Within the last 20 years sociological research on science and religion has provided new insights that challenge myths regarding conflicts between science and religion. Gaps in pre-existing work have been identified resulting in major shifts in the field. In particular, research has employed more mixed methods, widened its scope to become more international, and expanded to include nonreligion. Building upon these developments and critiques, this chiefly conceptual article explores a way to move forward by combining three fields of research in a novel way: the sociology of religion, the sociology of nonreligion, and the Public Understanding of Science (PUS). These subfields all touch on relevant and interrelated topics. Sociology of religion contributes to parceling out aspects of belief, identity, and practice; focuses on lived experience along with positionality, normative commitments, and culture. The sociology of nonreligion draws more detailed attention to the association between science and secularism. Finally, including research on PUS provides resources for understanding trust in, and engagement with science dialogically, as well as lessons for effective public engagement.
No abstract
Aims Glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) is a devastating disease with notoriously poor survival. Studies examining survival in patients given best supportive care (BSC) are few and far between. All patients harbouring brain tumours referred to the Neuro-oncology service at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham are recorded in the Somerset Cancer Registry. We set out to analyse survival times and identify patient and tumour-related factors significantly affecting prognosis. Method We identified 126 patients from 2015 to 2019 in our Somerset Cancer Registry with radiological diagnoses of glioblastoma for whom the Neuro-oncology MDT recommended BSC. We performed a retrospective analysis of clinical records and radiological images. 11 patients were excluded (8 due to insufficient imaging data, 2 who underwent subsequent surgery, 1 patient with brain metastases). Survival was measured in completed weeks since the index MDT decision. Associations between survival time and both patient- and tumour-related factors were assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves and log-rank tests. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS 22 (IBM Corp. Armonk, NY), with p<0.05 deemed to be indicative of statistical significance throughout. Results Data were available for N=115 patients (69 males, 46 females), with a mean age of 79 ± 8 years. All patients died within 32 weeks of diagnosis, with a median survival time of 8 weeks. Only 8 patients survived for more than 20 weeks. Survival was significantly shorter in those with a greater number of main cerebral structures affected (p=0.044), with a median of 6 vs. 10 weeks for 3 or more vs. 1 structures affected (hazard ratio: 1.61, 95% CI: 0.99-2.62). Bilateral tumours involving the corpus callosum were also associated with shorter survival (p=0.039). None of the other factors considered were found to be significantly associated with survival, including age (p=0.193), gender (p=0.371), performance status (p=0.300) and tumour size (p=0.331). Conclusion With the exception of the number of main cerebral structures affected (frontal, parietal, temporal and occipital lobes, corpus callosum, insula, basal ganglia and brain stem), patient- and tumour-factors traditionally used by the MDT to prognosticate do not correlate with survival time in patients receiving BSC for radiological diagnoses of GBM. With 50% of the cohort dying within 8 weeks it is clear that we must reconsider the timing of referrals to palliative and hospice care. Finally, the fact that some patients survived for more than half a year with no surgical or oncological treatment suggests that the process of selecting patients for BSC vs aggressive treatments needs refinement.
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.