Last data update: Jan 27, 2025. (Total: 48650 publications since 2009)
Records 1-4 (of 4 Records) |
Query Trace: Feinstein Z[original query] |
---|
Effect of a community-based gender norms program on sexual violence perpetration by adolescent boys and young men: A cluster randomized clinical trial
Miller E , Jones KA , Culyba AJ , Paglisotti T , Dwarakanath N , Massof M , Feinstein Z , Ports KA , Espelage D , Pulerwitz J , Garg A , Kato-Wallace J , Abebe KZ . JAMA Netw Open 2020 3 (12) e2028499 IMPORTANCE: Engaging adolescent boys and young men in preventing violence against women is a potentially impactful public health strategy. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of a community-based, gender-transformative program (ie, Manhood 2.0) on perpetration of gender-based violence by adolescent boys and young men. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In this unblinded cluster randomized clinical trial, neighborhoods were designated as the unit of clustering (1:1 allocation). Three-month (ie, time point 2 [T2]) and 9-month (ie, time point 3 [T3]) follow-ups were conducted. The trial took place in 20 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, neighborhoods and 1 centrally located site with concentrated disadvantage. Pittsburgh-based adolescent boys and young men (ages 13 to 19 years) were recruited between July 27, 2015, and June 5, 2017, through youth-serving organizations and community-based alternatives to residential placement for juvenile justice-involved youth. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted from June 2018 to November 2019. INTERVENTIONS: Manhood 2.0, an international program adapted for adolescent boys and young men in US urban communities, encourages these individuals to challenge gender norms that foster violence against women and unhealthy sexual relationships. Individuals in the control population received job-readiness training. Each program was 18 hours. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was change in participant-level perpetration of sexual violence (SV) or adolescent relationship abuse (ARA) at T3. RESULTS: Among 866 participants, 465 individuals (54%) enrolled in 11 intervention clusters and 401 individuals (46%) enrolled in 10 control clusters. In the intervention group, 325 participants (70%) were analyzed at T2 and 334 participants (72%) were analyzed at T3; in the control group, 262 participants (65%) were analyzed at T2 and 301 participants (75%) were analyzed at T3. Mean (SD) age was 15.5 (1.6) years; 609 participants (70%) self-identified as non-Hispanic Black, and 178 (20%) self-identified as Hispanic, multiracial, or other race/ethnicity other than White. Among individuals in the intervention group, 296 participants (64%) reported any SV or ARA perpetration at baseline, and 173 participants (52%) reported any SV or ARA perpetration at T3. Among individuals in the control group, 213 participants (53%) reported any SV or ARA perpetration at baseline, and 124 participants (41%) reported any SV or ARA perpetration at T3). The difference in reduction between groups was not significant. There was no evidence of an intervention effect for the primary outcome (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% CI, 0.86-2.01; P = .20). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The findings from this evaluation of a community-based gender-transformative program for adolescent boys and young men did not show a significant intervention effect in reducing SV or ARA perpetration between Manhood 2.0 and a job-readiness control program. Combining gender-transformative approaches with job-readiness programs may be relevant for violence prevention in low-resource urban settings. Attention to improving implementation and strategies to sustain such community-based efforts are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02427061. |
Use of national asthma guidelines by allergists and pulmonologists: A national survey
Cloutier MM , Akinbami LJ , Salo PM , Schatz M , Simoneau T , Wilkerson JC , Diette G , Elward KS , Fuhlbrigge A , Mazurek JM , Feinstein L , Williams S , Zeldin DC . J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract 2020 8 (9) 3011-3020 e2 BACKGROUND: Little is known about specialist-specific variations in guideline agreement and adoption. OBJECTIVE: To assess similarities and differences between allergists and pulmonologists in adherence to cornerstone components of the National Asthma Education and Prevention Program's Third Expert Panel Report (EPR-3). METHODS: Self-reported guideline agreement, self-efficacy and adherence were assessed in allergists (n=134) and pulmonologists (n=99) in the 2012 National Asthma Survey of Physicians. Multivariate models were used to assess if physician and practice characteristics explained bivariate associations between specialty and "almost always" adhering to recommendations (i.e., >/=75% of the time). RESULTS: Allergists and pulmonologists reported high guideline self-efficacy and moderate guideline agreement. Both groups "almost always" assessed asthma control (66.2%, SE 4.3), assessed school/work asthma triggers (71.3%, SE 3.9), and endorsed inhaled corticosteroids use (95.5%, SE 2.0). Repeated assessment of inhaler technique, use of asthma action/treatment plans and spirometry were lower (39.7%, SE 4.0, 30.6%, SE 3.6, 44.7%, SE 4.1, respectively). Compared to pulmonologists, more allergists almost always performed spirometry (56.6% vs 38.6%, P=.06), asked about nighttime awakening (91.9% vs 76.5%, P=.03) and ED visits (92.2% vs 76.5%, P=0.03), assessed home triggers (70.5% vs 52.6%, P=.06) and performed allergy testing (61.8% vs 21.3%, P<0.001). In multivariate analyses, practice-specific characteristics explained differences except for allergy testing. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, allergists and pulmonologists adhere to the asthma guidelines with notable exceptions, including asthma action plan use and inhaler technique assessment. Recommendations with low implementation offer opportunities for further exploration and could serve as targets for increasing guideline uptake. |
Engendering healthy masculinities to prevent sexual violence: Rationale for and design of the Manhood 2.0 trial
Abebe KZ , Jones KA , Culyba AJ , Feliz NB , Anderson H , Torres I , Zelazny S , Bamwine P , Boateng A , Cirba B , Detchon A , Devine D , Feinstein Z , Macak J , Massof M , Miller-Walfish S , Morrow SE , Mulbah P , Mulwa Z , Paglisotti T , Ripper L , Ports KA , Matjasko JL , Garg A , Kato-Wallace J , Pulerwitz J , Miller E . Contemp Clin Trials 2018 71 18-32 Violence against women and girls is an important global health concern. Numerous health organizations highlight engaging men and boys in preventing violence against women as a potentially impactful public health prevention strategy. Adapted from an international setting for use in the US, "Manhood 2.0" is a "gender transformative" program that involves challenging harmful gender and sexuality norms that foster violence against women while promoting bystander intervention (i.e., giving boys skills to interrupt abusive behaviors they witness among peers) to reduce the perpetration of sexual violence (SV) and adolescent relationship abuse (ARA). Manhood 2.0 is being rigorously evaluated in a community-based cluster-randomized trial in 21 lower resource Pittsburgh neighborhoods with 866 adolescent males ages 13-19. The comparison intervention is a job readiness training program which focuses on the skills needed to prepare youth for entering the workforce, including goal setting, accountability, resume building, and interview preparation. This study will provide urgently needed information about the effectiveness of a gender transformative program, which combines healthy sexuality education, gender norms change, and bystander skills to interrupt peers' disrespectful and harmful behaviors to reduce SV/ARA perpetration among adolescent males. In this manuscript, we outline the rationale for and evaluation design of Manhood 2.0. Clinical Trials #: NCT02427061. |
NHF-McMaster guideline on care models for haemophilia management
Pai M , Key NS , Skinner M , Curtis R , Feinstein M , Kessler C , Lane SJ , Makris M , Riker E , Santesso N , Soucie JM , Yeung CH , Iorio A , Schunemann HJ . Haemophilia 2016 22 Suppl 3 6-16 This guideline was developed to identify evidence-based best practices in haemophilia care delivery, and discuss the range of care providers and services that are most important to optimize outcomes for persons with haemophilia (PWH) across the United States. The guideline was developed following specific methods described in detail in this supplement and based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach). Direct evidence from published literature and the haemophilia community, as well as indirect evidence from other chronic diseases, were reviewed, synthesized and applied to create evidence-based recommendations. The Guideline panel suggests that the integrated care model be used over non-integrated care models for PWH (conditional recommendation, moderate certainty in the evidence). For PWH with inhibitors and those at high risk for inhibitor development, the same recommendation was graded as strong, with moderate certainty in the evidence. The panel suggests that a haematologist, a specialized haemophilia nurse, a physical therapist, a social worker and round-the-clock access to a specialized coagulation laboratory be part of the integrated care team, over an integrated care team that does not include all of these components (conditional recommendation, very low certainty in the evidence). Based on available evidence, the integrated model of care in its current structure, is suggested for optimal care of PWH. There is a need for further appropriately designed studies that address unanswered questions about specific outcomes and the optimal structure of the integrated care delivery model in haemophilia. |
- Page last reviewed:Feb 1, 2024
- Page last updated:Jan 27, 2025
- Content source:
- Powered by CDC PHGKB Infrastructure