Patient-reported outcomes in palliative gastrointestinal stenting: a Norwegian multicenter study

Background The clinical effect of stent treatment has been evaluated by mainly physicians; only a limited number of prospective studies have used patient-reported outcomes for this purpose. The aim of this work was to study the clinical effect of self-expanding metal stents in treatment of malignant gastrointestinal obstructions, as evaluated by patient-reported outcomes, and compare the rating of the treatment effect by patients and physicians. Methods Between November 2006 and April 2008, 273 patients treated with SEMS for malignant GI and biliary obstructions were recruited from nine Norwegian hospitals. Patients and physicians assessed symptoms independently at the time of treatment and after 2 weeks using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 questionnaire supplemented with specific questions related to obstruction. Results A total of 162 patients (99 males; median age = 72 years) completed both assessments and were included in the study. A significant improvement in the mean global health score was observed after 2 weeks (from 9 to 18 on a 0–100 scale, P\0.03) for all stent locations. Both patients and physicians reported a significant reduction in all obstruction-related symptoms ([20 on the 0–100 scale, P\0.006) after SEMS treatment. The physicians reported a larger mean improvement in symptoms than did the patients, mainly because they reported more severe symptoms before treatment. Conclusion SEMS treatment is effective in relieving symptoms of malignant GI and biliary obstruction, as reported by patients and physicians. The physicians, however, reported a larger reduction in obstructive symptoms than did the patients. A prospective assessment of patientreported outcomes is important in evaluating SEMS treatment

Is American Public Administration Detached From Historical Context?: On the Nature of Time and the Need to Understand It in Government and Its Study

The study of public administration pays little attention to history. Most publications are focused on current problems (the present) and desired solutions (the future) and are concerned mainly with organizational structure (a substantive issue) and output targets (an aggregative issue that involves measures of both individual performance and organizational productivity/services). There is much less consideration of how public administration (i.e., organization, policy, the study, etc.) unfolds over time. History, and so administrative history, is regarded as a “past” that can be recorded for its own sake but has little relevance to contemporary challenges. This view of history is the product of a diminished and anemic sense of time, resulting from organizing the past as a series of events that inexorably lead up to the present in a linear fashion. To improve the understanding of government’s role and position in society, public administration scholarship needs to reacquaint itself with the nature of time.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Seven hundred years of fraternal orders

For hundreds of years there has been an allure in popular culture to the notion of a band of brothers. From before Shakespeare's Henry V, through Schiller's Wilhelm Tell, to the twenty-first century TV mini-series Band of Brothers, the phrase has evoked images of men fiercely loyal to one another, united for a cause greater than themselves. This interest has not been reflected in concerted scholarly attention to the long-term influence of fraternal organizations. This chapter introduces the theme of the volume in a literature review and contextualizes the authors' contributions