12 results
Recruitment of diverse community health center patients in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial
- Hailey N. Miller, Miriam B. Berger, Sandy Askew, Melissa C. Kay, Miriam Chisholm, Gaurav Sirdeshmukh, Christina M. Hopkins, Ashley Brewer, Abigail DeVries, Marni Holder, Gary G. Bennett
-
- Journal:
- Journal of Clinical and Translational Science / Volume 7 / Issue 1 / 2023
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 10 October 2022, e22
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Introduction:
Pragmatic trials are needed to establish evidence-based obesity treatment in primary care settings, particularly in community health centers (CHCs) that serve populations at heightened risk of obesity. Recruiting a representative trial sample is a critical first step to informing care for diverse communities. We described recruitment strategies utilized in a pragmatic obesity trial and assessed the sociodemographic characteristics and odds of enrollment by recruitment strategy.
Methods:We analyzed data from Balance, a pragmatic trial implemented within a network of CHCs. We recruited participants via health center-based and electronic health record (EHR)-informed mail recruitment. We analyzed associations between sociodemographic characteristics and the return rate of patient authorization forms (required for participation) from EHR-informed mail recruitment. We also compared sociodemographic characteristics and randomization odds by recruitment strategy after returning authorization forms.
Results:Of the individuals recruited through EHR-informed mail recruitment, females were more likely than males to return authorization forms; however, there were no differences in rates of return by preferred language (English/Spanish) or age. Females; underrepresented racial and ethnic groups; Spanish speakers; younger adults; and those with lower education levels were recruited more successfully in the health center. In contrast, their counterparts were more responsive to mail recruitment. Once authorization forms were returned, the odds of being randomized did not significantly differ by recruitment method.
Conclusion:Health center-based recruitment was essential to meeting recruitment targets in a pragmatic weight gain prevention trial, specifically for Hispanic and Spanish-speaking communities. Future pragmatic trials should consider leveraging in-person recruitment for underrepresented groups in research.
Frequency and characteristics of drowsiness, somnolence, or daytime sleepiness in patients with advanced cancer – CORRIGENDUM
- Sriram Yennurajalingam, Srikanth Reddy Barla, Joseph Arthur, Gary B. Chisholm, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 17 / Issue 1 / February 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 31 January 2019, p. 126
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
Frequency and characteristics of drowsiness, somnolence, or daytime sleepiness in patients with advanced cancer
- Sriram Yennurajalingam, Srikanth Reddy Barla, Joseph Arthur, Gary B. Chisholm, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 17 / Issue 4 / August 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 December 2018, pp. 459-463
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Introduction
Cancer-related drowsiness (CRD) is a distressing symptom in advanced cancer patients (ACP). The aim of this study was to determine the frequency and factors associated with severity of CRD. We also evaluated the screening performance of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale-drowsiness (ESAS-D) item against the Epworth Sedation Scale (ESS).
MethodWe prospectively assessed 180 consecutive ACP at a tertiary cancer hospital. Patients were surveyed using ESAS, ESS, Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, Insomnia Severity Index, and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale.
ResultNinety of 150 evaluable patients had clinically significant CRD (ESS); median (interquartile ratio): ESS. 11 (7–14); ESAS-D. 5 (2–6); Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index. 8 (5–11); Insomnia Severity Index. 13 (5–19); Stop Bang Scoring 3 (2–4), and Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale-D 6 (3–10). ESAS-D was associated with ESAS (r, p) sleep (0.38, <0.0001); pain (0.3, <0.0001); fatigue (0.51, <0.0001); depression (0.39, <0.0001); anxiety (0.44, <0.0001); shortness of breath (0.32, <0.0001); anorexia (0.36, <0.0001), feeling of well-being [(0.41, <0.0001), ESS (0.24, 0.001), and opioid daily dose (0.19, 0.01). Multivariate-analysis showed ESAS-D was associated with fatigue (odds ratio [OR] = 9.08, p < 0.0001), anxiety (3.0, p = 0.009); feeling of well-being (OR = 2.27, p = 0.04), and insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036). Insomnia (OR = 2.35; p = 0.036) cutoff score ≥3 (of 10) resulted in a sensitivity of 81% and 32% and specificity of 70% and 44% in the training and validation samples, respectively.
Significance of resultsClinically significant CRD is frequent and seen in 50% of ACP. CRD was associated with severity of insomnia, fatigue, anxiety, and worse feeling of well-being. An ESAS-D score of ≥3 is likely to identify most of the ACP with significant CRD.
Testing the feasibility of using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) to assess caregiver symptom burden
- Kimberson Tanco, Marieberta Vidal, Joseph Arthur, Marvin Delgado Guay, David Hui, Diane Liu, Gary Chisholm, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 16 / Issue 1 / February 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 March 2017, pp. 14-22
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Caregiver symptom assessment is not part of regular clinical cancer care. The ESAS (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System) is a multidimensional tool regularly used to measure symptom burden in patients but not caregivers. The objectives of the present study were to determine the feasibility of the ESAS in caregiver completion (defined as ≥ 9 of 12 items) and determine its concurrent validity with the Zarit Burden Interview–12 (ZBI–12).
Method:We conducted a prospective study on 90 patient–primary caregiver dyads seen in an outpatient supportive care center in a cancer center. The 12 item ESAS–FS (financial–spiritual) was completed by the dyads along with other clinical and psychosocial measures.
Results:The caregiver ESAS was found to be feasible (90/90 caregivers, 100% completed ≥ 9/12 items) and useful (66/90 caregivers, 73%) by caregivers to report their symptom burden. Some 68 of 90 (76%) caregivers had symptom distress scores ≥ 4 on at least one symptom. A significant association was found between the ESAS scores of caregivers and patients for fatigue (0.03), depression (<0.01), anxiety (<0.01), sleep (0.05), well-being (<0.01), financial distress (<0.01), spiritual pain (<0.01), and total ESAS score (<0.01). Concurrent validity with the ZBI–12 was not achieved (r = 0.53, p = 0.74). A significant correlation was found between caregiver ESAS scores and time spent feeding, housekeeping, total combined caregiver activities, and total ZBI–12 scores.
Significance of results:The caregiver ESAS is a feasible tool and was found useful by our caregivers. Further research is needed to modify the ESAS based on caregivers' recommendations, and further psychometric studies need to be conducted.
Factors associated with patient-reported subjective well-being among advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer patients
- Sriram Yennurajalingam, Yu Jung Kim, Yi Zhang, Jichan Park, Joseph Arthur, Gary B. Chisholm, Janet L. Williams, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 16 / Issue 1 / February 2018
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 07 March 2017, pp. 23-31
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
The aim of this study was to determine the factors associated with a feeling of well-being using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS)–Feeling of Well-Being item (ESAS–FWB; where 0 = best and 10 = worst) among advanced lung or non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer patients who were referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic (OPCC). We also examined the association of performance on the ESAS–FWB with overall survival (OS).
Method:We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with incurable advanced lung cancer and non-colonic gastrointestinal cancer presenting to an OPCC from 1 January 2008 through to 31 December 2013. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize patient characteristics. Multivariate regression analysis was used to determine the factors associated with ESAS–FWB severity. We also examined the association of ESAS–FWB scores and survival using Kaplan–Meier survival analysis.
Results:A total of 826 evaluable patients were analyzed (median age = 62 years, 57% male). Median ESAS–FWB scores were five times the interquartile range (5 × IQR; 3–7). ESAS–FWB score was found to be significantly associated with ESAS fatigue (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001); anxiety (OR = 1.98, p < 0.001); anorexia (OR = 2.31, p < 0.001); cut down, annoyed, guilty, eye opener (CAGE) score (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.80, p = 0.008); and family caregiver distress (HR = 1.93, p = 0.002). A worse ESAS–FWB score was significantly associated with decreased OS (r = –0.18, p < 0.001). However, ESAS–FWB score was not independently associated with OS in the final multivariate model (p = 0.35), which included known major clinical prognostic factors.
Conclusions:Worse ESAS–FWB scores were significantly associated with high scores on ESAS fatigue, anorexia, anxiety, CAGE, and family caregiver distress. More research is necessary to understand how palliative care interventions are capable of improving the contributory factors related to ESAS–FWB score.
Frequency, intensity, and correlates of spiritual pain in advanced cancer patients assessed in a supportive/palliative care clinic
- Marvin Omar Delgado-Guay, Gary Chisholm, Janet Williams, Susan Frisbee-Hume, Andrea O. Ferguson, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 14 / Issue 4 / August 2016
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 October 2015, pp. 341-348
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Regular assessments of spiritual distress/spiritual pain among patients in a supportive/palliative care clinic (SCPC) are limited or unavailable. We modified the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) by adding spiritual pain (SP) to the scale (0 = best, 10 = worst) to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of self-reported SP (≥1/10) (pain deep in your soul/being that is not physical) among these advanced cancer patients.
Method:We reviewed 292 consecutive consults of advanced cancer patients (ACPs) who were evaluated at our SCPC between October of 2012 and January of 2013. Symptoms were assessed using the new instrument (termed the ESAS–FS).
Results:The median age of patients was 61 (range = 22–92). Some 53% were male; 189 (65%) were white, 45 (15%) African American, and 34 (12%) Hispanic. Some 123 of 282 (44%) of ACPs had SP (mean (95% CI) = 4(3.5–4.4). Advanced cancer patients with SP had worse pain [mean (95% CI) = 5.3(4.8, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.0, 5.0)] (p = 0.02); depression [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.1(1.7, 2.6), p < 0.0001]; anxiety [4.2(3.6, 4.7) vs. 2.5(2.0, 3.0), p < 0.0001]; drowsiness [4.2(3.7, 4.7) vs. 2.8(2.3, 3.2), p < 0.0001]; well-being [5.4(4.9, 5.8) vs. 4.5(4.1, 4.9), p = 0.0136]; and financial distress (FD) [4.4(3.9, 5.0) vs. 2.2(1.8, 2.7), p < 0.0001]. Spiritual pain correlated (Spearman) with depression (r = 0.45, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.34, p < 0.0001), drowsiness (r = 0.26, p < 0.0001), and FD (r = 0.44, p < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed an association with FD [OR (95% Wald CI) = 1.204(1.104–1.313), p < 0.0001] and depression [1.218(1.110–1.336), p < 0.0001]. The odds that patients who had SP at baseline would also have SP at follow-up were 182% higher (OR = 2.82) than for patients who were SP-negative at baseline (p = 0.0029). SP at follow-up correlated with depression (r = 0.35, p < 0.0001), anxiety (r = 0.25, p = 0.001), well-being (r = 0.27, p = 0.0006), nausea (r = 0.29, p = 0.0002), and financial distress (r = 0.42, p < 0.0001).
Significance of results:Spiritual pain, which is correlated with physical and psychological distress, was reported in more than 40% of ACPs. Employment of the ESAS–FS allows ACPs with SP to be identified and evaluated in an SCPC. More research is needed.
Contributors
-
- By Mitchell Aboulafia, Frederick Adams, Marilyn McCord Adams, Robert M. Adams, Laird Addis, James W. Allard, David Allison, William P. Alston, Karl Ameriks, C. Anthony Anderson, David Leech Anderson, Lanier Anderson, Roger Ariew, David Armstrong, Denis G. Arnold, E. J. Ashworth, Margaret Atherton, Robin Attfield, Bruce Aune, Edward Wilson Averill, Jody Azzouni, Kent Bach, Andrew Bailey, Lynne Rudder Baker, Thomas R. Baldwin, Jon Barwise, George Bealer, William Bechtel, Lawrence C. Becker, Mark A. Bedau, Ernst Behler, José A. Benardete, Ermanno Bencivenga, Jan Berg, Michael Bergmann, Robert L. Bernasconi, Sven Bernecker, Bernard Berofsky, Rod Bertolet, Charles J. Beyer, Christian Beyer, Joseph Bien, Joseph Bien, Peg Birmingham, Ivan Boh, James Bohman, Daniel Bonevac, Laurence BonJour, William J. Bouwsma, Raymond D. Bradley, Myles Brand, Richard B. Brandt, Michael E. Bratman, Stephen E. Braude, Daniel Breazeale, Angela Breitenbach, Jason Bridges, David O. Brink, Gordon G. Brittan, Justin Broackes, Dan W. Brock, Aaron Bronfman, Jeffrey E. Brower, Bartosz Brozek, Anthony Brueckner, Jeffrey Bub, Lara Buchak, Otavio Bueno, Ann E. Bumpus, Robert W. Burch, John Burgess, Arthur W. Burks, Panayot Butchvarov, Robert E. Butts, Marina Bykova, Patrick Byrne, David Carr, Noël Carroll, Edward S. Casey, Victor Caston, Victor Caston, Albert Casullo, Robert L. Causey, Alan K. L. Chan, Ruth Chang, Deen K. Chatterjee, Andrew Chignell, Roderick M. Chisholm, Kelly J. Clark, E. J. Coffman, Robin Collins, Brian P. Copenhaver, John Corcoran, John Cottingham, Roger Crisp, Frederick J. Crosson, Antonio S. Cua, Phillip D. Cummins, Martin Curd, Adam Cureton, Andrew Cutrofello, Stephen Darwall, Paul Sheldon Davies, Wayne A. Davis, Timothy Joseph Day, Claudio de Almeida, Mario De Caro, Mario De Caro, John Deigh, C. F. Delaney, Daniel C. Dennett, Michael R. DePaul, Michael Detlefsen, Daniel Trent Devereux, Philip E. Devine, John M. Dillon, Martin C. Dillon, Robert DiSalle, Mary Domski, Alan Donagan, Paul Draper, Fred Dretske, Mircea Dumitru, Wilhelm Dupré, Gerald Dworkin, John Earman, Ellery Eells, Catherine Z. Elgin, Berent Enç, Ronald P. Endicott, Edward Erwin, John Etchemendy, C. Stephen Evans, Susan L. Feagin, Solomon Feferman, Richard Feldman, Arthur Fine, Maurice A. Finocchiaro, William FitzPatrick, Richard E. Flathman, Gvozden Flego, Richard Foley, Graeme Forbes, Rainer Forst, Malcolm R. Forster, Daniel Fouke, Patrick Francken, Samuel Freeman, Elizabeth Fricker, Miranda Fricker, Michael Friedman, Michael Fuerstein, Richard A. Fumerton, Alan Gabbey, Pieranna Garavaso, Daniel Garber, Jorge L. A. Garcia, Robert K. Garcia, Don Garrett, Philip Gasper, Gerald Gaus, Berys Gaut, Bernard Gert, Roger F. Gibson, Cody Gilmore, Carl Ginet, Alan H. Goldman, Alvin I. Goldman, Alfonso Gömez-Lobo, Lenn E. Goodman, Robert M. Gordon, Stefan Gosepath, Jorge J. E. Gracia, Daniel W. Graham, George A. Graham, Peter J. Graham, Richard E. Grandy, I. Grattan-Guinness, John Greco, Philip T. Grier, Nicholas Griffin, Nicholas Griffin, David A. Griffiths, Paul J. Griffiths, Stephen R. Grimm, Charles L. Griswold, Charles B. Guignon, Pete A. Y. Gunter, Dimitri Gutas, Gary Gutting, Paul Guyer, Kwame Gyekye, Oscar A. Haac, Raul Hakli, Raul Hakli, Michael Hallett, Edward C. Halper, Jean Hampton, R. James Hankinson, K. R. Hanley, Russell Hardin, Robert M. Harnish, William Harper, David Harrah, Kevin Hart, Ali Hasan, William Hasker, John Haugeland, Roger Hausheer, William Heald, Peter Heath, Richard Heck, John F. Heil, Vincent F. Hendricks, Stephen Hetherington, Francis Heylighen, Kathleen Marie Higgins, Risto Hilpinen, Harold T. Hodes, Joshua Hoffman, Alan Holland, Robert L. Holmes, Richard Holton, Brad W. Hooker, Terence E. Horgan, Tamara Horowitz, Paul Horwich, Vittorio Hösle, Paul Hoβfeld, Daniel Howard-Snyder, Frances Howard-Snyder, Anne Hudson, Deal W. Hudson, Carl A. Huffman, David L. Hull, Patricia Huntington, Thomas Hurka, Paul Hurley, Rosalind Hursthouse, Guillermo Hurtado, Ronald E. Hustwit, Sarah Hutton, Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa, Harry A. Ide, David Ingram, Philip J. Ivanhoe, Alfred L. Ivry, Frank Jackson, Dale Jacquette, Joseph Jedwab, Richard Jeffrey, David Alan Johnson, Edward Johnson, Mark D. Jordan, Richard Joyce, Hwa Yol Jung, Robert Hillary Kane, Tomis Kapitan, Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, James A. Keller, Ralph Kennedy, Sergei Khoruzhii, Jaegwon Kim, Yersu Kim, Nathan L. King, Patricia Kitcher, Peter D. Klein, E. D. Klemke, Virginia Klenk, George L. Kline, Christian Klotz, Simo Knuuttila, Joseph J. Kockelmans, Konstantin Kolenda, Sebastian Tomasz Kołodziejczyk, Isaac Kramnick, Richard Kraut, Fred Kroon, Manfred Kuehn, Steven T. Kuhn, Henry E. Kyburg, John Lachs, Jennifer Lackey, Stephen E. Lahey, Andrea Lavazza, Thomas H. Leahey, Joo Heung Lee, Keith Lehrer, Dorothy Leland, Noah M. Lemos, Ernest LePore, Sarah-Jane Leslie, Isaac Levi, Andrew Levine, Alan E. Lewis, Daniel E. Little, Shu-hsien Liu, Shu-hsien Liu, Alan K. L. Chan, Brian Loar, Lawrence B. Lombard, John Longeway, Dominic McIver Lopes, Michael J. Loux, E. J. Lowe, Steven Luper, Eugene C. Luschei, William G. Lycan, David Lyons, David Macarthur, Danielle Macbeth, Scott MacDonald, Jacob L. Mackey, Louis H. Mackey, Penelope Mackie, Edward H. Madden, Penelope Maddy, G. B. Madison, Bernd Magnus, Pekka Mäkelä, Rudolf A. Makkreel, David Manley, William E. Mann (W.E.M.), Vladimir Marchenkov, Peter Markie, Jean-Pierre Marquis, Ausonio Marras, Mike W. Martin, A. P. Martinich, William L. McBride, David McCabe, Storrs McCall, Hugh J. McCann, Robert N. McCauley, John J. McDermott, Sarah McGrath, Ralph McInerny, Daniel J. McKaughan, Thomas McKay, Michael McKinsey, Brian P. McLaughlin, Ernan McMullin, Anthonie Meijers, Jack W. Meiland, William Jason Melanson, Alfred R. Mele, Joseph R. Mendola, Christopher Menzel, Michael J. Meyer, Christian B. Miller, David W. Miller, Peter Millican, Robert N. Minor, Phillip Mitsis, James A. Montmarquet, Michael S. Moore, Tim Moore, Benjamin Morison, Donald R. Morrison, Stephen J. Morse, Paul K. Moser, Alexander P. D. Mourelatos, Ian Mueller, James Bernard Murphy, Mark C. Murphy, Steven Nadler, Jan Narveson, Alan Nelson, Jerome Neu, Samuel Newlands, Kai Nielsen, Ilkka Niiniluoto, Carlos G. Noreña, Calvin G. Normore, David Fate Norton, Nikolaj Nottelmann, Donald Nute, David S. Oderberg, Steve Odin, Michael O’Rourke, Willard G. Oxtoby, Heinz Paetzold, George S. Pappas, Anthony J. Parel, Lydia Patton, R. P. Peerenboom, Francis Jeffry Pelletier, Adriaan T. Peperzak, Derk Pereboom, Jaroslav Peregrin, Glen Pettigrove, Philip Pettit, Edmund L. Pincoffs, Andrew Pinsent, Robert B. Pippin, Alvin Plantinga, Louis P. Pojman, Richard H. Popkin, John F. Post, Carl J. Posy, William J. Prior, Richard Purtill, Michael Quante, Philip L. Quinn, Philip L. Quinn, Elizabeth S. Radcliffe, Diana Raffman, Gerard Raulet, Stephen L. Read, Andrews Reath, Andrew Reisner, Nicholas Rescher, Henry S. Richardson, Robert C. Richardson, Thomas Ricketts, Wayne D. Riggs, Mark Roberts, Robert C. Roberts, Luke Robinson, Alexander Rosenberg, Gary Rosenkranz, Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal, Adina L. Roskies, William L. Rowe, T. M. Rudavsky, Michael Ruse, Bruce Russell, Lilly-Marlene Russow, Dan Ryder, R. M. Sainsbury, Joseph Salerno, Nathan Salmon, Wesley C. Salmon, Constantine Sandis, David H. Sanford, Marco Santambrogio, David Sapire, Ruth A. Saunders, Geoffrey Sayre-McCord, Charles Sayward, James P. Scanlan, Richard Schacht, Tamar Schapiro, Frederick F. Schmitt, Jerome B. Schneewind, Calvin O. Schrag, Alan D. Schrift, George F. Schumm, Jean-Loup Seban, David N. Sedley, Kenneth Seeskin, Krister Segerberg, Charlene Haddock Seigfried, Dennis M. Senchuk, James F. Sennett, William Lad Sessions, Stewart Shapiro, Tommie Shelby, Donald W. Sherburne, Christopher Shields, Roger A. Shiner, Sydney Shoemaker, Robert K. Shope, Kwong-loi Shun, Wilfried Sieg, A. John Simmons, Robert L. Simon, Marcus G. Singer, Georgette Sinkler, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Matti T. Sintonen, Lawrence Sklar, Brian Skyrms, Robert C. Sleigh, Michael Anthony Slote, Hans Sluga, Barry Smith, Michael Smith, Robin Smith, Robert Sokolowski, Robert C. Solomon, Marta Soniewicka, Philip Soper, Ernest Sosa, Nicholas Southwood, Paul Vincent Spade, T. L. S. Sprigge, Eric O. Springsted, George J. Stack, Rebecca Stangl, Jason Stanley, Florian Steinberger, Sören Stenlund, Christopher Stephens, James P. Sterba, Josef Stern, Matthias Steup, M. A. Stewart, Leopold Stubenberg, Edith Dudley Sulla, Frederick Suppe, Jere Paul Surber, David George Sussman, Sigrún Svavarsdóttir, Zeno G. Swijtink, Richard Swinburne, Charles C. Taliaferro, Robert B. Talisse, John Tasioulas, Paul Teller, Larry S. Temkin, Mark Textor, H. S. Thayer, Peter Thielke, Alan Thomas, Amie L. Thomasson, Katherine Thomson-Jones, Joshua C. Thurow, Vzalerie Tiberius, Terrence N. Tice, Paul Tidman, Mark C. Timmons, William Tolhurst, James E. Tomberlin, Rosemarie Tong, Lawrence Torcello, Kelly Trogdon, J. D. Trout, Robert E. Tully, Raimo Tuomela, John Turri, Martin M. Tweedale, Thomas Uebel, Jennifer Uleman, James Van Cleve, Harry van der Linden, Peter van Inwagen, Bryan W. Van Norden, René van Woudenberg, Donald Phillip Verene, Samantha Vice, Thomas Vinci, Donald Wayne Viney, Barbara Von Eckardt, Peter B. M. Vranas, Steven J. Wagner, William J. Wainwright, Paul E. Walker, Robert E. Wall, Craig Walton, Douglas Walton, Eric Watkins, Richard A. Watson, Michael V. Wedin, Rudolph H. Weingartner, Paul Weirich, Paul J. Weithman, Carl Wellman, Howard Wettstein, Samuel C. Wheeler, Stephen A. White, Jennifer Whiting, Edward R. Wierenga, Michael Williams, Fred Wilson, W. Kent Wilson, Kenneth P. Winkler, John F. Wippel, Jan Woleński, Allan B. Wolter, Nicholas P. Wolterstorff, Rega Wood, W. Jay Wood, Paul Woodruff, Alison Wylie, Gideon Yaffe, Takashi Yagisawa, Yutaka Yamamoto, Keith E. Yandell, Xiaomei Yang, Dean Zimmerman, Günter Zoller, Catherine Zuckert, Michael Zuckert, Jack A. Zupko (J.A.Z.)
- Edited by Robert Audi, University of Notre Dame, Indiana
-
- Book:
- The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy
- Published online:
- 05 August 2015
- Print publication:
- 27 April 2015, pp ix-xxx
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
The association between religiosity and resuscitation status preference among patients with advanced cancer
- Marvin O. Delgado-Guay, Gary Chisholm, Janet Williams, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 13 / Issue 5 / October 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 March 2015, pp. 1435-1439
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
The potential influence of patient religious and spiritual beliefs on the approach to end-of-life care and resuscitation status preferences is not well understood. The aim of this study was to assess the association between religiosity and resuscitation preferences in advanced-cancer patients.
Method:We performed a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial that evaluated the influence of physician communication style on patient resuscitation preferences. All patients completed the Santa Clara Strength of Religious Faith Questionnaire–Short Form (SCSRFQ–SF) and expressed their resuscitation preferences. We determined the frequency of resuscitation preferences and its association with intensity of religiosity.
Results:A total of 78 patients completed the study. The median age was 54 years, with a range of 18–78. Some 46 (59%) were women; 57 patients (73%) were Caucasian, 15 (19%) African American, and 5 (7%) Hispanic. A total of 46 patients (56%) were Protestant and 13 (17%) Catholic. Some 53 of 60 patients who chose Do Not Resuscitate status (DNR) (88%) and 16 of 18 patients who refused DNR (89%) for a video-simulated patient were highly religious (p = 0.64). When asked about a DNR for themselves after watching the videos, 43 of 48 who refused DNR (90%) and 26 of 30 patients who chose DNR (87%) were highly religious (p = 0.08). The Spearman correlation coefficient for patients choosing DNR for themselves and intensity of religiosity was r = –0.16 (p = 0.16). Some 30 patients (38%) who chose DNR for the video patient refused DNR for themselves, and 42 who chose DNR for both the video patient and themselves (54%) were highly religious (p = NS).
Significance of Results:There was no significant association between intensity of patient religiosity and DNR preference for either the video patient or the patients themselves. Other beliefs and demographic factors likely impact end-of-life discussions and resuscitation status preferences.
The routine use of the Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain in an outpatient supportive care center
- Joseph Arthur, Sriram Yennurajalingam, Linh Nguyen, Kimberson Tanco, Gary Chisholm, David Hui, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 13 / Issue 5 / October 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 14 October 2014, pp. 1185-1192
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
There is no standardized and universally accepted pain classification system for the assessment and management of cancer pain in both clinical practice and research studies. The Edmonton Classification System for Cancer Pain (ECS–CP) is an assessment tool that has demonstrated value in assessing pain characteristics and response. The purpose of our study was to determine the relationship between negative ECS–CP features and some pain-related variables like pain intensity and opioid use. We also explored whether the number of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity.
Method:The electronic charts of 100 patients at an outpatient supportive care clinic in a comprehensive cancer center were reviewed for variables like patient characteristics, initial ECS–CP assessment, morphine equivalent daily dose (MEDD), opioid rotation, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Score (ESAS), and use of adjuvant analgesics.
Results:Some 91 of the 100 charts were eligible for analysis. The most common primary cancer type was gastrointestinal (22.1%). The median pain intensity was 6, and the median MEDD was 45 mg. Neuropathic pain was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.007) and median MEDD requirement (83 vs. 30, p = 0.013). Psychological distress was associated with higher median pain intensity (7 vs. 5, p = 0.042). Incident pain was also associated with a trend toward higher pain intensity (6 vs. 5, p = 0.06). A higher number of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity (p = 0.01).
Significance of Results:The ECS–CP was successfully completed in the majority of patients, demonstrating its utility in routine clinical practice. Neuropathic pain and psychological distress were associated with higher pain intensity. Also, neuropathic pain was associated with a higher MEDD. A higher sum of negative ECS–CP features was associated with higher pain intensity. Further studies will be needed to verify and explore these observations.
Delirium, agitation, and symptom distress within the final seven days of life among cancer patients receiving hospice care
- Maxine de la Cruz, Antonio Noguera, Maria Teresa San Miguel-Arregui, Janet Williams, Gary Chisholm, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / April 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 20 February 2014, pp. 211-216
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objective:
Knowledge of symptom prevalence and adequate assessment of such symptoms at the end of life is important in clinical practice. We determined the frequency and severity of symptom distress and delirium using the Edmonton Assessment Scale (ESAS) and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) and evaluated the clinical utility of the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC) as scored by a caregiver as a screening tool for delirium.
Method:We conducted a secondary analysis of the data from a previous randomized controlled trial on parenteral hydration at the end of life of patients admitted to home hospice. Only patients that had assessments within the last week of life were included. We collected the ESAS, MDAS, Nu-DESC, and Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale (RASS) results. The sensitivity and specificity of the Nu-DESC were then calculated.
Results:Some 78 of 261 patients were included in our study, 62 (80%) of which had moderate-to-severe symptoms corresponding to an ESAS score >4. These symptoms include: 73 (94%) anorexia, 63 (81%) fatigue, 56 (73%) drowsiness, 58 (75%) decreased well-being, and 39 (51%) pain. Delirium was diagnosed in 34 (44%) of patients using the MDAS. The Nu-DESC was found to have a sensitivity of 35%, a specificity of 80%, a positive predictive value (PPV) of 58%, and an negative predictive value (NPV) of 61% when used by caregivers.
Significance of Results:Hospice patients at the end of life have a high rate of symptom distress and delirium. The Nu-DESC is not a reliable tool for screening delirium when scoring is conducted by a caregiver. Our study illustrates the need for routine use of assessment tools to improve care.
Self-reported sleep disturbance in patients with advanced cancer: Frequency, intensity, and factors associated with response to outpatient supportive care consultation — A preliminary report
- Sriram Yennurajalingam, Gary Chisholm, Shana L. Palla, Holly Holmes, James M. Reuben, Eduardo Bruera
-
- Journal:
- Palliative & Supportive Care / Volume 13 / Issue 2 / April 2015
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 November 2013, pp. 135-143
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives:
Self-reported sleep disturbance (SD) is a distressing symptom in patients with advanced cancer. There are limited data on the treatment of SD and predictors to response of SD to outpatient supportive care clinic (OPC) consultation. The aims of our study was to determine the frequency, intensity, and correlates of SD as assessed with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) sleep item at the time of initial consultation and identify the predictors of improvement in SD at follow-up.
Methods:We reviewed the records of consecutive patients with advanced cancer presenting to the OPC. ESAS scores were obtained at the initial and subsequent visits between January 2008 and February 2010. All patients underwent screening for SD (0–10 scale: 0 = best sleep, presence of SD defined as ≥3) and interdisciplinary assessment and treatment, including drug review, counseling, sleep hygiene review, and drug therapy. A response was defined as a 1-point improvement at the follow-up visit on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) sleep item score. Baseline patient characteristics, medication use, and ESAS scores were analyzed to determine their association with response.
Results:The median age was 58 years, and 53% of patients were men. The most common cancer type was head and neck or lung (36%). Of the 442 patients, 330 had baseline SD (score ≥3/10, 75%). Median and mean (standard deviation) baseline SD scores were 5 and 5.1 (2.9). The multivariable regression model found the intensity of baseline ESAS sleep item scores to be associated with baseline sedative use, baseline ESAS pain scores, baseline ESAS fatigue scores, baseline ESAS feeling of well-being scores, and sedative use (R2 = 0.22). Sleep disturbance response at first follow-up was seen in 196 of 330 patients (59%). Moderate to high SD score and anxiety at initial visit with odds ratios (OR) of 2.53 (p = 0.0007) and 1.59 (p = 0.048), respectively, were associated with a response.
Significance of results:Both the frequency and severity of SD were high. Response to supportive care consultation was substantial. The severity of SD and anxiety at the initial visit predicted a response at first follow-up. Further research is needed.
Changes in u(VI) SPeciation Upon Sorption onto Montmorillonite from Aqueous and Organic Solutions
- Catherine Chisholm-Brause, Steven D. Conradson, P. Gary Eller, David E. Morris
-
- Journal:
- MRS Online Proceedings Library Archive / Volume 257 / 1991
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 25 February 2011, 315
- Print publication:
- 1991
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
The speciation of UO22+ and UO22+/ TBP mixtures has been investigated in solution and intercalated with the reference smectite clay SAz-1 using x-ray absorption, Raman, andluminescence spectroscopies. Neither aquated UO22+ nor its TBP complex undergoes any detectable changes in uranium oxidation state on intercalation. Further, at the pH values employed in this work, there is no evidence for hydrolysis of the uranium species to generate dimeric or higher order uranium oligomers. However, we do find indications that the structures of the solution complexes are altered on intercalation, particularly for the UO22+TBP system and for more dilute UO22+/aqueous systems. In addition, several lines of evidence suggest that, at the loading levels used in this study, the uranyl species is interacting with two or more spectroscopically distinguishable sites on SAz-1.