Paying for treatments? Influences on negotiating clinical need and decision-making for dental implant treatment

Background The aim of this study is to examine how clinicians and patients negotiate clinical need and treatment decisions within a context of finite resources. Dental implant treatment is an effective treatment for missing teeth, but is only available via the NHS in some specific clinical circumstances. The majority of people who receive this treatment therefore pay privately, often at substantial cost to themselves. People are used to paying towards dental treatment costs. However, dental implant treatment is much more expensive than existing treatments – such as removable dentures. We know very little about how dentists make decisions about whether to offer such treatments, or what patients consider when deciding whether or not to pay for them. Methods/Design Mixed methods will be employed to provide insight and understanding into how clinical need is determined, and what influences people's decision making processes when deciding whether or not to pursue a dental implant treatment. Phase 1 will use a structured scoping questionnaire with all the General dental practitioners (GDPs) in three Primary Care Trust areas (n = 300) to provide base-line data about existing practice in relation to dental implant treatment, and to provide data to develop a systematic sampling procedure for Phase 2. Phases 2 (GDPs) and 3 (patients) use qualitative focused one to one interviews with a sample of these practitioners (up to 30) and their patients (up to 60) to examine their views and experiences of decision making in relation to dental implant treatment. Purposive sampling for phases 2 and 3 will be carried out to ensure participants represent a range of socio-economic circumstances, and choices made. Discussion Most dental implant treatment is conducted in primary care. Very little information was available prior to this study about the quantity and type of treatment carried out privately. It became apparent during phase 2 that ISOD treatment was an unusual treatment in primary care. We thus extended our sample criteria for Phase 3 to include people who had had other implant supported restorations, although not single tooth replacements

Living with cancer, living with dying The individual's experience

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:DX200605 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Clinical nephrology-epidemiology-clinical trials: Determinants of outcome in ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis: A prospective clinico-histopathological analysis of 96 patients

Background. The predictive value of clinical and renal histological features for renal outcome in patients with anti-neutrophil cytoplasmic autoantibody (ANCA)-associated glomerulonephritis was investigated in a prospective analysis of 96 patients with ANCA-associated vasculitis, and moderate renal involvement (creatinine <500 \uce\ubcmol/L). Methods. The extent of 39 histological features in 96 biopsies (performed at entry in a clinical trial) was scored by two independent observers, according to a standardized protocol. Age, gender, diagnosis, glomerular filtration rate at entry (GFR0), ANCA-specificity, proteinuria, and treatment of these 96 patients were also taken into account. Treatment was standardized and started after the biopsy was performed. Endpoints included renal function at 18 months (GFR18), GFR18 corrected for GFR0 (CORGFR18), and the occurrence of relapse or death. Results. Parameters that most strongly correlated with GFR18 were GFR0 (r = 0.67), interstitial fibrosis (r = -0.45), glomerulosclerosis (r = -0.37), and tubular atrophy (r = -0.36). Parameters that most strongly correlated with CORGFR18 were segmental (r = 0.45) and cellular (r = 0.30) crescents, and fibrinoid necrosis (r = 0.46). None of the clinical and histological features predicted the occurrence of relapse or death. By applying a stepwise linear multiple regression analysis, we designed a formula for the estimation of renal function at 18 months: GFR18 (mL/min) = 17 + 0.71 \uc3\u97 GFR0 (mL/min) + 0.34 \uc3\u97 fibrinoid necrosis (%) + 0.33 \uc3\u97 segmental crescents (%), (r2 = 0.60; standard deviation = 19 mL/min). Our results were independent of diagnosis, ANCA-specificity, and treatment limb. Conclusions. These data suggest that in ANCA-associated glomerulonephritis, GFR0 and predominantly chronic renal lesions are potent predictors of GFR18. Active lesions are associated with renal function recovery and may be reversible. The formula for the estimation of GFR18 shows that a combination of GFR0 and renal histology is a better predictor for GFR18 than GFR0 only