35 research outputs found

    'It was nothing that you would think was anything': Qualitative analysis of appraisal and help seeking preceding brain cancer diagnosis.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: The patient's interpretation of the events and decisions leading up to consultation with a healthcare professional for symptoms of brain cancer is under researched. The aim of this study was to document responses to noticing the changes preceding a diagnosis of brain cancer and living with them, focusing on appraisal of changes and the decision to seek (and re-seek) help, with attention to the psychological processes underpinning the appraisal and help-seeking intervals. METHOD: In this qualitative study set in Eastern and NW England, in-depth interviews with adult patients recently diagnosed with primary brain cancer and their family members were analysed thematically, using the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: 39 adult patients were interviewed. Regarding the appraisal interval, cognitive heuristics were found to underpin explanations of changes/symptoms. The subtlety and normality of changes often suggested nothing serious was wrong. Common explanations included stress or being busy at work, or age and these did not seem to warrant a visit to a doctor. Explanations and the decision to seek help were made within the social context, with friends, family and work colleagues contributing to appraisal and help-seeking decisions. Regarding the help-seeking interval, barriers to seeking help reflected components of Social Cognitive Theory, and included having other priorities, outcome expectations (e.g. 'feeling silly', not sure much can be done about it, not wanting to waste doctors' time) and accessibility of a preferred healthcare professional. CONCLUSION: Application of psychological theory facilitated understanding of the influences on cognition and behaviour. The study highlights implications for theory, awareness campaigns and potential opportunities promoting more timely help-seeking.the brain tumour charit

    Missed opportunities for diagnosing brain tumours in primary care: a qualitative study of patient experiences.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Brain tumours are uncommon, and have extremely poor outcomes. Patients and GPs may find it difficult to recognise early symptoms because they are often non-specific and more likely due to other conditions. AIM: To explore patients' experiences of symptom appraisal, help seeking, and routes to diagnosis. DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative study set in the East and North West of England. METHOD: In-depth interviews with adult patients recently diagnosed with a primary brain tumour and their family members were analysed thematically, using the Model of Pathways to Treatment as a conceptual framework. RESULTS: Interviews were carried out with 39 patients. Few participants (n = 7; 18%) presented as an emergency without having had a previous GP consultation; most had had one (n = 15; 38%), two (n = 9; 23%), or more (n = 8; 21%) GP consultations. Participants experienced multiple subtle 'changes' rather than 'symptoms', often noticed by others rather than the patient, which frequently led to loss of interest or less ability to engage with daily living activities. The most common changes were in cognition (speaking, writing, comprehension, memory, concentration, and multitasking), sleep, and other 'head feelings' such as dizziness. Not all patients experienced a seizure, and few seizures were experienced 'out of the blue'. Quality of communication in GP consultations played a key role in patients' subsequent symptom appraisal and the timing of their decision to re-consult. CONCLUSION: Multiple subtle changes and frequent GP visits often precede brain tumour diagnosis, giving possible diagnostic opportunities for GPs. Refined community symptom awareness and GP guidance could enable more direct pathways to diagnosis, and potentially improve patient experiences and outcomes

    Prevention of road traffic collisions and associated neurotrauma in Colombia: An exploratory qualitative study.

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION: Neurotrauma is an important but preventable cause of death and disability worldwide, with the majority being associated with road traffic collisions (RTCs). The greatest burden is seen in low -and middle- income countries (LMICs) where variations in the environment, infrastructure, population and habits can challenge the success of conventional preventative approaches. It is therefore necessary to understand local perspectives to allow for the development and implementation of context-specific strategies which are effective and sustainable. METHODS: This study took place in Colombia where qualitative data collection was carried out with ten key informants between October and November 2019. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and explored perceptions on RTCs and neurotrauma, preventative strategies and interventions, and the role of research in prevention. Interview transcripts were analysed by thematic analysis using a framework approach. RESULTS: Participants' confirmed that RTCs are a significant problem in Colombia with neurotrauma as an important outcome. Human and organisational factors were identified as key causes of the high rates of RTCs. Participants described the current local preventative strategies, but were quick to discuss limitations and challenges to their success. Key barriers reported were poor attitudes and knowledge, particularly in the community. Suggestions were provided on ways to improve prevention through better education and awareness, stricter enforcement and new policies on prevention, proper budgeting and resource allocation, as well as through collaboration and changes in attitudes and leadership. Participants identified four key research areas they felt would influence prevention of RTCs and associated neurotrauma: causes of RTCs; consequences and impact of RTCs; public involvement in research; improving prevention. CONCLUSION: RTCs are a major problem in Colombia despite the current preventative strategies and interventions. Findings from this study have a potential to influence policy, practice and research by illustrating different solutions to the challenges surrounding prevention and by highlighting areas for further research

    Prospective, multicentre study of external ventricular drainage-related infections in the UK and Ireland.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: External ventricular drain (EVD) insertion is a common neurosurgical procedure. EVD-related infection (ERI) is a major complication that can lead to morbidity and mortality. In this study, we aimed to establish a national ERI rate in the UK and Ireland and determine key factors influencing the infection risk. METHODS: A prospective multicentre cohort study of EVD insertions in 21 neurosurgical units was performed over 6 months. The primary outcome measure was 30-day ERI. A Cox regression model was used for multivariate analysis to calculate HR. RESULTS: A total of 495 EVD catheters were inserted into 452 patients with EVDs remaining in situ for 4700 days (median 8 days; IQR 4-13). Of the catheters inserted, 188 (38%) were antibiotic-impregnated, 161 (32.5%) were plain and 146 (29.5%) were silver-bearing. A total of 46 ERIs occurred giving an infection risk of 9.3%. Cox regression analysis demonstrated that factors independently associated with increased infection risk included duration of EVD placement for ≥8 days (HR=2.47 (1.12-5.45); p=0.03), regular sampling (daily sampling (HR=4.73 (1.28-17.42), p=0.02) and alternate day sampling (HR=5.28 (2.25-12.38); p<0.01). There was no association between catheter type or tunnelling distance and ERI. CONCLUSIONS: In the UK and Ireland, the ERI rate was 9.3% during the study period. The study demonstrated that EVDs left in situ for ≥8 days and those sampled more frequently were associated with a higher risk of infection. Importantly, the study showed no significant difference in ERI risk between different catheter types

    Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on surgical neuro-oncology multi-disciplinary team decision making: a national survey (COVID-CNSMDT Study).

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVES: Pressures on healthcare systems due to COVID-19 has impacted patients without COVID-19 with surgery disproportionally affected. This study aims to understand the impact on the initial management of patients with brain tumours by measuring changes to normal multidisciplinary team (MDT) decision making. DESIGN: A prospective survey performed in UK neurosurgical units performed from 23 March 2020 until 24 April 2020. SETTING: Regional neurosurgical units outside London (as the pandemic was more advanced at time of study). PARTICIPANTS: Representatives from all units were invited to collect data on new patients discussed at their MDT meetings during the study period. Each unit decided if management decision for each patient had changed due to COVID-19. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome measures included number of patients where the decision to undergo surgery changed compared with standard management usually offered by that MDT. Secondary outcome measures included changes in surgical extent, numbers referred to MDT, number of patients denied surgery not receiving any treatment and reasons for any variation across the UK. RESULTS: 18 units (75%) provided information from 80 MDT meetings that discussed 1221 patients. 10.7% of patients had their management changed-the majority (68%) did not undergo surgery and more than half of this group not undergoing surgery had no active treatment. There was marked variation across the UK (0%-28% change in management). Units that did not change management could maintain capacity with dedicated oncology lists. Low volume units were less affected. CONCLUSION: COVID-19 has had an impact on patients requiring surgery for malignant brain tumours, with patients receiving different treatments-most commonly not receiving surgery or any treatment at all. The variations show dedicated cancer operating lists may mitigate these pressures. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study was registered with the Royal College of Surgeons of England's COVID-19 Research Group (https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/coronavirus/rcs-covid-research-group/)
    corecore