Patients' attitudes towards, and information needs in relation to, nurse prescribing in rheumatology

Aims and objectives: To assess the level of confidence that rheumatology patients would have in nurse prescribing, the effects on likely adherence and particular concerns that these patients have. In addition, given that information provision has been cited as a potential benefit of nurse prescribing, the present study assessed the extent to which these patients would want an explanation for the selected medicine, as well as which types of information should be included in such an explanation. Background: Nurse prescribing has been successfully implemented in the UK in several healthcare settings. Existing research has not addressed the effects on patients' confidence and likely adherence, nor have patients' information needs been established. However, we know that inadequate medicines information provision by health professionals is one of the largest causes of patient dissatisfaction. Methods: Fifty-four patients taking disease-modifying drugs for inflammatory joint disease attending a specialist rheumatology clinic self-completed a written questionnaire. Results: Patients indicated a relatively high level of confidence in nurse prescribing and stated that they would be very likely to take the selected medication. The level of concern was relatively low and the majority of concerns raised did not relate to the nurse's status. Strong support was expressed for the nurse providing an explanation for medicine choice. Conclusion: This research provides support for the prescription of medicines by nurses working in the area of rheumatology, the importance of nurses providing a full explanation about the selected medicines they prescribe for these patients and some indication as to which categories of information should be included. Relevance to clinical practice: Rheumatology patients who have not yet experienced nurse prescribing are, in general, positive about nurses adopting this role. It is important that nurses provide appropriate information about the prescribed medicines, in a form that can be understood.

Systematic reviews showed insufficient evidence for clinical practice in 2004: What about in 2011? the next appeal for the evidence-based medicine age

Rationale and aim The aims of the Cochrane systematic reviews are to make readily available and up-to-date information for clinical practice, offering consistent evidence and straightforward recommendations. In 2004, we evaluated the conclusions from Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in terms of their recommendations for clinical practice and found that 47.83% of them had insufficient evidence for use in clinical practice. We proposed to reanalyze the reviews to evaluate whether this percentage had significantly decreased. Methods A cross-sectional study of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2011) was conducted. We randomly selected reviews across all 52 Cochrane Collaborative Review Groups. Results We analyzed 1128 completed systematic reviews. Of these, 45.30% concluded that the interventions studied were likely to be beneficial, of which only 2.04% recommended no further research. In total, 45.04% of the reviews reported that the evidence did not support either benefit or harm, of which 0.8% did not recommend further studies and 44.24% recommended additional studies; the latter has decreased from our previous study with a difference of 3.59%. Conclusion Only a small number of the Cochrane collaboration's systematic reviews support clinical interventions with no need for additional research. A larger number of high-quality randomized clinical trials are necessary to change the 'insufficient evidence' scenario for clinical practice illustrated by the Cochrane database. It is recommended that we should produce higher-quality primary studies in active collaboration and consultation with global scholars and societies so that this can represent a major component of methodological advance in this context. © 2012 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Hurricanes Frances and Jeanne in 2004: their impact in the Commonwealth of the Bahamas: preliminary version

Includes bibliography

Comparison of the socio-economic impacts of natural disasters on Caribbean societies in 2004

Includes bibliography

Association between length of stay in the U.S. and diabetes risk factors among Chinese Americans in Houston, Texas in 2004-2005

Studies have suggested that acculturation is related to diabetes prevalence and risk factors among immigrant groups in the United States (U.S.), however scant data are available to investigate this relationship among Asian Americans and Asian American subgroups. The objective of this cross-sectional study was to examine the association between length of stay in the U.S. and type 2 diabetes prevalence and its risk factors among Chinese Americans in Houston, Texas. Data were obtained from the 2004-2005 Asian-American Health Needs Assessment in Houston, Texas (N=409 Chinese Americans) for secondary analysis in this study. Diabetes prevalence and risk factors (overweight/obesity and access to medical care) were based on self-report. Descriptive statistics summarized demographic characteristics, diabetes prevalence, and reasons for not seeing a doctor. Logistic regression, using an incremental modeling approach, was used to measure the association between length of stay and diabetes prevalence and related risk factors, while adjusting for the potential confounding factors of age, gender, education level, and income level. Although the prevalence of type 2 diabetes was highest among those living in the U.S. for more than 20 years, there was no significant association between length of stay in the U.S. and diabetes prevalence among these Chinese Americans after adjustment for confounding factors. No association was found between length of stay in the U.S. and overweight/obese status among this population either, after adjusting for confounding factors, too. On the other hand, a longer length of stay was significantly associated with increased health insurance coverage in both unadjusted and adjusted models. The findings of this study suggest that length of stay in the U.S. alone may not be an indicator for diabetes risk among Chinese Americans. Future research should consider alternative models to measure acculturation (e.g., models that reflect acculturation as a multi-dimensional, not uni-dimensional process), which may more accurately depict its effect on diabetes prevalence and related risk factors.^