December 5th, 2010 by DavedeBronkart in Better Health Network, Health Policy, Health Tips, News, Opinion, Research
Tags: Clinical Studies, comparative effectiveness research, Dave deBronkart, Dr. Pauline Chen, Dr. Wu, e-Patient Dave, e-Patients.net, Empowered Patients, Gangadhar Sulkunte, Healthcare Reform Bill, Healthcare Transparency, Listening To Patients, New York Times, Participating in Medical Research, Participatory Medicine, Patient Empowerment, Patient Participation, Patient Perspective, Patient-Centered Care, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, Patient-Reported Outcomes, Transparency In Medicine
No Comments »
A year ago Gangadhar Sulkunte shared his story here about how he and his wife became e-patients of necessity, and succeeded, resolving a significant issue through empowered, engaged research. As today’s guest post shows, he’s now actively engaged in thinking about healthcare at the level of national policy, as well – and he calls for all patients to speak up about this new issue. – Dave
I recently came across a Pauline Chen piece in the New York Times, “Listening to Patients Living With Illness.” It refers to a paper by Dr. Wu et al, “Adding The Patient Perspective To Comparative Effectiveness Research.” According to the paper and the NY Times article, Dr. Wu and his co-authors propose:
- Making patient-reported outcomes a more routine part of clinical studies and practice and administrative data collection.
- In some cases requiring the information for reimbursement.
Patient-Centered Outcomes is outcomes from medical care that are important to patients. The medical community/research focuses on the standard metrics related to survival and physiological outcomes (how well is the part of the body being treated?). In the patient-centered outcomes research, they will also focus on outcomes important to patients such as quality of life. In other words, the care experience will be viewed through the eyes of the patients and their support groups to ensure that their concerns are also addressed. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at e-Patients.net*
December 5th, 2010 by GarySchwitzer in Better Health Network, Health Policy, News, Opinion, Research
Tags: Breast Cancer Treatment, Breast Tumors, Correction In Health Reporting, Dr. Ivan Oransky, Failure To Report, Gary Schwitzer, Healthcare Transparency, HealthNewsReview.org, Medical Journals, Medical Publishing, News Releases, Oncology, Pharmacology, PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Responsible Reporting, Retraction Watch, Science Reporting, Scientific Information Retractions, Transparency In Medicine
No Comments »
Interesting case study raised by the Retraction Watch blog.
A 2009 journal article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) — promoted in a news release by the journal and picked up by many news organizations — has now been retracted by the authors. But the journal issued no news release about the retraction — an issue of transparency that the RW blog raises. And you can guess how much news coverage the retraction will get.
And this was all over a molecule that could supposedly “make breast tumors respond to a drug to which they’re not normally susceptible” — as the RW blog put it. But it was also a molecule, RW points out, that wasn’t even in clinical trials yet.
He or she who lives by the journal news release risks one’s long-term credibility.
*This blog post was originally published at Gary Schwitzer's HealthNewsReview Blog*
December 4th, 2010 by Glenn Laffel, M.D., Ph.D. in Better Health Network, Health Tips, News, Research
Tags: Antibiotic Resistance, Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Antibiotic-Resistant Gene, Arjun Srinivasan, Cardiff University, CDC, Centers For Disease Control and Prevention, Contaminated Medical Equipment, Dr. Glenn Laffel, E. Coli, Epidemiology, Genetics, Global Health, India, Infectious Disease, International Health, Medical Tourism, Medical Tourists, Medical Treatment Abroad, Microbiology, NDM-1, Pakistan, Pizaazz, Plasmids, Poor Santitation, Public Health, South Asia, Superbug, Timothy Walsh, Washington Post
No Comments »
Scientists have discovered a new, highly-transmissible gene that could, quite easily in fact, open a frightening new front in the ongoing global war against superbugs.
The antibiotic-resistant gene, NDM-1, was first identified in 2008 a Swedish patient that had received hospital care in New Delhi. NDM-1 produces an enzyme that allows bacteria to destroy most antibiotics. It exists on plasmids, which are pieces of genetic material that are easily shared between bacteria including E coli and other species that can cause pneumonia, urinary tract infections, and blood stream infections.
NDM-1 probably evolved in parts of India where poor sanitation and overutilization of antibiotics provide a perfect environment for the creation of antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
The gene has been identified in three U.S. patients. All had received medical treatment in India, and all recovered from their infections. It has been found sporadically in Britain, Australia and nearly a dozen other countries as well. Most affected patients were “medical tourists” — that is, people seeking less expensive medical care in India.
“We need to be vigilant about this,” said Arjun Srinivasan, an epidemiologist at the CDC told the Washington Post. “This should not be a call to panic, but it should be a call to action. There are effective strategies we can take that will prevent the spread of these organisms.” Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Pizaazz*
December 3rd, 2010 by Medgadget in Better Health Network, News, Research
Tags: Cambridge Consultants, Consistent Drug Dose, Deep-Lung Drug Delivery, Dry Powder Inhaler, Inhaled Drugs, Inhaling Medications, Medgadget, Pharmacology, Pulmonology, SPARC, Strength Of Breath, Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company
No Comments »
Cambridge Consultants and India’s Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company (SPARC) have developed a new dry powder inhaler. According to the companies, the device delivers an even, consistent drug dose deep into the lungs regardless of how strong the inhalation is performed by the patient.
From the press release:
The device employs a novel de-agglomeration engine to separate the drug from the lactose ‘carrier’ particles. Based on a highly efficient airway design, the patented drug separation mechanism has successfully completed clinical trials and demonstrated that it is capable of delivering significantly more of the drug to the deep lung than traditional inhalers. In practice, this will minimise side effects from drug build-up in the back of the throat, reduce non-systemic load and wastage, and means almost 50% less active drug needs pre-loading into the device in comparison to a standard inhaler. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Medgadget*
December 3rd, 2010 by StevenWilkinsMPH in Better Health Network, Health Tips, Opinion, Research
Tags: Changing Patient Behavior, Doctor-Patient Communication, Empowering Patients, Family Medicine, General Medicine, Mind The Gap, Patient Empowerment, Patient-Centered Care, Physician Recommendations, Physician-Centric Directives, Preventive Health, Preventive Medicine, Primary Care, Screening Tests, Shared Decision-Making, Steven Wilkins MPH, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, USPSTF
1 Comment »
“I recommend.” These are two word which, when spoken by a physician to a patient have tremendous power to change behavior. That assumes of course a trusting relationship between patient and physician (but that’s a topic for another day.)
Take the colonoscopy. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that adults aged ≥50 years get a colonoscopy every 10 years. In 2005, 50 percent of adults aged ≥50 years in the U.S. had been screened according to these recommendations. Not surprisingly, the rate of colonoscopy screening is much lower than that of other recommended adult preventive services. I was curious: Why?
Here are two interesting facts:
1. Studies show that patients cite “physician recommendation” as the most important motivator of colorectal screening. In one study, 75 to 90 percent of patients who had not had a colonoscopy, said that their doctor’s recommendation would motivate them to undergo screening.
2. In that same study, in 50 percent of patients where a colonoscopy was appropriate but not done, the reason given was that the physician simply did not “bring up” the subject during the visit. Reasons included lack of time, visit was for acute problem, patient had previously declined or forget. Read more »
*This blog post was originally published at Mind The Gap*
