How accurate is patients' anatomical knowledge: a cross-sectional, questionnaire study of six patient groups and a general public sample

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Older studies have shown that patients often do not understand the terms used by doctors and many do not even have a rudimentary understanding of anatomy. The present study was designed to investigate the levels of anatomical knowledge of different patient groups and the general public in order to see whether this has improved over time and whether patients with a specific organ pathology (e.g. liver disease) have a relatively better understanding of the location of that organ.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Level of anatomical knowledge was assessed on a multiple-choice questionnaire, in a sample of 722 participants, comprising approximately 100 patients in each of 6 different diagnostic groups and 133 in the general population, using a between-groups, cross-sectional design. Comparisons of relative accuracy of anatomical knowledge between the present and earlier results, and across the clinical and general public groups were evaluated using Chi square tests. Associations with age and education were assessed with the Pearson correlation test and one-way analysis of variance, respectively.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Across groups knowledge of the location of body organs was poor and has not significantly improved since an earlier equivalent study over 30 years ago (χ²= 0.04, df = 1, ns). Diagnostic groups did not differ in their overall scores but those with liver disease and diabetes were more accurate regarding the location of their respective affected organs (χ²= 18.10, p < 0.001, df = 1; χ²= 10.75, p < 0.01, df = 1). Age was significantly negatively correlated (r = -0.084, p = 0.025) and education was positively correlated with anatomical knowledge (F = 12.94, p = 0.000). Although there was no overall gender difference, women were significantly better at identifying organs on female body outlines.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Many patients and general public do not know the location of key body organs, even those in which their medical problem is located, which could have important consequences for doctor-patient communication. These results indicate that healthcare professionals still need to take care in providing organ specific information to patients and should not assume that patients have this information, even for those organs in which their medical problem is located.</p

Can evidence change belief ? Reported mobile phone sensitivity following individual feedback of an inability to discriminate active from sham signals

Abstract Objective: In this study, we tested whether providing individuals, who described being sensitive to mobile phone signals, with accurate feedback about their ability to discriminate an active mobile phone signal from a sham signal had any impact on their subsequent symptom levels or their perceived sensitivity to mobile phones. Methods: Sixty-nine participants who reported sensitivity to mobile phones took part in a doubleblind, placebo-controlled provocation study. Perceived sensitivity to mobile phones was assessed using a version of the Sensitive Soma Assessment Scale (SSAS) and the severity of any symptoms attributed to mobile phones was recorded. Both the overall (&quot;negative&quot;) findings of the provocation study and the participant&apos;s own individual results (&quot;correct&quot; or &quot;incorrect&quot; at detecting a mobile phone signal) were then described to them. Six months later, perceived sensitivity and symptom severity were measured again. Results: Fifty-eight participants (84%) received feedback and participated in the 6-month follow-up. No significant differences in SSAS scores or in symptom severity scores were found between individuals told that they were correct (n=31) or incorrect (n=27) in their ability to detect mobile phone signals in the provocation study. Conclusion: The provision of accurate feedback was insufficient to change attributions or reduce symptoms in this study. However, an overtly negative reaction to feedback was not observed among most participants, and some participants were willing to consider that factors other than electromagnetic field may be relevant in causing or exacerbating their symptoms. Discussing possible psychological factors with electromagnetic hypersensitivity patients may be beneficial for some

Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI): protocol for a cluster-randomised clinical trial of a complex intervention

Introduction Acute psychological stress, as well as unusual experiences including hallucinations and delusions, are common in critical care unit patients and have been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. Little high-quality research has been conducted to evaluate psychological interventions that could alleviate longer-term psychological morbidity in the critical care unit setting. Our research team developed and piloted a nurse-led psychological intervention, aimed at reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other adverse psychological outcomes at 6 months, for evaluation in the POPPI trial.Methods and analysis This is a multicentre, parallel group, cluster-randomised clinical trial with a staggered roll-out of the intervention. The trial is being carried out at 24 (12 intervention, 12 control) NHS adult, general, critical care units in the UK and is evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led preventative psychological intervention in reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other psychological morbidity at 6 months. All sites deliver usual care for 5 months (baseline period). Intervention group sites are then trained to carry out the POPPI intervention, and transition to delivering the intervention for the rest of the recruitment period. Control group sites deliver usual care for the duration of the recruitment period. The trial also includes a process evaluation conducted independently of the trial team.Ethics and dissemination This protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Research Ethics Service South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15/SC/0287). The first patient was recruited in September 2015 and results will be disseminated in 2018. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer reviewed medical journals.Trial registration number ISRCTN53448131; Pre-results

People’s understanding of verbal risk descriptors in patient information leaflets : a cross-sectional national survey of 18- to 65-year-olds in England

Introduction Evidence suggests the current verbal risk descriptors used to communicate side effect risk in patient information leaflets (PILs) are overestimated. Objectives The aim was to establish how people understand the verbal risk descriptors recommended for use in PILs by the European Commission (EC), and alternative verbal risk descriptors, in the context of mild and severe side effects. Methods A cross-sectional online survey was carried out by a market research company recruiting participants aged between 18 and 65 years living in England. Data were collected between 18 March and 1 April 2016. Participants were given a hypothetical scenario regarding the risk of mild or severe medication side effects and asked to estimate how many out of 10,000 people would be affected for each of the verbal risk descriptors being tested. Results A total of 1003 participants were included in the final sample. The risks conveyed by the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were greatly overestimated by participants. Two distinct distributions were apparent for participant estimates of side effect risks: those for ‘high risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘common’, ‘likely’, ‘high chance’) and those for ‘low risk’ verbal descriptors (e.g. ‘uncommon’, ‘unlikely’, ‘low chance’). Within these two groups, the distributions were near to identical regardless of what adverb (e.g. very, high, fair) or adjective (e.g. common, likely, chance) was used. The EC recommended verbal risk descriptors were more likely to be understood in accordance with their intended meanings when describing severe side effects. Very few demographic or psychological factors were consistently associated with how well participants understood the EC recommended verbal risk descriptors. Discussion The current verbal risk descriptors used in PILs are ineffective at best and misleading at worst. Discontinuing the use of verbal risk descriptors would limit the likelihood of people overestimating the risk of side effects

Concerns About Exercise Are Related to Walk Test Results in Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients with COPD

# The Author(s). This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com 2010 Background Although international guidelines on pulmonary rehabilitation acknowledge that psychological factors contribute to exercise intolerance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the few empirical studies investigating this association have found inconsistent results. Purpose The purpose of this study is to investigate whether negative affect and beliefs about exercise of patients with COPD would be related to baseline 6-min walk (6-MW) test results in a pulmonary rehabilitation setting, after correction for physical variables (sex, age, height, weight, and lung function). A second aim was to examine whethe

Nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the COVID-19 pandemic: findings from a global cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: Nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy is a complex behaviour which, before the COVID-19 pandemic, was shown to be associated with mental health disorders in people with immune-mediated diseases. The COVID-19 pandemic has led to a rise in the global prevalence of anxiety and depression, and limited data exist on the association between mental health and nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy during the pandemic. OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent of and reasons underlying nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic in individuals with psoriasis, and the association between mental health and nonadherence. METHODS: Online self-report surveys (PsoProtectMe), including validated screens for anxiety and depression, were completed globally during the first year of the pandemic. We assessed the association between anxiety or depression and nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy using binomial logistic regression, adjusting for potential cofounders (age, sex, ethnicity, comorbidity) and country of residence. RESULTS: Of 3980 participants from 77 countries, 1611 (40.5%) were prescribed a systemic immune-modifying therapy. Of these, 408 (25.3%) reported nonadherence during the pandemic, most commonly due to concerns about their immunity. In the unadjusted model, a positive anxiety screen was associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy [odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.76]. Specifically, anxiety was associated with nonadherence to targeted therapy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.01-1.96) but not standard systemic therapy (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.81-1.67). In the adjusted model, although the directions of the effects remained, anxiety was not significantly associated with nonadherence to overall systemic (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92-1.56) or targeted (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.94-1.89) immune-modifying therapy. A positive depression screen was not strongly associated with nonadherence to systemic immune-modifying therapy in the unadjusted (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.94-1.57) or adjusted models (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.87-1.49). CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate substantial nonadherence to immune-modifying therapy in people with psoriasis during the pandemic, with attenuation of the association with mental health after adjusting for confounders. Future research in larger populations should further explore pandemic-specific drivers of treatment nonadherence. Clear communication of the reassuring findings from population-based research regarding immune-modifying therapy-associated adverse COVID-19 risks to people with psoriasis is essential, to optimize adherence and disease outcomes