Web-based self-management for patients with lymphoma:Assessment of the reach of intervention of a randomized controlled trial

Background: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) often provide accurate estimates of the internal validity of an intervention but lack information on external validity (generalizability). We conducted an RCT on the effectiveness of a self-management intervention among patients with lymphoma in a population-based setting. Objective: The objectives of the current study were to describe the proportion of RCT participants compared to all patients invited to participate, and compare sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of RCT participants with all respondents, all patients invited to participate, and all patients selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) to determine the reach of the intervention. An additional objective was to assess differences on RCT outcome variables between RCT and paper respondents. Methods: Patients with lymphoma or chronic lymphocytic leukemia ≥18 years old at diagnosis from 13 hospitals in the Netherlands were selected from the population-based NCR, which routinely collects data on sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Eligible patients were invited to participate in an RCT and complete a questionnaire. Web-based completion determined RCT enrollment, whereas paper respondents were followed observationally. Results: A total of 1193 patients were selected from the NCR, 892 (74.77%) of whom were invited to participate in the trial by their hematologist after verifying eligibility. Among those invited, 25.4% (227/892) completed the web-based questionnaire and were enrolled in the RCT. The RCT participants were younger and there was a higher proportion of men than nonparticipants (P<.001). In addition, 25.7% (229/892) of those invited opted to participate in the paper-based observational follow-up study. Compared with paper respondents, RCT participants were younger (P<.001), with a higher proportion of men (P=.002), and had higher education levels (P=.02). RCT participants more often wanted to receive all available information on their disease (P<.001), whereas paper respondents reported higher levels of emotional distress (P=.009). Conclusions: From a population-based sample of eligible patients, the participation rate in the RCT was approximately 25%. RCT participants may not be representative of the target population because of different sociodemographic and clinical characteristics. Since RCT participants represent a minority of the target population, RCT results should be interpreted with caution as patients in the RCT may be those least in need of a self-management intervention. Trial Registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5953; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/579

Assessment of nutritional status in children with kidney diseases-clinical practice recommendations from the Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce

In children with kidney diseases, an assessment of the child’s growth and nutritional status is important to guide the dietary prescription. No single metric can comprehensively describe the nutrition status; therefore, a series of indices and tools are required for evaluation. The Pediatric Renal Nutrition Taskforce (PRNT) is an international team of pediatric renal dietitians and pediatric nephrologists who develop clinical practice recommendations (CPRs) for the nutritional management of children with kidney diseases. Herein, we present CPRs for nutritional assessment, including measurement of anthropometric and biochemical parameters and evaluation of dietary intake. The statements have been graded using the American Academy of Pediatrics grading matrix. Statements with a low grade or those that are opinion-based must be carefully considered and adapted to individual patient needs based on the clinical judgment of the treating physician and dietitian. Audit and research recommendations are provided. The CPRs will be periodically audited and updated by the PRNT

Web-based return of individual patient-reported outcome results among patients with lymphoma:Randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: There has been a cultural shift toward patient engagement in health, with a growing demand from patients to access their results. OBJECTIVE: The Lymphoma Intervention (LIVE) trial is conducted to examine the impact of return of individual patient-reported outcome (PRO) results and a web-based self-management intervention on psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information, and health care use in a population-based setting. METHODS: Return of PRO results included comparison with age- and sex-matched peers and was built into the Patient-Reported Outcomes Following Initial Treatment and Long-Term Evaluation of Survivorship registry. The self-management intervention is an adaptation of a fully automated evidence-based intervention for breast cancer survivors. Patients with lymphoma who completed the web-based questionnaire were equally randomized to care as usual, return of PRO results, and return of PRO results plus self-management intervention. Patients completed questionnaires 9 to 18 months after diagnosis (T0; n=227), 4 months (T1; n=190), 12 months (T2; n=170), and 24 months (T3; n=98). RESULTS: Of all invited patients, 51.1% (456/892) responded and web-based participants (n=227) were randomly assigned to care as usual (n=76), return of PRO results (n=74), or return of PRO results and access to Living with lymphoma (n=77). Return of PRO results was viewed by 76.7% (115/150) of those with access. No statistically significant differences were observed for psychological distress, self-management, satisfaction with information provision, and health care use between patients who received PRO results and those who did not (P>.05). Use of the self-management intervention was low (2/76, 3%), and an effect could therefore not be determined. CONCLUSIONS: Return of individual PRO results seems to meet patients’ wishes but had no beneficial effects on patient outcome. No negative effects were found when individual PRO results were disclosed, and the return of individual PRO results can therefore be safely implemented in daily clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands Trial Register NTR5953; https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/5790 INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1186/s13063-017-1943-

Diverse perspectives on interdisciplinarity from members of the college of the Royal Society of Canada

Various multiple-disciplinary terms and concepts (although most commonly “interdisciplinarity,” which is used herein) are used to frame education, scholarship, research, and interactions within and outside academia. In principle, the premise of interdisciplinarity may appear to have many strengths; yet, the extent to which interdisciplinarity is embraced by the current generation of academics, the benefits and risks for doing so, and the barriers and facilitators to achieving interdisciplinarity, represent inherent challenges. Much has been written on the topic of interdisciplinarity, but to our knowledge there have been few attempts to consider and present diverse perspectives from scholars, artists, and scientists in a cohesive manner. As a team of 57 members from the Canadian College of New Scholars, Artists, and Scientists of the Royal Society of Canada (the College) who self-identify as being engaged or interested in interdisciplinarity, we provide diverse intellectual, cultural, and social perspectives. The goal of this paper is to share our collective wisdom on this topic with the broader community and to stimulate discourse and debate on the merits and challenges associated with interdisciplinarity. Perhaps the clearest message emerging from this exercise is that working across established boundaries of scholarly communities is rewarding, necessary, and is more likely to result in impact. However, there are barriers that limit the ease with which this can occur (e.g., lack of institutional structures and funding to facilitate cross-disciplinary exploration). Occasionally, there can be significant risk associated with doing interdisciplinary work (e.g., lack of adequate measurement or recognition of work by disciplinary peers). Solving many of the world’s complex and pressing problems (e.g., climate change, sustainable agriculture, the burden of chronic disease, and aging populations) demands thinking and working across long-standing, but in some ways restrictive, academic boundaries. Academic institutions and key support structures, especially funding bodies, will play an important role in helping to realize what is readily apparent to all who contributed to this paper—that interdisciplinarity is essential for solving complex problems; it is the new norm. Failure to empower and encourage those doing this research will serve as a great impediment to training, knowledge, and addressing societal issues

An overview of treatment approaches for chronic pain management

Pain which persists after healing is expected to have taken place, or which exists in the absence of tissue damage, is termed chronic pain. By definition chronic pain cannot be treated and cured in the conventional biomedical sense; rather, the patient who is suffering from the pain must be given the tools with which their long-term pain can be managed to an acceptable level. This article will provide an overview of treatment approaches available for the management of persistent non-malignant pain. As well as attempting to provide relief from the physical aspects of pain through the judicious use of analgesics, interventions, stimulations, and irritations, it is important to pay equal attention to the psychosocial complaints which almost always accompany long-term pain. The pain clinic offers a biopsychosocial approach to treatment with the multidisciplinary pain management programme; encouraging patients to take control of their pain problem and lead a fulfilling life in spite of the pain. © 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelber