Background The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC recommendation in order to inform medical education policy. Methods The authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate students’ perceptions of COVID-19’s impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations. Results Seven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved. Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed. Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody testing (16.2%). Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.
PURPOSE To develop recommendations for adjuvant therapy for patients with resected stage II colon cancer. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel to conduct a systematic review of relevant studies and develop recommendations for clinical practice. RESULTS Twenty-one observational studies and six randomized controlled trials met the systematic review inclusion criteria. RECOMMENDATIONS Adjuvant chemotherapy (ACT) is not routinely recommended for patients with stage II colon cancer who are not in a high-risk subgroup. Patients with T4 tumors are at higher risk of recurrence and should be offered ACT, whereas patients with other high-risk factors, including sampling of fewer than 12 lymph nodes in the surgical specimen, perineural or lymphatic invasion, poorly or undifferentiated tumor grade, intestinal obstruction, tumor perforation, or grade BD3 tumor budding, may be offered ACT. The addition of oxaliplatin to fluoropyrimidine-based ACT is not routinely recommended, but may be offered as a result of shared decision making. Patients with mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability tumors should not be routinely offered ACT; if the combination of mismatch repair deficiency/microsatellite instability and high-risk factors results in a decision to offer ACT, oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is recommended. Duration of oxaliplatin-containing chemotherapy is also addressed, with recommendations for 3 or 6 months of treatment with capecitabine and oxaliplatin or fluorouracil, leucovorin, and oxaliplatin, with decision making informed by key evidence of 5-year disease-free survival in each treatment subgroup and the rate of adverse events, including peripheral neuropathy. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .
Purpose To assess accuracy and adherence of visual field (VF) home-monitoring in a pilot sample of glaucoma patients. Design Prospective longitudinal feasibility and reliability study. Methods Twenty adults (median 71 years) with an established diagnosis of glaucoma were issued a tablet-perimeter (Eyecatcher), and were asked to perform one VF home-assessment per eye, per month, for 6 months (12 tests total). Before and after home-monitoring, two VF assessments were performed in-clinic using Standard Automated Perimetry (SAP; 4 tests total, per eye). Results All 20 participants could perform monthly home-monitoring, though one participant stopped after 4 months (Adherence: 98%). There was good concordance between VFs measured at home and in the clinic ( r = 0.94, P < 0.001). In 21 of 236 tests (9%) Mean Deviation deviated by more than ±3 dB from the median. Many of these anomalous tests could be identified by applying machine learning techniques to recordings from the tablets’ front-facing camera (Area Under the ROC Curve = 0.78). Adding home-monitoring data to 2 SAP tests made 6 months apart reduced measurement error (between-test measurement variability) in 97% of eyes, with mean absolute error more than halving in 90% of eyes. Median test duration was 4.5 mins ( Quartiles : 3.9 – 5.2 mins). Substantial variations in ambient illumination had no observable effect on VF measurements ( r = 0.07, P = 0.320). Conclusions Home-monitoring of VFs is viable for some patients, and may provide clinically useful data.
PURPOSE To develop recommendations for duration of adjuvant chemotherapy with a fluoropyrimidine and oxaliplatin for patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer based on the results of trials of 3 months compared with 6 months of treatment. METHODS ASCO convened an Expert Panel and conducted a systematic review of relevant studies. The guideline recommendations were based on the review of evidence by the Expert Panel. RESULTS Pooled data from the six International Duration Evaluation of Adjuvant Chemotherapy (IDEA) Collaboration randomized controlled trials comprise the evidence base for these guideline recommendations. RECOMMENDATIONS The recommendations for therapy duration apply to patients with completely resected stage III colon cancer who are being offered adjuvant chemotherapy with oxaliplatin and a fluoropyrimidine. Recommendations are informed by the findings of a recent pooled analysis of clinical trials that compared 6 months versus 3 months of oxaliplatin-based chemotherapy. For patients at a high risk of recurrence (T4 and/or N2), adjuvant chemotherapy should be offered for a duration of 6 months. For patients at a low risk of recurrence (T1, T2, or T3 and N1), either 6 months of adjuvant chemotherapy or a shorter duration of 3 months may be offered on the basis of a potential reduction in adverse events and no significant difference in disease-free survival with the 3-month regimen. In determining duration of therapy, the Expert Panel recommends a shared decision-making approach, taking into account patient characteristics, values and preferences, and other factors and including a discussion of the potential for benefit and risks of harm associated with treatment duration. Additional information is available at www.asco.org/gastrointestinal-cancer-guidelines .
Which sense is most valued by the general public? Findings: This cross-sectional online survey found that sight is the most valued sense, followed by hearing. Participants would, on average, choose 4.6 years of life in perfect health over 10 years of life with complete sight loss. Members of the public valued balance above traditionally recognised senses such as touch, taste, and smell. Meaning:This study provides empirical support for frequent assertions made by practitioners, researchers and funding agencies, that sight is the most valued sense among the general population.
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.