Evidence Updates: Impact of two supportive care interventions on anxiety, depression, quality of life, and unmet needs in patients
Girgis A, Breen S, Stacey F, et al.
Impact of two supportive care interventions on anxiety, depression, quality of life, and unmet needs in patients with nonlocalized breast and colorectal cancers.
J Clin Oncol. 2009 Dec 20;27(36):6180-90. Epub 2009 Nov 16. PMID: 19917842 (Original)
DISCIPLINE RELEVANCE TO PRACTICE IS THIS NEWS?
Oncology - Breast 3 / 7 3 / 7
Oncology - Gastrointestinal 4 / 7 4 / 7
Oncology - Palliative and Supportive Care 6 / 7 6 / 7
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patients with cancer experience considerable symptom burden, psychological morbidity, and unmet psychosocial needs. Research suggests that feedback of patient-reported outcomes to clinicians or caseworkers, alongside management strategies, may result in improved patient functioning. Two intervention models were developed to test this effect in a randomized, controlled trial against usual care (UC): a telephone caseworker (TCW) model and an oncologist/general practitioner (O/GP) model. Primary end points included anxiety, depression, physical/emotional functioning, and unmet supportive care needs.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Participants with nonlocalized breast or colorectal cancers were surveyed by computer-assisted telephone interview (CATI) at three time points: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Data collected from participant CATIs in the supportive care models were used to generate feedback to either each participant`s designated TCW, or their nominated O/GPs. Data obtained from participants in the UC model were used only to assess the impact of supportive care models. In total, 356 participants consented to study participation, completed the baseline CATI, and were randomly assigned to the UC, TCW, or O/GP groups.
RESULTS: No overall intervention effect was observed. Physical functioning was significantly improved at the third CATI for participants in the TCW model (P = .01), and there was a trend toward fewer participants with unmet needs (P = .07). TCW group participants also were more likely to have the following: identified issues of need discussed (P < .0001); referrals made (P < .0001); and strong agreement that the intervention improved communication with their health care team (P = .0005).
CONCLUSION: The TCW model holds some promise; however, additional work in at-risk populations is required before we recommend implementation.
dg
Most patients aren't aware that they can be used as props in the operating room and I'm sure the hospitals and doctors want it that way. The operating room has always been known to medical students as a great place to "steal" their learning from the patient. I think what's unnerving is the vision of many students waiting their turn in line to practice on an unconscious patient.
How could this possibly be an issue or a problem? How could it NOT be feasible to require prior consent? Likely the feasibility question concerns the medical schools' fear that if they ask patients for consent, they'll get more refusals than they can abide.
I consider this practice to be extremely unethical and leaves women open to abuse.
Where are the ethics committees when it comes to issues like this?
If it is not ABSOLUTELY CLEAR to the patient that a specific exam is part of the process, AND that participation means a supervised student may do such an exam, then you don't have informed consent. Period.
And you sure don't get that by having the patient sign a pile of forms a few hours ahead of a procedure, or assuming they know what "participate" in operation means. Stand and watch? Help monitor? Hold a kidney? I don't object to being a learning tool, but I expect to be asked specifically, simply and clearly.
"is it common practice when women are undergoing any procedure to have pelvic exams while under anaesthesia?"
My heart sank when I read that question. I would love to know this too (while at the same time I dread the answer).
I'd also like to know, are men's bodies used in this experimental way? Do students practice examinations on men for testicular or prostate cancer while they are unconscious?
Sandi, I hope you'll keep us posted if you hear anything about this. Thank you.
My heart sank when I read that question. I would love to know this too (while at the same time I dread the answer).
I think from some of the poll responses and comments, it is common contrary to what may think. Surgical patients of any kind, male or female should be getting on the bandwagon on this issue. The best way to bring this issue forward is to blog,email,FB and Twitter the ethics of the issue in the public domain. I wonder what husbands/partners feel about this?
A lot of debates resulted from the expose, but the doctors and hospitals were defiant in their "right" to use patient bodies in the OR as teaching props with the reasoning that a doctor can't learn just by observing. And that the patient isn't harmed. In any debate, they were uniformly indignant at revealing anything that goes on in the OR to the public because of the fear "one foot in door, what next will they demand. And the threat that if there is interference, then patient care will suffer.
Here are a few news links addressing this issue.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A36990-2003May9¬Found=true
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=880120
(yes, men are used as props too)
http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/other-diseases-ailments/are-med-students-practicing-on-you/article/fb2a99edbbbd201099edbbbd2010cfe793cd
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0CYD/is_13_38/ai_105514181/
http://jamwa.amwa-doc.org/index.cfm?objectid=C7EE5996-D567-0B25-50D3DA2B7834FEE5
1) http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-37.html
2) http://upalumni.org/medschool/appendices/appendix-49.html