Measuring quality of life in mental health: Are we asking the right questions?

Measuring quality-adjusted-life years using generic preference-based quality of life measures is common practice when evaluating health interventions. However, there are concerns that measures in common use, such as the EQ-5D and SF-6D, focus overly on physical health and therefore may not be appropriate for measuring quality of life for people with mental health problems. The aim of this research was to identify the domains of quality of life that are important to people with mental health problems in order to assess the content validity of these generic measures. Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted with 19 people, recruited from UK mental health services, with a broad range of mental health problems at varying levels of severity. This complemented a previous systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on the same topic. Seven domains important to quality of life for people with mental health problems were identified: well-being and ill-being; relationships and a sense of belonging; activity; self-perception; autonomy, hope and hopelessness; and physical health. These were consistent with the systematic review, with the addition of physical health as a domain, and revealed a differing emphasis on the positive and negative aspects of quality of life according to the severity of the mental health problems. We conclude that the content of existing generic preference-based measures of health do not cover this domain space well. Additionally, because people may experience substantial improvements in their quality of life without registering on the positive end of a quality of life scale, it is important that the full spectrum of negative through to positive aspects of each domain are included in any quality of life measure

Fear of hypoglycaemia: defining a minimum clinically important difference in patients with type 2 diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To explore the concept of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MID) of the Worry Scale of the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS-II) and to quantify the clinical importance of different types of patient-reported hypoglycaemia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An observational study was conducted in Germany with 392 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with combinations of oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents. Patients completed the HFS-II, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and reported on severity of hypoglycaemia. Distribution- and anchor-based methods were used to determine MID. In turn, MID was used to determine if hypoglycaemia with or without need for assistance was clinically meaningful compared to having had no hypoglycaemia.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>112 patients (28.6%) reported hypoglycaemic episodes, with 15 patients (3.8%) reporting episodes that required assistance from others. Distribution- and anchor-based methods resulted in MID between 2.0 and 5.8 and 3.6 and 3.9 for the HFS-II, respectively. Patients who reported hypoglycaemia with (21.6) and without (12.1) need for assistance scored higher on the HFS-II (range 0 to 72) than patients who did not report hypoglycaemia (6.0).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We provide MID for HFS-II. Our findings indicate that the differences between having reported no hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia without need for assistance, and hypoglycaemia with need for assistance appear to be clinically important in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents.</p

Clinical Safety-in-Use Study of a New Tampon Design

Objective: To confirm the safety of a new experimental Tampax(®) tampon and applicator compared with that of a currently marketed Tampax(®) tampon and applicator using comprehensive gynecological and microbiological assessments. Methods: A 2-month, single-blind, randomized, crossover study was conducted in which each subject served as her own control. Safety was evaluated by comparing potential product-related irritation (using colposcopic examination and subject diary data), assessment of vaginal discharge, vaginal pH, and effects on selected microorganisms (yeast, Escherichia coli ,Staphylococcus aureus and group B streptococci) obtained by vaginal swab cultures after normal menstrual use in the experimental and control groups. Results: In total, 110 women completed the study. There were no significant differences between the groups that used either the experimental or control tampon with regard to prevalence or mean cell density for the selected microorganisms. No differences were observed in the incidence or severity of erythema, in abrasion or ulceration of the cervix, vagina, introitus, vulva or perineum, or in mean vaginal pH and discharge assessments. There were equivalent low incidences of reported symptoms such as discomfort during insertion, wear or removal, and a similar low incidence of burning, stinging or itching during use of either the control or experimental tampon. There was a more favorable overall product rating for the experimental tampon (p = 0.003). Conclusions: This approach provides a combination of gynecological, microbiological and self-reported (diary recall) methodologies in order to assess tampon safety during use more thoroughly than has previously been reported, and it supports a comparable safety profile for the experimental tampon and a currently marketed tampon

Criteria for the use of omics-based predictors in clinical trials: Explanation and elaboration

High-throughput 'omics' technologies that generate molecular profiles for biospecimens have been extensively used in preclinical studies to reveal molecular subtypes and elucidate the biological mechanisms of disease, and in retrospective studies on clinical specimens to develop mathematical models to predict clinical endpoints. Nevertheless, the translation of these technologies into clinical tests that are useful for guiding management decisions for patients has been relatively slow. It can be difficult to determine when the body of evidence for an omics-based test is sufficiently comprehensive and reliable to support claims that it is ready for clinical use, or even that it is ready for definitive evaluation in a clinical trial in which it may be used to direct patient therapy. Reasons for this difficulty include the exploratory and retrospective nature of many of these studies, the complexity of these assays and their application to clinical specimens, and the many potential pitfalls inherent in the development of mathematical predictor models from the very high-dimensional data generated by these omics technologies. Here we present a checklist of criteria to consider when evaluating the body of evidence supporting the clinical use of a predictor to guide patient therapy. Included are issues pertaining to specimen and assay requirements, the soundness of the process for developing predictor models, expectations regarding clinical study design and conduct, and attention to regulatory, ethical, and legal issues. The proposed checklist should serve as a useful guide to investigators preparing proposals for studies involving the use of omics-based tests. The US National Cancer Institute plans to refer to these guidelines for review of proposals for studies involving omics tests, and it is hoped that other sponsors will adopt the checklist as well. © 2013 McShane et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Infection control file.

The file contains information for dentists in managing risks of transmitting infectious agents to their patients and vice versa; such as understanding aids, recommended infection control practices for dentistry, update universal precautions for prevention of transmission of human immunode-ficiency virus, hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens in health-care settings.Shipping list no.: 90-468-P."December 1898"--Pamphlets and leaflets.Title from portfolio.Mode of access: Internet