Celette Sugg Skinner

Bio: Celette Sugg Skinner is an academic researcher from University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. The author has contributed to research in topics: Mammography & Population. The author has an hindex of 51, co-authored 188 publications receiving 11131 citations. Previous affiliations of Celette Sugg Skinner include Duke University & Washington University in St. Louis.

Physicians' recommendations for mammography: do tailored messages make a difference?

Abstract: OBJECTIVES. Message tailoring, based on individual needs and circumstances, is commonly used to enhance face-to-face patient counseling. Only recently has individual tailoring become feasible for printed messages. This study sought to determine whether printed tailored recommendations addressing women's specific screening and risk status and perceptions about breast cancer and mammography are more effective than standardized printed recommendations. METHODS. Computer-assisted telephone interviews were conducted with 435 women, aged 40 to 65 years, who had visited family practice groups within the previous 2 years. Subjects were randomly allocated to receive individually tailored or standardized mammography recommendation letters mailed from physicians to patients' homes. Follow-up interviews were conducted 8 months later. RESULTS. Tailored letter recipients were more likely to remember and to have read more of their letters than standardized version recipients. After controlling for baseline status, tailo...

How effective is tailored print communication

Abstract: This article reviews the “frist generation” of tailored print communications studies in the published literature, describing the purpose, theoretical framework, sample, research design, message type and source, outcomes measured, and findings of each. Eight studies compared tailored versus similar nontailored print; one compared tailored print versus an alternate intervention, and three included tailored print as one of several intervention components. Although studies varied by behavioral topic, type of tailoring, and measurement of behavioral outcomes, several themes persist.

The effects of computer-tailored smoking cessation messages in family practice settings.

Abstract: BACKGROUND Many conventional health education materials, such as pamphlets and booklets, are designed to reach as wide an audience as possible; they are therefore often lengthy and contain information irrelevant to many consumers. Computer technologies allow sophisticated tailoring of messages targeted to individual patients and free of irrelevant information. METHODS In two studies in North Carolina (study 1, N = 51; study 2, N = 197), adult cigarette smokers were identified from a cohort of family practice patients. Cigarette consumption, interest in quitting smoking, perceived benefits and barriers to quitting, and other characteristics relevant to smoking cessation were collected. Based on this information, smoking cessation letters were tailored by computer to individuals. Smokers were randomly assigned to experimental (tailored health letters) or comparison groups (generic health letter in study 1, no health letter in study 2). Smoking status was assessed again at 4 months (study 1) or 6 months (study 2). RESULTS Both studies found statistically significant positive effects of tailored health letters among moderate to light smokers. In study 1, 30.7% reported quitting after 6 months vs 7.1% in the control group (P < .05); in study 2, 19.1% vs 7.3% (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS Results from both studies indicate positive effects of computer-tailored smoking messages among moderate to light smokers. These findings are consistent with the focus of our computer-tailored program on psychological and behavioral factors related to smoking cessation. Smoking cessation outcomes may be enhanced by combining tailored messages with nicotine replacement therapies to treat physical dependency. Methods of tailoring health messages and incorporating the results into family practice are described.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

Persuasive Technology: Using Computers to Change What We Think and Do

Abstract: Mother Nature knows best--How engineered organizations of the future will resemble natural-born systems.

The content validity index: Are you sure you know what's being reported? critique and recommendations

Abstract: Scale developers often provide evidence of content validity by computing a content validity index (CVI), using ratings of item relevance by content experts. We analyzed how nurse researchers have defined and calculated the CVI, and found considerable consistency for item-level CVIs (I-CVIs). However, there are two alternative, but unacknowledged, methods of computing the scale-level index (S-CVI). One method requires universal agreement among experts, but a less conservative method averages the item-level CVIs. Using backward inference with a purposive sample of scale development studies, we found that both methods are being used by nurse researchers, although it was not always possible to infer the calculation method. The two approaches can lead to different values, making it risky to draw conclusions about content validity. Scale developers should indicate which method was used to provide readers with interpretable content validity information.

Resource Manual for Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice

Abstract: The perfect complement to Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence for Nursing Practice, Ninth Edition, this knowledge builder helps you develop and reinforce basic skills essential to nursing research.