How Do Survivor and Mandatory Reporter Status Correlate with Program Outcomes for an Adult-Focused Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Program?

This exploratory study investigated group differences and pre-post changes in knowledge, beliefs, and behavior by mandatory reporters and Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) survivor status for a CSA prevention training designed for the general public. Of the 8,114 study participants, 32% identified as having experienced CSA, and 77% indicated they were mandatory reporters for child abuse and neglect. Mandatory reporters had higher baseline knowledge about CSA than those who were not mandatory reporters and reported more CSA preventative behaviors. Mandatory reporters continued to have higher levels of knowledge following the training. Survivors of CSA also had higher baseline knowledge about CSA and preventative behavior scores than individuals who are not survivors of CSA. Unlike mandatory reporters, they experienced fewer increases in knowledge. At posttest, there was no evidence of a difference in knowledge between CSA survivors and non-CSA survivors. For items related to beliefs, mandatory reporters had higher baseline scores than other participants. However, they had smaller gains, so mandatory reporters and non-mandatory reporters had more similar beliefs related to CSA after the training. There were few differences between CSA survivors and non-survivors on baseline beliefs related to CSA, though CSA survivors reported greater increases in beliefs that CSA prevention is their responsibility and in the idea that they know what to do to prevent CSA. These results have significant results for the development and evaluation of trauma-informed prevention programming.

CDA-Compliant Section Annotation of German-Language Discharge Summaries: Guideline Development, Annotation Campaign, Section Classification.

We present the outcome of an annotation effort targeting the content-sensitive segmentation of German clinical reports into sections. We recruited an annotation team of up to eight medical students to annotate a clinical text corpus on a sentence-by-sentence basis in four pre-annotation iterations and one final main annotation step. The annotation scheme we came up with adheres to categories developed for clinical documents in the HL7-CDA (Clinical Document Architecture) standard for section headings. Once the scheme became stable, we ran the main annotation campaign on the complete set of roughly 1,000 clinical documents. Due to its reliance on the CDA standard, the annotation scheme allows the integration of legacy and newly produced clinical documents within a common pipeline. We then made direct use of the annotations by training a baseline classifier to automatically identify sections in clinical reports.

Individualized Risk Communication and Outreach for Primary Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Community Health Centers: Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many eligible primary cardiovascular disease prevention candidates are not treated with statins. Electronic health record data can identify patients with increased cardiovascular disease risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a pragmatic randomized controlled trial at community health centers in 2 states. Participants were men aged ≥35 years and women ≥45 years, without cardiovascular disease or diabetes mellitus, and with a 10-year risk of coronary heart disease of at least 10%. The intervention group received telephone and mailed outreach, individualized based on patients' cardiovascular disease risk and uncontrolled risk factors, provided by lay health workers. Main outcomes included: documented discussion of medication treatment for cholesterol with a primary care clinician, receipt of statin prescription within 6 months, and low-density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol repeated and at least 30 mg/dL lower than baseline within 1 year. Six hundred forty-six participants (328 and 318 in the intervention and control groups, respectively) were included. At 6 months, 26.8% of intervention and 11.6% of control patients had discussed cholesterol treatment with a primary care clinician (odds ratio, 2.79; [95% confidence interval, 2.25-3.46]). Statin prescribing occurred for 10.1% in the intervention group and 6.0% in the control group (odds ratio, 1.76; [95% confidence interval, 0.90-3.45]). The cholesterol outcome did not differ, and the majority of patients did not repeat lipid levels during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Risk communication and lay outreach increased cholesterol treatment discussions with primary care clinicians. However, most discussions did not result in statin prescribing. For outreach to be successful, it should be combined with interventions to encourage clinicians to follow contemporary risk-based cholesterol treatment guidelines. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clincialtrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01610609.