A key challenge in systematically incorporating mechanistic data into human health assessments is that, compared to studies of apical health endpoints, these data are both more abundant (mechanistic studies routinely outnumber other studies by several orders of magnitude) and more heterogeneous (e.g. different species, test system, tissue, cell type, exposure paradigm, or specific assays performed). A structured decision-making process for organizing, integrating, and weighing mechanistic DNT data for use in human health risk assessments will improve the consistency and efficiency of such evaluations. At the Developmental Neurotoxicology Society (DNTS) 2016 annual meeting, a symposium was held to address the application of existing organizing principles and frameworks for evaluation of mechanistic data relevant to interpreting neurotoxicology data. Speakers identified considerations with potential to advance the use of mechanistic DNT data in risk assessment, including considering the context of each exposure, since epigenetics, tissue type, sex, stress, nutrition and other factors can modify toxicity responses in organisms. It was also suggested that, because behavior is a manifestation of complex nervous system function, the presence and absence of behavioral change itself could be used to organize the interpretation of multiple complex simultaneous mechanistic changes. Several challenges were identified with frameworks and their implementation, and ongoing research to develop these approaches represents an early step toward full evaluation of mechanistic DNT data for assessments.
Brain/drug effects , Brain/growth & development , Data Analysis , Toxicology/methods , Animals , Endpoint Determination , Humans , Models, Animal , Risk Assessment , Societies, Medical , Toxicology/standards
BACKGROUND: There is recognition that teenagers and young adults with cancer merit age-appropriate specialist care. However, outcomes associated with such specialist care are not defined. Patient experience and patient-reported outcomes such as quality of life are gaining importance. Nevertheless, there is a lack of theoretical basis and patient involvement in experience surveys for young people. OBJECTIVE: We previously proposed a conceptual model of the lived experience of cancer. We aimed to refine this model adding to areas that were lacking or underreported. The proposed conceptual framework will inform a bespoke patient experience survey for young people. METHODS: Using participatory research, 11 young people aged 13 to 25 years at diagnosis, participated in a 1-day workshop consisting of semistructured peer-to-peer interviews. RESULTS: Eight core themes emerged: impact of cancer diagnosis, information provision, place of care, role of health professionals, coping, peers, psychological support, and life after cancer. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual framework has informed survey development for a longitudinal cohort study examining patient experience and outcomes associated with specialist cancer care. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Young people must be kept at the center of interactions in recognition of their stated needs of engagement, of individually tailored information and support unproxied by parents/family. Age-appropriate information and support services that help young people deal with the impact of cancer on daily life and life after cancer must be made available. If we are to develop services that meet need, patient experience surveys must be influenced by patient involvement. Young people can be successfully involved in planning research relevant to their experience.
Adaptation, Psychological , Aging , Neoplasms/nursing , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Cohort Studies , England , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Longitudinal Studies , Male , Neoplasms/psychology , Neoplasms/therapy , Peer Group , Qualitative Research , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult
PURPOSE: To identify key components of a specialist teenager and young adult (TYA) cancer unit from the perspective of young people and health professionals. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A facilitated workshop was held in England at which participants prioritized 15 core features of a specialist cancer unit identified in a literature review. Themes were transferred onto cards and organized using a pyramid. Notes were made of the discussion and how decisions were reached. The exercise was repeated in a survey at a patient conference. Data were analyzed by weighting the ranked position and by content analysis. RESULTS: Eleven young people and 22 health professionals attended the workshops, and 64 young people completed the survey. Young people's top three priorities were a dedicated unit, contact with peers, and provision for partners/parents to live in the unit with them. Health professionals prioritized best chance of survival and best quality of life, access to expertise, access to computers/Internet, and age-appropriate equipment. CONCLUSIONS: Priorities varied across and within healthcare professionals and young people, and were dependent on viewpoint and personal experience. This is an essential first step toward a fuller description of the benefit of specialist TYA cancer services and highlights the importance of consulting users in service development.
