scholarly journals The current role and perceived benefits and barriers of secondary care pharmacists facilitating patient participation in Clinical Trials of Investigational Medicinal Products (CTIMPs) conducted within the NHS: A cross‐sectional survey

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 142-148
Author(s):  
Michelle Watson ◽  
Bridgette M. Bewick ◽  
Puvan Tharmanathan
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Patient Participation ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Perceived Benefits ◽  
Medicinal Products ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Current Role

scholarly journals Patient-reported experience and outcomes from orthodontic treatment

2020 ◽  
Vol 47 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-115
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Bradley ◽  
Andrew Shelton ◽  
Trevor Hodge ◽  
David Morris ◽  
Hilary Bekker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Secondary Care ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Treatment Experience ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pre Treatment

Objective: To measure patient-reported impact of orthodontic treatment in terms of pre-treatment concerns, treatment experience and treatment outcome. Setting: Four sites in Yorkshire, including two secondary care settings (Leeds Dental Institute and St Luke’s Hospital, Bradford) and two specialist orthodontic practices. Design: Cross-sectional survey. Participants: NHS orthodontic patients (aged 12+ years) who have completed comprehensive orthodontic treatment, excluding orthognathic surgery and craniofacial anomalies. Methods: Participants were opportunistically identified by the direct clinical care team during scheduled appointments and those eligible were invited to participate. Data were collected using the Orthodontic Patient Treatment Impact Questionnaire (OPTIQ), a validated 12-item measure with questions relating to pre-treatment experience, impact of treatment and outcome from treatment. Results: Completed questionnaires for analysis included 120 from primary care and 83 from secondary care. The most common pre-treatment concerns were alignment (89%) and being embarrassed to smile (63%). The most common expectations from orthodontic treatment were improved confidence to eat (87%) and smile (72%) in front of others, improved appearance of teeth (85%) and reduced teasing/bullying (63%). Only 67% respondents recalled receiving written information and the lowest recall related to retainer type and length of retention. The most commonly reported complications were sore mouth (68%), fixed appliance breakage (61%) and gingivitis (39%). Treatment caused greatest impact in relation to pain, limitations in eating and effect on speech. Overall satisfaction with orthodontic treatment was reported by 96% of respondents, 87% would have orthodontic treatment again (if needed) and 91% would recommend treatment to a friend. Conclusions: The OPTIQ is a useful patient-reported tool to identify pre-treatment concerns and expectations, treatment experience and outcome. Orthodontic treatment leads to high levels of satisfaction.

scholarly journals The determinants of early breast cancer detection via breast self-examination (BSE) in Denpasar, Bali

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 37
Author(s):  
Ni Made Ari Febriyanti ◽  
Dinar Lubis ◽  
Dewa Nyoman Wirawan ◽  
Ni Luh Putu Suariyani ◽  
Mangku Karmaya
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Self Efficacy ◽  
Health Centre ◽  
Good Knowledge ◽  
Perceived Benefits ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Public Health Centre ◽  
Breast Self Examination ◽  
Self Examination

AbstractBackground and purpose: Breast cancer is the leading cause of death in females, followed by colorectal cancer. Early detection of breast cancer can be done through breast self-examination (BSE). BSE behaviour is influenced by an individual’s level of knowledge and perceptions of the procedure. This study examines the determinants of BSE behaviour in married women aged 15-49 in six villages in the working area of Puskesmas (public health centre) II in West Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia.Methods: A cross-sectional survey was employed with 180 respondents selected by multistage random sampling. Data were collected using standardised questionnaire carried out from November-December 2016. Multiple poisson regression was used to identify the determinants of the BSE behaviours.Results: The proportion of respondents who performed BSE in the three months prior to interview is 55.6%, and, of these, 50.0% reported performing BSE regularly. Multivariate analysis shows the significant determinants of BSE are: high-school and above (APR= 2.03; 95%CI:1.41 to 2.92); having a good knowledge of BSE (APR=1.41; 95%CI:1.09 to 1.82); perceived benefits  (APR=2, 24; 95%CI:1.53-3.29); perceived low barrier (APR=1.63; 95%CI:1.16-2.29); and high self-efficacy (APR=1.50;95%CI:1.16-1.95).Conclusions: Level of education, good knowledge of BSE, perceived benefits, perceived low barriers, and high level of self-efficacy are the significant determinants of BSE practice. These findings suggest that education on BSE should be enhanced, particularly for women with lower levels of education.

The brain metastasis journey: Experience from patient, caregiver, and physician surveys on diagnosis and treatment of brain metastases.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e14004-e14004
Author(s):  
Albert Eusik Kim ◽  
GI-Ming WANG ◽  
Kristin A Waite ◽  
Scott Elder ◽  
Avery Fine ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Brain Metastases ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Whole Brain Radiotherapy ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Brain Radiotherapy

e14004 Background: Brain metastases (BM) is one of the most feared complications of cancer due to substantial neurologic sequalae, neuro-cognitive morbidity and grim prognosis. In the past decade, targeted therapies and checkpoint inhibitors have resulted in meaningfully improved overall survival for a minority of these patients. Accordingly, there is a growing need to identify issues surrounding patient survivorship and to standardize physician practice patterns for these patients. To date, there has not been a well-conducted formal study to specifically explore these questions of survivorship and practice standardization for BM patients. Methods: Here, we present results from a cross-sectional survey in which we analyzed responses from 237 BM patients, 209 caregivers, and 239 physicians. Surveys contained questions about BM symptoms, discussion of BM diagnosis by the clinician, psychosocial concerns, available treatment options for BM, BM patient advocacy resources, and BM-specific clinical trials. Results: Our survey revealed compelling findings about current care of BM patients. There were discrepancies in the perceived discussion of the implications of the diagnosis of BM, from the patient/caregiver and physician perspective. Important topics, such as prognosis and worrisome symptoms, were felt to have been discussed more frequently by physicians than by patients or caregivers. In our physician survey, private practice physicians, compared to academic physicians, were significantly more likely to recommend whole brain radiotherapy (61.1 vs 39.7%; p = 0.009). Participation in a clinical trial was one of the least recommended treatment options. Many physicians (59.1% private; 71.9% academic) stated that BM patients in their care are denied participation in a clinical trial, specifically due to the presence of BM. The consensus among physicians, patients and caregivers was that the highest yield area for federal assistance is increased treatment and research funding for BM. Conclusions: Our hope is that these findings will serve as a basis for future quality improvement measures to enhance patient-physician communication and patient well-being, continuing medical education activities detailing latest advances in BM for oncologists, and lobbying efforts to the federal government in prioritizing BM research, clinical trials, and patient survivorship.

Barriers in conducting clinical trials in oncology in the developing world: A cross-sectional survey of oncologists

2016 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 174 ◽  
Author(s):  
AK D'Cruz ◽  
M Dandekar ◽  
R Trivedi ◽  
N Irawati ◽  
K Prabhash ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Developing World ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional

scholarly journals Patients’ perception of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care: a cross-sectional survey in 34 countries

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giacomo Scaioli ◽  
Willemijn L. A. Schäfer ◽  
Wienke G. W. Boerma ◽  
Peter Spreeuwenberg ◽  
Michael van den Berg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Continuity Of Care ◽  
Secondary Care ◽  
Multilevel Models ◽  
Medical Specialist ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Medical Specialists ◽  
Results Of Treatment ◽  
Personal Doctor

Abstract Background Poor communication between general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists can lead to poorer quality, and continuity, of care. Our study aims to assess patients’ perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care in 34 countries. It will analyse, too, whether this communication is associated with the organisation of primary care within a country, and with the characteristics of GPs and their patients. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey among patients in 34 countries. Following a GP consultation, patients were asked two questions. Did they take to understand that their GP had informed medical specialists about their illness upon referral? And, secondly, did their GP know the results of the treatment by a medical specialist? We used multi-response logistic multilevel models to investigate the association of factors related to primary care, the GP, and the patient, with the patients’ perceptions of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care. Results In total, 61,931 patients completed the questionnaire. We found large differences between countries, in both the patients’ perceptions of information shared by GPs with medical specialists, and the patients’ perceptions of the GPs’ awareness of the results of treatment by medical specialists. Patients whose GPs stated that they ‘seldom or never’ send referral letters, also less frequently perceived that their GP communicated with their medical specialists about their illness. Patients with GPs indicating they ‘seldom or never’ receive feedback from medical specialists, indicated less frequently that their GP would know the results of treatment by a medical specialist. Moreover, patients with a personal doctor perceived higher rates of communication in both directions at the interface between primary and secondary care. Conclusion Generally, patients perceive there to be high rates of communication at the interface between primary and secondary care, but there are large differences between countries. Policies aimed at stimulating personal doctor arrangements could, potentially, enhance the continuity of care between primary and secondary care.

scholarly journals Access to clinical trials among oncology patients: results of a cross sectional survey

BMC Cancer ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Mariko Carey ◽  
Allison W. Boyes ◽  
Rochelle Smits ◽  
Jamie Bryant ◽  
Amy Waller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Oncology Patients ◽  
Cross Sectional

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials in India: A cross-sectional survey.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e17652-e17652 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikram Gota ◽  
Manjunath Nookala ◽  
Akanksha Yadav ◽  
Sadhna Kannan ◽  
Raghib Ali
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional

Quality of informed consent in cancer clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey

The Lancet ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 358 (9295) ◽  
pp. 1772-1777 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven Joffe ◽  
E Francis Cook ◽  
Paul D Cleary ◽  
Jeffrey W Clark ◽  
Jane C Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Informed Consent ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document