Interactions Between Art-Based Interventions and Motivations of Interpersonal Forgiveness

Forgiveness has been linked to aspects of the creative processes (e.g., mood, motivation, cognitive resources etc.) yet there is little research on the interaction of artistic expression and forgiveness. To evaluate the interaction between artistic expression in enabling interpersonal forgiveness, 45 undergraduate students were primed with unforgiveness by an eight minute conflict recall writing task adapted by Karremans, J.C., Van Lange, P.A.M., and Holland, R.W. (2005). The participants were randomly assigned to 3 conditions which each lasted 20 minutes. The conditions included Metaphor art making, Free Drawing art making or and a control task which used a digit symbol coding task. After each condition a 12 item self-report measure Transgression-Related Interpersonal Motivations (TRIM) inventory (McCullough et al.,1998) was used to assess levels of avoidance and revenge, two main indicators of unwillingness to forgive. Artwork created by participants in the Metaphor art making and Free Drawing art making conditions were collected. Of the participants who indicated they had not forgiven their offender, participants who were placed in the Free Drawing art making and Metaphor art making conditions were more likely to express revenge and avoidance towards their offender than those in the in the control condition. These results suggest that the act of drawing may increase unwillingness to forgive especially in the realm of revenge seeking and avoidance behaviors. This finding has implications for art therapists when working with clients who are working towards forgiving an interpersonal conflict. Works Cited Karremans, J.C., Van Lange, P.A.M., & Holland, R.W. (2005). Forgiveness and its associations with prosocial thinking, feeling and doing beyond the relationship of the offender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31. 1315-1326.https://digitalcommons.morris.umn.edu/urs_2013/1003/thumbnail.jp

Point-of-care haemoglobin accuracy and transfusion outcomes in non-cardiac surgery at a Canadian tertiary academic hospital: protocol for the PREMISE observational study

Introduction Transfusions in surgery can be life-saving interventions, but inappropriate transfusions may lack clinical benefit and cause harm. Transfusion decision-making in surgery is complex and frequently informed by haemoglobin (Hgb) measurement in the operating room. Point-of-care testing for haemoglobin (POCT-Hgb) is increasingly relied on given its simplicity and rapid provision of results. POCT-Hgb devices lack adequate validation in the operative setting, particularly for Hgb values within the transfusion zone (60–100 g/L). This study aims to examine the accuracy of intraoperative POCT-Hgb instruments in non-cardiac surgery, and the association between POCT-Hgb measurements and transfusion decision-making.Methods and analysis PREMISE is an observational prospective method comparison study. Enrolment will occur when adult patients undergoing major non-cardiac surgery require POCT-Hgb, as determined by the treating team. Three concurrent POCT-Hgb results, considered as index tests, will be compared with a laboratory analysis of Hgb (lab-Hgb), considered the gold standard. Participants may have multiple POCT-Hgb measurements during surgery. The primary outcome is the difference in individual Hgb measurements between POCT-Hgb and lab-Hgb, primarily among measurements that are within the transfusion zone. Secondary outcomes include POCT-Hgb accuracy within the entire cohort, postoperative morbidity, mortality and transfusion rates. The sample size is 1750 POCT-Hgb measurements to obtain a minimum of 652 Hgb measurements <100 g/L, based on an estimated incidence of 38%. The sample size was calculated to fit a logistic regression model to predict instances when POCT-Hgb are inaccurate, using 4 g/L as an acceptable margin of error.Ethics and dissemination Institutional ethics approval has been obtained by the Ottawa Health Science Network—Research Ethics Board prior to initiating the study. Findings from this study will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at relevant scientific conferences. Social media will be leveraged to further disseminate the study results and engage with clinicians

Phlebotomy resulting in controlled hypovolemia to prevent blood loss in major hepatic resections (PRICE-2) : study protocol for a phase 3 randomized controlled trial

Introduction: Blood loss and red blood cell (RBC) transfusion in liver surgery are areas of concern for surgeons, anesthesiologists, and patients alike. While various methods are employed to reduce surgical blood loss, the evidence base surrounding each intervention is limited. Hypovolemic phlebotomy, the removal of whole blood from the patient without volume replacement during liver transection, has been strongly associated with decreased bleeding and RBC transfusion in observational studies. This trial aims to investigate whether hypovolemic phlebotomy is superior to usual care in reducing RBC transfusions in liver resection. Methods: This study is a double-blind multicenter randomized controlled trial. Adult patients undergoing major hepatic resections for any indication will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either hypovolemic phlebotomy and usual care or usual care alone. Exclusion criteria will be minor resections, preoperative hemoglobin <100g/L, renal insufficiency, and other contraindication to hypovolemic phlebotomy. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients receiving at least one allogeneic RBC transfusion unit within 30 days of the onset of surgery. Secondary outcomes will include transfusion of other allogeneic blood products, blood loss, morbidity, mortality, and intraoperative physiologic parameters. The surgical team will be blinded to the intervention. Randomization will occur on the morning of surgery. The sample size will comprise 440 patients. Enrolment will occur at four Canadian academic liver surgery centers over a 4-year period. Ethics approval will be obtained at participating sites before enrolment. Discussion: The results of this randomized control trial will provide high-quality evidence regarding the use of hypovolemic phlebotomy in major liver resection and its effects on RBC transfusion. If proven to be effective, this intervention could become standard of care in liver operations internationally and become incorporated within perioperative patient blood management programs.Medicine, Faculty ofNon UBCAnesthesiology, Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Department ofSurgery, Department ofReviewedFacultyResearcherPostdoctoralOthe

Surgical outcomes of gallbladder cancer: the OMEGA retrospective, multicentre, international cohort study

Background Gallbladder cancer (GBC) is rare but aggressive. The extent of surgical intervention for different GBC stages is non-uniform, ranging from cholecystectomy alone to extended resections including major hepatectomy, resection of adjacent organs and routine extrahepatic bile duct resection (EBDR). Robust evidence here is lacking, however, and survival benefit poorly defined. This study assesses factors associated with recurrence-free survival (RFS), overall survival (OS) and morbidity and mortality following GBC surgery in high income countries (HIC) and low and middle income countries (LMIC).Methods The multicentre, retrospective Operative Management of Gallbladder Cancer (OMEGA) cohort study included all patients who underwent GBC resection across 133 centres between 1st January 2010 and 31st December 2020. Regression analyses assessed factors associated with OS, RFS and morbidity.Findings On multivariable analysis of all 3676 patients, wedge resection and segment IVb/V resection failed to improve RFS (HR 1.04 [0.84-1.29], p = 0.711 and HR 1.18 [0.95-1.46], p = 0.13 respectively) or OS (HR 0.96 [0.79-1.17], p = 0.67 and HR 1.48 [1.16-1.88], p = 0.49 respectively), while major hepatectomy was associated with worse RFS (HR 1.33 [1.02-1.74], p = 0.037) and OS (HR 1.26 [1.03-1.53], p = 0.022). Furthermore, EBDR (OR 2.86 [2.3-3.52], p &lt; 0.0010), resection of additional organs (OR 2.22 [1.62-3.02], p &lt; 0.0010) and major hepatectomy (OR 3.81 [2.55-5.73], p &lt; 0.0010) were all associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Compared to LMIC, patients in HIC were associated with poorer RFS (HR 1.18 [1.02-1.37], p = 0.031) but not OS (HR 1.05 [0.91-1.22], p = 0.48). Adjuvant and neoadjuvant treatments were infrequently used.Interpretation In this large, multicentre analysis of GBC surgical outcomes, liver resection was not conclusively associated with improved survival, and extended resections were associated with greater morbidity and mortality without oncological benefit. Aggressive upfront resections do not benefit higher stage GBC, and international col-laborations are needed to develop evidence-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment strategies to minimise surgical morbidity and prioritise prognostic benefit.Funding Cambridge Hepatopancreatobiliary Department Research Fund.Copyright &amp; COPY; 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)