Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros











Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Schizophr Bull ; 50(5): 1055-1066, 2024 Aug 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38811352

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: During the last decades, an abundance of studies has investigated childhood adversity in relation to psychosis. This systematic review critically examines the methodologies employed to investigate childhood adversity in psychosis over the past decade, including operational definitions, measurement tools and characteristics, and psychometric properties of instruments used in these studies. STUDY DESIGN: This systematic review followed the PRISMA guidelines (registration number CRD42022307096), and the search used the following electronic databases: PsychINFO, SCOPUS, Web of Science, African Index Medicus (AIM), LILACS, CINAHL, EMBASE, and MEDLINE. The search included variations and combinations of the terms targeting childhood adversity and psychosis. STUDY RESULTS: Out of 585 identified studies published between 2010 and 2023, 341 employed a validated instrument to investigate childhood adversity. Our findings show "childhood trauma" being the most frequently examined construct, followed by "child maltreatment" or "child abuse." The short version of the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire was the dominant instrument. Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and sexual abuse were most frequently investigated, and indeed the field appears generally to focus on child abuse and neglect over other adversities. Significant psychometric heterogeneity was observed in the selection and summarization of instrument items, with only 59% of studies documenting original psychometric validation and 22% reporting reliability in their datasets. CONCLUSION: This review highlights substantial methodological heterogeneity in the field, pointing out biases in the research on childhood adversity and psychosis. These findings underline the need for standardized definitions and high-quality measurement tools to enhance the validity of future research in this area.


Assuntos
Experiências Adversas da Infância , Transtornos Psicóticos , Humanos , Maus-Tratos Infantis/psicologia , Psicometria/normas , Psicometria/instrumentação , Criança , Adultos Sobreviventes de Eventos Adversos na Infância
2.
BMC Cancer ; 23(1): 625, 2023 Jul 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37403065

RESUMO

PURPOSE: Adjuvant endocrine treatment is essential for treating luminal subtypes of breast cancer, which constitute 75% of all breast malignancies. However, the detrimental side effects of treatment make it difficult for many patients to complete the guideline-required treatment. Such non-adherence may jeopardize the lifesaving ability of anti-estrogen therapy. In this systematic review, we aimed to assess the consequences of non-adherence and non-persistence from available studies meeting strict statistical and clinical criteria. METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed using several databases, yielding identification of 2,026 studies. After strict selection, 14 studies were eligible for systematic review. The review included studies that examined endocrine treatment non-adherence (patients not taking treatment as prescribed) or non-persistence (patients stopping treatment prematurely), in terms of the effects on event-free survival or overall survival among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. RESULTS: We identified 10 studies measuring the effects of endocrine treatment non-adherence and non-persistence on event-free survival. Of these studies, seven showed significantly poorer survival for the non-adherent or non-persistent patient groups, with hazard ratios (HRs) ranging from 1.39 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.53) to 2.44 (95% CI, 1.89 to 3.14). We identified nine studies measuring the effects of endocrine treatment non-adherence and non-persistence on overall survival. Of these studies, seven demonstrated significantly reduced overall survival in the groups with non-adherence and non-persistence, with HRs ranging from 1.26 (95% CI, 1.11 to 1.43) to 2.18 (95% CI, 1.99 to 2.39). CONCLUSION: The present systematic review demonstrates that non-adherence and non-persistence to endocrine treatment negatively affect event-free and overall survival. Improved follow-up, with focus on adherence and persistence, is vital for improving health outcomes among patients with non-metastatic breast cancer.


Assuntos
Neoplasias da Mama , Sobreviventes de Câncer , Feminino , Humanos , Neoplasias da Mama/patologia , Intervalo Livre de Progressão , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Adjuvantes Imunológicos/uso terapêutico , Antineoplásicos Hormonais/uso terapêutico , Adesão à Medicação
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA