Filtern
Dokumenttyp
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Volltext vorhanden
- ja (3)
Gehört zur Bibliographie
- nein (3)
Schlagworte
- oncology (3) (entfernen)
Institut
- Medizin (3)
Objective: To explore and describe exposure to suicidality in healthcare providers (HCP) working with oncological patients. Special emphasis was put on five central aspects from the HCPs perspective: Exposure, Confidence, Expertise, Distress, and Education.
Methods: A 48‐item online questionnaire was developed and distributed to HCPs working with cancer patients. Three hundred fifty‐four answered questionnaires were analyzed.
Results: Overall 83.3% of HCPs reported to have encountered at least one suicidal patient in the last year. Feeling confident in talking about suicidality was reported by 72.1% of HCPs, with 71.2% of nurses reporting feeling insecure compared with only 5.1% of psychotherapists. Similarly, 22.3% of HCPs felt overwhelmed when confronted with a patient who substantiated his suicidality during consultation. A lack of personal knowledge concerning suicidality in general and in oncological patients in particular, was reported by 39.6% and 49.8%, respectively. In total, 88.1% of HCPs reported feeling distressed when confronted with suicidality, while 81.1% of participants wanted further education regarding suicidality in cancer patients despite that 73.2% had already received some sort of psycho‐oncology education.
Conclusions: Despite the well‐documented fact of elevated suicide rates in cancer patients, there remain deficits in knowledge, which induce feelings of insecurity and helplessness in HCPs. There is a demand for further education concerning the treatment of suicidal cancer patients. Therefore, special curricula addressing this topic should be devised. A general debate about suicidality in cancer patients could help raise awareness of this problem and generate means of prevention.
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate post‐irradiation changes in the central nervous system (CNS) detected using magnetic resonance (MR) imaging.
Methods: Magnetic resonance images of 15 children with CNS tumors treated through whole‐brain irradiation over 10 years were reviewed retrospectively. Variables such as age at the time of irradiation, total radiation dose, treatment length, and time interval between irradiation and MR changes, were evaluated.
Results: All patients included in the study had imaging abnormalities of the CNS. Eight patients (53%) developed CNS abnormalities within a short period of time – only a few months after irradiation (mean 4.8 months). Seven patients (47%) developed CNS abnormalities within a long time interval after treatment (mean 4.6 years). In almost all patients, a T2 increase in supra‐ and infratentorial white matter was observed. Follow‐up examinations showed nine patients (60%) with cerebellar atrophy.
Conclusions: In this sample of pediatric patients who underwent whole‐brain irradiation, the time receiving irradiation was not related to the severity of the MR changes. A correlation between the age of the child or the length of the radiotherapy and the extent of the changes could not be confirmed. However, we observed a trend towards stronger brain parenchymal degeneration with cystic changes in the younger age group of children in our sample. Older children who received irradiation seem to be more susceptible to vascular dysplasia with cavernous hemangiomas and microbleeding.
Background: Cancer screening participation rates in Germany differ depending on patients’ gender. International studies have found that patient–physician gender concordance fosters recommendation and conducting of cancer screening, and especially cancer screening for women.
Objectives: We aimed to ascertain whether gender concordance influences general practitioners' (GPs’) rating of the usefulness of cancer screening, as well as their recommendations and readiness to conduct cancer screening in general practice in Germany.
Methods: For an exploratory cross-sectional survey, 500 randomly selected GPs from all over Germany were asked to fill in a questionnaire on cancer screening in general practice between March and June 2015. We asked them to rate the usefulness of each cancer screening examination, how frequently they recommended and conducted them and whether they viewed GPs or specialists as responsible for carrying them out. We used multiple logistic regression to analyse gender effect size by calculating odds ratios.
Results: Our study sample consisted of 139 GPs of which 65% were male. Male and female GPs did not differ significantly in their rating of the general usefulness of any of the specified cancer screening examinations. Male GPs were 2.9 to 6.8 times as likely to consider GPs responsible for recommending and conducting PSA testing and digital rectal examinations and were 3.7 to 7.9 times as likely to recommend and conduct these examinations on a regular basis.
Conclusion: Patient–physician gender concordance made it more likely that male-specific cancer screenings would be recommended and conducted, but not female-specific screenings.