Methods: In order to assess the reliability and validity of prevalence estimates taken from the BRFSS, scholarship published from 2004-2011 dealing with tests of reliability and validity of BRFSS measures was compiled and presented by topics of health risk behavior. Assessments of the quality of each publication were undertaken using a categorical rubric. Higher rankings were achieved by authors who conducted reliability tests using repeated test/retest measures, or who conducted tests using multiple samples. A similar rubric was used to rank validity assessments. Validity tests which compared the BRFSS to physical measures were ranked

higher than those comparing the BRFSS to other self-reported data. Literature which undertook more sophisticated statistical comparisons was also ranked higher.

Results: Overall findings indicated that BRFSS selleck kinase inhibitor prevalence rates were comparable to other national surveys which rely on self-reports, although specific differences are noted for some categories of response. BRFSS prevalence rates were less similar to surveys which utilize physical measures

in addition to www.selleckchem.com/products/sbe-b-cd.html self-reported data. There is very little research on reliability and validity for some health topics, but a great deal of information supporting the validity of the BRFSS data for others.

Conclusions: Limitations of the examination of the BRFSS were due to question differences among surveys used as comparisons, as well as mode of data collection differences. selleck chemical As the BRFSS moves to incorporating cell phone data and changing weighting methods, a review of reliability and validity research indicated that past BRFSS landline only data were

reliable and valid as measured against other surveys. New analyses and comparisons of BRFSS data which include the new methodologies and cell phone data will be needed to ascertain the impact of these changes on estimates in the future.”
“How we frame our thoughts about chronic opioid therapy greatly influences our ability to practice patient-centered care. Even providers who strive to be nonjudgmental may approach clinical decision-making about opioids by considering if the pain is real or they can trust the patient. Not only does this framework potentially lead to poor or unshared decision-making, it likely adds to provider and patient discomfort by placing the provider in the position of a police officer or a judge. Similarly, providers often find themselves making deals with patients using a positional bargaining approach. Even if a compromise is reached, this framework can potentially inadvertently weaken the therapeutic relationship by encouraging the idea that the patient and provider have opposing goals. Reframing the issue can allow the provider to be in a more therapeutic role.