PubMed · 14971113
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Peter May. 2003. Claimed contemporary miracles.. https://doi.org/10.1258/rsmmlj.71.4.144
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
OBJECTIVE: While cancer screening can reduce morbidity and mortality, screening can also be associated with adverse physical, psychological, and behavioral outcomes, even when no malignancy is detected. Few studies, however, have comprehensively examined the potential positive impact of a normal cancer screening test result. This study examined the effects of receipt of a normal ovarian cancer screening test result on a range of psychosocial outcomes, including screening-related beliefs and intentions, risk knowledge, distress, and positive affect. METHOD: The present study utilized baseline, 2-week, and 4-month data from a sample of 560 asymptomatic women who underwent a routine screening for ovarian cancer and received a normal result as well as 296 controls (Lexington, Kentucky, USA, 2000-2002). RESULTS: Growth curve modeling revealed that receipt of a "normal" test result following ovarian cancer screening was associated with increased beliefs in the efficacy of ovarian cancer screening, decreased ovarian cancer-related distress, increased knowledge of ovarian cancer risk factors, and increased positive affect over the 4-month study period. CONCLUSION: Receipt of a normal ovarian cancer screening test result influences a range of affective and cognitive endpoints. For the most part, these endpoints are either empirically or theoretically linked to likelihood of participation in future cancer screening. Thus, participation in routine ovarian cancer screening with receipt of a normal screening test result may create a set of affective and cognitive conditions that facilitate repeat screening and contribute to the maintenance of appropriate ovarian cancer screening behavior.
PURPOSE: This article highlights the importance of health behavior change (HBC) theory, and its relevance to rehabilitation research and practice. METHOD: An extensive review of HBC-related literature pertinent to rehabilitation was conducted, focusing on the potential impact of these theories and models in enhancing long-term results of rehabilitation with regard to lifestyle change and health promotion, and outlining the benefits of incorporating HBC themes into rehabilitation practice. For our purposes, the HBC concept is based on initiation and maintenance of health behaviors, functioning, wellness, and self-management of chronic conditions or disabilities within an environmental context. While comparing and contrasting three widely known theories of HBC, the contributions of these theories to rehabilitation research and practice are discussed. RESULTS: Three propositions are put forward: (1) HBC variables should regularly be used as outcome measures in evidence-based rehabilitation research; (2) there should be a better understanding of the role of the rehabilitation provider as a facilitator in eliciting healthy behaviors; and (3) there is a need to expand the HBC concept into a more comprehensive view encompassing a person's functioning within the environmental context. CONCLUSIONS: A conceptual merger between HBC theories and rehabilitation practice can have major implications for individuals with disabilities, their functioning, health, and well-being.
BACKGROUND: For early phase trials of novel interventions-such as gene transfer for Parkinson disease (PD)--whose focus is primarily on safety and tolerability, it is important that participants have a realistic understanding of the goals of such research. Recently, some have expressed concern that patients with PD may have unrealistic expectations. METHODS: The authors examined why patients with PD might volunteer for invasive early phase research by interviewing 92 patients with PD and comparing those who would (n = 46) and those who would not (n = 46) participate in a hypothetical phase I gene-transfer study. RESULTS: The two groups' demographic, clinical, functional, and quality of life measures, as well as their understanding of the research protocol, were similar. The groups did not differ on their perception of potential for personal benefit nor on the level of likelihood of benefit they saw as a precondition for volunteering. However, those willing to participate tended to perceive lower probability of risk, were tolerant of greater probability of risk, and were more optimistic about the phase I study's potential benefits to society. They also appeared more decisive and action-oriented than the unwilling group. CONCLUSIONS: It is likely that the decision whether to participate in early phase PD gene transfer studies will depend mostly on patients' attitudes regarding risk, optimism about science, and an action orientation, rather than on their clinical, functional, or demographic characteristics.