Healthcare Students' Perceptions and Attitudes Towards Peers with Autism Spectrum Disorders.

PURPOSE: The present study investigates healthcare students' affective, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes toward hypothetical peers with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and the effect of the ASD label on their attitudes. METHODS: The MAS scale for ASD persons in the postsecondary education (Matthews et al., 2015) was translated and adapted in Greek according to the guidelines of World Health Organization (2016). Participants (n = 444) were randomly divided into three equal groups and completed their demographic information. Each participant read the three vignettes of the Greek-adapted MAS scale describing a communicative interaction with one hypothetical fellow student with autistic characteristics in three different social situations but in each group, the vignette's character was labeled differently (High-functioning, typical college student, and no-label). RESULTS: Students in the High-functioning group demonstrated more positive affective, behavioral, and cognitive attitudes toward the vignette characters than students in the no-label condition. Furthermore, students in the typical student group reported more rejective behaviors toward the vignette characters than students in the high-functioning group, implying that atypical behavior evokes rejection and stigmatization, while the label did not. Male students presented more positive cognitive attitudes across study groups in comparison to female students, while previous contact with individuals with ASD did not seem to impact significantly attitudes. CONCLUSION: The findings of the study indicate that knowledge of an ASD diagnosis leads to greater acceptance and have important implications for future research, disability policy makers, and university support services.

Generalizability of randomized controlled trials in primary health care: Applying the PRECIS-2 tool on published protocols.

RATIONALE: Pragmatic design may facilitate the generalizability of effectiveness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in primary health care (PHC). AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate whether published protocols in PHC were designed pragmatically and to explore whether specific trial characteristics may be related to a pragmatic design. METHODS: Using the Pragmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2), we assessed pragmatism for 123 published RCT protocols. For each domain, we calculated the mean score with the 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Interrater reliability was assessed by weighted κ-coefficient with 95% CI. We examined potential associations of published protocol characteristics with overall pragmatism by performing univariate and multivariate analyses. RESULTS: We observed the highest score for primary analysis (4.66, 95% CI: 4.51, 4.82). The eligibility score was intermediate (3.16, 95% CI: 3.01, 3.32). Domains with scores towards the explanatory side included organization (2.50, 95% CI: 2.36, 2.63), flexibility of delivery (2.74, 95% CI: 2.60, 2.88) and flexibility of adherence (3.00, 95% CI: 2.83, 3.17). Interrater agreement was good (κ = 0.61; 95% CI: 0.34, 0.80; p < 0.001). Higher sample sizes were correlated to a pragmatic design (odds ratio: 6.86, 95% CI: 1.64, 28.75; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Most RCT protocols were rated as intermediate in the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. Future research may guide all stakeholders on how best to incorporate the level of pragmatism in the interpretation of the results so that the trials are more likely to be applicable in real-world settings.

Searching for published protocols of randomized controlled trials in primary health care: an empirical systematic approach.

INTRODUCTION: Electronic search filters on family medicine or general practice studies have been developed and validated in previous work. However, there has been no systematic effort to specifically identify and record protocols of randomized controlled trials (RCT) protocols in primary health care (PHC). The aim of the present study was to systematically identify published RCT protocols in PHC and capture information about specific protocol characteristics that may describe this field. METHODS: PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Scopus from inception to December 2014 were systematically searched. Protocols of RCTs that were published in English and were relevant to PHC were considered as eligible. Protocols referred either to a mixed population, or to an intervention including a specialized part as well as pilot or feasibility trial protocols, were excluded. Specific protocol characteristics including publication year, country, prospective registration, funding, and publication sources were extracted. RESULTS: The final database included 628 published RCT protocols (median publication year 2011; interquartile range 2009-2013). The majority of protocols were designed in the UK (n=141, 22.5%), the Netherlands (n=105, 16.7%), and USA (n=93, 14.8%). Research was mainly funded by the government (n=408, 65.0%) while 45 protocols (7.2%) included industry as the funding source. Two registries - International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number Registry (245 (42.9%)) and ClinicalTrials.gov (209 (36.6%)) - indexed most of the protocols. Journals from several scientific fields published the articles; the field of 'Primary Health Care Medicine, General and Internal' included 69 (11.0%) articles. CONCLUSION: A compilation of published RCT protocols on PHC was feasible. The majority of protocols on PHC were published over the past 10 years, funded by the government and designed in three main countries.