Background Effective rehabilitative therapies are needed for patients with long-term deficits after stroke. Methods In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial involving 127 patients with moderate-to-severe upper-limb impairment 6 months or more after a stroke, we randomly assigned 49 patients to receive intensive robot-assisted therapy, 50 to receive intensive comparison therapy, and 28 to receive usual care. Therapy consisted of 36 1-hour sessions over a period of 12 weeks. The primary outcome was a change in motor function, as measured on the Fugl-Meyer Assessment of Sensorimotor Recovery after Stroke, at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes were scores on the Wolf Motor Function Test and the Stroke Impact Scale. Secondary analyses assessed the treatment effect at 36 weeks. Results At 12 weeks, the mean Fugl-Meyer score for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy was better than that for patients receiving usual care (difference, 2.17 points; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.23 to 4.58) and worse than that for patients receiving intensive comparison therapy (difference, −0.14 points; 95% CI, −2.94 to 2.65), but the differences were not significant. The results on the Stroke Impact Scale were significantly better for patients receiving robot-assisted therapy than for those receiving usual care (difference, 7.64 points; 95% CI, 2.03 to 13.24). No other treatment comparisons were significant at 12 weeks. Secondary analyses showed that at 36 weeks, robot-assisted therapy significantly improved the Fugl-Meyer score (difference, 2.88 points; 95% CI, 0.57 to 5.18) and the time on the Wolf Motor Function Test (difference, −8.10 seconds; 95% CI, −13.61 to −2.60) as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. No serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions In patients with long-term upper-limb deficits after stroke, robot-assisted therapy did not significantly improve motor function at 12 weeks, as compared with usual care or intensive therapy. In secondary analyses, robot-assisted therapy improved outcomes over 36 weeks as compared with usual care but not with intensive therapy. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00372411.)

ContextThe Internet has attracted considerable attention as a means to improve health and health care delivery, but it is not clear how prevalent Internet use for health care really is or what impact it has on health care utilization. Available estimates of use and impact vary widely. Without accurate estimates of use and effects, it is difficult to focus policy discussions or design appropriate policy activities.Objectives To measure the extent of Internet use for health care among a representative sample of the US population, to examine the prevalence of e-mail use for health care, and to examine the effects that Internet and e-mail use has on users' knowledge about health care matters and their use of the health care system. Design, Setting, and ParticipantsSurvey conducted in December 2001 and January 2002 among a sample drawn from a research panel of more than 60000 US households developed and maintained by Knowledge Networks. Responses were analyzed from 4764 individuals aged 21 years or older who were self-reported Internet users.Main Outcome Measures Self-reported rates in the past year of Internet and e-mail use to obtain information related to health, contact health care professionals, and obtain prescriptions; perceived effects of Internet and e-mail use on health care use. ResultsApproximately 40% of respondents with Internet access reported using the Internet to look for advice or information about health or health care in 2001. Six percent reported using e-mail to contact a physician or other health care professional. About one third of those using the Internet for health reported that using the Internet affected a decision about health or their health care, but very few reported impacts on measurable health care utilization; 94% said that Internet use had no effect on the number of physician visits they had and 93% said it had no effect on the number of telephone contacts. Five percent or less reported use of the Internet to obtain prescriptions or purchase pharmaceutical products.Conclusions Although many people use the Internet for health information, use is not as common as is sometimes reported. Effects on actual health care utilization are also less substantial than some have claimed. Discussions of the role of the Internet in health care and the development of policies that might influence this role should not presume that use of the Internet for health information is universal or that the Internet strongly influences health care utilization.

Self-report is often used to estimate health care utilization. However, the accuracy of such data is of paramount concern. The authors conducted a systematic review of 42 studies that evaluated the accuracy of self-report utilization data, where utilization was defined as a visit to a clinical provider or entity. They also present a broad conceptual model that identifies major issues to consider when collecting, analyzing, and reporting such data. The results show that self-report data are of variable accuracy. Factors that affect accuracy include (1) sample population and cognitive abilities, (2) recall time frame, (3) type of utilization, (4) utilization frequency, (5) questionnaire design, (6) mode of data collection, and (7) memory aids and probes.

No abstract

No abstract

Many chronically ill adults frequently cut back on medications owing to cost. Patients are selective about the treatments they forgo. Out-of-pocket costs and inadequate prescription coverage may lead to adherence problems for many important medication types.

Populations with serious health needs and those facing significant barriers in accessing health care in traditional settings turn to the Internet for health information.

* At the time of this consultation, these definitions are not included in the current ICS terminology. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 2. EVALUATION The following phrases are used to classify diagnostic tests and studies: • A highly recommended test is a test that should be done on every patient. This section should also be read in conjunction with the relevant committee reports. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 6. ANORECTAL PHYSIOLOGY TESTING Endocoil MRI has high accuracy for detecting anal sphincter injury but is second line after endoanal ultrasound. Patients with faecal incontinence may benefit from assessment with MRI, particularly those with anorectal malformations and/or previous anal sphincter surgery. Defaecography may be useful and is recommended in patients with faecal incontinence, who have failed conservative therapies, and are possible candidates for laparoscopic ventral rectopexy. * Consider CONTINENCE PRODUCTS for temporary support during treatment Recent VVF Primary simple Consider Catheter, evaluate weekly Established VVF Primary complex Healed Persistant leakage Recurrence Post-irradiation Vaginal repair Consider timing Surgical repair Consider timing Consider interposition material If small, consider catheter, evaluate weekly Surgical repair 6-12 months Consider interposition material Surgical repair Consider timing Consider interposition material Assess fistula closure & assess continence status MANAGEMENT OF IATROGENIC URETERIC FISTULAE HISTORY CLINICAL ASSESSMENT MANAGEMENT* PRESUMED DIAGNOSIS Extra-urethral vaginal urinary leakage and/or signs of ureteric obstruction Clinical examination Urethro-cystoscopy Imaging (Xray/CT/ MRI, US) Evaluate upper urinary tract obstruction * Consider CONTINENCE PRODUCTS for temporary support during treatment Ureterovaginal fistula Endoluminal technique (stenting, nephrostomy) for at least 6 weeks Unable to stent (initially)... Re-evaluate for fistula closure, ureteric obstruction Persisting fistula or ureteric obstruction Ureteric reimplantation (open, laparoscopic or robotic) Healed Long-term follow-up for stricture and hydropephrosis * Consider CONTINENCE PRODUCTS for temporary support during treatment Patient education, adequate fibre diet and fluid intake; regular bowel care, preferably ± 3 times a week