Time filter

Source Type

Leggett L.E.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | Leggett L.E.,Institute for Public Health | Lorenzetti D.L.,Institute of Health Economics | Noseworthy T.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | And 6 more authors.
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment | Year: 2014

Recurrence tests, such as Adjuvant! Online and Oncotype DX, can be used to determine an individual's risk of developing recurrent cancer. These technologies are useful for helping health care practitioners make treatment recommendations. With increasing use, it is necessary to consider patients' experience with and attitudes toward risk of recurrence testing. Factors such as anxiety, influence on decision making, confidence in results, and satisfaction with testing are important to consider. To understand experiences and attitudes toward risk of recurrence testing, from the perspective of women who have used these technologies following a breast cancer diagnosis. A systematic review was completed. Eight multidisciplinary electronic databases, including MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and ERIC, were searched from 1950 to December 17, 2012. Abstracts and full-text papers were screened for inclusion, in duplicate, based on established criteria. Recurrent themes and key concepts were identified and analyzed. One-thousand and twenty-two abstracts were retrieved, and fifty-one proceeded to full-text review. Ten studies reporting on eight populations were included in this review. Key themes that emerged from the literature include: experience with the testing process; influence testing has on treatment; and comprehension of results. The literature suggests that testing for breast cancer recurrence can have a negative impact on women; poor comprehension of test results, and anxiety/distress were the most frequently cited reasons for a negative experience. Despite these drawbacks, women consistently reported that they would recommend testing to others. The literature on this topic is limited, and heterogeneous. The available literature suggests that women are generally satisfied with risk of recurrence testing for breast cancer. Potential drawbacks of risk of recurrence testing include anxiety and comprehension of test results. Additional high-quality research on women's experiences with risk of recurrence testing for breast cancer would improve the evidence base, and would allow stronger conclusions to be drawn. © Springer Science+Business Media 2014. Source

Soril L.J.J.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | Soril L.J.J.,Institute for Public Health | Leggett L.E.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | Leggett L.E.,Institute for Public Health | And 6 more authors.
PLoS ONE | Year: 2015

Objective: The objective of this study was to establish the effectiveness of interventions to reduce frequent emergency department (ED) use among a general adult high ED-use population. Methods: Systematic review of the literature from 1950-January 2015. Studies were included if they: had a control group (controlled trials or comparative cohort studies), were set in an ED or acute care facility, and examined the impact of an intervention to reduce frequent ED use in a general adult population. Studies reporting non-original data or focused on a specific patient population were excluded. Study design, patient population, intervention, the frequency of ED visits, and costs of frequent ED use and/or interventions were extracted and narratively synthesized. Results: Among 17 included articles, three intervention categories were identified: case management (n = 12), individualized care plans (n = 3), and information sharing (n = 2). Ten studies examining case management reported reductions in mean (-0.66 to -37) or median (-0.1 to -20) number of ED visits after 12-months; one study reported an increase in mean ED visits (+2.79); and one reported no change. Of these, 6 studies also reported reduced hospital costs. Only 1 study evaluating individualized care plans examined ED utilization and found no change in median ED visits post-intervention. Costs following individualized care plans were also only evaluated in 1 study, which reported savings in hospital costs of $742/patient. Evidence was mixed regarding information sharing: 1 study reported no change in mean ED visits and did not examine costs; whereas the other reported a decrease in mean ED visits (-16.9) and ED cost savings of $15,513/patient. Conclusions: The impact of all three frequent-user interventions was modest. Case management had the most rigorous evidence base, yielded moderate cost savings, but with variable reductions in ED use. Future studies evaluating non-traditional interventions, tailoring to patient subgroups or socio-cultural contexts, are warranted. © 2015 Soril et al. Source

Leggett L.E.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | Leggett L.E.,Institute for Public Health | Soril L.J.J.,Teaching Research and Wellness Building | Soril L.J.J.,Institute for Public Health | And 10 more authors.
Pain Research and Management | Year: 2014

BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA), a procedure using heat to interrupt pain signals in spinal nerves, is an emerging treatment option for chronic low back pain. Its clinical efficacy has not yet been established.OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy of RFA for chronic low back pain associated with lumbar facet joints, sacroiliac joints, discogenic low back pain and the coccyx.METHODS: A systematic review was conducted. Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, SPORTDiscus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2013. Abstracts and full-text articles were reviewed in duplicate. Included articles were sham-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs), assessed the efficacy of RFA, reported at least one month of follow-up and included participants who had experienced back pain for at least three months. Data were extracted in duplicate and quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Due to heterogeneity, as well as a lack of reported mean differences and SDs, meta-analysis was not possible using these data.RESULTS: The present systematic review retrieved 1063 abstracts. Eleven sham-controlled RCTs were included: three studies involving discogenic back pain; six studies involving lumbar facet joint pain; and two studies involving sacroiliac joint pain. No studies were identified assessing the coccyx. The evidence supports RFA as an efficacious treatment for lumbar facet joint and sacroiliac joint pain, with five of six and both of the RCTs demonstrating statistically significant pain reductions, respectively. The evidence supporting RFA for the treatment of discogenic pain is mixed.CONCLUSIONS: While the majority of the studies focusing on lumbar facet joints and sacroiliac joints suggest that RFA significantly reduces pain in short-term follow-up, the evidence base for discogenic low back pain is mixed. There is no RCT evidence for RFA for the coccyx. Future studies should examine the clinical significance of the achieved pain reduction and the long-term efficacy of RFA. Source

Discover hidden collaborations