An Exploratory Study of Acculturation and Reproductive Health Among Haitian and Haitian-American Women in Little Haiti, South Florida.

There is unmet contraceptive need among Haitian immigrants and Haitian-American women (Haitian women). The study explored associations of three measures of acculturation with contraceptive/reproductive health history among Haitian women residing in the Little Haiti community of Miami. This was a cross-sectional, exploratory study among 57 Haitian women. We conducted descriptive univariate analyses, then bivariate analyses to investigate the association of acculturation with reproductive health risk behavior including contraceptive use, tampon use, and parity, as well as interest in a female-initiated barrier contraceptive method. The most commonly ever-used contraceptive methods were male condoms (78.9 %) and oral contraceptives (OC 19.3 %). Women who primarily spoke Créole at home were less likely than those who did not to use OC (11.9 vs. 42.9 %, p = .01). Among women who resided in the U.S. ≥10 years, tampon use was 51.9 % compared to 16.7 % among those who were in the U.S. for less time (p = .005). Among U.S. born women, 60 % were tampon users compared to 22.7 % among those born in Haiti (p = .05). Women not speaking primarily Créole at home (p = .06) and those born in U.S. (p = .008) had fewer children. Contraceptive use was low among Haitian women but influenced by acculturation, where greater acculturation was associated with protective reproductive health behavior. Despite traditional norms discouraging contraceptive use, and little experience with female barriers, Haitian women indicated an interest in learning about and using a female-initiated barrier contraceptive. Increasing contraceptive uptake of potential multipurpose technologies is a potential point of intervention for decreasing HIV/STI transmission in this at-risk population.

Take-home informed consent for intravenous contrast media: do patients learn more?

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: In 1978, Morrow et al published the results of a simple technique for raising radiation oncology patients' levels of awareness about medical options. They reported that providing written information at least 24 hours in advance was an effective tool for increasing the baseline knowledge in this patient group. However, Morrow's cohort consisted exclusively of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. The authors of this article are concerned with whether the encouraging results reported by Morrow are reproducible when applied to patients awaiting invasive radiologic procedures. METHODS: One hundred sixty consecutive outpatients awaiting contrast were block randomized into one of eight groups based on age, sex, and previous contrast exposure. For each group, half were given their consent form at least 24 hours prior, and the other half at the time of their procedure. All patients were tested at the time of their procedure to evaluate knowledge retention. RESULTS: Comparison between the two study groups showed no overall statistically significant differences either in knowledge (experimental group 4.7 +/- 1.32 versus 4.38 +/- 1.30 control group) or level of satisfaction. Additionally, individuals experienced with contrast failed to outperform those who had never previously been given contrast. There is no significant difference in the performance between the two sexes regardless of group. CONCLUSIONS: The providing of information 24 to 72 hours in advance of an invasive procedure does not have a beneficial effect over just providing the same information at the time of the study.

Risks associated with the use of IV contrast material: analysis of patients' awareness.

OBJECTIVE: Opinions differ on the need to obtain informed consent for IV administration of contrast material. If the potential risks are common knowledge among most patients, the need for informed consent is reduced. The purpose of this study was to assess patients' baseline knowledge of the risks associated with use of IV contrast material. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: This study included 150 consecutive outpatients who had radiographic studies (CT or excretory urography) requiring use of IV contrast material. Before the procedure, patients were asked to complete a 10-question questionnaire assessing their understanding of the risks associated with the use of contrast material. Questions concerned the nature of their test and the reasons for and risks of contrast material. Analysis was done with Fisher's exact chi 2-test of association and Wilcoxon's two-sample test. RESULTS: On average, the patients performed significantly better on this questionnaire than if they had randomly picked each answer, indicating that the average patient has acquired some information about IV contrast material. However, the mean score was 51%, demonstrating that the average patient is not knowledgeable about all risks associated with the use of IV contrast material. We found no differences associated with sex or age. Patients with more than a high school level of education and who had previously received contrast material scored better, although they still correctly answered only 56% and 54% of the questions, respectively. CONCLUSION: Information about the risks associated with use of IV contrast material cannot be considered common knowledge among the general population of patients.