Search results for: Henock%20G.%20Yebyo

Authors: Linda P. M. Pluymen, Mariska M. G. Leeflang, I. Stegeman, Henock G. Yebyo, Anne E. M. Brabers, Patrick M. Bossuyt, E. Dekker, Anke J. Woudstra, Mirjam P. Fransen

Abstract:

Weighing the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening can be difficult for individuals. An existing online decision aid was expanded with a benefit-harm analysis to help people make an informed decision about participating in colorectal cancer screening. In a randomized controlled trial, we investigated whether those in the intervention group who used the decision aid with benefit-harm analysis were more certain about their decision than those in the control group who used the decision aid without benefit-harm analysis. Participants were 623 (39% of those invited) men and women aged 45 until 75 years old. Analyses were performed in those 386 participants (62%) who reported to have completed the entire decision aid. No statistically significant differences were observed between intervention and control group in decisional conflict score (mean difference 2.4, 95% CI -0.9, 5.6), clarity of values (mean difference 1.0, 95% CI -4.4, 6.6), deliberation score (mean difference 0.5, 95% CI -0.6, 1.7), anxiety score (mean difference 0.0, 95% CI -0.3, 0.3) and risk perception score (mean difference 0.1, -0.1, 0.3). Adding a benefit-harm analysis to an online decision aid did not improve informed decision making about participating in colorectal cancer screening.

Keywords: benefit-harm analysis, decision aid, informed decision making, personalized decision making

Procedia PDF Downloads 137

Authors: Mark R. Skopec, Hamdi M. Issa, Henock B. Taddese, Kate Ippolito, Matthew J. Harris

Abstract:

In peer review, there is a skew toward research from high-income countries, otherwise known as geographic bias. Research from well-known and prestigious institutions is often favored in the peer review process and is more frequently cited in biomedical research. English clinicians have been found to rate research from low-income countries worse compared to the same research presented as if from high-income countries. This entrenched bias, which is rooted in the perceived superiority of academic institutions in high-income countries is damaging in many regards. Crucially, it reinforces colonial roots by strengthening the dominance of knowledge bases in high-income contexts and perpetuates the perceived inferiority of research from low-income settings. We report on the interventions that Imperial College London is conducting to “decolonize” the higher education curriculum – a root and branch review of reading material in the Masters of Public Health course; identification of unconscious bias against low-income country research in faculty and staff; in-depth interviews with faculty members on their experiences and practices with respect to inclusion of low-income country research in their own teaching and learning practice; and exploring issues surrounding entrenched biases and structural impediments for enabling desirable changes. We intend to use these findings to develop frameworks and approaches, including workshops and online resources, to effect sustainable changes to diversify the curriculum at Imperial College London.

Keywords: curriculum design, diversity, geographic bias, higher education, implicit associations, inclusivity

Procedia PDF Downloads 137