Parents' Opinion About a Routine Head-to-Toe Examination of Children as a Screening Instrument for Child Abuse and Neglect in Children Visiting the Emergency Department.

INTRODUCTION: To improve detection of child abuse and neglect (CAN), many emergency departments use screening methods. Apart from diagnostic accuracy, possible harms of screening methods are important to consider, especially because most children are not abused and do not benefit from screening. We performed a systematic literature review to assess parents' opinions about CAN screening, in which we could only include 7 studies, all reporting that the large majority of participating parents favor screening. Recently, a complete physical examination (called "top-toe" inspection [TTI], a fully undressed inspection of the child) was implemented as a CAN screening method at the emergency department of a teaching hospital in The Netherlands. This study describes parents' opinions about the TTI. METHODS: We used a questionnaire to assess parents' opinions about the TTI of their children when visiting the emergency department. During the study period, 1000 questionnaires were distributed by mail. RESULTS: In total, 372 questionnaires were returned (37%). A TTI was performed for 194 children (52%). The overall attitude of parents whose children underwent a TTI was positive; 77.3% of the respondents found the TTI acceptable, and 1.5% (N = 3) found it unacceptable. Seventy percent of the respondents agreed with the theorem that all children who visit the emergency department should have a TTI performed, and 7.3% (N = 14) disagreed. DISCUSSION: Contrary to what is commonly believed, both in our systematic literature review and in our questionnaire study, the majority of participating parents agree with screening for CAN in general and with the TTI specifically. Sharing the results of this study with ED personnel and policy makers could take away prejudices about perceived disagreement of parents, thereby improving implementation of and adherence to CAN screening.

Design and development of a decision aid to enhance shared decision making by patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm.

OBJECTIVE: To design, develop, and evaluate an evidence-based decision aid (DA) for patients with an asymptomatic abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) to inform them about the pros and cons of their treatment options (ie, surgery or watchful observation) and to help them make a shared decision. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team defined criteria for the desired DA as to design, medical content and functionality, particularly for elderly users. Development was according to the international standard (IPDAS). Fifteen patients with an AAA, who were either treated or not yet treated, evaluated the tool. RESULTS: A DA was developed to offer information about the disease, the risks and benefits of surgical treatment and watchful observation, and the individual possibilities and threats based on the patient's aneurysm diameter and risk profile. The DA was improved and judged favorably by physicians and patients. CONCLUSION: This evidence-based DA for AAA patients, developed according to IPDAS criteria, is likely to be a simple, user-friendly tool to offer patients evidence-based information about the pros and cons of treatment options for AAA, to improve patients' understanding of the disease and treatment options, and may support decision making based on individual values.

Exploring the black box of a decision aid: what information do patients select from an interactive Cd-Rom on treatment options in breast cancer?

OBJECTIVE: It is thought that patients fare better when they participate in treatment decision-making, and when they have more control over the amount and type of information they receive. To facilitate informed decision-making, interactive decision aids have been introduced in health care. This article describes how much, and which information patients select from an interactive decision aid on breast cancer. To explore whether the interactive system facilitates that different patients receive different information, associations between patients' characteristics and information selection are inspected. METHODS: The interactive decision aid was provided to 106 patients after an initial discussion with their surgeon about their diagnosis and treatment options. Information regarding patients' age, completed education, treatment preference, psychological functioning, decision uncertainty and decision style was collected with a written, structured questionnaire. The questionnaire was completed before patients used the interactive decision aid. To create categories, a median-split procedure was employed on the scores of the continuous background variables. The information patients selected from the interactive decision aid were registered into logfiles. Associations between patients' background variables and information selection were investigated by means of univariate statistics. RESULTS: Patients (n=97; 92%) used the interactive decision aid intensively. On average, patients spent almost 70min searching for information and selected 21 information topics. Overall, treatment related information was clearly more selected than other types of information. Age, education, and decision style factors were associated with information selection. CONCLUSION: The interactive breast cancer decision aid was utilized intensively. The interactive system was found to facilitate that different patients received different amounts and types of information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Interactive decision aids may improve information giving to patients, and as a result, the quality of care. To safeguard informed-choice, decision aids should be used in conjunction with other communication strategies. Decision aids should be available continuously and throughout the patients' disease journey. The Internet may help to achieve broad dissemination and enduring access.