Measuring the quality of life of patients with diabetes: Validating the tool and determining the effects on quality of life

There are several tools for measuring quality of life (QoL) and specifically, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for persons with diabetes. A commonly-used measure, the Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) Survey, developed for the Diabetes Control and Complications Trial (DCCT), has been used in several experimental settings, and its reliability and validity are well-established. However, it is considered too long to be of practical use in clinical settings. Because of this, a shortened version of the tool was used recently in the Community Diabetes Education (CoDE) Project in Dallas, Texas, a clinic-based patient education program that uses a specially-trained community healthcare worker to provide patient education. However, the modified scale has never been tested for reliability and validity. Thus, one goal of this thesis was to measure these psychometric properties of the scale. After establishing the reliability and validity, the results of the scale were analyzed to determine the effects of the intervention on the subjects’ quality of life. The changes in QoL scales were compared with changes in physiologic measures which are most closely allied with diabetes, including blood glucose levels, weight/BMI, co-morbidities and health beliefs in order to determine if there is a relationship between such measures and quality of life. The results of the reliability and validity testing were not conclusive. Measures of reliability and criterion validity were established, but these contrasted with poor measures of repeatability and content validity. The effect of the intervention on quality of life, however, was more significant, particularly regarding the impact of diabetes. Those who received the counseling had significantly higher scores on the Impact scale than those who did not, and the former group had much greater improvement in scores over the twelve month period than the latter group. ^

A qualitative and quantitative assessment of cancer patients' perceptions of barriers to treatment

This study examined barriers that cancer patients experience in obtaining treatment. The principal aim of the study was to conduct a comprehensive quantitative and qualitative assessment of barriers to cancer treatment for Texas cancer patients. The three specific aims of the study were to: (1) conduct a review and critique of published and unpublished research on barriers to cancer treatment; (2) conduct focus groups for the qualitative assessment of cancer patients' perceived barriers to cancer treatment; and (3) survey a representative sample of cancer patients regarding perceived barriers to treatment. The study was guided by the Aday and Andersen access framework of predisposing, enabling, and need determinants of care-seeking.^ To address the first specific aim, a total of 732 abstracts were examined, from which 154 articles were selected for review. Of these 154 articles, 57 that related directly to research on barriers to cancer treatment were chosen for subsequent analysis. Criteria were applied to each article to evaluate the strength of the study design, sampling and measurement procedures. The major barriers that were consistently documented to influence whether or not cancer patients sought or continued required treatment included problems with communication between the patient and provider, lack of information on side effects, the cost of treatment and associated difficulties in obtaining and maintaining insurance coverage, and the absence of formal and informal networks of social support. Access barriers were generally greater for older, minority women, and patients of lower socioeconomic status.^ To address the second specific aim, a total of eight focus groups (n = 44) were conducted across the State of Texas with cancer patients identified by the Texas Community Oncology Network, American Cancer Society, and community health centers. One important finding was that cost is the greatest hurdle that patients face. Another finding was that with the health care/insurance crisis, an increasing number of physicians are working with their patients to develop individually-tailored payment plans. For people in rural areas, travel to treatment sites is a major barrier due to the travel costs as well as work time forfeited by patients and their family members. A third major finding was the patients' family and church play important roles in providing social and emotional support for cancer patients.^ To address the third aim, a total of 910 cancer patients were surveyed during October and November, 1993. Approximately 65% of the cancer patients responded to the survey. The findings showed that the major barriers to treatment included costs of medications and diagnostic tests, transportation, lack of social support, problems understanding the written information regarding their disease as well as losing coverage or having higher premiums or copayments once they were diagnosed (particularly among blacks).^ Significant differences in reported barriers were found between racial groups. The minority respondents (i.e., blacks and Hispanics) tended to experience more barriers to treatment compared to the white respondents. More specifically, Hispanics were more likely to report transportation as a barrier to treatment than both white and blacks. Future research is needed to better understand the problems that minority cancer patients experience in receiving treatment. (Abstract shortened by UMI.) ^

InGen of creative production in the health sciences: A workbook companion to innovation generation

InGen of Creative Production in the Health Sciences is a compendium of innovative thinking exercises for individuals and groups, derived from an eclectic array of practical guides for professionals in a variety of fields. Segmented into five subcategories across twenty two chapters, the effort seeks to make techniques for increasing innovative problem solving more accessible to a diverse audience of problem solvers. The chapters of Roberta Ness. Innovation Generation (2012, Oxford University Press) provide the themes for each of the chapters in the workbook. It is intended that those who read Ness. Innovation Generation will benefit from practicing the constructs of innovative thinking exemplified in each exercise.^ The methods used to gather data, in this case mostly innovative thinking exercises, included literature reviews of existing innovative thinking tools, classroom materials, and theory-driven exploration of exercises to fill in gaps in extant materials. Specifically, Google.com and Amazon.com searches were conducted using the terms “innovation,” “innovative,” “innovator,” “creative,” “novelty,” “thinking,” together with some variance of “book,” “workbook,” and “exercise.” The results were sorted thematically to show correspondence with the themes in Ness (2012) and compared to suggested best practices of 50 years of scientific research on innovative thinking. Where themes were suggested by Ness (2012) and peer-reviewed research on innovation but unavailable in published innovation thinking workbooks, new exercises were developed. The five type subcategories into which these results were organized are: individual direct, individual indirect, group direct, group indirect and probing question. It is anticipated that the five type subcategories and spectrum of themes will equip problem solvers in a variety of capacities.^