2008
DOI: 10.1179/175380608790913166
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Educating older adults to avoid harmful self-medication

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2008
2008
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…A full description of the PEP-NG instruments, interface, prior usability, pilot testing with older adults, and clinical-trial methodology can be found elsewhere (Lin et al 2009, 2010; Neafsey et al 2009, 2008; Strickler et al 2008). A brief explanation of how the patient and provider utilize the PEP-NG software to achieve the study objectives is provided below, followed by a description of the research procedures adopted for the current project.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A full description of the PEP-NG instruments, interface, prior usability, pilot testing with older adults, and clinical-trial methodology can be found elsewhere (Lin et al 2009, 2010; Neafsey et al 2009, 2008; Strickler et al 2008). A brief explanation of how the patient and provider utilize the PEP-NG software to achieve the study objectives is provided below, followed by a description of the research procedures adopted for the current project.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…17 Educational interventions aimed at increasing older (aged 60 and over) patients’ knowledge and self-efficacy for avoiding adverse self-medication behaviors demonstrated positive clinical outcomes. 18,19 …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Formative research conducted with two focus groups of older adults (aged 64–92) tested two different scale formats for a separate self-efficacy measure (Strickler, Lin, Rauh & Neafsey, 2008). The first format used a numeric scale from 0–10 with 0 labeled “not at all sure” and 10 labeled “totally sure” as suggested in a guide to self-efficacy scale development for low-literacy populations (Bandura, 2006).…”
Section: Procedures For Instrument Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first format used a numeric scale from 0–10 with 0 labeled “not at all sure” and 10 labeled “totally sure” as suggested in a guide to self-efficacy scale development for low-literacy populations (Bandura, 2006). The second format used a five-point scale with five boxes labeled with verbal descriptors “not sure,” “a little sure,” “more or less sure,” “very sure,” and “totally sure.” The older adult focus group participants unanimously preferred the five-point scale with word anchors over the numeric scale (Strickler, Lin, Rauh & Neafsey, 2008). An example of a typical comment by older participants was that they could not determine “what a score of 7 would mean” on the numeric 0–10 scale.…”
Section: Procedures For Instrument Developmentmentioning
confidence: 99%