The Humanities as Medical Equipment

2018 Annual James V. Warren Memorial Lecture featuring Tod S. Chambers, PhD, Associate Professor, Northwestern Feinberg School of Medicine, "The Humanities as Medical Equipment," Thursday, April 12, 2018, James Hospital Conference Center, The Wexner Medical Center at The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Most discussions of the medical humanities focus either on the way medicine is represented in the arts or on how the arts can foster empathy. In this presentation, Chambers argues that viewing the humanities as "equipment for living" provides a powerful alternative for understanding how the arts can furnish patients and health care professionals with ways to encompass, understand, and respond to commonly experienced situations in health care

Numerical Approaches to Spacetime Singularities

This Living Review updates a previous version which its itself an update of a review article. Numerical exploration of the properties of singularities could, in principle, yield detailed understanding of their nature in physically realistic cases. Examples of numerical investigations into the formation of naked singularities, critical behavior in collapse, passage through the Cauchy horizon, chaos of the Mixmaster singularity, and singularities in spatially inhomogeneous cosmologies are discussed.Comment: 51 pages, 6 figures may be found in online version: Living Rev. Relativity 2002-1 at www.livingreviews.or

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication

BACKGROUND: While discussion continues over the future implementation of lung cancer screening, low participation from higher risk groups could limit the effectiveness of any national screening programme. OBJECTIVES: To compare smokers' beliefs about lung cancer screening with those of former and never smokers within a low socioeconomic status (SES) sample, to explore the views of lower SES smokers and ex-smokers in-depth, and to provide insights into effective engagement strategies. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using proactive, community-based recruitment methods, we surveyed 175 individuals from socioeconomically deprived communities with high smoking prevalence and subsequently interviewed 21 smokers and ex-smokers. Participants were approached in community settings or responded to a mail-out from their housing association. RESULTS: Interviewees were supportive of screening in principle, but many were doubtful about its ability to deliver long-term survival benefit for their generation of "heavy smokers." Lung cancer was perceived as an uncontrollable disease, and the survey data showed that fatalism, worry and perceived risk of lung cancer were particularly high among smokers compared with non-smokers. Perceived blame and stigma around lung cancer as a self-inflicted smokers' disease were implicated by interviewees as important social deterrents of screening participation. The belief that lungs are not a treatable organ appeared to be a common lay explanation for poor survival and undermined the potential value of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes towards screening among this high-risk group are complex. Invitation strategies need to be carefully devised to achieve equitable participation in screening