57 resultados para Expert Statements
em QUB Research Portal - Research Directory and Institutional Repository for Queen's University Belfast
Resumo:
It is not uncommon for patients with advanced incurable disease to express a desire to hasten their death. Health professionals often have difficulty responding to such statements, and find it challenging to ascertain why these statements are made. Health professionals may struggle to determine whether a 'desire to die' statement (DTDS) is about a request for hastened death, a sign of psychosocial distress, or merely a passing comment that is not intended to be heard literally as a death wish. Given the lack of guidelines to assist health professionals with this issue, we have prepared multidisciplinary recommendations for responding to a DTDS, underpinned by key principles of therapeutic communication and a systematic review of empirical literature. Where the relevant literature was lacking, the recommendations were drafted by the authors (clinicians and/ or academics from the following disciplines: nursing, medicine, psychiatry, psychology, sociology, aged care and theology), based on their expert opinion. Multiple drafts of the recommendations were circulated to the authors for refinement until consensus was reached. Strategies for advancing the evidence base for the maturation of guidelines in this area are offered.
Resumo:
BACKGROUND: This series of guidance documents on cough, which will be published over time, is a hybrid of two processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines and (2) trustworthy consensus statements based on a robust and transparent process.
METHODS: The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee selected a nonconflicted Panel Chair and jointly assembled an international panel of experts in each clinical area with few, if any, conflicts of interest. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-based key questions and parameters of eligibility were developed for each clinical topic to inform the comprehensive literature search. Existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies were assessed for relevance and quality. Data elements were extracted into evidence tables and synthesized to provide summary statistics. These, in turn, are presented to support the evidence-based graded recommendations. A highly structured consensus-based Delphi approach was used to provide expert advice on all guidance statements. Transparency of process was documented.
RESULTS: Evidence-based guideline recommendations and consensus-based suggestions were carefully crafted to provide direction to health-care providers and investigators who treat and/or study patients with cough. Manuscripts and tables summarize the evidence in each clinical area supporting the recommendations and suggestions.
CONCLUSIONS: The resulting guidance statements are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process. Unless otherwise stated, the recommendations and suggestions meet the guidelines for trustworthiness developed by the Institute of Medicine and can be applied with confidence by physicians, nurses, other health-care providers, investigators, and patients.
Resumo:
Our objective was to study whether “compensatory” models provide better descriptions of clinical judgment than fast and frugal models, according to expertise and experience. Fifty practitioners appraised 60 vignettes describing a child with an exacerbation of asthma and rated their propensities to admit the child. Linear logistic (LL) models of their judgments were compared with a matching heuristic (MH) model that searched available cues in order of importance for a critical value indicating an admission decision. There was a small difference between the 2 models in the proportion of patients allocated correctly (admit or not-admit decisions), 91.2% and 87.8%, respectively. The proportion allocated correctly by the LL model was lower for consultants than juniors, whereas the MH model performed equally well for both. In this vignette study, neither model provided any better description of judgments made by consultants or by pediatricians compared to other grades and specialties.
Resumo:
The paper has three main aims. First, to trace – through the pages of the Journal – the changing ways in which lay understandings of health and illness have been represented during the 1979-2002 period. Second, to say something about the limits of lay knowledge (and particularly lay expertise) in matters of health and medicine. Third, to call for a re-assessment of what lay people can offer to a democratised and customer sensitive system of health care and to attempt to draw a boundary around the domain of expertise. In following through on those aims, the author calls upon data derived from three current projects. These latter concern the diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease in people with Down’s syndrome; the development of an outcome measure for people who have suffered a traumatic brain injury; and a study of why older people might reject annual influenza vaccinations. Key words: Lay health beliefs, lay expertise, Alzheimer’s, Traumatic Brain Injury, Vaccinations
Resumo:
Although many studies have looked at the perceptual-cognitive strategies used to make anticipatory judgments in sport, few have examined the informational invariants that our visual system may be attuned to. Using immersive interactive virtual reality to simulate the aerodynamics of the trajectory of a ball with and without sidespin, the present study examined the ability of expert and novice soccer players to make judgments about the ball's future arrival position. An analysis of their judgment responses showed how participants were strongly influenced by the ball's trajectory. The changes in trajectory caused by sidespin led to erroneous predictions about the ball's future arrival position. An analysis of potential informational variables that could explain these results points to the use of a first-order compound variable combining optical expansion and optical displacement.
Resumo:
The complexity of sustainable development means that it is often difficult to evaluate and communicate the concept effectively. One standard method to reduce complexity and improve Communication, while maintaining scientific objectivity, is to use selected indicators. The aim of this paper is to describe and evaluate a process Of public participation in the selection of sustainable development indicators that utilised the Q-method for discourse analysis. The Q-method was Utilised to combine public opinion with technical expertise to create a list of technically robust indicators that would be relevant to the public, The method comprises statement collection, statement analysis, Q-sorts and Q-sort analysis. The results of the Q-method generated a list of statements for which a preliminary list of indicators was then developed by a team of experts from the fields of environmental science, sustainable development and Psychology. Subsequently members of the public evaluated the preliminary list of indicators, to select a final list of indicators that were both technically sound and incorporated the views of the public. The Utilisation of the Q-method in this process was evaluated using previously published criteria. The application of the Q-method in this context needs to be considered not only by the quality of the indicators developed, but also from the perspective of the benefit of the process to the participants. it was concluded that the Q-method provided an effective framework for public participation in the selection of indicators as it allowed the public to discuss Sustainable development in familiar language and in the context of their daily lives. By combining this information with expert input, a list of technically robust indicators that resonate with the public was developed. The results demonstrated that many citizens are not aware Of Sustainable development, and if it is to be successfully communicated to them, then indicators and policy need to be couched in terms familiar and relevant to citizen and communities. (C) 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.