The incidence of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinomas (SCCs) is increasing and is believed to reflect changing sexual practices in recent decades. For this case-case comparative study, we collected medical and life-style information and data on sexual behavior from 478 patients treated at the head and neck clinic of a tertiary hospital in Brisbane, Australia. Patients were grouped as (i) oropharyngeal SCC (n = 96), (ii) oral cavity, larynx and hypopharynx SCC ("other HNSCCs," n = 96), (iii) other SCCs (n = 141), and (iv) other diagnoses (n = 145). We fitted multivariable logistic regression models to estimate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) associated with lifestyle factors and sexual behaviors. Compared to the other three patient groups, the oropharyngeal SCC patients had overall more sexual lifetime partners (kissing, oral sex and sexual intercourse). Oropharyngeal SCC patients were significantly more likely to have ever given oral sex compared to the other three patient groups-93% of oropharyngeal SCC patients, 64% of other HNSCC patients, and 58% of patients with other SCC or other diagnoses. Oropharyngeal SCC patients were significantly more likely to have given oral sex to four or more partners when compared to patients with other HNSCC (odds ratio [OR] 11.9; 95% CI 3.5-40.1), other SCC (OR 16.6; 95% CI 5.3-52.0) or patients with other diagnoses (OR 25.2; 95% CI 7.8-81.7). The very strong associations reported here between oral sex practices and risks of oropharyngeal SCC support the hypothesis that sexually transmitted HPV infections cause some of these cancers.
Objective Doctors have a varying effect on patients’ physical health. This means that there are doctors that are more effective than others. Even though the doctor is a part of very many medical interactions, it is not known in which way exceptionally good doctors differ from their peers. After authoring two systematic and one methodological review on identifying exceptional doctors, the authors in this qualitative interview-based study take a bottom-up, inductive approach to answer the question of what makes an exceptionally good doctor. Methods About 10–15 semi-structured interviews of medical doctors of any specialty who speak English will be conducted. Recruitment will be through the authors’ network and their referrals. Questions will be whether they have an opinion on what makes an exceptionally good doctor, whether they have met such a person and how did this doctor differ from other doctors. The interviews will be done by a 62-year old PhD student who is not a clinician but has extensive experience in having personal conversations as a financial adviser. This could be helpful as the interviewer is only aware that there are exceptionally good doctors but has no notion how exceptionally good doctors differ from their colleagues. Analysis A six-phase thematic analysis in an experiential framework as per Braun and Clarke will be implemented with the aim to find out what the doctors think and have experienced. This is an inductive approach using a realist epistemological position under the assumption that it is possible to acquire truthful knowledge on what makes exceptionally good doctors. Discussion Previous qualitative research on exceptionally good doctors consisted of interviewing author-selected exceptionally good doctors. This study takes a step back from this approach by asking the peers of exceptionally good doctors how they define being exceptionally good and how they experience such doctors.
Objective To find and review published papers researching surgeons’ effects on patients’ physical health. Clinical outcomes of surgery patients with similar prognoses cannot be fully explained by surgeon skill or experience. Just as there are “hospital” and “psychotherapist” effects, there may be “surgeons” effects that persist after controlling for known variables like patient health and operation riskiness. Methods Cohort studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of any surgical intervention, which, after multivariate adjustment, either showed proportion of variance in patients’ physical health outcomes due to surgeons (random effects) or graded surgeons from best to worst (fixed effects). Studies with <15 surgeons or only ascribing surgeons’ effects to known variables excluded. Medline, PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO were used for search until June 2020. Manual search for papers referring/referred by resulting studies. Risk of bias assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. Results Included studies: 52 cohort studies and three RCTs of 52,436+ surgeons covering 102 outcomes (33 unique). Studies either graded surgeons from best to worst or calculated the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), the percentage of patients’ variation due to surgeons, in diverse ways. Sixteen studies showed exceptionally good and/or bad performers with confidence intervals wholly above or below the average performance. ICCs ranged from 0 to 47%, median 4.0%. There are no well-established reporting standards; highly heterogeneous reporting, therefore no meta-analysis. Discussion Interpretation: There is a surgeons' effect on patients’ physical health for many types of surgeries and outcomes, ranging from small to substantial. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes appear regularly even after accounting for all known confounding variables. Many existing cohort studies and RCTs could be reanalyzed for surgeons’ effects especially after methodological reporting guidelines are published. Conclusion In terms of patient outcomes, it can matter which surgeon is chosen. Surgeons with exceptional patient outcomes are worth studying further.
Background: It is generally accepted that there is a therapist effect in psychotherapy, with master therapists being studied using qualitative methods. There are surgeons with exceptionally positive patients' physical health outcomes, and qualitative research on what makes good doctors. However, characteristics of exceptionally good doctors are less studied and understood. Objective: To qualitatively study the opinions of physicians on exceptionally good doctors. Methods: Thirteen semi-structured interviews of English-speaking medical doctors of any specialty were conducted. Recruitment was achieved through the authors' network; contacting authors of relevant research papers; and Bond University's General Practitioner recruitment program. Their opinion was sought on what makes an exceptionally good doctor, whether they have met such a person, what was their experience of that person, and whether they consider themselves as exceptionally good doctors. Analysis: A six-phase thematic analysis in an experiential framework, as per Braun and Clarke, was implemented to identify themes and their details in an inductive approach with a realist epistemological position, ie, assuming truthful knowledge on what makes exceptionally good doctors can be obtained. Results: Each interviewee had met and been inspired by exceptionally good doctors. Descriptions covered six themes: character traits; other characteristics; patient relationships; peer and health care system relations; education; and treatment examples. Exceptionally good doctors were found to have up-to-date extensive medical knowledge and skills, relate well with patients, and have excellent diagnostic abilities. They tend to be humble, approachable, inspiring, and are long-remembered role models. However, they may not always be appreciated by their peers and their health care system because of their exceptional abilities. Discussion and Conclusion: Exceptional doctors are beneficial for their peers, their patients, and their health care system. Identifying, acknowledging, and making such doctors more accessible to medical students and junior doctors could have a positive impact on medical practice.
BackgroundLongitudinal studies of women’s health often seek to identify predictors of good health. Research has shown that following simple guidelines can halve women’s mortality. The ongoing Australian Longitudinal Study of Women’s Health (ALSWH) shows that Australian women are getting better at reducing their smoking and alcohol use, and are generally diligent about attending recommended health screenings, but are becoming less successful at dealing with obesity. There are communities of women who live unusually healthy lives (Rosetans, Seventh-Day Adventists, traditional Japanese women), but their lifestyles are unlikely to be adopted widely. Universal Medicine (UM) is a complementary-to-medicine approach that emphasizes personal empowerment and the importance of menstrual health symptoms.ObjectiveThis survey investigates whether the approximately 500 women associated with UM exhibit health status significantly above the norm. As part of this investigation, questions for a newly developed menstrual attitudes questionnaire will also be evaluated.MethodsA quantitative cross-sectional survey of women in a UM cohort was designed with the help of three focus groups of women at three life stages: in menses, peri-menopausal, and menopausal. The menstrual attitudes portion of the survey incorporates the insights of these women regarding female health issues. The survey also includes 41 questions taken from the ALSWH. Focus groups generated additional questions about symptoms experienced and attitudes toward female health issues. ALSWH questions, including a range of health scales like the Short Form 36 (SF-36), Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale, Perceived Control Scale, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, and the Multi-Item Summed Score for Perceived Stress, along with questions about experienced major health events, were investigated and incorporated if considered suitable.ResultsThe validity of the menstrual attitudes questionnaire will be evaluated with Cohen’s kappa. ALSWH respondents and UM participants will be compared, using unweighted regression or regression weighted or normalized by age, education, and interest in alternative treatments (to increase comparability), as appropriate. Analyses will determine whether UM-related variables (being a UM participant, length of UM participation, number of UM events attended) are associated with: differences in the number of major health events and health symptoms experienced; SF-36 physical and mental health scores; body mass index; and consumption of alcohol, tobacco, sugar, salt, caffeine, and dairy.ConclusionsIf women in the UM cohort are truly in substantially better health than the norm, further investigations may be worthwhile to see whether UM plays a causal role, and whether the women’s practices are generalizable.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.