The influence of nutrition on recovery from prolonged, constant pace running

The influence of nutrition on recovery from prolonged, constant pace runnin

Intravenous versus subcutaneous drug administration. Which do patients prefer? A systematic review

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) drug delivery is commonly used for its rapid administration and immediate drug effect. Most studies compare IV to subcutaneous (SC) delivery in terms of safety and efficacy, but little is known about what patients prefer. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted by searching seven electronic databases for articles published up to February 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and/or crossover designs investigating patient preference for SC versus IV administration. The risk of bias in the RCTs was determined using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Any discrepancies were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: The search identified 115 publications, but few (6/115) met the inclusion criteria. Patient populations and drugs investigated were diverse. Four of six studies demonstrated a clear patient preference for SC administration. Main factors associated with SC preference were time saving and the ability to have treatment at home. Only three studies used study-specific instruments to measure preference. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that patients prefer SC over IV delivery. Patient preference has clearly been neglected in clinical research, but it is important in medical decision making when choosing treatment methods as it has implications for adherence and quality of life. If the safety and efficacy of both administration routes are equivalent, then the most important factor should be patient preference as this will ensure optimal treatment adherence and ultimately improve patient experience or satisfaction. Future drug efficacy and safety studies should include contemporaneous, actual patient preference where possible, utilizing appropriate measures

Information needs of patients with cancer: results from a large study in UK cancer centres

As part of a multi-centred study evaluating a communication skills training model for clinicians, we collected information preferences using an adaptation of Cassileth's Information Needs questionnaire from a heterogeneous sample of 2331 patients. Results showed that 87% (2027) wanted all possible information, both good and bad news and 98% (2203) preferred to know whether or not their illness was cancer. Cross tabulation of responses revealed no significant differences in information preferences for tumour site or treatment aims but did show an effect of age and sex. The few 58/440 (13.2%) patients who stated that in general they preferred to leave disclosure of details up to the doctor, tended to be older patients more than 70 years of age (chi square = 26.01, df = 2, P< 0.0001), although paradoxically they still wanted to know certain specific details. In comparison to men women preferred to know the specific name of the illness (chi square = 4.9, df = 1, P< 0.02) and what were all the possible treatments (chi square = 8.26, df = 1, P< 0.004). The results from this very large sample provide conclusive evidence that the vast majority of patients with cancer want a great deal of specific information concerning their illness and treatment. Failure to disclose such information on the grounds that significant numbers of patients prefer not to know is untenable. © 2001 Cancer Research Campaign http://www.bjcancer.co

How doctors record breaking bad news in ovarian cancer

Revealing the diagnosis of cancer to patients is a key event in their cancer journey. At present, there are no minimal legal recommendations for documenting such consultations. We reviewed the Hospital records of 359 patients with epithelial ovarian cancer in the Mersey Area between 1992 and 1994. We identified the following factors: age, hospital, postcode, surgeon, stage of disease and survival. These were compared to information recorded at the time of the interview such as person present, descriptive words used, prognosis, further treatment and emotional response. In 11.6%, there was no information recorded in the notes. The diagnosis was recorded in 304 (94.7%), prognosis in 66 (20.6%) and collusion with relatives in 33 (10.3%). A total of 42 separate words/phrases were identified relating to diagnosis; cancer was recorded in 60 (19.6%). Collusion was three times as common in the patients over 65 years (17.9 vs 5.7%, P=0.001). There was a reduction in the number of diagnostic words recorded in the patients over 65 years (90.3 vs 98.3%, P=0.002) and by type of surgeon (P=0.001). Information was often poorly recorded in the notes. We have shown that the quality of information varies according to patient age, surgeon and specialty

Implications of subcutaneous or intravenous delivery of trastuzumab: further insight from patient interviews in the PrefHer study

BACKGROUND: The 2 Cohort randomised PrefHer trial examined the preferences of HER2+ve primary breast cancer patients for intravenous (IV) or subcutaneous (SC) delivery of trastuzumab via a Single Injectable Device (SID) or hand-held syringe (HHS). The novel approach and design of the study permitted an in-depth exploration of patients' experiences, the impact that different modes of delivery had on patients' well-being and implications for future management. METHODS: The preferences, experiences and general comments of patients in the PrefHer study were collected via specific semi-structured interview schedules. Exploratory analyses of data were conducted using standard methodology. The final question invited patients to make further comments, which were divided into 9 thematic categories - future delivery, compliments, time/convenience, practical considerations, pain/discomfort, study design, side-effects, psychological impact, and perceived efficacy. RESULTS: 267/467 (57%) patients made 396 additional comments, 7 were neutral, 305 positive and 86 negative. The three top categories generating the largest number of comments were compliments and gratitude about staff and being part of PrefHer (75/396; 19%), the potential future delivery of SC trastuzumab (73/396; 18%), and practical considerations about SC administration (60/396; 15%). CONCLUSIONS: Eliciting patient preferences about routes of administration of drugs via comprehensive interviews within a randomised cross-over trial yielded rich and important information. The few negative comments made demonstrated a need for proper staff training in SC administration Patients were grateful to have been part of the trial, and would have liked to continue with SC delivery. The possibility of home administration in the future also seemed acceptable. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2010-024099-25