Biomedical subjects

Alex H S Harris

Publications and source records attributed to Alex H S Harris.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2002

The accuracy of abstracts in psychology journals.

This article provides an empirically supported reminder of the importance of accuracy in scientific communication. The authors identify common types of inaccuracies in research abstracts and offer suggestions to improve abstract-article agreement. Abstracts accompanying 13% of a random sample of 400 research articles published in 8 American Psychological Association journals during 1997 and 1998 contained data or claims inconsistent with or missing from the body of the article. Error rates ranged from 8% to 18%, although between-journal differences were not significant. Many errors (63%) were unlikely to cause substantive misinterpretations. Unfortunately, 37% of errors found could be seriously misleading with respect to the data or claims presented in the associated article. Although deficient abstracts may be less common in psychology journals than in major medical journals (R. M. Pitkin, M. A. Branagan, & L. F. Burmeister, 1999), there is still cause for concern and need for improvement.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

PubMed2002

Spirituality and health: what's the evidence and what's needed?

In this article, we familiarize readers with some recent empirical evidence about possible associations between religious and/or spiritual (RS) factors and health outcomes. In considering this evidence, we believe a healthy skepticism is in order One needs to remain open to the possibility that RS-related beliefs and behaviors may influence health, yet one needs empirical evidence based on well-controlled studies that support these claims and conclusions. We hope to introduce the dismissing critic to suggestive data that may create tempered doubt and to introduce the uncritical advocate to issues and concerns that will encourage greater modesty in the making of claims and drawing of conclusions. We comment on the following questions: Do specific RS factors influence health outcomes? What possible mechanisms might explain a relation, if one exists? Are there any implications for health professionals at this point in time? Recommendations concern the need to improve research designs and measurement strategies and to clarify conceptualizations of RSfactors. RSfactors appear to be associated with physical and overall health, but the relation appears far more complex and modest than some contend. Which specific RS factors enhance or endanger health and well-being remains unclear.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

Does writing affect asthma? A randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Nonpharmacologic treatments for asthma may act as useful adjuncts to pharmacotherapy but should be recommended to patients only after several well-controlled studies provide evidence of efficacy. Research demonstrating that written emotional expression can improve pulmonary function in patients with asthma consists of one impressive yet unreplicated study. Our main objective was to test and extend previous research finding that written emotional expression improves pulmonary function in patients with asthma compared with writing on neutral topics. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, controlled trial of outpatient asthmatics recruited from hospitals and the community. Of the 137 adult patients with asthma who were randomized, 117 began and 114 completed the study. Patients were randomly assigned to write for 20 minutes, once per week, for 3 weeks about stressful experiences (n = 41), positive experiences (n = 37), or neutral experiences (n = 36; control group). At baseline, postintervention, and 2-month follow up, patients were assessed by spirometry. RESULTS: The mean change from baseline to 2-month follow up in percentage of predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) was 4.2% in the stress-writing group, 1.3% in the positive-writing group, and 3.0% in the control group. In forced vital capacity (FVC), there was 3.1% improvement in the stress-writing group, 3.6% in the positive-writing group, and 2.4% in the control group. These changes were not statistically or clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The present study reduces confidence in the ability of written emotional expression to benefit the disease status of asthma patients.

Adolescent↗