Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
J Correct Health Care ; 21(3): 276-85, 2015 Jul.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26084949

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to examine the prevalence of overweight and obesity in a sample of older female inmates (N = 458). Results indicate that 34% of older female inmates were overweight and 36% were obese; similar percentages were noted for the general population. Race and age were found to be significantly associated with the body mass index categories of healthy weight and obese. White inmates were significantly more likely to be of a healthy weight and significantly less likely to be obese than Black inmates. Age was positively associated with healthy weight and negatively associated with obesity. These two variables remained significant even after they were introduced into logistic regression models predicting healthy weight and obesity. Findings indicate the need for programming to improve the health of this population.


Subject(s)
Overweight/epidemiology , Prisons/statistics & numerical data , Black or African American/statistics & numerical data , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Body Mass Index , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Obesity/epidemiology , Overweight/ethnology , Prevalence , White People/statistics & numerical data
2.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 5(1): 8, 2005 Feb 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15715916

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of study quality assessment of primary studies in cancer practice guidelines. METHODS: Reliable and valid study quality assessment scales were sought and applied to published reports of trials included in systematic reviews of cancer guidelines. Sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate the relationship between quality scores and pooled odds ratios (OR) for mortality and need for blood transfusion. RESULTS: Results found that that whether trials were classified as high or low quality depended on the scale used to assess them. Although the results of the sensitivity analyses found some variation in the ORs observed, the confidence intervals (CIs) of the pooled effects from each of the analyses of high quality trials overlapped with the CI of the pooled odds of all trials. Quality score was not predictive of pooled ORs studied here. CONCLUSIONS: Had sensitivity analyses based on study quality been conducted prospectively, it is highly unlikely that different conclusions would have been found or that different clinical recommendations would have emerged in the guidelines.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Review Literature as Topic , Blood Transfusion/statistics & numerical data , Clinical Trials as Topic , Confidence Intervals , Humans , Needs Assessment , Neoplasms/mortality , Odds Ratio , Sensitivity and Specificity
3.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care ; 19(4): 646-55, 2003.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15095770

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To describe a methodology used to keep practice guidelines up to date and to summarize data collected during the first year of implementing this plan with a cancer practice guidelines program. METHODS: The updating strategy includes regular searches of peer-reviewed literature and meeting proceedings, review and interpretation of new evidence, review and revision of clinical recommendations, and notification to practitioners and policy makers about new evidence and its impact on recommendations. RESULTS: Eighty pieces of new evidence were found relating to seventeen of the twenty guidelines included in this study. On average, four pieces of new evidence were found per guideline, but there was considerable variation across the guidelines. Of the eighty pieces, nineteen contributed to modifications of clinical recommendations in six practice guidelines, whereas the remaining evidence served to support the original recommendations. None of the modifications led to changes that advised against original recommendations. MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and meeting proceedings yielded many pieces of evidence, whereas CancerLit and HealthStar did not contribute significantly to the overall yield. Furthermore, key pieces of evidence that led to modifications to the recommendations were often identified by members of the disease site groups before appearing in electronic databases. CONCLUSIONS: The updating process is resource intensive but yields important findings. In response to this evaluation, the updating protocol has been revised such that literature searches are conducted quarterly and the scope of sources searched routinely is restricted to MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and meeting proceedings.


Subject(s)
Neoplasms/therapy , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Diffusion of Innovation , Evidence-Based Medicine , Humans , Peer Review, Research
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...