Bone marrow transplantation in AML, and socioeconomic class: a UK population-based cohort study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We have previously shown that in the UK mortality in people with Acute Myeloid Leukaemia (AML) was nearly 50% greater among the most socio-economically deprived. The aim of this study was to determine whether AML patients from lower socioeconomic classes had a lower chance of receiving a bone marrow transplant.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data, we identified all incident cases of AML admitted to UK hospitals between 1998 and 2007. We calculated the number of bone marrow transplantations undertaken in AML patients, stratifying our results by gender, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, degree of socioeconomic deprivation and co-morbidity. We used logistic regression to calculate odds ratios for bone marrow transplantation, adjusting for gender, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis, degree of socioeconomic deprivation and co-morbidity score.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified a total of 23 910 incident cases of AML over this 10-year time period, of whom 1 140 (4.8%) underwent BMT. Bone marrow transplantation declined with increasing socioeconomic deprivation (p for trend < 0.001) such that people in the most deprived socioeconomic quintile were 40% less likely to have a transplant than those in the most advantaged group (Odds Ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval 0.49, 0.73), even after adjusting for gender, age at diagnosis, year of diagnosis and co-morbidity.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This large cohort study demonstrates that AML patients from lower socioeconomic classes are less likely to undergo bone marrow transplantation than their better off counter-parts.</p

Primary appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma in two first-degree relatives: case report and review

Carcinomas of the appendix are exceedingly rare tumors and have an annual age-adjusted incidence of around 0.4 cases per 100,000. Appendiceal adenocarcinoma accounts for < 0.5% of all gastrointestinal neoplasms and, of these, mucinous adenocarcinomas account for the majority. Published accounts of familial instances of primary appendiceal tumors are strikingly rare. We report two siblings who both developed primary mucinous adenocarcinomas. A genetics evaluation was conducted to determine if there was a recognizable underlying single gene disorder; no DNA mismatch repair defect was evident, and no other diagnosis was apparent. A review of appendiceal cancers seen at Mayo Clinic from l997 to the present was conducted to search for additional familial cases. Among 316 cases of primary appendiceal cancer of any histologic type, this sib pair was the only family reporting a second affected family member. The occurrence of appendiceal cancer in siblings may represent a random occurrence. An exceedingly rare predisposition syndrome cannot be ruled out

Incidence of synchronous appendiceal neoplasm in patients with colorectal cancer and its clinical significance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aims of this study were to evaluate the incidence of synchronous appendiceal neoplasm in patients with colorectal cancer, and to determine its clinical significance.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Pathological reports and medical records were reviewed of patients with colorectal adenocarcinoma who underwent oncological resection of the tumor together with appendectomy at the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Thailand between September 2000 and April 2008.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>This study included 293 patients with an average age of 62 years (range 19–95) and 51 percent were male. Of the patients studied, 228 (78 percent) had right hemicolectomy, whereas the others (22 percent) had surgery for left-sided colon cancer or rectal cancer. One patient (0.3 percent) had epithelial appendiceal neoplasm (mucinous cystadenoma) and 3 patients (1.0 percent) had metastatic colorectal cancer in the mesoappendix. However, the presence of synchronous appendiceal tumors and/or metastasis did not alter postoperative management, as these patients had received adjuvant therapy and were scheduled for surveillance program because of nodal involvement.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The incidence of synchronous primary appendiceal neoplasm and secondary (metastatic) appendiceal neoplasm in colorectal cancer patients was 0.3 and 1.0 percent, respectively. However, these findings did not change the postoperative clinical management.</p

Policy and practice impacts of applied research: a case study analysis of the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme 2000-2006

BackgroundIntervention research provides important information regarding feasible and effective interventions for health policy makers, but few empirical studies have explored the mechanisms by which these studies influence policy and practice. This study provides an exploratory case series analysis of the policy, practice and other related impacts of the 15 research projects funded through the New South Wales Health Promotion Demonstration Research Grants Scheme during the period 2000 to 2006, and explored the factors mediating impacts.MethodsData collection included semi-structured interviews with the chief investigators (n = 17) and end-users (n = 29) of each of the 15 projects to explore if, how and under what circumstances the findings had been used, as well as bibliometric analysis and verification using documentary evidence. Data analysis involved thematic coding of interview data and triangulation with other data sources to produce case summaries of impacts for each project. Case summaries were then individually assessed against four impact criteria and discussed at a verification panel meeting where final group assessments of the impact of research projects were made and key influences of research impact identified.ResultsFunded projects had variable impacts on policy and practice. Project findings were used for agenda setting (raising awareness of issues), identifying areas and target groups for interventions, informing new policies, and supporting and justifying existing policies and programs across sectors. Reported factors influencing the use of findings were: i) nature of the intervention; ii) leadership and champions; iii) research quality; iv) effective partnerships; v) dissemination strategies used; and, vi) contextual factors.ConclusionsThe case series analysis provides new insights into how and under what circumstances intervention research is used to influence real world policy and practice. The findings highlight that intervention research projects can achieve the greatest policy and practice impacts if they address proximal needs of the policy context by engaging end-users from the inception of projects and utilizing existing policy networks and structures, and using a range of strategies to disseminate findings that go beond traditional peer review publications.<br /

Determinants of successful clinical networks : The conceptual framework and study protocol

Background Clinical networks are increasingly being viewed as an important strategy for increasing evidence-based practice and improving models of care, but success is variable and characteristics of networks with high impact are uncertain. This study takes advantage of the variability in the functioning and outcomes of networks supported by the Australian New South Wales (NSW) Agency for Clinical Innovation's non-mandatory model of clinical networks to investigate the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks. Methods/Design The objective of this retrospective study is to examine the association between external support, organisational and program factors, and indicators of success among 19 clinical networks over a three-year period (2006-2008). The outcomes (health impact, system impact, programs implemented, engagement, user perception, and financial leverage) and explanatory factors will be collected using a web-based survey, interviews, and record review. An independent expert panel will provide judgements about the impact or extent of each network's initiatives on health and system impacts. The ratings of the expert panel will be the outcome used in multivariable analyses. Following the rating of network success, a qualitative study will be conducted to provide a more in-depth examination of the most successful networks. Discussion This is the first study to combine quantitative and qualitative methods to examine the factors that contribute to the success of clinical networks and, more generally, is the largest study of clinical networks undertaken. The adaptation of expert panel methods to rate the impacts of networks is the methodological innovation of this study. The proposed project will identify the conditions that should be established or encouraged by agencies developing clinical networks and will be of immediate use in forming strategies and programs to maximise the effectiveness of such networks

Using and Reporting the Delphi Method for Selecting Healthcare Quality Indicators: A Systematic Review

OBJECTIVE: Delphi technique is a structured process commonly used to developed healthcare quality indicators, but there is a little recommendation for researchers who wish to use it. This study aimed 1) to describe reporting of the Delphi method to develop quality indicators, 2) to discuss specific methodological skills for quality indicators selection 3) to give guidance about this practice. METHODOLOGY AND MAIN FINDING: Three electronic data bases were searched over a 30 years period (1978-2009). All articles that used the Delphi method to select quality indicators were identified. A standardized data extraction form was developed. Four domains (questionnaire preparation, expert panel, progress of the survey and Delphi results) were assessed. Of 80 included studies, quality of reporting varied significantly between items (9% for year's number of experience of the experts to 98% for the type of Delphi used). Reporting of methodological aspects needed to evaluate the reliability of the survey was insufficient: only 39% (31/80) of studies reported response rates for all rounds, 60% (48/80) that feedback was given between rounds, 77% (62/80) the method used to achieve consensus and 57% (48/80) listed quality indicators selected at the end of the survey. A modified Delphi procedure was used in 49/78 (63%) with a physical meeting of the panel members, usually between Delphi rounds. Median number of panel members was 17(Q1:11; Q3:31). In 40/70 (57%) studies, the panel included multiple stakeholders, who were healthcare professionals in 95% (38/40) of cases. Among 75 studies describing criteria to select quality indicators, 28 (37%) used validity and 17(23%) feasibility. CONCLUSION: The use and reporting of the Delphi method for quality indicators selection need to be improved. We provide some guidance to the investigators to improve the using and reporting of the method in future surveys

A discharge summary adapted to the frail elderly to ensure transfer of relevant information from the hospital to community settings: a model

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Elderly patients admitted to Geriatric Assessment Units (GAU) typically have complex health problems that require multi-professional care. Considering the scope of human and technological resources solicited during hospitalization, as well as the many risks and discomforts incurred by the patient, it is important to ensure the communication of pertinent information for quality follow-up care in the community setting. Conventional discharge summaries do not adequately incorporate the elements specific to an aging clientele.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To develop a discharge summary adapted to the frail elderly patient (D-SAFE) in order to communicate relevant information from hospital to community services.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The items to be included in the D-SAFE have been determined by means of a modified Delphi method through consultation with clinical experts from GAUs (11 physicians and 5 pharmacists) and the community (10 physicians and 5 pharmacists). The consensus analysis and the level of agreement among the experts were reached using a modified version of the RAND^®/University of California at Los Angeles appropriateness method.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>A consensus was reached after two rounds of consultation for all the items evaluated, where none was judged «inappropriate». Among the items proposed, four were judged to be « uncertain » and were eliminated from the final D-SAFE, which was divided into two sections: the medical discharge summary (22 main items) and the discharge prescription (14 main items).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The D-SAFE was developed as a more comprehensive tool specifically designed for GAU inpatients. Additional research to validate its acceptability and practical impact on the continuity of care is needed before it can be recommended for use on a broader scale.</p

One consensual depression diagnosis tool to serve many countries: a challenge! A RAND/UCLA methodology

Objective From a systematic literature review (SLR), it became clear that a consensually validated tool was needed by European General Practitioner (GP) researchers in order to allow multi-centred collaborative research, in daily practice, throughout Europe. Which diagnostic tool for depression, validated against psychiatric examination according to the DSM, would GPs select as the best for use in clinical research, taking into account the combination of effectiveness, reliability and ergonomics? A RAND/UCLA, which combines the qualities of the Delphi process and of the nominal group, was used. GP researchers from different European countries were selected. The SLR extracted tools were validated against the DSM. The Youden index was used as an effectiveness criterion and Cronbach’s alpha as a reliability criterion. Ergonomics data were extracted from the literature. Ergonomics were tested face-to-face. Results The SLR extracted 7 tools. Two instruments were considered sufficiently effective and reliable for use: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and the Hopkins Symptoms Checklist-25 (HSCL-25). After testing face-to-face, HSCL-25 was selected. A multicultural consensus on one diagnostic tool for depression was obtained for the HSCL-25. This tool will provide the opportunity to select homogeneous populations for European collaborative research in daily practice