood of dose-related thromboembolic events, the number of infusions required to stop haemorrhage, infusion preparation time, infusion time, infusion volume, time required to stop bleeding, time required to alleviate pain, prophylaxis use, ability to undergo major surgery and cost of medications. Thirty haematologists completed the questionnaires via face-to-face interviews at a scientific meeting in April 2006. Data were analysed using a multinomial logit model to obtain the relative importance of each attribute. Responding haematologists had considerable experience in treating haemophilia patients with inhibitors (average : 13 +/- 9 years). 'Time required to stop bleeding' was the most important factor affecting treatment decisions [relative importance (RI) = 16.3%]. Physicians also preferred treatments that resulted in quick pain relief [RI = 12.9%], reduced the possibility that the titre of inhibitor may rise [RI = 12.8%], required fewer number of infusions to stop a haemorrhage [RI = 12.7%] and reduced the risk of human viral infection [RI = 10.8%]. This study revealed that certain clinical outcomes attributes are the most preferred and important. These findings can assist decision makers in their assessments of optimal first-line care.