Analysis of educational materials and destruction/opt-out initiatives for storage and use of residual newborn screening samples.

In recent years, the storage and use of residual newborn screening (NBS) samples has gained attention. To inform ongoing policy discussions, this article provides an update of previous work on new policies, educational materials, and parental options regarding the storage and use of residual NBS samples. A review of state NBS Web sites was conducted for information related to the storage and use of residual NBS samples in January 2010. In addition, a review of current statutes and bills introduced between 2005 and 2009 regarding storage and/or use of residual NBS samples was conducted. Fourteen states currently provide information about the storage and/or use of residual NBS samples. Nine states provide parents the option to request destruction of the residual NBS sample after the required storage period or the option to exclude the sample for research uses. In the coming years, it is anticipated that more states will consider policies to address parental concerns about the storage and use of residual NBS samples. Development of new policies regarding storage and use of residual NBS samples will require careful consideration of impact on NBS programs, parent and provider educational materials, and respect for parents among other issues.

Selecting renal replacement therapies: what do African American and non-African American patients and their families think others should know? A mixed methods study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the types of information African American and non-African American patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and their families need to inform renal replacement therapy (RRT) decisions. METHODS: In 20 structured group interviews, we elicited views of African American and non-African American patients with CKD and their families about factors that should be addressed in educational materials informing patients' RRT selection decisions. We asked participants to select factors from a list and obtained their open-ended feedback. RESULTS: Ten groups of patients (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 68 individuals) and ten groups of family members (5 African American, 5 non-African American; total 62 individuals) participated. Patients and families had a range (none to extensive) of experiences with various RRTs. Patients identified morbidity or mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms as important factors to address. Family members identified similar factors but also cited the effects of RRT decisions on patients' psychological well-being and finances. Views of African American and non-African American participants were largely similar. CONCLUSIONS: Educational resources addressing the influence of RRT selection on patients' morbidity and mortality, autonomy, treatment delivery, and symptoms could help patients and their families select RRT options closely aligned with their values. Including information about the influence of RRT selection on patients' personal relationships and finances could enhance resources' cultural relevance for African Americans.

Optimizing the Correction of Memory Errors

People are always at risk of making errors when they attempt to retrieve information from memory. An important question is how to create the optimal learning conditions so that, over time, the correct information is learned and the number of mistakes declines. Feedback is a powerful tool, both for reinforcing new learning and correcting memory errors. In 5 experiments, I sought to understand the best procedures for administering feedback during learning. First, I evaluated the popular recommendation that feedback is most effective when given immediately, and I showed that this recommendation does not always hold when correcting errors made with educational materials in the classroom. Second, I asked whether immediate feedback is more effective in a particular case—when correcting false memories, or strongly-held errors that may be difficult to notice even when the learner is confronted with the feedback message. Third, I examined whether varying levels of learner motivation might help to explain cross-experimental variability in feedback timing effects: Are unmotivated learners less likely to benefit from corrective feedback, especially when it is administered at a delay? Overall, the results revealed that there is no best “one-size-fits-all” recommendation for administering feedback; the optimal procedure depends on various characteristics of learners and their errors. As a package, the data are consistent with the spacing hypothesis of feedback timing, although this theoretical account does not successfully explain all of the data in the larger literature.