The medical gaze reframed: A phenomenological investigation of patient visibility in oncology.

Quality of care in clinical oncology: from the dreamworld to the real world of outcome assessment

Regressing or progressing: what next for the doctor–patient relationship?

Traditional health practitioners (THPs) and their role in traditional medicine health care system are worldwide acknowledged. Trend in the use of Traditional medicine (TRM) and Alternative or Complementary medicine (CAM) is increasing due to epidemics like HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis and other diseases like cancer. Despite the wide use of TRM, genuine concern from the public and scientists/biomedical heath practitioners (BHP) on efficacy, safety and quality of TRM has been raised. While appreciating and promoting the use of TRM, the World Health Organization (WHO), and WHO/Afro, in response to the registered challenges has worked modalities to be adopted by Member States as a way to addressing these concerns. Gradually, through the WHO strategy, TRM policy and legal framework has been adopted in most of the Member States in order to accommodate sustainable collaboration between THPs and the scientist/BHP. Research protocols on how to evaluate traditional medicines for safety and efficacy for priority diseases in Africa have been formulated. Creation of close working relationship between practitioners of both health care systems is strongly recommended so as to revamp trust among each other and help to access information and knowledge from both sides through appropriate modalities. In Tanzania, gaps that exist between THPs and scientists/BHP in health research have been addressed through recognition of THPs among stakeholders in the country's health sector as stipulated in the National Health Policy, the Policy and Act of TRM and CAM. Parallel to that, several research institutions in TRM collaborating with THPs are operating. Various programmed research projects in TRM that has involved THPs and other stakeholders are ongoing, aiming at complementing the two health care systems. This paper discusses global, regional and national perspectives of TRM development and efforts that have so far been directed towards bridging the gap between THPs and scientist/BHP in contemporary health research in Tanzania.

Background: The best practice for the organization of follow-up care in oncology is under debate, due to growing numbers of cancer survivors. Understanding survivors’ preferences for follow-up care is elementary for designing patient-centred care. Based on data from prostate cancer and melanoma survivors, this study aims to identify: 1) preferences for follow-up care providers, for instance the medical specialist, the oncology nurse or the general practitioner; 2) characteristics associated with these preferences and 3) the preferred care provider to discuss cancer-related problems.Material and methods: Survivors diagnosed with prostate cancer (N = 535) and melanoma (N = 232) between 2007 and 2013 as registered in The Netherlands Cancer Registry returned a questionnaire (response rate was 71% and 69%, respectively). A latent class cluster model analysis was used to define preferences and a multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to identify survivor-related characteristics associated with these preferences.Results: Of all survivors, 29% reported no preference, 40% reported a preference for the medical specialist, 20% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner and 11% reported a preference for both the medical specialist and the oncology nurse. Survivors who were older, lower/intermediate educated and women were more likely to have a preference for the medical specialist. Lower educated survivors were less likely to have a preference for both the medical specialist and the general practitioner. Overall, survivors prefer to discuss diet, physical fitness and fatigue with the general practitioner, and hereditary and recurrence with the medical specialist. Only a small minority favored to discuss cancer-related problems with the oncology nurse.Conclusion: Survivors reported different preferences for follow-up care providers based on age, education level, gender and satisfaction with the general practitioner, showing a need for tailored follow-up care in oncology. The results indicate an urgency to educate patients about transitions in follow-up care.

Cultural Competence Reexamined: Critique and Directions for the Future

Patient-oriented research and the shiny object syndrome.

Social determinants of health and unmet social needs are directly related to cancer outcomes, from diagnosis to survivorship. If identified, unmet social needs can be addressed in oncology care by changing care plans in collaboration with patients’ preferences and accounting for clinical practice guidelines (eg, reducing the frequency of appointments, switching treatment modalities) and connecting patients to resources within healthcare organizations (eg, social work support, patient navigation) and with community organizations (eg, food banks, housing assistance programs). Screening for social needs is the first step to identifying those who need additional support and is increasingly recognized as a necessary component of high-quality cancer care delivery. Despite evidence about the relationship between social needs and cancer outcomes and the abundance of screening tools, the implementation of social needs screening remains a challenge, and little is known regarding the adoption, reach, and sustainability of social needs screening in routine clinical practice. We present data on the adoption and implementation of social needs screening at two large academic cancer centers and discuss three challenges associated with implementing evidence-based social needs screening in clinical practice: (1) identifying an optimal approach for administering social needs screening in oncology care, (2) adequately addressing identified unmet needs with resources and support, and (3) coordinating social needs screening between oncology and primary care.

Informing Patient Surveillance for the Growing Number of Survivors of Lung Cancer

The academic world is rapidly changing due to multiple influences, including COVID-19, technological advancement, tertiary competition, shifting government policies, and emerging research practices and priorities. Given this rapidly changing tertiary-education landscape, added importance is placed on the need for emerging research leaders to understand contemporary research practices which likely exceeds the skills displayed by their supervisors and mentors. Consequently, reflecting on 80+ years of collective post-PhD research experience, we identify and discuss six common characteristics of contemporary health research practice, with the aim of guiding and empowering higher degree by research students and emerging early career researchers as they develop their research identities and shape their approaches and values on the path to becoming research leaders in health. Indicative of today’s dynamic and exacting research environment, we propose that best practice contemporary health research should be: Diverse; Creative; Collaborative; Authentic; Respectful; and, Trusting. By understanding a diverse range of research approaches, and through working in collaborative and creative teams, diversity of thought, approach, and methods can become a cornerstone of practice. By blending this understanding with questions and research approaches that facilitate the pathway of translation uptake for the next-user, emerging research leaders can deliver authentic research with the requisite ingredients for impact.

BackgroundThe Type A Behaviour Pattern (TABP) – characterised as individuals who are highly competitive, time-conscious and aggressive - has been the subject of research for over fifty years. The concept...

BackgroundPublic health research often focuses on gender differences within certain diagnoses, but so far research has failed to explain these differences in a satisfactory way. Theoretical development could be one prerequisite for moving beyond categorical thinking. The aim of this paper was to analyse how gender theories have been used in public health research in relation to various methodological approaches.MethodSix special issues of gender research with public health relevance (comprising 33 papers in total) were identified from a search of PubMed and Web of Science, spanning a 10-year period. The papers were analysed inductively through posing questions to the text.ResultsGender theories were used in eight different ways: 1. to test hypotheses, 2. integrate theories, 3. develop gender concepts and models, 4. interpret findings, 5. understand health problems, 6. illustrate the validity of other theories, 7. integrated into a gender blind theory, as well as to 8. critique of other gender theories. The strategies applied seemed independent of the health aspects of the papers. However, the methodologies were of importance, indicating that both theoretical papers and papers using qualitative methodologies used almost all available strategies, while papers using quantitative empirical research used a limited number of strategies.ConclusionsThis study contributes to identifying how gender theories are used in contemporary public health research, which can help researchers move beyond a categorical understanding of gender in health research.

This article explores conceptual and methodological challenges surrounding the recovery of patients’ voices in the history of medicine. We examine the debate that followed Roy Porter’s seminal article, ‘The Patient’s...

Cancer Survivorship Care for the General Internist: Have We Paved the Way for a Smoother Transition?

Reader in Applied Philosophy, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, MMU Cheshire, Crewe, UK and Visiting Professor of Philosophy as Applied to Medicine, University of Buckingham, Uk Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy and Religious Studies, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA Associate Professor, Department of General Practice, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics, Toronto, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON, Canada Assistant Professor, Department of Philosophy, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada Professor of Values in Health Care, Associate Director, Social Dimensions of Health Institute, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK

The purpose of this article is to review current guidelines and national initiatives to improve the quality of supportive oncology care. Review of the literature in this area has documented important advances in supportive oncology. This article focuses on work by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care and the National Quality Forum. The mandate to improve the quality of care in oncology has been the focus of several national reports, including those by the Institute of Medicine addressing end-of-life care in cancer and cancer survivorship. Patients with cancer face significant needs for support in areas such as pain and symptom management and psychosocial and spiritual support, as well as diverse quality-of-life concerns. These reports recommending changes in practice have been reinforced by clinical practice guidelines developed by the National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care and preferred practices defined by the National Quality Forum. This article applies these national mandates and guidelines to the field of supportive care in oncology. Improving the quality of supportive oncology will require commitment by oncology professionals in areas of education, clinical practice, and research.