Projecting prevalence by stage of care for prostate cancer and estimating future health service needs: protocol for a modelling study

Introduction Current strategies for the management of prostate cancer are inadequate in Australia. We will, in this study, estimate current service needs and project the future needs for prostate cancer patients in Australia. Methods and analysis First, we will project the future prevalence of prostate cancer for 2010-2018 using data for 1972-2008 from the New South Wales (NSW) Central Cancer Registry. These projections, based on modelled incidence and survival estimates, will be estimated using PIAMOD (Prevalence, Incidence, Analysis MODel) software. Then the total prevalence will be decomposed into five stages of care: initial care, continued monitoring, recurrence, last year of life and long-term survivor. Finally, data from the NSW Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study, including data on patterns of treatment and associated quality of life, will be used to estimate the type and amount of services that will be needed by prostate cancer patients in each stage of care. In addition, Central Cancer Registry episode data will be used to estimate transition rates from localised or locally advanced prostate cancer to metastatic disease. Medicare and Pharmaceutical Benefits data, linked with Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study data, will be used to complement the Cancer Registry episode data. The methods developed will be applied Australia-wide to obtain national estimates of the future prevalence of prostate cancer for different stages of clinical care. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the NSW Population and Health Services Research Ethics Committee. Results of the study will be disseminated widely to different interest groups and organisations through a report, conference presentations and peer-reviewed articles.This work is supported by the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia (grant number: PCFA – YI 0410). Both David Smith and Xue Qin Yu are supported by an Australian NHMRC Training Fellowship (Ref 1016598, 550002). Mark Clements is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Award (Ref 471491)

Effect of parallel magnetic field on the Zero Differential Resistance State

The non-linear zero-differential resistance state (ZDRS) that occurs for highly mobile two-dimensional electron systems in response to a dc bias in the presence of a strong magnetic field applied perpendicular to the electron plane is suppressed and disappears gradually as the magnetic field is tilted away from the perpendicular at fixed filling factor $\nu$. Good agreement is found with a model that considers the effect of the Zeeman splitting of Landau levels enhanced by the in-plane component of the magnetic field.Comment: 4 pages, 4 figure

Whole genome sequencing and prediction of antimicrobial susceptibilities in non-tuberculous mycobacteria

Non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) are opportunistic pathogens commonly causing chronic, pulmonary disease which is notoriously hard to treat. Current treatment for NTM infections involves at least three active drugs (including one macrolide: clarithromycin or azithromycin) over 12 months or longer. At present there are limited phenotypic in vitro drug susceptibility testing options for NTM which are standardised globally. As seen with tuberculosis, whole genome sequencing has the potential to transform drug susceptibility testing in NTM, by utilising a genotypic approach. The Comprehensive Resistance Prediction for Tuberculosis is a database used to predict Mycobacterium tuberculosis resistance: at present there are no similar databases available to accurately predict NTM resistance. Recent studies have shown concordance between phenotypic and genotypic NTM resistance results. To benefit from the advantages of whole genome sequencing, further advances in resistance prediction need to take place, as well as there being better information on novel drug mutations and an understanding of the impact of whole genome sequencing on NTM treatment outcomes

GPs’ perspectives on the management of patients with multimorbidity: systematic review and synthesis of qualitative research

Objective To synthesise the existing published literature on the perceptions of general practitioners (GPs) or their equivalent on the clinical management of multimorbidity and determine targets for future research that aims to improve clinical care in multimorbidity. Design Systematic review and metaethnographic synthesis of primary studies that used qualitative methods to explore GPs’ experiences of clinical management of multimorbidity or multiple chronic diseases. Data sources EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Academic Search Complete, SocIndex, Social Science Full Text and digital theses/online libraries (database inception to September 2012) to identify literature using qualitative methods (focus groups or interviews). Review methods The 7-step metaethnographic approach described by Noblit and Hare, which involves cross-interpretation between studies while preserving the context of the primary data. Results Of 1805 articles identified, 37 were reviewed in detail and 10 were included, using a total of 275 GPs in 7 different countries. Four areas of difficulty specific to the management of multimorbidity emerged from these papers: disorganisation and fragmentation of healthcare; the inadequacy of guidelines and evidence-based medicine; challenges in delivering patient-centred care; and barriers to shared decision-making. A ‘line of argument’ was drawn which described GPs’ sense of isolation in decision-making for multimorbid patients. Conclusions This systematic review shows that the problem areas for GPs in the management of multimorbidity may be classified into four domains. There will be no ‘one size fits all’ intervention for multimorbidity but these domains may be useful targets to guide the development of interventions that will assist and improve the provision of care to multimorbid patients

Normative Alethic Pluralism

Some philosophers have argued that truth is a norm of judgement and have provided a variety of formulations of this general thesis. In this paper, I shall side with these philosophers and assume that truth is a norm of judgement. What I am primarily interested in here are two core questions concerning the judgement-truth norm: (i) what are the normative relationships between truth and judgement? And (ii) do these relationships vary or are they constant? I argue for a pluralist picture—what I call Normative Alethic Pluralism (NAP)—according to which (i) there is more than one correct judgement-truth norm and (ii) the normative relationships between truth and judgement vary in relation to the subject matter of the judgement. By means of a comparative analysis of disagreement in three areas of the evaluative domain—refined aesthetics, basic taste and morality—I show that there is an important variability in the normative significance of disagreement—I call this the variability conjecture. By presenting a variation of Lynch’s scope problem for alethic monism, I argue that a monistic approach to the normative function of truth is unable to vindicate the conjecture. I then argue that normative alethic pluralism provides us with a promising model to account for it