Search

Purpose: Sexual violence (SV) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) are common in the U. S. and have strong associations with negative health and wellbeing outcomes. Manhood 2.0 is the first U.S. program designed for community settings to build bystander skills while also challenging harmful gender norms. A cluster-randomized trial comparing Manhood 2.0 to Job Skills, a job readiness training control condition, demonstrated that it is a promising strategy to prevent sexual violence and adolescent relationship abuse. Such community-based interventions may be particularly relevant in lower resource urban settings, and the costs of such prevention programs have not been considered previously. Methods: The aim of the present study is to perform systematic and standardized cost calculations associated with implementing Manhood 2.0 among adolescent males. In addition, this study provides detailed cost information of the community-based intervention program, as well as costs associated with implementing the Job Skills control program. Program implementation data were recorded throughout the study period (2015–2019) by the Manhood 2.0 study team. Results: The cost of implementing Manhood 2.0 is $4,771 per complete round of program delivery and $451 per participant, which is approximately the same cost as the control Job Skills program ($4,432 and $453 per participant). The marginal cost per additional round of Manhood 2.0 program is $3,682. Conclusion: Implementation of a community-based program requires substantial resources and collaborations with community partners especially in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods. This study provides a snapshot of the cost information of a community-based intervention program from the implementing agency's perspective, which is essential in helping decision-makers understand the costs they will incur by implementing prevention programs and ensuring program feasibility and sustainability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study evaluated differences in accuracy between the CONTOUR® NEXT EZ (EZ) blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) and four other BGMSs [ACCU-CHEK® Aviva (ACAP), FreeStyle Freedom Lite® (FFL), ONE TOUCH® Ultra®2 (OTU2), and TRUEtrack® (TT)]., Methods: Up to three capillary blood samples (N = 393) were collected from 146 subjects with and without diabetes. One sample per subject was tested with fresh (natural) blood; the other samples were glycolyzed to lower blood glucose to <70 mg/dl. Meter results were compared with results from plasma from the same sample tested on a Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) 2300 STAT PlusTM glucose analyzer. Blood glucose monitoring system accuracy was compared using mean absolute relative difference (MARD; from laboratory reference method results) and other analyses. Separate analyses on fresh (natural) samples only were conducted to determine potential effects of glycolysis on MARD values of systems utilizing glucose-oxidase-based test strip chemistry., Results: Across the tested glucose range, the EZ had the lowest MARD of 4.7%; the ACAP, FFL, OTU2, and TT had MARD values of 6.3%, 18.3%, 23.4%, and 26.2%, respectively. For samples with glucose concentrations <70 mg/dl, the EZ had the lowest MARD (0.65%), compared with the ACAP (2.5%), FFL (18.3%), OTU2 (22.4%), and TT (33.2%) systems., Conclusions: The EZ had the lowest MARD across the tested glucose ranges when compared with four other BGMSs when all samples were analyzed as well as when natural samples only were analyzed., (© 2013 Diabetes Technology Society.)

Background: This study assessed the performance of a blood glucose monitoring system (BGMS) in development that uses a new generation of blood glucose test strips with capillary and venous blood in the hands of its intended users, people with diabetes and healthcare professionals (HCPs)., Subjects and Methods: In total, 93 subjects ≥ 18 years old (median age, 33 years) with type 1 (78%) or type 2 (22%) diabetes participated. Untrained subjects performed self-test fingersticks using a Microlet(®)2 lancing device (Bayer HealthCare LLC, Diabetes Care, Tarrytown, NY) followed by testing of their own capillary blood on the BGMS. HCPs performed fingersticks (using a Tenderlett(®) lancing device [International Technidyne Corp., Edison, NJ]) and venipunctures on subjects and tested both capillary and venous samples from subjects on the BGMS. All BGMS results were compared with Yellow Springs Instruments (YSI) (YSI Life Sciences, Inc., Yellow Springs, OH) laboratory results. Analytical accuracy was assessed according to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15197:2003 guidelines (i.e., within ± 15 mg/dL or ± 20% of the YSI results for samples with glucose concentrations < 75 mg/dL and ≥ 75 mg/dL, respectively) and more stringent criteria (i.e., within ± 15 mg/dL or ± 15% of the YSI results for samples with glucose concentrations < 100 mg/dL and ≥ 100 mg/dL, respectively)., Results: Overall, 98.9% (180/182) of subject Microlet2 capillary fingerstick results, 99.5% (182/183) of HCP Tenderlett capillary fingerstick results, and 100% (186/186) of venous results met current ISO criteria and more stringent criteria. The average hematocrit was 44%, with values ranging from 32% to 52%., Conclusions: Test results from both capillary fingerstick and venous samples with a new BGMS in development met current accuracy guidelines as well as proposed tighter criteria.