Interest In Uptake Research Articles

Understanding rural adaptation to smoke from wildfires and forest management: insights for aligning approaches with community contexts

Background Rural communities are increasingly impacted by smoke produced by wildfires and forest management activties. Understanding local influences on smoke adaptation and mitigation is critical to social adaptation as fire risk continues to rise. Aims We sought to determine the role of local social context in smoke adaptation and gauge interest in adaptation strategies that might reduce exposure. Methods We conducted 46 semi-structured interviews with 56 residents and professionals in Parks, Arizona, USA, a rural community adjacent to public lands regularly affected by smoke. Key results Rural residents think of smoke as an acceptable risk. Efforts to adapt to potential health impacts are minimal, though inaction is driven by diverse reasoning and tradeoffs. Local social context – particularly elements related to government distrust, forest management, and independence – heavily influences interest in uptake of different adaptation strategies as well as affecting access to, and interpretation of, information about smoke risks. Conclusions Rural approaches to, and understandings of, smoke adaptation vary spatially and temporally. Public interest in broader forest management efforts can be leveraged to engage residents in conversations about proactive smoke adaptation. Implications Smoke adaptation strategies in rural communities must meld evidence of their effectiveness with community preferences grounded in local context to overcome inaction.

A survey on knowledge and attitude of Saudi female students toward refractive correction

BackgroundTo assess the general knowledge and attitude of refractive error correction methods among female Saudi university students.MethodsOne thousand, one hundred and sixty‐five female university students, between 17 and 32-years of age were randomly interviewed using self‐administered questionnaires with open and closed‐ended questions. The questions collected information on demographics (gender, age, educational status, college of study, and occupation), addressed general knowledge/perception of the difference between the professions of ophthalmology and optometry, and attitudes toward spectacle, contact lens (CL) usage, including coloured prescription CLs, and refractive surgery for correcting refractive errors.ResultsThe response rate was 90-per cent (1,052/1,165). Fifty‐two per cent had never had an eye examination and only 28-per cent correctly identified the difference between an ‘ophthalmologist’ and ‘optometrist’. Eighty‐one per cent knew that CLs instead of spectacles (81.8-per cent), and coloured CLs (89.7-per cent) can be used for correcting refractive errors. Concerning refractive surgery, although a majority (90-per cent) knew that the technique corrects refractive error and reduces dependency on spectacles/CLs, only five-per cent had experienced refractive surgery. Approximately, 46-per cent and 47-per cent used spectacles and CLs, respectively, and while the optometrist was the main source of CL prescriptions (41-per cent), most people visited the ophthalmologist for their eye examination (68-per cent). Surprisingly, 52-per cent had never had an eye examination, or had only had one or two eye examinations (50-per cent) in their lifetime. While 23-per cent of spectacle wearers chose to continue with spectacles at the end of the study, 64-per cent and 12-per cent preferred refractive surgery and CLs, respectively, for refractive correction. Lack of information and fear of complications, but not cost, hindered most people from uptake of CLs and refractive surgery.ConclusionThe students demonstrated high levels of knowledge and awareness of refractive correction methods, especially for refractive surgery. Although many consulted the optometrist or ophthalmologist for their eye examinations and corrective devices, many remain uncorrected and unaware of the main difference between both professions. The lack of information about correction methods and fear of complications may have affected their interest in uptake of eye services and should be addressed to increase uptake and prevent avoidable vision loss.

Commentary: Translating ECHO findings into practice: lessons from local dissemination groups.

The perennial challenge for research projects is getting the results taken up. For the European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (ECHO) project, with its large administrative data set on patient outcomes at hospital level and by patient postcode across six countries, there were three related challenges: would countries and institutions validate the data, would they be interested in instituting further in-country data collection using the ECHO model and could such data be used effectively to improve healthcare performance? In addition, to add another layer of complexity, the ECHO data does not speak for itself but requires further interrogation—it is not a diagnostic but a screening tool to highlight potential problems. Dissemination of ECHO’s findings required a non-standard approach, and it was clear that the project findings were going to be of great interest to policy makers, clinicians and managers as well as other researchers in the field. The direct practical applicability of the ECHO analyses lent themselves to an interactive structured engagement within the ECHO countries. Within the project the dissemination methodology was designed to test the interest in uptake and use of the data by target groups. This article presents the outcome of the dissemination, and our methodology notes the differing abilities and willingness to use the ECHO research output for decision-making in addressing causes of variations and presents possible barriers and opportunities for the process of addressing variations. The dissemination took place in the five countries where data were collected, with a total of 160 participants over nine meetings. The meetings, in two rounds, were organized in Portugal, Slovenia, England and Denmark. The same countries were involved in the second round, joined by Spain. European Union (EU) funded projects often meet their core aims of delivering high-quality research and bringing excellent researchers together. However, the latest review of the …

Genetic susceptibility testing from a stress and coping perspective

Four theories of health behavior and of stress and coping are reviewed for their ability to illuminate interest in uptake and outcomes of genetic testing for adult-onset diseases. These theories are the Health Belief Model, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Common Sense Model of Self-regulation (CSM), and the Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (TMSC). Basic concepts of each theory are discussed, followed by evidence from the literature supporting the relevance of these concepts to the understanding of genetic testing for four adult-onset diseases: Huntington's disease, Alzheimer's disease, hereditary breast/ovarian cancer, and hereditary colorectal cancer. Emphasis is placed on the finding that a decision to undergo genetic testing may be considered as a way to cope with both the cognitive and affective concerns that arise from living at increased risk of developing a disease in the future. The potential value of genetic testing for reducing uncertainty about and gaining a sense of control over one's risk of developing a chronic disease is highlighted. We argue that theories which focus on stress and coping provide a useful framework for future studies of genetic testing decisions for adult-onset disease risk.