Differences In Patient Quality Research Articles

Use of cast immobilization versus removable brace in adults with an ankle fracture: two-year follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial

The aim of this study was to compare the longer-term outcomes of operatively and nonoperatively managed patients treated with a removable brace (fixed-angle removable orthosis) or a plaster cast immobilization for an acute ankle fracture. This is a secondary analysis of a multicentre randomized controlled trial comparing adults with an acute ankle fracture, initially managed either by operative or nonoperative care. Patients were randomly allocated to receive either a cast immobilization or a fixed-angle removable orthosis (removable brace). Data were collected on baseline characteristics, ankle function, quality of life, and complications. The Olerud-Molander Ankle Score (OMAS) was the primary outcome which was used to measure the participant's ankle function. The primary endpoint was at 16 weeks, with longer-term follow-up at 24 weeks and two years. Overall, 436 patients (65%) completed the final two-year follow-up. The mean difference in OMAS at two years was -0.3 points favouring the plaster cast (95% confidence interval -3.9 to 3.4), indicating no statistically significant difference between the interventions. There was no evidence of differences in patient quality of life (measured using the EuroQol five-dimension five-level questionnaire) or Disability Rating Index. This study demonstrated that patients treated with a removable brace had similar outcomes to those treated with a plaster cast in the first two years after injury. A removable brace is an effective alternative to traditional immobilization in a plaster cast for patients with an ankle fracture.

A Cross-Sectional, Mixed-Methods Analysis to Identify the Relative Importance of Factors Students and Providers Evaluate When Making a Job Choice.

Little is known about the relative importance of factors that contribute to job choices among health care providers. A convenience sample of 173 health care providers (N=134) and physician assistant students (N=39) completed a cross-sectional survey. Participants rated the importance of sixteen job- (e.g., work environment), community- (e.g., recreational opportunities), and personal-related factors (e.g., children) and one open-ended item. The highest rated item, on average, was an opportunity to make a difference in patient quality of life (mean (M)=4.57, standard deviation (SD)=0.63) while the lowest rated item was wealth/prestige of living in a certain area (M=2.43, SD=1.05). The average importance rating was similar across types of providers and between providers and students. While personal interest to positively affect patients' quality of life was rated as the most important factor, almost all the studied items were rated as important or very important by the majority of participants.

Quality of life of post-stroke patients

IntroductionStroke is a disease whose consequences have a considerable impact on the quality of the patient’s life. It is a widespread disease that has a disabling impact on life and, in addition to physical changes, brings about a number of psychological and cognitive processes.GoalThe goal of the study was to identify and describe the quality of life of post-stroke patients.MethodologyThe study design was quantitative. A questionnaire of the authors’ own design and the SF-36 questionnaire were used to obtain the data.ResultsSignificant differences in patient quality of life were identified in relation to patient gender. Moreover, the quality of life in all individual SF-36 dimensions, except for mental health, deteriorated with age. With regard to occupational placement, employed respondents gave the highest evaluation of quality of life according to SF-36 and old-age pensioners the lowest. The analysis shows that quality of life in individual dimensions is positively influenced by respondents’ higher education. The evaluation in individual dimensions improves with the time that has passed since the stroke.ConclusionThe quality of life of post-stroke patients deteriorates with age. The deteriorating level of patient quality of life in older age requires programmes that include assessments and interventions that lead to the treatment of these patients.

DIFFERENCE IN PATIENT QUALITY OF LIFE AFTER HIP ARTHROPLASTY WITH A MINIMALLY INVASIVE APPROACH OR CLASSIC APPROACH.

SUMMARYThe increasing rate of orthopedic procedures, hip arthroplasty in particular, requires improvement of surgical techniques, as well as of the respective rehabilitation protocols. The aim of the study was to assess differences in the quality of life and incidence of limping eight years after total hip arthroplasty performed with a minimally invasive or classic approach. This cross-sectional study included 68 patients, i.e. 32 operated with classic approach and 36 with minimally invasive approach during 2011. The following parameters were observed: anthropometric measurements, history of comorbidity, subjective assessment of limping, and SF-36 questionnaire (Short Form Survey Instrument). SF-36 testing, which consists of 8 domains, showed that 5 domains of the quality of life were statistically significantly better in the minimally invasive group (level of significance p<0.05). These domains were role of limitation due to physical health (p=0.01), energy (p=0.02), social functioning (p=0.02), pain (p=0.02) and general health (p=0.00). The minimally invasive group had a statistically significantly lower incidence of limping (p=0.032). Quality of life after hip replacement could be a decisive factor when choosing the type of orthopedic procedure. The higher number of limping patients in the classic approach group may have contributed to differences in the quality of life. In conclusion, the minimally invasive approach enables higher long-term quality of life and functional recovery.

One-stage and two-stage breast reconstruction have no meaningful difference in patient quality of life

A clinical decision report appraising Negenborn VL, Young-Afat DA, Dikmans REG, et al. Quality of life and patient satisfaction after one-stage implant-based breast reconstruction with an acellular dermal matrix versus two-stage breast reconstruction (BRIOS): primary outcome of a randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncology. 2018;19(9):1205-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(18)30378-4.

Feasibility of olanzapine at reduced dose in highly emetogenic chemotherapy: A randomised controlled trial against aprepitant in triple therapy (FORESIGHT).

12087 Background: Olanzapine is used as an adjunct antiemetic in oncology as salvage therapy and in four-drug prophylaxis. Growing literature supports its effectiveness in initial three-drug prophylaxis in highly emetogenic chemotherapy (HEC). Methods: This prospective, multi-centre, open-label study evaluated the feasibility of a large-scale randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness and tolerability of 5 mg olanzapine once daily for four days (starting the night before chemotherapy) versus standard dose aprepitant (in tritherapy with standard ondansetron and dexamethasone) in treatment-naive patients receiving the first cycle of a HEC. Secondary outcomes included: complete response (no nausea, no emesis, no use of rescue medication), complete remission (no emesis, no rescue medication), intensity of patient-reported nausea and emesis on a visual analog scale, quality of life (scored with the Functional Living Index Emesis [FLIE]), and incidence of adverse events. Results: We randomized 30 patients in an intent-to-treat analysis. The large-scale trial was deemed not feasible without support from a research centre. Complete response rates were significantly higher in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (24-120h post-chemotherapy) (86,7% v 21,4%, p &lt; 0,001) and overall phase (0-120h post-chemotherapy) (60,0% v 21,4%, p = 0,04). Similar results were observed for complete remission. Intensity of patient-reported nausea was significantly lower in the olanzapine group in the delayed phase (p = 0,001). FLIE scores were significantly lower for the nausea domain (mean 62,3 v 60,9, p = 0,004) and overall score (124,3 v 108,8, p = 0,006). Depression on the ESAS-R was more common in the aprepitant group (0% v 38%, p = 0,01). Other adverse events were not significantly different. Conclusions: Support from a research centre must be ensured for study feasibility. Tritherapy olanzapine significantly improved complete response and remission in the delayed and overall phases post-chemotherapy among patients receiving HEC. It was also associated with higher quality of life and a reassuring safety profile. This feasibility trial, despite its small sample size, is one of the first prospective randomised trials to suggest similar efficacy of 5 mg olanzapine to aprepitant and to measure a difference in patient quality of life with this regimen. Clinical trial information: NCT04075955 .

Comparison of Integrated Outpatient Palliative Care With Standard Care in Patients With Parkinson Disease and Related Disorders

Parkinson disease and related disorders (PDRD) have consequences for quality of life (QoL) and are the 14th leading cause of death in the United States. Despite growing interest in palliative care (PC) for persons with PDRD, few studies are available supporting its effectiveness. To determine if outpatient PC is associated with improvements in patient-centered outcomes compared with standard care among patients with PDRD and their caregivers. This randomized clinical trial enrolled participants at 3 academic tertiary care centers between November 1, 2015, and September 30, 2017, and followed them up for 1 year. A total of 584 persons with PDRD were referred to the study. Of those, 351 persons were excluded by phone and 23 were excluded during in-person screenings. Patients were eligible to participate if they had PDRD and moderate to high PC needs. Patients were excluded if they had urgent PC needs, another diagnosis meriting PC, were already receiving PC, or were unable or unwilling to follow the study protocol. Enrolled participants were assigned to receive standard care plus outpatient integrated PC or standard care alone. Data were analyzed between November 1, 2018, and December 9, 2019. Outpatient integrated PC administered by a neurologist, social worker, chaplain, and nurse using PC checklists, with guidance and selective involvement from a palliative medicine specialist. Standard care was provided by a neurologist and a primary care practitioner. The primary outcomes were the differences in patient quality of life (QoL; measured by the Quality of Life in Alzheimer Disease scale) and caregiver burden (measured by the Zarit Burden Interview) between the PC intervention and standard care groups at 6 months. A total of 210 patients with PDRD (135 men [64.3%]; mean [SD] age, 70.1 [8.2] years) and 175 caregivers (128 women [73.1%]; mean [SD] age, 66.1 [11.1] years) were enrolled in the study; 193 participants (91.9%) were white and non-Hispanic. Compared with participants receiving standard care alone at 6 months, participants receiving the PC intervention had better QoL (mean [SD], 0.66 [5.5] improvement vs 0.84 [4.2] worsening; treatment effect estimate, 1.87; 95% CI, 0.47-3.27; P = .009). No significant difference was observed in caregiver burden (mean [SD], 2.3 [5.0] improvement vs 1.2 [5.6] improvement in the standard care group; treatment effect estimate, -1.62; 95% CI, -3.32 to 0.09; P = .06). Other significant differences favoring the PC intervention included nonmotor symptom burden, motor symptom severity, completion of advance directives, caregiver anxiety, and caregiver burden at 12 months. No outcomes favored standard care alone. Secondary analyses suggested that benefits were greater for persons with higher PC needs. Outpatient PC is associated with benefits among patients with PDRD compared with standard care alone. This study supports efforts to integrate PC into PDRD care. The lack of diversity and implementation of PC at experienced centers suggests a need for implementation research in other populations and care settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02533921.

Place of death and the differences in patient quality of death and dying and caregiver burden.

To explore the associations between place of death and quality of death and dying and caregiver burden in terminally ill patients with cancer and their families. Two bereavement surveys were conducted in October 2008 and October 2011. A total of 2,247 family caregivers of patients with cancer who were deceased responded to the mail surveys (response rate, 67%). Family members reported patient quality of death and dying and caregiver burden by using the Good Death Inventory and Caregiving Consequences Inventory. Patient quality of death and dying was significantly higher at home relative to other places of dying after adjustment for patient and/or family characteristics (adjusted means): 5.0 (95% CI, 4.9 to 5.2) for home, 4.6 (95% CI, 4.5 to 4.7) for palliative care units, and 4.3 (95% CI, 4.2 to 4.4) for hospitals. For all combinations, pairwise P < .001; the size of the difference between home and hospital was moderate (Hedges' g, 0.45). Home was superior to palliative care units or hospitals with respect to "dying in a favorite place," "good relationships with medical staff," "good relationships with family," and "maintaining hope and pleasure" (P < .001 for all combinations of home v palliative care units and home v hospitals). Home death was significantly associated with a lower overall (P = .03) and financial caregiver burden (P = .004) relative to hospital death. Dying at home may contribute to achieving good death in terminally ill patients with cancer without causing remarkably increased caregiver burden. Place of death should be regarded as an essential goal in end-of-life care.

S-1 (Teysuno®): A Review of Its Use in Advanced Gastric Cancer in Non-Asian Populations

S-1 (Teysuno(®)) is an oral anticancer agent comprising the 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) prodrug tegafur and targeted modulators, gimeracil and oteracil. S-1 in combination with cisplatin is a recommended first-line treatment for gastrointestinal cancers in Japan and has recently been approved in the EU for the treatment of advanced gastric cancer. This article reviews S-1 pharmacology from an EU perspective. In a randomized, open-label trial in 24 non-Asian countries in patients with advanced gastric cancer, there were no significant differences between S-1 plus cisplatin and 5-FU plus cisplatin groups in median overall survival (OS) [primary endpoint], progression-free survival or overall response rate. In a post hoc analysis of OS, S-1 plus cisplatin was noninferior to 5-FU plus cisplatin. There were no significant between-group differences in patient quality of life, according to the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (Gastric) Trial Outcome Index, except that S-1 plus cisplatin recipients had a significantly longer time to worsening in physical well-being than 5-FU plus cisplatin recipients. Overall, S-1 plus cisplatin was better tolerated than 5-FU plus cisplatin, with significantly lower rates of haematological, some gastrointestinal tract and other adverse events, serious adverse events and deaths resulting from toxicity, along with significantly fewer haematological and renal function abnormalities. Compared with 5-FU, S-1 plus cisplatin recipients had significantly higher rates of hand-foot syndrome and hyperbilirubinaemia, although there were no between-group differences in the proportions of patients with increased liver enzymes. S-1 is a useful alternative to 5-FU for patients with advanced gastric cancer.

Patient Quality of Life Improvements with and without Computer Assistance in Sinus Surgery: Outcomes Study

Chronic rhinosinusitis affects millions of North Americans and has been increasing annually since 1991. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS) done with the use of computer assistance (CASS) and without the use of computer assistance on patient quality of life. As of this writing, there is no published study that measures the difference in patient quality of life with and without image guidance in endoscopic sinus surgery. A nonrandomized prospective study was performed on 95 patients. A 31-item quality of life (Rhinosinusitis Outcome Measures Form [RSOM-31]) questionnaire was administered to patients prior to surgery and 6 months following surgery during a 3-year enrollment period. Patients assessed both rhinologic and nonrhinologic symptoms using a statistically validated scoring system. Statistical analysis was performed using both equal and unequal variance sample t-tests when appropriate. Statistically significant improvement in mean score analysis between preoperative and postoperative results for all symptom subgroups was reported when the entire study population was included. When the improvement in quality of life was compared between the CASS and FESS surgical groups, the CASS group demonstrated an overall greater improvement in quality of life. Quality of life restrictions in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis were greatest in the areas of nasal symptoms and sleep deprivation, which were significantly improved by endoscopic sinus surgery. Although the long-term effect of CASS as measured by patient quality of life remains relatively unknown, there appears to be a significant trend indicating greater quality of life improvement in the short- term over non-computer-assisted FESS techniques.

Modification of radiosensitivity following chemotherapy exposure: potential implications for combined-modality therapy.

Treatment protocols for many tumor sites often consist of a combination of poly-chemotherapy with loco-regional radiotherapy. In many instances, these treatments are given in close temporal proximity to each other, either within a few hours (concomitant) or within a few weeks of each other (sequential). In other instances, radiotherapy may be given at some considerable time after completion of chemotherapy to achieve a measure of loco-regional control in tumors that have recurred following front-line chemotherapy. The optimum integration of chemotherapy and radiotherapy in all three situations has yet to be fully established. Careful consideration of the impact of clinically relevant chemoresistance on radiation response in these various scenarios, and appropriate adjustments, may lead to qualitative differences in patient quality of life, and hopefully quantitative improvements in disease free survival

Quality of life after adjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer.

To evaluate the quality of life of breast cancer patients previously treated with adjuvant chemotherapy. Registry data were used to recruit a sample of breast cancer patients (N = 61; mean age = 51.6 years) with no current evidence of disease who had completed adjuvant chemotherapy between 3 and 36 months earlier (average = 15.87 months). In addition, a peer nomination procedure was used to recruit an age-matched comparison group of women with no history of cancer (N = 59; mean age = 51.5 years). Both groups were mailed a survey to complete that included the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 (SF-36) and the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). These data were used to test the hypothesis that breast cancer patients previously treated with adjuvant chemotherapy experience impaired quality of life relative to their peers and to identify demographic and medical factors associated with individual differences in patient quality of life. Consistent with predictions, the postchemotherapy group scored poorer than the noncancer comparison group on the CES-D and on six of the eight subscales as well as the physical component summary scale of the SF-36 (p < 0.05). With regard to individual differences in patient quality of life, younger age and unmarried status were positively related to poorer mental well-being and greater depressive symptomatology (p < 0.05). Time since cancer diagnosis and chemotherapy completion were also positively related to greater depressive symptomatology (p < 0.05). In contrast, none of the demographic or medical variables assessed were related to physical well-being (p > 0.05). Breast cancer patients appear to experience problems in multiple quality of life domains following the completion of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment. Demographic and medical characteristics explain individual differences in mental but not physical aspects of patient quality of life. These findings demonstrate the need for interventions to improve the quality of life in breast cancer patients previously treated with adjuvant chemotherapy.