From decision to incision: Ideologies of gender in surgical cancer care

In this paper, I draw on the narratives of 57 individuals whose gender identities and decisions about their bodies trouble the medical protocols for breast and gynecological cancer care. I focus here on the decision-making process for three groups of elective surgeries: hysterectomy, prophylactic bilateral and contralateral mastectomy, and breast reconstruction. These elective surgeries illustrate places in medical interactions where patients and providers rely on frames of gender to determine whether a given surgery is an appropriate option for cancer prevention or care. These cases also explain how patient experiences of medical interactions are shaped by and thus reproduce ideologies of gender through the bodies of patients. While clinical practice and medical decisions are supposedly determined through the principles of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care, I show that ideas about gender can actually supersede both medical evidence and patient desires for their bodies in the care of gynecological and breast cancers

From decision to incision: Ideologies of gender in surgical cancer care

In this paper, I draw on the narratives of 57 individuals whose gender identities and decisions about their bodies trouble the medical protocols for breast and gynecological cancer care. I focus here on the decision-making process for three groups of elective surgeries: hysterectomy, prophylactic bilateral and contralateral mastectomy, and breast reconstruction. These elective surgeries illustrate places in medical interactions where patients and providers rely on frames of gender to determine whether a given surgery is an appropriate option for cancer prevention or care. These cases also explain how patient experiences of medical interactions are shaped by and thus reproduce ideologies of gender through the bodies of patients. While clinical practice and medical decisions are supposedly determined through the principles of evidence-based medicine and patient-centered care, I show that ideas about gender can actually supersede both medical evidence and patient desires for their bodies in the care of gynecological and breast cancers

Day hospital versus admission for acute psychiatric disorders

Backgroun

Day hospital versus out-patient care for psychiatric disorders

Obstacle, adventure and endurance competitions in challenging or remote settings are increasing in popularity. A literature search indicates a dearth of evidence-based research on the organisation of medical care for wilderness competitions. The organisation of medical care for each event is best tailored to specific race components, participant characteristics, geography, risk assessments, legal requirements, and the availability of both local and outside resources. Considering the health risks and logistical complexities inherent in these events, there is a compelling need for guiding principles that bridge the fields of wilderness medicine and sports medicine in providing a framework for the organisation of medical care delivery during wilderness and remote obstacle, adventure and endurance competitions. This narrative review, authored by experts in wilderness and operational medicine, provides such a framework. The primary goal is to assist organisers and medical providers in planning for sporting events in which participants are in situations or locations that exceed the capacity of local emergency medical services resources

Day hospital versus admission for acute psychiatric disorders

BACKGROUND: Inpatient treatment is an expensive way of caring for people with acute psychiatric disorders. It has been proposed that many of those currently treated as inpatients could be cared for in acute psychiatric day hospitals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of day hospital versus inpatient care for people with acute psychiatric disorders. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, issue 4, 2000), MEDLINE (January 1966 to December 2000), EMBASE (1980 to December 2000), CINAHL (1982 to December 2000), PsycLIT (1966 to December 2000), and the reference lists of articles. We approached trialists to identify unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of day hospital versus inpatient care, for people with acute psychiatric disorders. Studies were ineligible if a majority of participants were under 18 or over 65, or had a primary diagnosis of substance abuse or organic brain disorder. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted independently by two reviewers and cross-checked. Relative risks and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for dichotomous data. Weighted or standardised means were calculated for continuous data. Day hospital trials tend to present similar outcomes in slightly different formats, making it difficult to synthesise data. Individual patient data were therefore sought so that outcomes could be reanalysed in a common format. MAIN RESULTS: Nine trials (involving 1568 people) met the inclusion criteria. Individual patient data were obtained for four trials (involving 594 people). Combined data suggested that, at the most pessimistic estimate, day hospital treatment was feasible for 23% (n=2268, CI 21 to 25) of those currently admitted to inpatient care. Individual patient data from three trials showed no difference in number of days in hospital between day hospital patients and controls (n=465, 3 RCTs, WMD -0.38 days/month CI -1.32 to 0.55). However, compared to controls, people randomised to day hospital care spent significantly more days in day hospital care (n=265, 3 RCTs, WMD 2.34 days/month CI 1.97 to 2.70) and significantly fewer days in inpatient care (n=265, 3 RCTs, WMD -2.75 days/month CI -3.63 to -1.87). There was no significant difference in readmission rates between day hospital patients and controls (n=667, 5 RCTs, RR 0.91 CI 0.72 to 1.15). For patients judged suitable for day hospital care, individual patient data from three trials showed a significant time-treatment interaction, indicating a more rapid improvement in mental state (n=407, Chi-squared 9.66, p=0.002), but not social functioning (n=295, Chi-squared 0.006, p=0.941) amongst patients treated in the day hospital. Four of five trials found that day hospital care was cheaper than inpatient care (with cost reductions ranging from 20.9 to 36.9%). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Caring for people in acute day hospitals can achieve substantial reductions in the numbers of people needing inpatient care, whilst improving patient outcome