Development and testing of a procedure for systematically assigning gestational age for clinical and research use

A graphing method was developed and tested to estimate gestational ages pre-and postnatally in a consistent manner for epidemiological research and clinical purposes on feti/infants of women with few consistent prenatal estimators of gestational age. Each patient's available data was plotted on a single page graph to give a comprehensive overview of that patient. A hierarchical classification of gestational age determination was then applied in a systematic manner, and reasonable gestational age estimates were produced. The method was tested for validity and reliability on 50 women who had known dates for their last menstrual period or dates of conception, and multiple ultrasound examinations and other gestational age estimating measures. The feasibility of the procedure was then tested on 1223 low income women with few gestational age estimators. The graphing method proved to have high inter- and intrarater reliability. It was quick, easy to use, inexpensive, and did not require special equipment. The graphing method estimate of gestational age for each infant was tested against the last menstrual period gestational age estimate using paired t-Tests, F tests and the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of similar populations, producing a 98 percent probability or better that the means and data populations were the same. Less than 5 percent of the infants' gestational ages were misclassified using the graphing method, much lower than the amount of misclassification produced by ultrasound or neonatal examination estimates. ^

Affect and cognition measures in preference-based decisions: Validity testing of the Ottawa Decisional Conflict Scale and a decision-specific anxiety measure with men eligible for prostate cancer screening

Background. At present, prostate cancer screening (PCS) guidelines require a discussion of risks, benefits, alternatives, and personal values, making decision aids an important tool to help convey information and to help clarify values. Objective: The overall goal of this study is to provide evidence of the reliability and validity of a PCS anxiety measure and the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS). Methods. Using data from a randomized, controlled PCS decision aid trial that measured PCS anxiety at baseline and DCS at baseline (T0) and at two-weeks (T2), four psychometric properties were assessed: (1) internal consistency reliability, indicated by factor analysis intraclass correlations and Cronbach's α; (2) construct validity, indicated by patterns of Pearson correlations among subscales; (3) discriminant validity, indicated by the measure's ability to discriminate between undecided men and those with a definite screening intention; and (4) factor validity and invariance using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA). Results. The PCS anxiety measure had adequate internal consistency reliability and good construct and discriminant validity. CFAs indicated that the 3-factor model did not have adequate fit. CFAs for a general PCS anxiety measure and a PSA anxiety measure indicated adequate fit. The general PCS anxiety measure was invariant across clinics. The DCS had adequate internal consistency reliability except for the support subscale and had adequate discriminate validity. Good construct validity was found at the private clinic, but was only found for the feeling informed subscale at the public clinic. The traditional DCS did not have adequate fit at T0 or at T2. The alternative DCS had adequate fit at T0 but was not identified at T2. Factor loadings indicated that two subscales, feeling informed and feeling clear about values, were not distinct factors. Conclusions. Our general PCS anxiety measure can be used in PCS decision aid studies. The alternative DCS may be appropriate for men eligible for PCS. Implications: More emphasis needs to be placed on the development of PCS anxiety items relating to testing procedures. We recommend that the two DCS versions be validated in other samples of men eligible for PCS and in other health care decisions that involve uncertainty. ^

Attitudes of Parents at risk of inheriting Li-Fraumeni Syndrome towards predictive genetic testing in their minor-aged children.

Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) is a hereditary cancer syndrome which predisposes individuals to cancer beginning in childhood. These risks are spread across a lifetime, from early childhood to adulthood. Mutations in the p53 tumor suppressor gene are known to cause the majority of cases of LFS. The risk for early onset cancer in individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is high. Studies have shown that individuals with LFS have a 90% lifetime cancer risk. Children under 18 have up to a 15% chance of cancer development. Effectiveness of cancer screening and management in individuals with Li-Fraumeni Syndrome is unclear. Screening for LFS-associated cancers has not been shown to reduce mortality. Due to the lack of effective screening techniques for childhood cancers, institutions vary with regard to their policies on testing children for LFS. There are currently no national guidelines regarding predictive testing of children who are at risk of inheriting LFS. No studies have looked at parental attitudes towards predictive p53 genetic testing in their children. This was a cross-sectional pilot study aimed at describing these attitudes. We identified individuals whose children were at risk for inheriting p53 genetic mutations. These individuals were provided with surveys which included validated measures addressing attitudes and beliefs towards genetic testing. The questionnaire included qualitative and quantitative measures. Six individuals completed and returned the questionnaire with a response rate of 28.57%. In general, respondents agreed that parents should have the opportunity to obtain p53 genetic testing for their child. Parents vary in regard to their attitudes towards who should be involved in the decision making process and at what time and under what considerations testing should occur. Testing motivations cited most important by respondents included family history, planning for the future and health management. Concern for insurance genetic discrimination was cited as the most important “con” to genetic testing. Although limited by a poor response rate, this study can give health care practitioners insight into testing attitudes and beliefs of families considering pediatric genetic testing.