Communicating for Results 3rd Ed - Ebook download as PDF File .pdf), Text File .txt) A Canadian Student's Guide Meyer, Carolyn Margaret, , author. Communicating for results: a Canadian student's by Carolyn Margaret Meyer · Communicating for results: a Canadian student's guide. by Carolyn Margaret. DOWNLOAD PDF . Communicating for Results, Eighth Edition, not only features a skills orientation, but also provides readers with the theoretical basis for.
|Language:||English, Spanish, Arabic|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration Required]|
Trove: Find and get Australian resources. Books, images, historic newspapers, maps, archives and more. COMMUNICATING FOR RESULTS CAROLYN MEYER PDF. Read 2 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. Now in its fourth edition. communicating for results carolyn meyer 2nd edition is available in our book collection carolyn meyer as PDF for free at The Biggest ebook library in the world.
While risk attitude and perception were measured at the beginning of the interview, before the questions involving the two indicators, numerical skill and socio-demographic data were collected at the end of the interview.
Numerical skills were measured through three open questions concerning probability, derived from Schwartz et al.
Outcomes In this paper, we analysed the following outcome variables: Degree of concern about mortality from cancer measured on a scale from 1 to 10 from question R3. Proportion of subjects who expressed a degree of concern larger than 5 in question R3.
Rank associated to the concern about mortality from each of the three causes compared in question R4: from 1 the most worrisome option to 3 the least worrisome option. We a priori selected 5 as the cut-off for the degree of concern about mortality from cancer because it was the intermediate value of the scale.
However, a sensitivity analysis was conducted changing the threshold used for the definition of the binary variable. IPTW not only removes possible sources of residual confounding, but also allows us to account for data correlation introduced by stratified randomization. In addition, it may bring to efficiency gain as compared with the regression-based approach, if uncertainty around PS estimates is taken into account [ 20 ].
We estimated PS by specifying a logistic model for the questionnaire assignment given the following explanatory variables: age 18—34, 35—64, 65 and over , gender, urban district, interviewer, educational attainment intermediate school diploma or lower, high school diploma, university degree , numerical skills at least one right answer over three, no right answer; see Additional file 3 , smoking status current smoker, former smoker, no smoker , employment status employed, retired, not employed , general risk attitude and risk perception, respectively measured as mean values of the 8 items of questions R1 and R2 see Additional file 2.
The analyses were conducted excluding the subjects with missing values on the outcome: 9 participants for question R3 2. In order to deal with missing values in the baseline characteristics, for each incomplete explanatory variable, we included in the PS an indicator of missing entry [ 22 ].
Relaying on the fact that PS is a balancing score i. Stratified analyses were performed by educational achievement intermediate school diploma; high school diploma or higher and numerical skills at least one right answer over three, no right answer; see Additional file 3.
It is worth noticing that, despite of the fact that the distribution of the degree of concern for cancer mortality was skewed see the next section , we focused on the mean difference between groups, in order to enhance the interpretation of the result.
Clinical scientists cardiac physiologists, sonographers, echocardiographers perform most of the echocardiograms requested in the USA, the UK, Australia and many countries in Europe.
Clinical scientists do not usually communicate the results of echocardiography directly to their patients. Instead they produce a report to inform the requesting clinician who then talks to the patient.
In contrast, radiologists and radiographers may already communicate results directly to their patient following national professional guidelines 1 within local hospital protocols. Should practice within echocardiography now change?
Experience from radiography Referring physicians prefer to give results to the patient themselves particularly if these are abnormal 2 and think that a radiologist should only communicate the result of the scan when the findings are normal and should stress that he or she is not the physician in charge of the case. There is little difference in preference whether the result is normal or abnormal 4 , 5. When they receive immediate results patients are even more willing to do so again.
Echocardiography If the echocardiogram is performed by the cardiologist in charge of the case there is no concern about communication. However, when performed by a clinical scientist, the nature of the communication depends on the setting of the echocardiogram. If the echocardiogram is a part of one-stop visit to a cardiologist then the results will be discussed with the cardiologist almost immediately. By contrast, when an echocardiogram is the sole reason for the hospital visit, there may be a substantial delay before the patient sees their referring physician.
Furthermore, many physicians and general practitioners feel unqualified to interpret echocardiogram reports 6. When patients have access to their medical records and test results, they report greater satisfaction with their care, increased trust in staff, personal empowerment and increased understanding of their medical condition 2 , 9. Our own pilot investigation within an echocardiography outpatient department showed that 19 of 20 patients wanted their results to be communicated directly after the echocardiogram by the clinical scientist, rather than waiting to receive the results from their doctor at a later appointment.
Giving results if requested can be done at two levels.