5 research outputs found
Training
Training is a manuscript of poems that explores childhood, family immigration stories, manhood, love, and family building, all through a Jewish lens. Fear mixes with humor mixes with hope, often in the same vignette. The manuscript is broken into three parts. The first, Jewboy, focuses on the author\u27s childhood and experiences of learning religion, masculinity, and family. The second, The New Tefillin, is a series of sonnets about the speaker\u27s great grandfather and his twins boxing in early 1900\u27s Chicago. The third, Learning Polish, as a series of poems that explore love, culture, and the worlds we open to the people who matter
Patient and physician characteristics associated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agent use in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes
Patient and physician characteristics associated with use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in myelodysplastic syndrome patients have not yet been described. Myelodysplastic syndrome patients diagnosed from 2001 to 2005 were identified from the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results-Medicare database. Multivariate regressions examined the association between patient and physician characteristics and the probability of receiving any erythropoiesis-stimulating agents, and of receiving therapeutic-length (≥8 week) treatment episodes
Recommended from our members
Patient, family caregiver, and economic outcomes of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention in the oncology setting in the USA (CARES): a randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial
The current standard of care of screening and referring patients for treatment for symptoms, such as depression, pain, and fatigue, is not effective. This trial aimed to test the efficacy of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention versus standard of care for patients with cancer and at least one of the following symptoms: depression, pain, or fatigue.This randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial was conducted in 29 oncology outpatient clinics associated with the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center in the USA. Patients (aged ≥21 years) with any cancer type and clinical levels of depression, pain, or fatigue (or all of these) were eligible. Eligible family caregivers were aged 21 years or older and providing care to a patient diagnosed with cancer who consented for this study. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to stepped collaborative care or standard of care using a central, permuted block design (sizes of 2, 4, and 6) stratified by sex and prognostic status. The biostatistician, oncologists, and outcome assessors were masked to treatment assignment. Stepped collaborative care was once-weekly cognitive behavioural therapy for 50-60 min from a care coordinator via telemedicine (eg, telephone or videoconferencing). Pharmacotherapy for symptoms might be initiated or changed if recommended by the treatment team or preferred by the patient. Standard of care was screening and referral to a health-care provider for treatment of symptoms. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life in patients at 6 months. Maintenance of the treatment benefits was assessed at 12 months. Participants included in the primary analysis were per intention to treat, which included patients missing one or both follow-up assessments. This trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02939755).Between Dec 5, 2016, and April 8, 2021, 459 patients and 190 family caregivers were enrolled. 222 patients were assigned to standard of care and 237 to stepped collaborative care. Of 459 patients, 201 (44%) were male and 258 (56%) were female. Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had a greater 0-6-month improvement in health-related quality of life than patients in the standard-of-care group (p=0·013, effect size 0·09). Health-related quality of life was maintained for the stepped collaborative care group (p=0·74, effect size 0·01). Patients in the stepped collaborative care group had greater 0-6-month improvements than the standard-of-care group in emotional (p=0·012), functional (p=0·042), and physical (p=0·033) wellbeing. No adverse events were reported by patients in either group and deaths were considered unrelated to the study.An integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention, compared with the current standard of care, is recommended to improve health-related quality of life. The findings of this study will advance the implementation of guideline concordant care (screening and treatment) and has the potential to shift the practice of screening and treatment paradigm nationwide, improving outcomes for patients diagnosed with cancer.US National Cancer Institute
Recommended from our members
A phase III randomized controlled trial of a stepped collaborative care intervention versus standard of care
e24191 Background: The aims of this study were to screen patients for symptoms of depression, pain, and/or fatigue and test the efficacy of a stepped collaborative care (SCC) intervention compared to standard of care (SC). When compared to SC, we expected that the patients randomized to the SCC intervention would report greater improvements in patient quality of life (QoL) and lower health care utilization and costs. Family caregivers, of patients randomized to the SCC, were expected to have lower risk of cardiovascular disease when compared to family caregivers, of patients randomized to SC. Methods: Of the 459 patients and 211 caregivers enrolled in this trial, patients’ mean age was 66 years, the majority were female (56.2%) and Caucasian (92.6%). Family caregivers had a mean age of 62 years, the majority were female (69%) and Caucasian (87%). Patients were screened for clinical levels of depression, pain, and/or fatigue and then were randomized to the SCC intervention or SC arm (referral to a community provider for treatment). Family caregivers were administered questionnaires and provided blood and anthropometric data to assess risk of CVD using the ASCVD calculator. Family caregivers did not receive the intervention. Health care utilization was collected from the patients' medical record and activity-based costs were used to assess health care savings. Intent to treat analyses using general linear mixed models were employed to test the hypotheses. Results: General linear mixed models revealed an interaction of quadratic time by arm effect with patients who were randomized to the SCC intervention having greater 0-to-6-month improvement in overall QoL versus patients randomized to the SC arm [t(579) = 2.23, p = .0259]. No group difference was observed in 6-to-12 month change in QoL suggesting maintenance of gains were observed at 12 months [t(561) = -1.34, p > .10]. Multivariate analyses showed a similar pattern of more rapid gains in the subscales of QoL at 6-months in the patients randomized to the SCC intervention when compared to patients in the SC arm on the emotional well-being [t(1,856) = 2.27, p = 0.012], functional well-being [t(1, 891) = 1.73, p = 0.042]; and physical well-being subscales [t(1,777) = 1.84, p = 0.033]. Family caregivers, of patients who were randomly assigned to the SCC intervention, had lower lifetime cardiovascular risk, when compared family caregivers of patients who were randomized to the SC (uMV χ 2 =9.00, p = 0.027). Activity based costs savings of $12,546 per patient per year in activity-based costs were observed for patients randomized to the SCC intervention versus SC. The drivers of the activity-based cost savings appear to be reductions in complication and readmission rates. Conclusions: Cancer centers, and payors, interested in novel delivery and payment models may consider this integrated strategy to improve patient quality of life and save health care costs. Clinical trial information: NCT02944136