Search

This study examined temporal and social comparisons of physical health status. Participants in two waves of the MIDUS cohort ranging in age from young adult to young-old (N = 2,408) rated current, past, and future physical health, as well as peer health. Past health was generally rated as better than current health (particularly among young adults). Young adults expected better future health; young-old adults expected declining health. All groups recalled their health as better than they reported a decade earlier. Middle-aged and young-old respondents expected more decline than they reported ten years later; young adults' ratings were consistent. The two older groups believed they were healthier than same-age peers, whereas younger respondents believed they were less healthy (though as healthy as the other age groups). The nature and trajectories of temporal and social comparisons of physical health across the lifespan suggest the need to examine their consequences for health behaviors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cross-sectional studies suggest many people are unaware that cancer risk increases with age, but this misbelief has rarely been studied prospectively, nor are its moderators known.Purpose: To assess whether people recognize that cancer risk increases with age and whether beliefs differ according to gender, education, smoking status, and family history of cancer.Methods: First, items from the cross-sectional Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 2069) were analyzed to examine the association of age and perceived cancer risk. Second, the prospective National Survey of Midlife Development in the United States (n = 3896) was used to assess whether perceived cancer risk changes over a decade. Third, beliefs about the age at which cancer occurs were analyzed using the US Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey (n = 1080). As a comparator, perceived risk of heart disease was also examined.Results: Cross-sectionally, older age was associated with lower perceived cancer risk but higher perceived heart disease risk. Prospectively, perceived cancer risk remained stable, whereas perceived heart attack risk increased. Seventy percent of participants reported a belief that cancer is equally likely to affect people of any age. Across three surveys, women and former smokers/smokers who recently quit tended to misunderstand the relationship between age and cancer risk and also expressed relatively higher perceived cancer risk overall.Conclusions: Data from three national surveys indicated that people are unaware that age is a risk factor for cancer. Moreover, those who were least aware perceived the highest risk of cancer regardless of age. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Health Care Systems Research Collaboratory (NIH Collaboratory) seeks to produce generalizable knowledge about the conduct of pragmatic research in health systems. This analysis applied the PRECIS-2 pragmatic trial criteria to five NIH Collaboratory pragmatic trials to better understand 1) the pragmatic aspects of the design and implementation of treatments delivered in real world settings and 2) the usability of the PRECIS-2 criteria for assessing pragmatic features across studies and across time.Methods/design: Using the PRECIS-2 criteria, five pragmatic trials were each rated by eight raters. For each trial, we reviewed the original grant application and a required progress report written at the end of a 1-year planning period that included changes to the protocol or implementation approach. We calculated median scores and interrater reliability for each PRECIS domain and for the overall trial at both time points, as well as the differences in scores between the two time points. We also reviewed the rater comments associated with the scores.Results: All five trials were rated to be more pragmatic than explanatory, with comments indicating that raters generally perceived them to closely mirror routine clinical care across multiple domains. The PRECIS-2 domains for which the trials were, on average, rated as most pragmatic on the 1 to 5 scale at the conclusion of the planning period included primary analysis (mean = 4.7 (range = 4.5 to 4.9)), recruitment (4.3 (3.6 to 4.8)), eligibility (4.1 (3.4 to 4.8)), setting (4.1 (4.0 to 4.4)), follow-up (4.1 (3.4 to 4.9)), and primary outcome (4.1 (3.5 to 4.9)). On average, the less pragmatic domains were organization (3.3 (2.6 to 4.4)), flexibility of intervention delivery (3.5 (2.1-4.5)), and flexibility of intervention adherence (3.8 (2.8-4.5)). Interrater agreement was modest but statistically significant for four trials (Gwet's AC1 statistic range 0.23 to 0.40) and the intraclass correlation coefficient ranged from 0.05 to 0.31. Rating challenges included assigning a single score for domains that may relate to both patients and care settings (that is, eligibility or recruitment) and determining to what extent aspects of complex research interventions differ from usual care.Conclusions: These five trials in diverse healthcare settings were rated as highly pragmatic using the PRECIS-2 criteria. Applying the tool generated insightful discussion about real-world design decisions but also highlighted challenges using the tool. PRECIS-2 raters would benefit from additional guidance about how to rate the interwoven patient and practice-level considerations that arise in pragmatic trials.Trial Registrations: Clinicaltrials.gov trial registrations: NCT02019225 , NCT01742065 , NCT02015455 , NCT02113592 , NCT02063867 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective:Social comparisons (i.e. self-evaluations relative to others) may affect motivation for diabetes self-care behaviours. Comparisons can have either positive or negative effects, but it is not clear what differentiates these responses. This study tested the effect of a patient’sperceived similarityto a comparison target on motivation for self-care. Design:Individuals with type 2 diabetes (n = 180,MA1c = 7.59%) selected to read one of four brief descriptions of a patient with diabetes. Main outcome measures:Participants rated their motivation for self-care behaviours prior and subsequent to reading and reported the extent to which they focused on similarities between the self and the selected patient while reading. Results:Perceived similarity moderated the effect of selection on motivation for self-care (p = .01,?2?=?.06). Increased motivation was observed if participants focused on similarities with patients ‘doing better’ (i.e. high coping effectiveness/low symptom severity) and decreased motivation if they focused on similarities with patients ‘doing worse’ (low coping effectiveness/high symptom severity). Conclusions:Providing social comparison information in diabetes management (and perhaps other chronic diseases) may improve motivation for self-care among some patients. A subset of patients, however, may benefit from guidance to focus on similarities with certain targets. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Early stage diagnosis strongly predicts cancer survival. Recognition of potential symptoms of cancer may improve survival by reducing time to seeking care.Methods: Telephone interviews with a population-representative sample of English-speaking adults (aged ≥50 years) in the U.S. (N=1,425) were conducted in 2014 using an instrument adapted from the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer survey. Anticipated time to seeking care for four cancer symptoms (persistent cough, rectal bleeding, mole changes, and breast changes) was assessed, and delay was defined as waiting >2 weeks. Recognition of symptoms as potential cancer signs was assessed dichotomously. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to assess associations between symptom recognition and anticipated delay, adjusting for demographics, cancer experience, self-reported health, and healthcare access. Analyses were weighted and conducted in 2017.Results: Symptom recognition varied but was relatively high across all symptoms (76.9%-95.5%). Anticipated delay varied by symptom and was highest for persistent cough (41.2%) and lowest for rectal bleeding (9.1%). For rectal bleeding (AOR=2.65, 95% CI=1.31, 5.36) and mole changes (AOR=3.30, 95% CI=1.48, 7.33), anticipated delay was more likely among individuals who did not recognize the symptom as a warning sign. Adults with lower education levels (p<0.05) and African Americans (p<0.05) were less likely to delay for some symptoms.Conclusions: Lack of symptom recognition was associated with anticipated delay in seeking care for some cancer symptoms. Differences in recognition and delays by symptom could be driven partly by screening messaging or by ambiguity and functional impact of each symptom. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Being diagnosed with cancer often forces patients and families to make difficult medical decisions. How patients think they and others will feel in the future, termed affective predictions, may influence these decisions. These affective predictions are often biased, which may contribute to suboptimal care outcomes by influencing decisions related to palliative care and advance care planning.Objectives: This study aimed to translate perspectives from the decision sciences to inform future research about when and how affective predictions may influence decisions about palliative care and advance care planning.Methods: A systematic search of two databases to evaluate the extent to which affective predictions have been examined in the palliative care and advance care planning context yielded 35 relevant articles. Over half utilized qualitative methodologies (n = 21). Most studies were conducted in the U.S. (n = 12), Canada (n = 7), or European countries (n = 10). Study contexts included end of life (n = 10), early treatment decisions (n = 10), pain and symptom management (n = 7), and patient-provider communication (n = 6). The affective processes of patients (n = 20), caregivers (n = 16), and/or providers (n = 12) were examined.Results: Three features of the palliative care and advance care planning context may contribute to biased affective predictions: 1) early treatment decisions are made under heightened emotional states and with insufficient information; 2) palliative care decisions influence life domains beyond physical health; and 3) palliative care decisions involve multiple people.Conclusion: Biases in affective predictions may serve as a barrier to optimal palliative care delivery. Predictions are complicated by intense emotions, inadequate prognostic information, involvement of many individuals, and cancer's effect on non-health life domains. Applying decision science frameworks may generate insights about affective predictions that can be harnessed to solve challenges associated with optimal delivery of palliative care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]