Experts' attitudes towards medical futility: an empirical survey from Japan

BACKGROUND: The current debate about medical futility is mostly driven by theoretical and personal perspectives and there is a lack of empirical data to document experts and public attitudes towards medical futility. METHODS: To examine the attitudes of the Japanese experts in the fields relevant to medical futility a questionnaire survey was conducted among the members of the Japan Association for Bioethics. A total number of 108 questionnaires returned filled in, giving a response rate of 50.9%. Among the respondents 62% were healthcare professionals (HCPs) and 37% were non-healthcare professionals (Non-HCPs). RESULTS: The majority of respondents (67.6 %) believed that a physician's refusal to provide or continue a treatment on the ground of futility judgment could never be morally justified but 22.2% approved such refusal with conditions. In the case of physiologically futile care, three-quarters believed that a physician should inform the patient/family of his futility judgment and it would be the patient who could decide what should be done next, based on his/her value judgment. However more than 10% said that a physician should ask about a patient's value and goals, but the final decision was left to the doctor not the patient. There was no statistically significant difference between HCPs and Non-HCPs (p = 0.676). Of respondents 67.6% believed that practical guidelines set up by the health authority would be helpful in futility judgment. CONCLUSION: The results show that there is no support for the physicians' unilateral decision- making on futile care. This survey highlights medical futility as an emerging issue in Japanese healthcare and emphasizes on the need for public discussion and policy development

Benefit from preoperative radiotherapy in rectal cancer treatment: disease-free patients' and oncologists' preferences

Preoperative radiotherapy (PRT) in resectable rectal cancer improves local control but increases probability of faecal incontinence and sexual dysfunction. Consensus was reached in 2001 in the Netherlands on a guideline advising PRT to new patients. Purpose was to assess at what benefit oncologists and rectal cancer patients prefer PRT followed by surgery to surgery alone, and how oncologists and patients value various treatment outcomes. Sixty-six disease-free patients and 60 oncologists (surgical, radiation, medical) were interviewed. Minimally desired benefit from PRT (local control) was assessed using the Treatment Tradeoff Method. Importance of survival, local control, faecal incontinence, and sexual dysfunction in determining treatment outcome preferences was assessed using Adaptive Conjoint Analysis. The range of required benefit from PRT varied widely within participant groups. Seventeen percent of patients would choose PRT at a 0% benefit; 11% would not choose PRT for the maximum benefit of 11%. Mean minimally desired benefit excluding these two groups was 4%. For oncologists, the required benefit was 5%. Also, how strongly participants valued treatment outcomes varied widely within groups. Of the four outcomes, participants considered incontinence most often as most important. Relative treatment outcome importance differed between specialties. Patients considered sexual functioning more important than oncologists. Large differences in treatment preferences exist between individual patients and oncologists. Oncologists should adequately inform their patients about the risks and benefits of PRT, and elicit patient preferences regarding treatment outcomes

Using a genetically informative design to examine the relationship between breastfeeding and childhood conduct problems

A number of public health interventions aimed at increasing the uptake of breastfeeding are in place in the United States and other Western countries. While the physical health and nutritional benefits of breastfeeding for the mother and child are relatively well established, the evidence for psychological effects is less clear. This study aimed to examine whether there is an association between breastfeeding and later conduct problems in children. It also considered the extent to which any relationship is attributable to maternally-provided inherited characteristics that influence both likelihood of breastfeeding and child conduct problems. A prenatal cross-fostering design with a sample of 870 families with a child aged 4–11 years was used. Mothers were genetically related or unrelated to their child as a result of assisted reproductive technologies. The relationship between breastfeeding and conduct problems was assessed while controlling for theorised measured confounders by multivariate regression (e.g. maternal smoking, education, and antisocial behaviour), and for unmeasured inherited factors by testing associations separately for related and unrelated mother-child pairs. Breastfeeding was associated with lower levels of conduct disorder symptoms in offspring in middle childhood. Breastfeeding was associated with lower levels of conduct problems even after controlling for observed confounders in the genetically related group, but not in the genetically unrelated group. In contrast, maternal antisocial behaviour showed robust associations with child conduct problems after controlling for measured and inherited confounders. These findings highlight the importance of using genetically sensitive designs in order to test causal environmental influences

The European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis: an electronic guideline implementability appraisal

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical guidelines are intended to improve healthcare. However, even if guidelines are excellent, their implementation is not assured. In subfertility care, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guidelines have been inventoried, and their methodological quality has been assessed. To improve the impact of the ESHRE guidelines and to improve European subfertility care, it is important to optimise the implementability of guidelines. We therefore investigated the implementation barriers of the ESHRE guideline with the best methodological quality and evaluated the used instrument for usability and feasibility.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We reviewed the ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis to assess its implementability. We used an electronic version of the guideline implementability appraisal (eGLIA) instrument. This eGLIA tool consists of 31 questions grouped into 10 dimensions. Seven items address the guideline as a whole, and 24 items assess the individual recommendations in the guideline. The eGLIA instrument identifies factors that influence the implementability of the guideline recommendations. These factors can be divided into facilitators that promote implementation and barriers that oppose implementation. A panel of 10 experts from three European countries appraised all 36 recommendations of the guideline. They discussed discrepancies in a teleconference and completed a questionnaire to evaluate the ease of use and overall utility of the eGLIA instrument.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Two of the 36 guideline recommendations were straightforward to implement. Five recommendations were considered simply statements because they contained no actions. The remaining 29 recommendations were implementable with some adjustments. We found facilitators of the guideline implementability in the quality of decidability, presentation and formatting, apparent validity, and novelty or innovation of the recommendations. Vaguely defined actions, lack of facilities, immeasurable outcomes, and inflexibility within the recommendations formed barriers to implementation. The eGLIA instrument was generally useful and easy to use. However, assessment with the eGLIA instrument is very time-consuming.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The ESHRE guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of endometriosis could be improved to facilitate its implementation in daily practice. The eGLIA instrument is a helpful tool for identifying obstacles to implementation of a guideline. However, we recommend a concise version of this instrument.</p