35 research outputs found

    Health Systems and Sustainability: Doctors and Consumers Differ on Threats and Solutions

    Get PDF
    Background: Healthcare systems face the problem of insufficient resources to meet the needs of ageing populations and increasing demands for access to new treatments. It is unclear whether doctors and consumers agree on the main challenges to health system sustainability. Methodology: We conducted a mail survey of Australian doctors (specialists and general practitioners) and a computer assisted telephone interview (CATI) of consumers to determine their views on contributors to increasing health care costs, rationing of services and involvement in health resource allocation decisions. Differences in responses are reported as odds ratios (OR) and 99% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 2948 doctors, 1139 (38.6%) responded; 533 of 826 consumers responded (64.5% response). Doctors were more concerned than consumers with the effects of an ageing population (OR 3.0; 99% CI 1.7, 5.4), and costs of new drugs and technologies (OR 5.1; CI 3.3, 8.0), but less likely to consider pharmaceutical promotional activities as a cost driver (OR 0.29, CI 0.22, 0.39). Doctors were more likely than consumers to view ‘community demand’ for new technologies as a major cost driver, (OR 1.6; 1.2, 2.2), but less likely to attribute increased costs to patients failing to take responsibility for their own health (OR 0.35; 0.24, 0.49). Like doctors, the majority of consumers saw a need for public consultation in decisions about funding for new treatments. Conclusions: Australian doctors and consumers hold different views on the sustainability of the healthcare system, and a number of key issues relating to costs, cost drivers, roles and responsibilities. Doctors recognise their dual responsibility to patients and society, see an important role for physicians in influencing resource allocation, and acknowledge their lack of skills in assessing treatments of marginal value. Consumers recognise cost pressures on the health system, but express willingness to be involved in health care decision making

    STEERing an IDeA in Undergraduate Research at a Rural Research Intensive University

    No full text
    This study documents outcomes, including student career choices, of the North Dakota Institutional Development Award Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence program that provides 10-week, summer undergraduate research experiences at the University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences. Program evaluation initiated in 2008 and, to date, 335 students have completed the program. Of the 335, 214 students have successfully completed their bachelor’s degree, 102 are still undergraduates, and 19 either did not complete a bachelor’s degree or were lost to follow-up. The program was able to track 200 of the 214 students for education and career choices following graduation. Of these 200, 76% continued in postgraduate health-related education; 34.0% and 20.5% are enrolled in or have completed MD or PhD programs, respectively. Other postbaccalaureate pursuits included careers in pharmacy, optometry, dentistry, public health, physical therapy, nurse practitioner, and physician’s assistant, accounting for an additional 21.5%. Most students electing to stop formal education at the bachelor’s degree also entered fields related to health care or science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (19.5%), with only a small number of the 200 students tracked going into service or industries which lacked an association with the health-care workforce (4.5%). These student outcomes support the concept that participation in summer undergraduate research boosts efforts to populate the pipeline of future researchers and health professionals. It is also an indication that future researchers and health professionals will be able to communicate the value of research in their professional and social associations. The report also discusses best practices and issues in summer undergraduate research for students originating from rural environments

    Arsenic, cadmium and neuron specific enolase (ENO2, γ-enolase) expression in breast cancer

    No full text
    Abstract Background Neuron specific enolase (ENO2, γ-enolase) has been used as a biomarker to help identify neuroendocrine differentiation in breast cancer. The goal of the present study was to determine if ENO2 expression in the breast epithelial cell is influenced by the environmental pollutants, arsenite and cadmium. Acute and chronic exposure of MCF-10A cells to As+3 and Cd+2 sufficient to allow colony formation in soft agar, was used to determine if ENO2 expression was altered by these pollutants. Results It was shown that both As+3 and Cd+2 exposure caused significant increases in ENO2 expression under conditions of both acute and chronic exposure. In contrast, ENO1, the major glycolytic enolase in non-muscle and neuronal cells, was largely unaffected by exposure to either As+3 or Cd+2. Localization studies showed that ENO2 in the MCF-10A cells transformed by As+3 or Cd+2 had both a cytoplasmic and nuclear localization. In contrast, ENO1 was localized to the cytoplasm. ENO2 localized to the cytoplasm was found to co-localized with ENO1. Conclusion The results are the first to show that ENO2 expression in breast epithelial cells is induced by acute and chronic exposure to As+3 or Cd+2. The findings also suggest a possible link between As+3 and Cd+2 exposure and neuroendocrine differentiation in tumors. Overall, the results suggest that ENO2 might be developed as a biomarker indicating acute and/or chronic environmental exposure of the breast epithelial cell to As+3 and Cd+2.</p

    Expression of E-cadherin in the UROtsa parent and the As<sup>+3</sup>-and Cd<sup>+2</sup>-transformed cell lines.

    No full text
    <p>(A and B). Real time-RT-PCR analysis of E-cadherin expression. The data is expressed as the number of transcripts of E-cadherin per 1000 transcripts of β-actin and is plotted as the mean ± SEM of triplicate determinations. (C and D). Western analysis of E-cadherin protein. (E). Comparison of N and E-cadherin mRNA expression in As#6. * denotes significant difference from UROtsa parent cells (p<0.05).</p
    corecore