Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Marques-Gomes J, Salt MJ, Pereira-Neto R, Barteldes FS, Gouveia-Barros V, Carvalho A, et al.
    HIV Med, 2021 Dec 28.
    PMID: 34964226 DOI: 10.1111/hiv.13221
    OBJECTIVES: HIV outcomes centre primarily around clinical markers with limited focus on patient-reported outcomes. With a global trend towards capturing the outcomes that matter most to patients, there is agreement that standardizing the definition of value in HIV care is key to their incorporation. This study aims to address the lack of routine, standardized data in HIV care.

    METHODS: An international working group (WG) of 37 experts and patients, and a steering group (SG) of 18 experts were convened from 14 countries. The project team (PT) identified outcomes by conducting a literature review, screening 1979 articles and reviewing the full texts of 547 of these articles. Semi-structured interviews and advisory groups were performed with the WG, SG and people living with HIV to add to the list of potentially relevant outcomes. The WG voted via a modified Delphi process - informed by six Zoom calls - to establish a core set of outcomes for use in clinical practice.

    RESULTS: From 156 identified outcomes, consensus was reached to include three patient-reported outcomes, four clinician-reported measures and one administratively reported outcome; standardized measures were included. The WG also reached agreement to measure 22 risk-adjustment variables. This outcome set can be applied to any person living with HIV aged > 18 years.

    CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of the HIV360 outcome set will enable healthcare providers to record, compare and integrate standardized metrics across treatment sites to drive quality improvement in HIV care.

  2. Dorison CA, Lerner JS, Heller BH, Rothman AJ, Kawachi II, Wang K, et al.
    Affect Sci, 2022 Sep;3(3):577-602.
    PMID: 36185503 DOI: 10.1007/s42761-022-00128-3
    The COVID-19 pandemic (and its aftermath) highlights a critical need to communicate health information effectively to the global public. Given that subtle differences in information framing can have meaningful effects on behavior, behavioral science research highlights a pressing question: Is it more effective to frame COVID-19 health messages in terms of potential losses (e.g., "If you do not practice these steps, you can endanger yourself and others") or potential gains (e.g., "If you practice these steps, you can protect yourself and others")? Collecting data in 48 languages from 15,929 participants in 84 countries, we experimentally tested the effects of message framing on COVID-19-related judgments, intentions, and feelings. Loss- (vs. gain-) framed messages increased self-reported anxiety among participants cross-nationally with little-to-no impact on policy attitudes, behavioral intentions, or information seeking relevant to pandemic risks. These results were consistent across 84 countries, three variations of the message framing wording, and 560 data processing and analytic choices. Thus, results provide an empirical answer to a global communication question and highlight the emotional toll of loss-framed messages. Critically, this work demonstrates the importance of considering unintended affective consequences when evaluating nudge-style interventions.
Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links