Patient perceptions of balance in prostate cancer screening decision aids

Purpose. Recent reports reveals that studies of decision aids reported concern about the balance and accuracy of information included in decision aids. This study explores measures of balance in patient decision aids through a review of prostate cancer screening decision aid studies and analysis of patients’ rating of a patient decision aid for prostate cancer screening. ^ Methods. A data-abstraction form was used to collect the key characteristics, pertaining to balance, of studies included in the review. The key characteristics included (1) sample characteristics (age, race, family history of prostate cancer, and education), (2) description of the decision aid and how it was implemented, and (3) if a measure of balance was used for process evaluation and the rating. A summary table was used to report the findings. Deidentified data was received from a decision aid control trial and logistic regression analysis was used to test the association between the dependent variable (balance) and the independent variables (age, family history, race, screening preference at baseline, education, health insurance status). ^ Conclusion. Three sociodemographic variables remained significant in the final regression model: African American race, education and PSA history. Further research is needed to determine if these variables can predict a man’s perception of balance in prostate cancer screening decision aids. If a patient’s perceptions of balance can be predicted based on specific characteristics, patient report may not be the most objective method of evaluating the acceptability of a decision.^

Body image rating scales to assess obesity

Obesity prevalence in the U.S. has increased during the last three decades with major impact on public health. Screening for obesity in a population with unknown weight status can be time- and resource-consuming, but the information is valuable for prioritizing and allocating scarce resources. The challenge remains to properly assess obesity with the available methods. Body Image Rating Scales (BIRS) have initially been developed to assess body image disturbances, but also seem useful as an alternative method in assessing obesity prevalence. Several different BIRS exists. In this project I reviewed the literature that exists regarding the use of BIRS, and its advantages and limitations for the assessment of obesity status with regards to BMI. The result yielded nine publications that examined eight different scales and their correlation with BMI, ranging from r=.59 for self-reported BMI to r=.94 for measured BMI. One concern is the lack of standardization of this method to assess obesity, given the range of different scales. While many methods for obesity assessment are available, the simplicity, ease of use and cost-effectiveness of BIRS make it very appealing. BIRS remain a potentially attractive option to assess the weight status of a large population with minimal requirements in assets and time, especially in situations where measuring instruments are not available, or when height or weight could not be recalled.^