Project description:Background and objectivesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) disrupted medical care across health care settings for older patients with advanced CKD. Understanding how shared decision making for kidney treatment decisions was influenced by the uncertainty of an evolving pandemic can provide insights for supporting shared decision making through the current and future public health crises.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe performed thematic and narrative analyses of semistructured interviews with patients (CKD stages 4 and 5, age 70+), care partners, and clinicians from Boston, Portland (Maine), San Diego, and Chicago from August to December 2020.ResultsWe interviewed 76 participants (39 patients, 17 care partners, and 20 clinicians). Among patient participants, 13 (33%) patients identified as Black, and seven (18%) had initiated dialysis. Four themes with corresponding subthemes emerged related to treatment decision making and the COVID-19 pandemic: (1) adapting to changed educational and patient engagement practices (patient barriers to care and new opportunities for telemedicine); (2) reconceptualizing vulnerability (clinician awareness of illness severity increased and limited discussions of patient COVID-19 vulnerability); (3) embracing home-based dialysis but not conservative management (openness to home-based modalities and limited discussion of conservative management and advanced care planning); and (4) satisfaction and safety with treatment decisions despite conditions of uncertainty.ConclusionsAlthough clinicians perceived greater vulnerability among older patients CKD and more readily encouraged home-based modalities during the COVID-19 pandemic, their discussions of vulnerability, advance care planning, and conservative management remained limited, suggesting areas for improvement. Clinicians reported burnout caused by the pandemic, increased time demands, and workforce limitations, whereas patients remained satisfied with their treatment choices despite uncertainty.Clinical trial registry name and registration numberDecision Aid for Renal Therapy (DART), NCT03522740.
Project description:The world is going through an unprecedented time in history, and Urologists are, like many other healthcare professionals, facing and combating on two fronts: against the pandemic itself and cancer. When looking at the fatality rates, bladder cancer overcomes Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by far and can be as high as 52%, so Urologists must not postpone investigation. Cystoscopy remains the gold standard for the investigation of bladder cancer and computed tomography (CT) urography for obtaining images of the upper tract in cases of macroscopic hematuria. Whenever transurethral resection of bladder tumor (TURB) is necessary, extra care must be taken to assure muscle sample, avoiding another surgical intervention and hospitalization, but when necessary it should not be postponed due to the elevated progression rate of the disease. Follow-up cystoscopies can be postponed for 6 months for low risk, 3 months for intermediate, 6 weeks for high risk, and not beyond 24 hours in case of emergencies as life-threatening hematuria, anemia, and urinary retention. Regarding chemotherapy, more than ever the key point is to evaluate each case individually. Bacille Calmette Guerin (BCG) must be considered only as an inducing course, in selected intermediate and most high-risk cancers. Whenever possible patients should be tested before surgery. Based on the current literature on optimal bladder cancer patients approach we comprehensively synthetize the major societies guidelines on the issue so far, adding a critical view to the topic. This article aims to guide Urologists on decision making against bladder cancer in the COVID-19 era.
Project description:ObjectiveIndividuals diagnosed with low risk, localised prostate cancer (PCa) face a difficult decision between active surveillance (AS) and definitive treatment. We aimed to explore perceived influences on treatment decision-making from the patient and partner's perspectives.MethodsPatients (and partners) who met AS criteria and had chosen their treatment were recruited. Semi-structured individual interviews were conducted via telephone to explore experiences of diagnosis, impact on patient lifestyle, experiences with physicians, treatment preferences/choice, treatment information understanding and needs, and overall decision-making process. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis.ResultsTwenty-four male patients (18 chose AS) and 12 female partners participated. Five themes relating to social-ecological influences on treatment choice were identified: (1) partner support and direct influence on patient treatment choice, (2) patient and partner vicarious experiences may influence treatment decisions, (3) the influence of the patient's life circumstances, (4) disclosing to wider social networks: friends, family, and co-workers, and (5) the importance of a good relationship and experience with physicians. Additionally, two themes were identified relating to information patients and partners received about the treatment options during their decision-making process.ConclusionsA range of individual and social influences on treatment decision-making were reported. Physicians providing treatment recommendations should consider and discuss the patient and partner's existing beliefs and treatment preferences and encourage shared decision-making. Further research on treatment decision-making of partnered and non-partnered PCa patients is required. We recommend research considers social ecological factors across the personal, interpersonal, community, and policy levels.
Project description:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, impacting 2.1 million women each year. The number of publications on BC is much higher than for any other type of tumor, as well as the number of clinical trials. One of the consequences of all this information is reflected in the number of approved drugs. This review aims to discuss the impact of technological advances in the diagnosis, treatment and decision making of breast cancer and the prospects for the next 10 years. Currently, the literature has described personalized medicine, but what will the treatment be called for in the coming years?
Project description:BackgroundThe closure of childcare organizations (e.g. schools, childcare centers, afterschool programs, summer camps) during the Covid-19 pandemic impacted the health and wellbeing of families. Despite their reopening, parents may be reluctant to enroll their children in summer programming. Knowledge of the beliefs that underlie parental concerns will inform best practices for organizations that serve children.MethodsParents (n = 17) participated in qualitative interviews (October 2020) to discuss Covid-19 risk perceptions and summer program enrollment intentions. Based on interview responses to perceived Covid-19 risk, two groups emerged for analysis- "Elevated Risk (ER)" and "Conditional Risk (CR)". Themes were identified utilizing independent coding and constant-comparison analysis. Follow-up interviews (n = 12) in the Spring of 2021 evaluated the impact of vaccine availability on parent risk perceptions. Additionally, parents (n = 17) completed the Covid-19 Impact survey to assess perceived exposure (Range: 0-25) and household impact (Range: 2-60) of the pandemic. Scores were summed and averaged for the sample and by risk classification group.ResultsParents overwhelmingly supported the operation of summer programming during the pandemic due to perceived child benefits. Parent willingness to enroll their children in summer programming evolved with time and was contingent upon the successful implementation of safety precautions (e.g. outdoor activities, increased handwashing/sanitizing of surfaces). Interestingly, parents indicated low exposure (ER: Avg. 6.3 ± 3.1 Range [2-12], CR: Avg. 7.5 ± 3.6 Range [1-14]) and moderate family impact (ER: Avg. 27.1 ± 6.9 Range [20-36], CR: Avg. 33.7 ± 11.4 Range [9-48]) on the impact survey.ConclusionChildcare organizations should mandate and evaluate the implementation of desired Covid-19 safety precautions for their patrons.
Project description:Machine learning (ML) has the potential to transform patient care and outcomes. However, there are important differences between measuring the performance of ML models in silico and usefulness at the point of care. One lens to use to evaluate models during early development is actionability, which is currently undervalued. We propose a metric for actionability intended to be used before the evaluation of calibration and ultimately decision curve analysis and calculation of net benefit. Our metric should be viewed as part of an overarching effort to increase the number of pragmatic tools that identify a model's possible clinical impacts.
Project description:Dementia and cancer occur commonly in older adults. Yet, little is known about the effect of dementia on cancer treatment and outcomes in patients diagnosed with cancer, and no guidelines exist. We performed a mixed studies review to assess the current knowledge and gaps on the impact of dementia on cancer treatment decision-making, cancer treatment, and mortality. A search in PubMed, Medline, and PsycINFO identified 55 studies on older adults with a dementia diagnosis before a cancer diagnosis and/or comorbid cancer and dementia published in English from January 2004 to February 2020. We described variability using range in quantitative estimates, ie, odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), and risk ratios (RR) when appropriate and performed narrative review of qualitative data. Patients with dementia were more likely to receive no curative treatment (including hospice or palliative care) (OR, HR, and RR range = 0.40-4.4, n = 8), while less likely to receive chemotherapy (OR and HR range = 0.11-0.68, n = 8), radiation (OR range = 0.24-0.56, n = 2), and surgery (OR range = 0.30-1.3, n = 4). Older adults with cancer and dementia had higher mortality than those with cancer alone (HR and OR range = 0.92-5.8, n = 33). Summarized findings from qualitative studies consistently revealed that clinicians, caregivers, and patients tended to prefer less aggressive care and gave higher priority to quality of life over life expectancy for those with dementia. Current practices in treatment-decision making for patients with both cancer and dementia are inconsistent. There is an urgent need for treatment guidelines for this growing patient population that considers patient and caregiver perspectives.
Project description:Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a highly contagious zoonotic pathogen that has exacted heavy public health, social and economic tolls. In February 2020, the World Health Organization acronymed the disease caused by SARS-CoV-2 as COVID-19, for coronavirus disease 2019. The number of confirmed COVID-19 infections, which has been detected in at least 103 countries, has reached 1,970,225 worldwide as of April 14, 2020 with 124,544 deaths, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Many cases of COVID-19 resolve quickly. However, the disease, which, like other respiratory pathogens that cause common cold symptoms is believed to be transmitted through respiratory droplets. Infection with COVID-19 can also lead to significant morbidity and death; this is particularly the case for cancer patients. Moreover, because the signs and symptoms of COVID-19 are easily misattributed to the sequelae of cancer itself, such as pulmonary embolism, or its treatment, such as nausea and diarrhea, diagnosis may be delayed or missed. Potential COVID-19 rule out criteria, based on the Wells' criteria for pulmonary embolism, another protean disease entity, are provided as a decision-making aid. This review summarizes the current understanding of the transmission, clinical presentation, diagnosis and differential diagnosis, pathogenesis, rationale to treat the cancer or not, treatment and prevention of COVID-19 with an emphasis on implications in cancer.
Project description:ObjectiveTo conceptualise the cognitive processes of early expert decision-making in urgent care.BackgroundExpert clinicians in the UK frequently determine suitable urgent care patient pathways via telephone triage. This strategy is promoted by policymakers but how it is performed, and its effectiveness has not been evaluated. Evaluation of early senior decision-making requires knowledge of decision-processes, influences, and goals. Previous research has focused on diagnostic decision-making and rarely studied clinicians in the field.MethodWe triangulated analytic autoethnography of early expert decision-making with focused ethnography of experts and trainee doctors performing the task. The study took place in a medium-sized Acute Medical Unit which provided internal medical emergency care for a mixed urban and rural population in the UK. A grounded theoretical model of expert decision-making was created via Gioia Methodology. Decision types were categorised to identify differences in solutions as well as decision processes.ResultsThe hallmarks of intuitive decision-making were found in most expert decisions. Experts made intuitive use of pattern-matching to extract key data from large volumes of information which triggered the spontaneous manifestation of solutions. Solutions were holistic and usually solitary. Upon manifestation solutions were consciously tested for viability with emotional affect playing a key role. Expert solutions were previously applied ones but were frequently entirely novel. Novel solution generation was not a feature of trainee decisions but moments of intuition were. Expert goals varied between optimal care for individual patients, system-wide efficiency, and equity of care. The decision environment had a large influence upon experts.ConclusionExpert clinicians employ intuitive decision-making supported by rational analysis in early urgent care decision-making. Expert solutions generated in this manner are pragmatic rather than optimal, context dependent, and seek to achieve goals which vary from moment-moment. Findings are crucial to inform research evaluating the effectiveness of early expert decision-making in urgent care as it is a high cost strategy. They also have implications for methodological approaches in future studies of expert clinical decision-making, developing artificial expert systems, and clinician training.