Search

Vermicompost (humic material) samples were submitted to characterization by infrared spectroscopy, X-ray diffractometry, thermogravimetric analysis, electron microscopy etc. In addition, its cation exchange capacity (CEC) was determined. Factorial experiments were designed in order to elucidate the interaction mechanisms between Cd2+ and the adsorptive sites of vermicompost. The maximum adsorptive capacity for cadmium was evaluated by a Langmuir isotherm. The characterization revealed that vermicompost exhibits high CEC values (ca. 72.9 meq per 100 g), high surface area (porous material), chelating groups and a maximum adsorptive capacity for Cd (38.6 mg g-1) at pH 5.0. This potential application was exploited in the analysis of synthetic and real (mineral water) samples with Cd concentrations of ca 5 mug L-1, requiring a preconcentration step. An enrichment factor of 100 was attained.

Objectives: Although hearing devices such as cochlear implants and hearing aids often improve communication, many people who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) choose not to use them. Hearing device-related stigma, or negative societal beliefs about people who use hearing devices, often drives this decision. Although much research has documented the negative effects of hearing device-related stigma, no widely accepted, validated measure to quantify such stigma across populations currently exists. In this article, we describe the preliminary validation of four distinct but related scales measuring hearing device-related stigma in different populations, including people who use hearing devices and those close to them., Design: We preliminarily validated four measures for quantifying hearing device-related stigma in different populations that were previously developed and refined through a literature review, Delphi interviews, cognitive interviews, and a pretest. We preliminarily validated these measures through self-administered online surveys in a convenience sample in the United States. Among participants who use a hearing device and who either (a) self-identified as being d/DHH before they developed language (lifelong; n = 78) or (b) those who self-identified as having acquired a d/DHH identity after they developed language (acquired n = 71), we validated an anticipated hearing device-related stigma scale (d/DHHS-LE-HDA). We validated three scales that measure perceived hearing device-related stigma observed by parents of children who are d/DHH and who use a hearing device (n = 79) (d/DHHS-P-HDPO), care partners of adults who are d/DHH and use a hearing device (n = 108) (d/DHHS-CP-HDPO), and health care providers (n = 203) (d/DHHS-HCP-HDSH). Exploratory factor analysis assessed the reliability of each measure., Results: Each of the four scales loaded onto one factor. Factor loadings for the eight-item scale measuring anticipated hearing device-related stigma among the two populations with lived experience ranged from 0.635 to 0.910, with an ordinal α of 0.93 in the lifelong d/DHH participants and 0.94 among the acquired d/DHH participants. The six-item scale of perceived stigma observed by parents had item loadings from 0.630 to 0.920 (α = 0.91). The nine-item scale of hearing device-related stigma observed by care partners had item loadings from 0.554 to 0.922 (α = 0.95). The eight-item scale of hearing device-related stigma reported by health care providers had item loadings from 0.647 to 0.941 (α = 0.89)., Conclusions: Preliminary validation results show that the four stigma measures perform well in their respective populations. The anticipated stigma scale performed similarly well for both lifelong d/DHH and acquired d/DHH, which suggests that it could perform well in different contexts. Future research should further validate the scales described here as well as measure hearing device-related stigma in different populations-including people who live in different geographic regions and people using different kinds of hearing devices-and evaluate the success of interventions developed to reduce hearing device-related stigma., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

People who are d/Deaf or hard of hearing (d/DHH) often experience stigma and discrimination in their daily lives. Qualitative research describing their lived experiences has provided useful, in-depth insights into the pervasiveness of stigma. Quantitative measures could facilitate further investigation of the scope of this phenomenon. Thus, under the auspices of the Lancet Commission on Hearing Loss, we developed and preliminarily validated survey measures of different types of stigma related to d/Deafness and hearing loss in the United States (a high-income country) and Ghana (a lower-middle income country). In this introductory article, we first present working definitions of the different types of stigma; an overview of what is known about stigma in the context of hearing loss; and the motivation underlying the development of measures that capture different types of stigma from the perspectives of different key groups. We then describe the mixed-methods exploratory sequential approach used to develop the stigma measures for several key groups: people who are d/DHH, parents of children who are d/DHH, care partners of people who are d/DHH, healthcare providers, and the general population. The subsequent manuscripts in this special supplement of Ear and Hearing describe the psychometric validation of the various stigma scales developed using these methods., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Qualitative evidence suggests that stigma experienced by people who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (d/DHH) can reduce willingness to engage with health services. Quantitative evidence remains lacking, however, about how health care providers (HCPs) perceive societal stigma toward people who are d/DHH, how HCPs might enact d/DHH stigma within provider-patient encounters, and what patients who are d/DHH share with providers about those patients' perceptions and experiences of stigma. Such quantitative evidence would allow HCPs to understand if and how stigma influences hearing health decisions made by people who are d/DHH. It could also shape practices to reduce d/DHH stigma within clinical encounters and guide providers in considering stigma as a driving force in their patients' hearing health care decisions. Building that evidence base requires validated quantitative measures. In response, the present study initiated an iterative process toward developing and preliminarily validating HCP self-report measures for different forms of d/DHH stigma. These measures draw upon HCPs' own perspectives, as well as their reports of secondhand information about stigma shared during clinical conversations. We developed and preliminary validated four measures: (1) provider-perceived stigma (HCPs' perceptions of the existence of negative attitudes and stereotypes toward d/DHH individuals in society), (2) provider-enacted stigma (self-reported subtle or indirect acts of stigma HCPs might commit during clinical encounters), (3) secondhand patient-experienced stigma (external acts of stigma reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters), and (4) secondhand patient-perceived stigma (perceptions of negative attitudes and stereotypes reported to HCPs by patients who are d/DHH during clinical encounters)., Design: Scale items were extracted from a comprehensive literature review of stigma measures. Question stems and individual items were adapted for HCPs, cognitively tested on 5 HCPs, and pretested with 30 HCPs. The 4 scales were then validated on a sample of primary care providers and hearing care specialists (N = 204) recruited through an online survey. All data were collected in the United States., Results: We conducted an exploratory factor analysis of the four proposed d/DHH stigma HCP stigma scales. Scale items loaded satisfactorily with ordinal alphas ranging between 0.854 and 0.944., Conclusions: The four measures developed and preliminarily validated in this study can provide opportunities for HCPs to develop a more nuanced understanding of stigma experienced and perceived by their patients who are d/DHH and how that stigma manifests across social contexts, including health care settings. Further, the ability to assess forms of d/DHH stigma in clinical encounters, as well as their association with patient disengagement and resistance to advanced hearing care, could lead to innovative stigma-reduction interventions. Such interventions could then be evaluated using the measures from this article and then applied to clinical practice. We envision these measures being further refined, adapted, and tested for a variety of health care contexts, including primary care settings where hearing difficulties may first be identified and in hearing health care settings where audiologic rehabilitation is initiated., Competing Interests: The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the USA despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Understanding how patient-provider communication influences CRC screening can inform interventions to improve screening completion. We developed a behavioral theory-informed survey to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening completion. The survey was administered by RTI International between 03/2022 and 06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021 and 9/2021. Respondents completed an electronic or paper survey. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify patient-provider communication factors associated with mt-sDNA test completion. A total of 2973 participants completed the survey (response rate, 21.7%) and 81.6% of them (n = 2427) reported having had a conversation with provider about mt-sDNA testing before the test was ordered. Having a conversation with the provider about the test, including discussions about costs, the need for follow-up testing and test instructions were associated with higher odds of test completion and being "very likely" to use the test in the future. Lack of discussion about advantages and disadvantages of available CRC screening options and lack of patient involvement in CRC screening decision-making were associated with reduced odds of test completion and likelihood of future use. Healthcare providers play a key role in patient adherence to CRC screening and must be appropriately prepared and resourced to educate and to engage patients in shared decision-making about CRC screening., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening continues to be underutilized in the US despite the availability of multiple effective, guideline-recommended screening options. Provider recommendation has been consistently shown to improve screening completion. Yet, available literature provides little information as to how specific information providers communicate influence patient decision-making about CRC screening. We tested the pathways through which information communicated by providers about the "Why" and "How" of CRC screening using the mt-sDNA test contributes to intention to complete the test. Data came from a behavioral theory-informed survey that we developed to identify psychosocial factors associated with mt-sDNA screening. RTI International administered the survey between 03/2022-06/2022 to a sample of US adults ages 45-75 who received a valid order for mt-sDNA screening with a shipping date between 5/2021-9/2021. Participants completed an electronic or paper survey. We tested the proposed relationships using structural equation modeling and tested indirect effects using Monte Carlo method. A total of 2,973 participants completed the survey (response rate: 21.7%) and 81.6% (n = 2,427) reported have had a conversation with their health care provider about mt-sDNA screening before the test was ordered. We found that "Why" information from providers was positively associated with perceived effectiveness of mt-sDNA screening, while "How" information was positively associated with perceived ease of use. "Why" information contributed to screening intention through perceived effectiveness while "How" information contributed to screening intention through perceived ease of use. These findings emphasize the critical role of provider communication in shaping patient decision-making regarding CRC screening. CRC screening interventions could consider implementing provider-patient communication strategies focusing on improving patient understanding of the rationale for CRC screening and the effectiveness of available screening options as well as addressing barriers and enhancing patients' self-efficacy in completing their preferred screening option., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the United States. Despite the availability of multiple screening options, CRC screening is underutilized. We conducted a survey of patients (n = 2973) who were prescribed the multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) screening test (commercialized as Cologuard ® and manufactured by Exact Sciences Corporation) to understand attitudes and experiences that influence test completion and likelihood of future test completion. Using exploratory factor analyses, we developed three scales: Perceived Effectiveness, Perceived Ease of Use, and Perceived Comfort., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article., (© The Author(s) 2023.)

Objective: To determine how additional explanatory text (context) about drug side effects in a patient medication information handout affected comprehension and perceptions of risk and efficacy., Methods: We conducted an online experiment with a national sample of 1,119 U.S. adults with rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions, sampled through random-digit dialing, address-based sampling, and online ads. We randomized participants to receive one of several versions of a patient information handout for a fictitious drug, either with or without additional context, then measured comprehension and other outcomes., Results: Additional qualitative context about warnings and side effects resulted in lower comprehension of side effect information, but not information about uses of the drug or warnings. The effect of additional context on risk perceptions depended on whether the medication handout was delivered online or through the mail. Those who received a hardcopy of the handout with additional context had higher perceived risk of side effects than those who saw the version without additional context., Conclusion: More clarifying information is not always better and may lead to cognitive overload, inhibiting comprehension., Practice Implications: Additional research should further explore effects of context in online vs. hard-copy formats before practice implications can be determined., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Often, government agencies and survey organizations know the population counts or percentages for some of the variables in a survey. These may be available from auxiliary sources, for example, administrative databases or other high quality surveys. We present and illustrate a model-based framework for leveraging such auxiliary marginal information when handling unit and item nonresponse. We show how one can use the margins to specify different missingness mechanisms for each type of nonresponse. We use the framework to impute missing values in voter turnout in a subset of data from the U.S. Current Population Survey (CPS). In doing so, we examine the sensitivity of results to different assumptions about the unit and item nonresponse.