PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

David A Asch

Publications and source records attributed to David A Asch.

45 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed2002

Paying hypertension research subjects.

CONTEXT: Cash payments are often used to compensate subjects who participate in research. However, ethicists have argued that these payments might constitute an undue inducement. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether potential subjects agree with theoretical arguments that a payment could be an undue inducement. DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Survey of 350 prospective jurors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Belief that a 500 dollar payment for research participation would impair their own, and others' ability to think carefully about the risks and benefits of a clinical trial. RESULTS: Two hundred sixty-one jurors (74.6%) believed that a 500 dollar payment would impair subjects' ability to think carefully about the risks and benefits of research. Ninety-six of 120 (80%) expressed this concern about subjects with a low income (<20,000 dollars) compared to 92/117 (79%) of those with a middle income (20,000 dollars to 50,000 dollars), and 73/113 (65%) with a high income (>50,000 dollars). In contrast, only 69 (19.7%) of jurors believed that a 500 dollar payment would influence them. Jurors who believed that this payment would influence them reported lower incomes and less education. CONCLUSION: Members of the general public share ethical concerns about the influence of payments for research, although they believe that these concerns are more applicable to others than to themselves.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

Randomized trial of 5 dollars versus 10 dollars monetary incentives, envelope size, and candy to increase physician response rates to mailed questionnaires.

BACKGROUND: The validity of the results of mailed surveys is often threatened by nonresponse bias, which is made more likely when response rates are low. However, the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of several strategies to increase response rates are uncertain. OBJECTIVES: To assess three strategies to increase response rates to mailed physician surveys: including a 10 dollars versus a 5 dollars cash incentive in the initial mailing, including a mint candy or not, and using a large versus small outgoing envelope. RESEARCH DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: Using a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, a randomized trial of these strategies was conducted in a survey of 1200 physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association's Master File. RESULTS: Including a 10 dollars incentive yielded a significantly higher response rate (60.5% vs. 52.8%) (P = 0.009). The mailing and incentive costs per completed response were 12.24 dollars (95% CI, 11.75 dollars, 13.64 dollars) in the 5 dollars group and 18.48 dollars (95% CI, 17.77 dollars, 20.69 dollars) in the 10 dollars group. Each additional response obtained in the 10 dollars group came at an incremental cost of 61.26 dollars (95% CI, 36.98 dollars, 200.80 dollars). Neither inclusion of a mint nor use of a large envelope influenced the response rate. CONCLUSIONS: Investigators may increase response rates by including more money in the initial questionnaire packet, but there may be diminishing returns to serial increments in incentives greater than 5 dollars. Including smaller incentives in more questionnaires may maximize total responses.

Candy↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Early adoption of BRCA1/2 testing: who and why.

PURPOSE: Relatively little is known about the characteristics of women who chose to undergo BRCA1/2 testing soon after testing became available, including how they became aware of and chose to pursue testing. Diffusion of innovation theory states that acceptance of an innovation is a function of the potential adopter's value for innovation and perceptions of the compatibility, complexity, and relative advantage of the innovation. These factors may contribute to early uptake of BRCA1/2 testing. The purpose of this study was to describe the characteristics of women who were "early adopters" of clinical BRCA1/2 testing and to determine whether diffusion theory explains variation in uptake of testing after participation in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of participants in genetic counseling for BRCA1/2 testing was conducted at a clinical program in a large academic health system. Measures included components of diffusion of innovation theory (participant's value for innovation, i.e., "innovativeness," and perceptions of the compatibility, complexity, and relative advantage of BRCA1/2 testing), characteristics of how the participant became aware of and sought BRCA1/2 testing, and decisions about testing after counseling. RESULTS: From the 229 respondents, 71 (31%) had undergone testing at the time of the survey. Fifty-seven women (25%) had sought BRCA1/2 testing because a family member had breast or ovarian cancer and 37 (16%) because they had breast or ovarian cancer. Only 15 women (7%) reported seeking testing because of a physician's recommendation. After multivariate adjustment, higher innovativeness and higher ratings of the compatibility of BRCA1/2 testing were associated with undergoing testing after counseling [relative risk (RR) 1.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-2.6]. However, ratings of the complexity or relative advantage of testing were not associated with testing decisions. Higher innovativeness was associated with being the first in the family to undergo testing (RR 4.85, 95% CI 1.6-14.9), becoming aware of BRCA1/2 testing through the media (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.0-2.4), and being aware of BRCA1/2 testing prior to counseling (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.1-1.4). CONCLUSIONS: The uptake of BRCA1/2 testing among women undergoing genetic counseling was associated with innovative characteristics of the participant and the perceived compatibility of the test with existing values and needs, but not with the complexity or relative advantage of the test. Most "early adopters" had heard of BRCA1/2 testing from a source other than their physician and had sought testing because of a personal or family member's cancer diagnosis. These findings can inform predictions surrounding the introduction of future genetic susceptibility tests and strategies for guiding the further diffusion of BRCA1/2 testing.

Decision Making↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Antibiotic prescribing decisions of generalists and infectious disease specialists: thresholds for adopting new drug therapies.

The objective of this study was to examine whether physicians are willing to continue to use older antibiotics in the face of drug resistance in order to preserve newer antibiotics forfuture use. The study was a national sample of 398 generalist physicians and 429 infectious disease (ID) specialists. Clinical vignettes prompted respondents to select the level of resistance to a hypothetical older antibiotic at which they would prefer a newer antibiotic without any current resistance in the treatment of a patient with pneumococcalpneumonia. Vignettes varied in the site of care of the patient as a proxyfor variation in disease severity. Respondents significantly reduced their threshold for switching to a newer antibiotic as disease severityincreased. Generalists were more responsive to disease severity than LD specialists. Thus, the adoption of recommendations to limit overuse of newer antibiotics may be variable across clinical settings and providers, reducing the impact of these recommendations on emerging resistance.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs in clinical decisions.

PURPOSE: To explore public attitudes toward the incorporation of cost-effectiveness analysis into clinical decisions. METHODS: The authors presented 781 jurors with a survey describing 1 of 6 clinical encounters in which a physician has to choose between cancer screening tests. They provided cost-effectiveness data for all tests, and in each scenario, the most effective test was more expensive. They instructed respondents to imagine that he or she was the physician in the scenario and asked them to choose which test to recommend and then explain their choice in an open-ended manner. The authors then qualitatively analyzed the responses by identifying themes and developed a coding scheme. Two authors separately coded the statements with high overall agreement (kappa = 0.76). Categories were not mutually exclusive. RESULTS: Overall, 410 respondents (55%) chose the most expensive option, and 332 respondents (45%) choose a less expensive option. Explanatory comments were given by 82% respondents. Respondents who chose the most expensive test focused on the increased benefit (without directly acknowledging the additional cost) (39%), a general belief that life is more important than money (22%), the significance of cancer risk for the patient in the scenario (20%), the belief that the benefit of the test was worth the additional cost (8%), and personal anecdotes/preferences (6%). Of the respondents who chose the less expensive test, 40% indicated that they did not believe that the patient in the scenario was at significant risk for cancer, 13% indicated that they thought the less expensive test was adequate or not meaningfully different from the more expensive test, 12% thought the cost of the test was not worth the additional benefit, 9% indicated that the test was too expensive (without mention of additional benefit), and 7% responded that resources were limited. CONCLUSIONS: Public response to cost-quality tradeoffs is mixed. Although some respondents justified their decision based on the cost-effectiveness information provided, many focused instead on specific features of the scenario or on general beliefs about whether cost should be incorporated into clinical decisions.

Adult↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Effect of assessment method on the discrepancy between judgments of health disorders people have and do not have: a web study.

Three experiments on the World Wide Web asked subjects to rate the severity of common health disorders such as acne or arthritis. People who had a disorder ("Haves") tended to rate it as less severe than people who did not have it ("Not-haves"). Two explanations of this Have versus Not-have discrepancy were rejected. By one account, people change their reference point when they rate a disorder that they have. More precise reference points would, on this account, reduce the discrepancy, but, if anything, the discrepancy was larger. By another account, people who do not have the disorder focus on attributes that are most affected by it, and the discrepancy should decrease when people make ratings on several attributes. Again, if anything, the discrepancy increased when ratings were on separate attributes (combined by a weighted average). The discrepancy varied in size and direction across disorders. Subjects also thought that they would be less affected than others.

Adaptation, Psychological↗
PubMedDate not supplied

The validity of person tradeoff measurements: randomized trial of computer elicitation versus face-to-face interview.

Can person tradeoff (PTO) value judgments be elicited by a computer, or is a face-to-face interview needed? The authors randomly assigned 95 subjects to interview or computer methods for the PTO, a valuation measure that is often difficult for subjects. They measured relative values of foot numbness, leg paralysis, and quadriplegia (all 3 pairs) at 2 reference group sizes (10 or 100). Relative values did not differ between computer and interview. Overall, 21% of responses were equality responses, 13% were high extreme values, and 5% violated ordinal criteria. The groups did not differ in these measures. The authors also assessed consistency across reference group size (10 v. 100). Although relative values were significantly lower for 100 than for 10, mode did not influence the size of this effect. Subjects made, on average, equally consistent judgments for the 3 comparisons. A computerized PTO elicitation protocol produced results of similar quality to that of a face-to-face interview.

Demography↗