PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Stacey Sheridan

Publications and source records attributed to Stacey Sheridan.

6 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Interventions to improve health outcomes for patients with low literacy. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of interventions designed to improve health outcomes for persons with low literacy skills. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILLR), PsycInfo, and Ageline from 1980 to 2003. STUDY SELECTION: We included controlled and uncontrolled trials that measured literacy and examined the effect of interventions for people with low literacy on health outcomes, including health knowledge, health behaviors, use of health care resources, intermediate markers of disease status, and measures of morbidity or mortality. Two abstractors reviewed each study for inclusion. Disagreements were resolved by consensus among the research team. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from each article into an evidence table; the second reviewer checked each entry. Disagreements about information in evidence tables were resolved by team consensus. Both data extractors independently completed an 11-item quality scale for each article; scores were averaged to give a final measure of article quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We identified 20 articles examining interventions designed to improve health among people with low literacy. The most common outcome studied was health knowledge; fewer studies examined health behaviors, intermediate markers, or measures of disease prevalence or severity. The effectiveness of interventions appeared mixed. Limitations in research quality and heterogeneity in outcome measures make drawing firm conclusions about effective strategies difficult. Only 5 articles examined the interaction between literacy level and the effect of the intervention; they also found mixed results. CONCLUSIONS: Several interventions have been developed to improve health for people with low literacy. Limitations in study design, interventions tested, and outcomes assessed make drawing conclusions about effectiveness difficult. Further research is required to understand better the types of interventions that are most effective and efficient for overcoming literacy-related barriers to good health.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

Prostate and colon cancer screening messages in popular magazines.

OBJECTIVES: To 1) compare the number of articles published about prostate, colon, and breast cancer in popular magazines during the past 2 decades, and 2) evaluate the content of in-depth prostate and colon cancer screening articles identified from 1996 to 2001. DESIGN: We used a searchable database to identify the number of prostate, colon, and breast cancer articles published in three magazines with the highest circulation from six categories. In addition, we performed a systematic review on the in-depth (> or = 2 pages) articles on prostate and colon cancer screening that appeared from 1996 through 2001. RESULTS: Although the number of magazine articles on prostate and colon cancer published in the 1990s increased compared to the 1980s, the number of articles is approximately one third of breast cancer articles. There were 36 in-depth articles from 1996 to 2001 in which prostate or colon cancer screening were mentioned. Over 90% of the articles recommended screening. However, of those articles, only 76% (25/33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 58% to 89%) cited screening guidelines. The benefits of screening were mentioned in 89% (32/36; 95% CI, 74% to 97%) but the harms were only found in 58% (21/36; 95% CI, 41% to 75%). Only 28% (10/36; 95% CI, 14% to 45%) of the articles provided all the necessary information needed for the reader to make an informed decision. CONCLUSIONS: In-depth articles about prostate and colon cancer in popular magazines do not appear as frequently as articles about breast cancer. The available articles on prostate and colon cancer screening often do not provide the information necessary for the reader to make an informed decision about screening.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2004

Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review the relationship between literacy and health outcomes. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health (CINAHL), Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC), Public Affairs Information Service (PAIS), Industrial and Labor Relations Review (ILLR), PsychInfo, and Ageline from 1980 to 2003. STUDY SELECTION: We included observational studies that reported original data, measured literacy with any valid instrument, and measured one or more health outcomes. Two abstractors reviewed each study for inclusion and resolved disagreements by discussion. DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from each article into an evidence table; the second reviewer checked each entry. The whole study team reconciled disagreements about information in evidence tables. Both data extractors independently completed an 11-item quality scale for each article; scores were averaged to give a final measure of article quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We reviewed 3,015 titles and abstracts and pulled 684 articles for full review; 73 articles met inclusion criteria and, of those, 44 addressed the questions of this report. Patients with low literacy had poorer health outcomes, including knowledge, intermediate disease markers, measures of morbidity, general health status, and use of health resources. Patients with low literacy were generally 1.5 to 3 times more likely to experience a given poor outcome. The average quality of the articles was fair to good. Most studies were cross-sectional in design; many failed to address adequately confounding and the use of multiple comparisons. CONCLUSIONS: Low literacy is associated with several adverse health outcomes. Future research, using more rigorous methods, will better define these relationships and guide developers of new interventions.

Educational Status↗
PubMed2003

Screening for high blood pressure: a review of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

CONTEXT: In 1996, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended screening adults for hypertension. Since that time, the published literature on hypertension has expanded rapidly, necessitating a new examination of the evidence supporting screening. OBJECTIVE: Update the 1996 evidence review on screening for hypertension. DATA SOURCES: The 1996 Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, recent systematic reviews, and focused searches of MEDLINE were used to identify new evidence relevant to detecting and treating hypertension. STUDY SELECTION: When a good quality, recent systematic review was available, it was used to summarize previous research; MEDLINE was searched only for more recent articles. Two authors reviewed abstracts (and full texts, if necessary) of potentially relevant articles to determine if they should be included. DATA EXTRACTION: One author extracted data from included studies into evidence tables. DATA SYNTHESIS: Hypertension can be effectively detected through office measurement of blood pressure. Treatment of elevated blood pressure in adults can reduce cardiovascular events. The magnitude of risk reduction depends on the degree of hypertension and the presence of other cardiovascular risk factors. Available studies have found no important adverse effects on psychological well-being and mixed effects on the absenteeism rates of adults who are screened and labeled as being hypertensive. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial indirect evidence supports the effectiveness of screening adults to detect hypertension and treating them to reduce cardiovascular disease.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Framingham-based tools to calculate the global risk of coronary heart disease: a systematic review of tools for clinicians.

PURPOSE: To examine the features of available Framingham-based risk calculation tools and review their accuracy and feasibility in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: medline, 1966-April 2003, and the google search engine on the Internet. TOOL AND STUDY SELECTION: We included risk calculation tools that used the Framingham risk equations to generate a global coronary heart disease (CHD) risk. To determine tool accuracy, we reviewed all articles that compared the performance of various Framingham-based risk tools to that of the continuous Framingham risk equations. To determine the feasibility of tool use in clinical practice, we reviewed articles on the availability of the risk factor information required for risk calculation, subjective preference for 1 risk calculator over another, or subjective ease of use. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently reviewed the results of the literature search, all websites, and abstracted all articles for relevant information. DATA SYNTHESIS: Multiple CHD risk calculation tools are available, including risk charts and computerized calculators for personal digital assistants, personal computers, and web-based use. Most are easy to use and available without cost. They require information on age, smoking status, blood pressure, total and HDL cholesterol, and the presence or absence of diabetes. Compared to the full Framingham equations, accuracy for identifying patients at increased risk was generally quite high. Data on the feasibility of tool use was limited. CONCLUSIONS: Several easy-to-use tools are available for estimating patients' CHD risk. Use of such tools could facilitate better decision making about interventions for primary prevention of CHD, but further research about their actual effect on clinical practice and patient outcomes is required.

Coronary Disease↗