Whiteside, Stephen P.

We aimed to develop tools that can facilitate uptake of evidence summarised in systematic reviews by clinical decision makers in health systems. After conducting a systematic review on the management of anxiety in children, we interviewed health system representatives, clinicians and patients to ask about additional information needed for decision-making. Using stakeholders’ feedback and literature searches for contextual and implementation information, we developed two tools (decision aids (DAs)), one for the health system and the second for the clinical encounter. This information mapped to factors of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision Framework. The health system DAs provided information on which patients are candidate for treatment, values and preferences, costs and resources, acceptability, impact on health equity, feasibility, drug dosing, alternative therapies, remission rates and prognosis. Health system stakeholders found the DA useful for clinical decision-making and generalisable to other conditions. The encounter DA was produced as cards containing information on issues that drive treatment decisions (effect on symptoms, effect on function, treatment burden, side effects and cost). Patients and parents prioritised the cards and chose the order in which these issues were discussed with clinician. The encounter DA was found to be helpful by patients, parents and clinicians. We conclude that the uptake of evidence summaries by health systems can be enhanced by developing tools that provide contextual and implementation information about clinical care. A dual approach addressing health system stakeholders as well as clinicians and patients is likely feasible and helpful.

The current study attempts to clarify the multi‐faceted nature of impulsivity through the use of the four‐factor UPPS Impulsive Behaviour scale. In order to build the nomological network surrounding this scale, the UPPS was administered to individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD), pathological gamblers (PG), alcohol abusers (divided into two groups based on the presence of antisocial features), and a control group. Several of the UPPS scales (e.g. Urgency, lack of Premeditation, and Sensation Seeking) differentiated the BPD, PG, and alcohol abusers with antisocial features from a group of non‐antisocial alcohol abusers and a control group. Overall, the UPPS scales accounted for between 7% (pathological gambling) and 64% (borderline personality disorder features) of the overall variance in the psychopathology measures. Individual UPPS scales also made unique contributions to several of these disorders, which may provide insight into which of these personality traits may predispose individuals to behave in maladaptive or problematic ways. The results provide support for the differentiation of impulsivity‐related constructs into the current four‐factor model. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.