The purpose of this randomized controlled community trial is to evaluate the effects of a community intervention utilizing opinion leaders and educational strategies on the cancer pain management knowledge, attitudes, and the practices of physicians and nurses, and cancer pain reported by patients. Six Minnesota communities participated in the study. The three communities randomized to the intervention received educational programs over 15 months. The clinical community opinion leaders participated in a minifellowship, developed community task forces, and interacted with their peers. This strategy was reinforced with community outreach programs, clinical practice guidelines, educational materials, and media events. The primary study end point was patients' pain intensity score. Comparing intervention to control communities, pain prevalence declined slightly, pain management index improved slightly, pain intensity scores increased slightly, patient and family attitude scores did not change, and physicians' and nurses' knowledge and attitude scores improved slightly. None of these changes, however, reached statistical significance. Participation in at least one intervention program improved physicians' and nurses' knowledge and attitude scores that approached statistical significance. Our results suggest that community opinion leaders combined with other educational programs may improve cancer pain management, but this strategy requires further study. The results suggest that more intense intervention application may be effective. Effective strategies to improve cancer pain management remain elusive.
The purposes of the study were to determine the knowledge and attitudes about cancer pain management (CPM) among practicing physicians in six Minnesota communities and to determine the physician-related barriers to optimal CPM. Eligible community physicians were surveyed by telephone. The study analyzed responses of 145 physicians (response rate, 87%). The majority of the physicians were primary care specialists (73%). Significant knowledge deficits were identified in nine of 14 CPM principles, but inappropriate attitudes were found in only two of nine CPM concepts. Medical specialty had the strongest influence on knowledge and attitudes, with primary care physicians having significantly better outcomes than surgeons or medical subspecialists. Effective education strategies must address knowledge deficits, attitudes, and motivations of the relevant peer group influencing physicians, as well as those of individual physicians. The Minnesota Cancer Pain Project is testing strategies to enhance CPM by physicians and improve patient outcomes.
Isotropic and powder e.s.r. spectra have been recorded for CH3(%%$J' , C , H , m ' , and m N * ' . Isotropic labelling with nitrogen-1 5 and sulphur-33 has been accomplished for m N ' + and it has been possible to prepare 33$1sN33SfJS15k+. Sulphur-33 satellites have been observed for C, H, (%%$J' .MN DO and Gaussian 76 calculations have been used to
BackgroundThe assessment of arterial stiffness is increasingly used for evaluating patients with different cardiovascular diseases as the mechanical properties of major arteries are often altered. Aortic stiffness can be noninvasively estimated by measuring pulse wave velocity (PWV). Several methods have been proposed for measuring PWV using velocity-encoded cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), including transit-time (TT), flow-area (QA), and cross-correlation (XC) methods. However, assessment and comparison of these techniques at high field strength has not yet been performed. In this work, the TT, QA, and XC techniques were clinically tested at 3 Tesla and compared to each other.MethodsFifty cardiovascular patients and six volunteers were scanned to acquire the necessary images. The six volunteer scans were performed twice to test inter-scan reproducibility. Patient images were analyzed using the TT, XC, and QA methods to determine PWV. Two observers analyzed the images to determine inter-observer and intra-observer variabilities. The PWV measurements by the three methods were compared to each other to test inter-method variability. To illustrate the importance of PWV using CMR, the degree of aortic stiffness was assessed using PWV and related to LV dysfunction in five patients with diastolic heart failure patients and five matched volunteers.ResultsThe inter-observer and intra-observer variability results showed no bias between the different techniques. The TT and XC results were more reproducible than the QA; the mean (SD) inter-observer/intra-observer PWV differences were -0.12(1.3)/-0.04(0.4) for TT, 0.2(1.3)/0.09(0.9) for XC, and 0.6(1.6)/0.2(1.4) m/s for QA methods, respectively. The correlation coefficients (r) for the inter-observer/intra-observer comparisons were 0.94/0.99, 0.88/0.94, and 0.83/0.92 for the TT, XC, and QA methods, respectively. The inter-scan reproducibility results showed low variability between the repeated scans (mean (SD) PWV difference = -0.02(0.4) m/s and r = 0.96). The inter-method variability results showed strong correlation between the TT and XC measurements, but less correlation with QA: r = 0.95, 0.87, and 0.89, and mean (SD) PWV differences = -0.12(1.0), 0.8(1.7), and 0.65(1.6) m/s for TT-XC, TT-QA, and XC-QA, respectively. Finally, in the group of diastolic heart failure patient, PWV was significantly higher (6.3 ± 1.9 m/s) than in volunteers (3.5 ± 1.4 m/s), and the degree of LV diastolic dysfunction showed good correlation with aortic PWV.ConclusionsIn conclusion, while each of the studied methods has its own advantages and disadvantages, at high field strength, the TT and XC methods result in closer and more reproducible aortic PWV measurements, and the associated image processing requires less user interaction, than in the QA method. The choice of the analysis technique depends on the vessel segment geometry and available image quality.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.