Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
Aging Ment Health ; 13(1): 84-91, 2009 Jan.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19197693

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: We sought to explore the association of religious and spiritual coping with multiple measures of well-being in Latinos caring for older relatives with long-term or permanent disability, either with or without dementia. METHODS: Using a multi-dimensional survey instrument, we conducted in-home interviews with 66 predominantly Mexican-American Catholic family caregivers near the US-Mexico border. We assessed caregivers' intrinsic, organizational and non-organizational religiosity with the Duke Religiosity Index, as well as Pargament's brief positive and negative spiritual coping scale to determine the association of religiosity with caregivers' mental and physical health, depressive symptomatology and perceived burden. RESULTS: Using regression analysis, we controlled for sociocultural factors (e.g. familism, acculturation), other forms of formal and informal support, care recipients' functional status and characteristics of the caregiving dyad. Intrinsic and organizational religiosity was associated with lower perceived burden, while non-organizational religiosity was associated with poorer mental health. Negative religious coping (e.g. feelings that the caregiver burden is a punishment) predicted greater depression. CONCLUSION: Measures of well-being should be evaluated in relation to specific styles of religious and spiritual coping, given our range of findings. Further investigation is warranted regarding how knowledge of the positive and negative associations between religiosity and caregiving may assist healthcare providers in supporting Latino caregivers.


Assuntos
Adaptação Psicológica , Cuidadores/psicologia , Americanos Mexicanos/psicologia , Religião e Psicologia , Estresse Psicológico/etnologia , Atividades Cotidianas , Adulto , Idoso , California , Pessoas com Deficiência , Feminino , Nível de Saúde , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Masculino , Saúde Mental , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Análise de Regressão , Adulto Jovem
2.
Am J Prev Med ; 33(2): 83-90, 2007 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17673094

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations recommend that physicians discuss prostate cancer with patients to make individual screening decisions. However, few studies have tested strategies to encourage such discussions, particularly among high-risk populations. We examined the effects of two low-literacy interventions on the frequency of prostate cancer discussion and screening. DESIGN: Randomized, blinded, controlled trial with concealed allocation. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Inner-city primary care clinic, serving a predominately African-American population. Participants were men aged 45-70 with no history of prostate cancer, presenting for a regular appointment. INTERVENTIONS: While waiting to see their physician, patients received a patient education handout on prostate cancer screening (PtEd), a handout simply encouraging patients to talk to their doctor about prostate cancer (Cue), or a control handout. The interventions did not advocate for or against screening. MEASURES: Patient-reported discussion of prostate cancer with the physician and chart reviews determine prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test orders and performance of digital rectal examination (DRE). Adjusted odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed. Data were collected in 2003, and analyses were completed in 2006. RESULTS: Most of the 250 subjects (90.4%) were African American and 78.8% read below the ninth grade level. Overall, 48.4% reported discussing prostate cancer during the appointment. Compared to the control group (37.3%), discussions were significantly more common in the Cue group (58.0%, aOR=2.39 [1.26-4.52]), as well as in the PtEd group (50.0%, aOR=1.92 [1.01-3.65]). When prostate cancer was discussed, patients in the intervention groups more commonly initiated the conversation (47.6% PtEd and 40.0% Cue, vs 9.7% control, p<0.01 for each comparison to control). Compared to the control group (2.4%), PSA test orders increased in the PtEd group (14.1%, aOR=7.62 [1.62-35.83]) and in the Cue group (12.3%, aOR=5.86 [1.24-27.81]). Documentation of DRE did not change significantly (4.7% PtEd, 6.2% Cue, and 6.0% control). CONCLUSIONS: Two simple low-literacy interventions significantly increased discussion of prostate cancer and PSA test orders but not performance of DRE. Both interventions were effective in empowering low-literacy patients to initiate conversations about prostate cancer with their physician.


Assuntos
Comunicação , Escolaridade , Educação em Saúde , Neoplasias da Próstata/diagnóstico , Negro ou Afro-Americano , Idoso , Humanos , Masculino , Programas de Rastreamento , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto , Projetos Piloto , Medicina Preventiva , Antígeno Prostático Específico , Neoplasias da Próstata/prevenção & controle , Fatores de Risco , Estados Unidos
3.
Clin Pediatr (Phila) ; 46(8): 706-17, 2007 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17522285

RESUMO

Provider education programs that use academic detailing to improve childhood immunization have been implemented in several states. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of these types of programs to improve immunization-related behaviors in private provider offices. The intervention included peer-based academic detailing in which teams of 1 physician, 1 nurse, and 1 office manager visited pediatric and family practices to deliver an educational presentation and develop practice-specific action plans. Comparison of pre-post intervention surveys showed that providers' willingness to give the maximum number of immunizations due at 1 visit (P < .001) increased. More providers reported routinely screening immunization records at sickness or injury visits (P < .05) and using minimum intervals (P < .001) postintervention. Mean change in baseline and postintervention overall scores was significant for pediatric practices (0.40, P < .05), small practices (0.64, P < .01), Vaccines for Children (VFC) practices (0.74, P < .05), and non-VFC provider practices (0.67, P < .01) but not for family or large practices.


Assuntos
Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Imunização , Pediatria/educação , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Pesquisas sobre Atenção à Saúde , Humanos , Pediatria/organização & administração
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA