Measurement of community beliefs about colorectal cancer

Few educational campaigns have focused on bowel cancer, though studies have indicated that members of the community need and want current information about relevant issues. In order to facilitate research in this area, reliable and valid measures of community attitudes are needed. Content validity of a survey instrument was obtained through use of a Delphi process with Directors of Education from the Australia Cancer Council and focus group discussions with informed members of the public. The subsequent survey of community perceptions about colorectal cancer included a broad range of content areas related to the risk of bowel cancer, preventing and coping with bowel cancer and beliefs about susceptibility and severity. The construct validity of these content areas was investigated by use of a factor analysis and confirmation of an association with related predictor variables. Two measures related to personal influence and anticipated coping responses showed favourable psychometric properties, including moderate to high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. A test of the concurrent validity of these measures requires further development of instruments related to colorectal cancer or adaptation of measures from other areas of health research. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Establishing a zone where technology innovation is supported

Learning technologies are now a ubiquitous force in the higher education sector however we continue to pursue more inventive ways to use them for teaching and learning. Many teaching academics that seek to be innovative do not have access to a supportive technology innovation zone. The aim of this study was to investigate the articulated staff development needs of academics involved in a faculty based technology innovation project and create the conditions that would cultivate innovation. The study sought to find out how academics perceived they might best be assisted through their technology innovation process so that participants’ needs were incorporated into planning. A questionnaire was used to elicit background information about the academics’ experience, skills and self diagnosed skill deficits in this context. Participants were also requested to provide information about how they thought they would best acquire the skills given their time and other resource constraints. A modified Delphi Technique was utilised to achieve some consensus on what academics required to support technology innovation. Complemented by an enabling and empowering team based approach, the academics were provided with an innovation zone to achieve significant goals for the project.

Comparison of ASAS improvement criteria for ankylosing spondylitis with clinically relevant improvement according to an expert panel

Objective: To investigate whether the recently developed (statistically derived) "ASsessment in Ankylosing Spondylitis Working Group" improvement criteria (ASAS-IC) for ankylosing spondylitis (AS) reflect clinically relevant improvement according to the opinion of an expert panel. Methods: The ASAS-IC consist of four domains: physical function, spinal pain, patient global assessment, and inflammation. Scores on these four domains of 55 patients with AS, who had participated in a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug efficacy trial, were presented to an international expert panel (consisting of patients with AS and members of the ASAS Working Group) in a three round Delphi exercise. The number of (non-) responders according to the ASAS-IC was compared with the final-consensus of the experts. The most important domains in the opinion of the experts were identified, and also selected with discriminant analysis. A number of provisional criteria sets that best represented the consensus of the experts were defined. Using other datasets, these clinically derived criteria sets as well as the statistically derived ASAS-IC were then tested for discriminative properties and for agreement with the end of trial efficacy by patient and doctor. Results: Forty experts completed the three Delphi rounds. The experts considered twice as many patients to be responders than the ASAS-IC (42 v 21). Overall agreement between experts and ASAS-IC was 62%. Spinal pain was considered the most important domain by most experts and was also selected as such by discriminant analysis. Provisional criteria sets with an agreement of greater than or equal to 80% compared with the consensus of the experts showed high placebo response rates (27-42%), in contrast with the ASAS-IC with a predefined placebo response rate of 25%. All criteria sets and the ASAS-IC discriminated well between active and placebo treatment (chi(2) = 36-45; p < 0.001). Compared with the end of trial efficacy assessment, the provisional criteria sets showed an agreement of 71-82%, sensitivity of 67-83%, and specificity of 81-88%. The ASAS-IC showed an agreement of 70%, sensitivity of 62%, and specificity of 89%. Conclusion: The ASAS-IC are strict in defining response, are highly specific, and consequently show lower sensitivity than the clinically derived criteria sets. However, those patients who are considered as responders by applying the ASAS-IC are acknowledged as such by the expert panel as well as by. patients' and doctors' judgments, and are therefore likely to be true responders.