No abstract

No abstract

Norway has traditionally high standards regarding civil rights particularly emphasizing equal access to societal resources including health care. This background and the health care system's centralized national organization make it perfectly suited for implementation of shared decision making (SDM). In recent years, great efforts have been made by policy- makers, regional health authorities and not least the patients to facilitate a process of change in health communication culture. SDM is currently even given highest priority in health care strategies on all system levels. SDM has been structurally implemented, e.g. by including corresponding guidance in the standard patient pathways. Moreover, SDM is established as an element of service on the national health portal hosting a constantly increasing number of decision aids. Essentially the Norwegian Knowledge Center for Health Services contributes by searching and providing information for use in decision aids. Implementation is now being rolled out unit by unit for a list of medical problems as a series production of SDM using decision aids and health professional training. Importantly, production of SDM begins and succeeds as a soundly structured communication with both clinical environments and patients. However, as communication training has not been implemented before now, there are no data demonstrating sufficient realization of SDM in current health care. Beyond making reasonable use of scientific achievements, the Norwegian movement's secret of success is the simultaneous commitment of all actors of the health system to a common idea.

Whether chronic inflammation mirrored by high levels of systemic inflammatory markers such as high sensitive-CRP (hs-CRP) and white blood cell count (WBC) are associated with prostate cancer development remains unclear. In the Prostate Cancer Study throughout Life (PROCA-life), a prospective population-based cohort study, 7,356 men were included. Prediagnostic WBC and hs-CRP were assessed from blood collected at study entry; 2,210 participants also had a second CRP measure during follow-up. During a mean 11.8 years follow-up, 509 men developed prostate cancer (mean age at diagnosis 71.7 years). Multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression models were used to study whether individual biomarkers (WBC, hs-CRP), a combined score based on analyte tertiles (score range 2-6), or change in CRP were associated with risk and severity of prostate cancer. We observed a positive dose-response relationship between hs-CRP and prostate cancer risk with a Hazard Ratio (HR) per mg/l of 1.3, 95% CI 1.00-1.07. Men with an increase in hs-CRP between two measurements (Δhs-CRP) of ≥1.00 mg/l had a 36% increased risk of prostate cancer (HR 1.36, 95% CI 1.02-1.82), compared to men with no change or decrease in hs-CRP. Men with a systemic inflammatory score of 5 or 6 had a 68% higher risk of being diagnosed with metastatic disease (HR 1.68, 95% CI, 1.04-2.73) compared to men with lower scores. Our study supports that hs-CRP including repeated measurements alone or in combination with WBC may be a useful inflammation-related biomarker for prostate cancer risk and prognosis.Additional Supporting Information may be found in the online version of this article.