Early diagnosis is a key factor in improving the outcomes of cancer patients. A greater understanding of the pre-diagnostic patient pathways is vital yet, at present, research in this field lacks consistent definitions and methods. As a consequence much early diagnosis research is difficult to interpret. A consensus group was formed with the aim of producing guidance and a checklist for early cancer-diagnosis researchers. A consensus conference approach combined with nominal group techniques was used. The work was supported by a systematic review of early diagnosis literature, focussing on existing instruments used to measure time points and intervals in early cancer-diagnosis research. A series of recommendations for definitions and methodological approaches is presented. This is complemented by a checklist that early diagnosis researchers can use when designing and conducting studies in this field. The Aarhus checklist is a resource for early cancer-diagnosis research that should promote greater precision and transparency in both definitions and methods. Further work will examine whether the checklist can be readily adopted by researchers, and feedback on the guidance will be used in future updates.
We propose elements of the patients' health status (e.g. a progressive, life-threatening disease with no possibility of obtaining remission or stabilisation, or modifying the course of the illness) and the care delivered to them (e.g. a holistic interdisciplinary approach that focuses on supporting the quality of the end of life) to be included in the definition of a palliative care patient. We also suggest considering the patients' readiness to accept palliative care and a vision of palliative care shared by the patient and all caregivers involved as potentially important elements in this definition.
BackgroundAccording to the World Health Organization (WHO) definition, palliative care should be initiated in an early phase and not be restricted to terminal care. In the literature, no validated tools predicting the optimal timing for initiating palliative care have been determined.
PurposeDepression is highly prevalent in advanced cancer patients, but the diagnosis of depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer is difficult. Screening instruments could facilitate diagnosing depressive disorder in patients with advanced cancer. The aim of this study was to determine the validity of the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and a single screening question as screening tools for depressive disorder in advanced cancer patients.MethodsPatients with advanced metastatic disease, visiting the outpatient palliative care department, were asked to fill out a self-questionnaire containing the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) and a single screening question “Are you feeling depressed?” The mood section of the PRIME-MD was used as a gold standard.ResultsSixty-one patients with advanced metastatic disease were eligible to be included in the study. Complete data were obtained from 46 patients. The area under the curve of the receiver operating characteristics analysis of the BDI-II was 0.82. The optimal cut-off point of the BDI-II was 16 with a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 69%. The single screening question showed a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 94%.ConclusionsThe BDI-II seems an adequate screening tool for a depressive disorder in advanced cancer patients. The sensitivity of a single screening question is poor.
Background: The recognition and treatment of depressive-and anxiety disorders is not always in line with current standards. The results of programs to improve the quality of care, are not encouraging. Perhaps these programs do not match with the problems experienced in family practice. This study aims to systematically explore how FPs perceive recognition, diagnosis and management of depressive and anxiety disorders.
The associations found point to possibilities to reduce long-term benzodiazepine use, for example if patients with these characteristics are treated with the alternatives to benzodiazepines or are monitored closely for a short period after being prescribing benzodiazepines.
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.