eHealth and the use of individually tailored information:a systematic review

Tailored messages are those that specifically target individuals following an assessment of their unique characteristics. This systematic review assesses the evidence regarding the effectiveness of tailoring within eHealth interventions aimed at chronic disease management. OVID Medline/Embase databases were searched for randomised control trials, controlled clinical, trials, before -after studies, and time series analyses from inception - May 2014. Objectively measured clinical processes/outcomes were considered. Twenty-two papers were eligible for inclusion: 6/22 used fully tailored messaging and 16/22 used partially tailored messages. Two studies isolated tailoring as the active component. The remainder compared intervention with standard care. In all, 12/16 studies measuring clinical processes and 2/6 studies reporting clinical outcomes showed improvements, regardless of target group. Study quality was low and design did not allow for identification of interventions’ active component. Heterogeneity precluded meta-analysis. This review has demonstrated that there is a lack of evidence to suggest that tailoring within an eHealth context confers benefit over non-tailored eHealth interventions. </jats:p

Provider and user acceptability of intermittent screening and treatment for the control of malaria in pregnancy in Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Malaria in pregnancy is a major cause of adverse maternal and fetal outcomes. Intermittent preventive treatment with sulfadoxine-pyrimethamine (IPTp-SP) is one of the control strategies promoted by WHO. In response to mounting resistance to SP, intermittent screening and treatment (ISTp) has been proposed as an alternative. The objective of this study was to explore the acceptability of ISTp for health workers and pregnant women. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews of ten health workers and five focus group discussions of 38 women enrolled in an ongoing trial comparing IPTp-SP and ISTp with dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine (DP) were conducted at two antenatal clinics in rural Malawi. All transcripts were coded and themes were identified using a content analysis approach. RESULTS: Amongst health workers, there were contrasting opinions on the preference of blood sampling methods, and the influence of method on reliability of diagnosis. The perceived greater effectiveness of DP compared to SP was appreciated, however concerns of user compliance with the full dose of DP in non-trial settings were raised. Despite the discomfort of repeated finger pricks, pregnant women were generally accepting of ISTp, particularly the chance for regular blood tests to check for infections and the perceived greater effectiveness with fewer side effects of DP compared to SP. CONCLUSION: In the trial context, pregnant women tended to prefer ISTp-DP over IPTp-SP. Health workers were also accepting of ISTp-DP as an alternative to IPTp-SP in light of increasing SP resistance. However, reliability of stock, adherence to malaria test results and user adherence to the full course of DP may present barriers to successful routine implementation. Effective communication with health workers and between health workers, pregnant women and their communities will be essential for the acceptability of focused antenatal care, including the best malaria control measures available

Letter to Jean Holcomb reporting on use of SEAALL Scholarship funds, February 21, 1992

A letter from Deborah K. Webster to Jean Holcomb reporting on Webster\u27s use of Scholarship funds to attend the AALL Winter Institute

Letter to Jean Holcomb regarding award of a SEAALL Scholarship, January 3, 1992

A letter from Deborah K. Webster to Jean Holcomb accepting a SEAALL Scholarship

A Proposal for a Doctoral Dissertation

This is a proposal for a doctoral dissertaion in the Department of Comparative Literature of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. This proposal was accepted 19 May 1970

Hybridization in parasites: consequences for adaptive evolution, pathogenesis and public health in a changing world

[No abstract available

The ethics of future trials: qualitative analysis of physicians' decision making

Background: The decision to conduct a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in a field raises ethical as well as scientific issues. From the clinical equipoise literature, future trials are justifiable if there is ”honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert practitioners as to the preferred treatment”. Empirical data are sparse about how clinicians apply the principles of equipoise to the justification of future RCTs. For example, selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) is not widely used in critical care practice despite the strength of the evidence base and therefore provides a unique opportunity to learn how clinicians think about the ethics of further RCTs in critical care. Methods: In an international interview study of views of healthcare professionals about SDD, we undertook a secondary analysis of qualitative data collected using a Theoretical Domains Framework of clinical behaviour. We adopted a general descriptive approach to explore how physicians determined whether another RCT of SDD is ethical. Following a constant comparison approach, three investigators reviewed 54 purposively chosen transcripts from three international regions. We interpreted the data using thematic analysis. Results: We grouped participants’ responses into four inter-related themes: 1) cultural norms about evidence and practice within healthcare; 2) personal views about what evidence is current or applicable; 3) the interpersonal and relational nature of professional decision making locally; and 4) an a priori commitment to future trials. The analysis also identified several unresolved tensions regarding when a future RCT should be pursued. These tensions focused on a clash between potential benefits to current individual patients and potential future harms to patients more broadly. Conclusions: Our study suggests that ethical decision making about future RCTs in the field of SDD does not rely strongly on appeals to evidence, even when the quality of the evidence is reasonably high. Rather, “extra-evidential” reasons, including social, professional, and relational factors, seem to influence opinions regarding the ethics of future trials. Further work is required to see if these conclusions are applicable to other clinical topics and settings