Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 12(9): e057712, 2022 09 30.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36180121

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021236979.


Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Encefálicas , Glioma , Neoplasias Encefálicas/terapia , Ensayos Clínicos como Asunto , Técnica Delphi , Glioma/terapia , Humanos , Evaluación de Resultado en la Atención de Salud/métodos , Calidad de Vida , Proyectos de Investigación , Participación de los Interesados , Resultado del Tratamiento
2.
BMJ Support Palliat Care ; 8(1): 41-44, 2018 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28774963

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Evaluations of new services for palliative care in non-cancer conditions are few. OPTCARE Neuro is a multicentre trial evaluating the effectiveness of short-term integrated palliative care (SIPC) for progressive long-term neurological conditions. Here, we present survey results describing the current levels of collaboration between neurology and palliative care services and exploring the views of professionals towards the new SIPC service. METHODS: Neurology and palliative care teams from six UK trial sites (London, Nottingham, Liverpool, Cardiff, Brighton and Chertsey) were approached via email to complete an online survey. The survey was launched in July 2015 and consisted of multiple choice or open comment questions with responses collected using online forms. RESULTS: 33 neurology and 26 palliative care professionals responded. Collaborations between the two specialties were reported as being 'good/excellent' by 36% of neurology and by 58% of palliative care professionals. However, nearly half (45%) of neurology compared with only 12% of palliative care professionals rated current levels as being 'poor/none'. Both professional groups felt that the new SIPC service would influence future collaborations for the better. However, they identified a number of barriers for the new SIPC service such as resources and clinician awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate the opportunity to increase collaboration between neurology and palliative care services for people with progressive neurological conditions, and the acceptability of SIPC as a model to support this. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18337380; Pre-results.


Asunto(s)
Actitud del Personal de Salud , Medicina Integrativa/organización & administración , Neurología/organización & administración , Cuidados Paliativos/organización & administración , Humanos , Colaboración Intersectorial , Encuestas y Cuestionarios
3.
PLoS One ; 8(12): e86059, 2013.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24386491

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A reduced exercise capacity is associated with increased morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Therapeutic exercise can be beneficial and neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) of the quadriceps muscles may represent a practical approach. The primary aim of this study was to determine the acceptability of NMES of the quadriceps to patients with NSCLC used alongside palliative chemotherapy. Secondary aims explored aspects of safety and efficacy of NMES in this setting. METHODS: Patients with advanced NSCLC due to receive first-line palliative chemotherapy were randomized to usual care with or without NMES. They were asked to undertake 30 minute sessions of NMES, ideally daily, but as a minimum, three times weekly. For NMES to be considered acceptable, it was predetermined that ≥80% of patients should achieve this minimum level of adherence. Qualitative interviews were held with a subset of patients to explore factors influencing adherence. Safety was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Quadriceps muscle strength, thigh lean mass, and physical activity level were assessed at baseline and after three cycles of chemotherapy. RESULTS: 49 patients (28 male, median (IQR) age 69 (64-75) years) participated. Of 30 randomized to NMES, 18 were eligible for the primary endpoint, of whom 9 (50% [90% CI, 29 to 71]) met the minimum level of adherence. Adherence was enhanced by incorporating sessions into a daily routine and hindered by undesirable effects of chemotherapy. There were no serious adverse events related to NMES, nor significant differences in quadriceps muscle strength, thigh lean mass or physical activity level between groups. CONCLUSIONS: NMES is not acceptable in this setting, nor was there a suggestion of benefit. The need remains to explore NMES in patients with cancer in other settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 42944026 www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN42944026.


Asunto(s)
Corticoesteroides/administración & dosificación , Antineoplásicos Hormonales/administración & dosificación , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/terapia , Terapia por Estimulación Eléctrica , Neoplasias Pulmonares/terapia , Músculo Esquelético/fisiopatología , Cuidados Paliativos , Anciano , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/fisiopatología , Femenino , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/fisiopatología , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA