PubMed · 9122682
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
D E Detmer. 1997-03-28. Knowledge: a mountain or a stream?. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5308.1859
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
A significant proportion of cancer patients experience psychiatric morbidity. Potential predictors of psychiatric morbidity include patient disease-related factors and factors relating to the patient's environment. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of psychiatric morbidity and the relationship between the clinical or personal factors, especially psychiatric morbidity, and awareness of cancer diagnosis among a group of Turkish cancer patients. A total of 117 cancer patients were assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the Hospital and Anxiety Depression Scale (HADS) and the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ). Of these patients, 30% had a psychiatric diagnosis. Adjustment disorders comprised most of the psychiatric diagnoses. Awareness of the diagnosis of cancer, history of previous psychiatric disorders, pain and stress factors were correlated with psychiatric morbidity. Of the 117 patients, 64 (54.7%) were unaware of the diagnosis of cancer. Most of the patients (67.9%) who were considered to be aware of the cancer diagnosis stated that they had guessed their illness from the treatment process or drug adverse effects. Psychiatric morbidity was significantly higher in the patients who knew that they had a cancer diagnosis (P=0.03). These findings suggest that the awareness of cancer diagnosis is related to the presence of psychiatric morbidity. In particular, the understanding of the diagnosis indirectly may be stressful to the patient because it arouses suspicion about the cancer and treatment, and consequently can lead to psychiatric disturbance. In Turkey honest disclosure of the true diagnosis is still not common for cancer patients and it seems to be essential to improve this situation.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of systematic screening with a brief 19-item self-report instrument, the Adverse Events Profile (AEP), to reduce adverse effects of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) and improve subjective health status. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective randomized trial comparing the use of the AEP with usual care without the AEP. Sixty-two patients with an AEP score of >or=45 were enrolled from a consecutive group of 200 consenting adults with epilepsy. RESULTS: The mean percent improvement in AEP scores was greater in the patient group for which clinicians received the AEP compared with the usual care group (25% vs 5%; p < 0.01). Mean change in Quality of Life in Epilepsy Inventory (QOLIE)-89 total scores was not different between groups, but for the entire sample QOLIE-89 change was greater for patients having a 15-point improvement in AEP scores than for those with a 0- to 15-point improvement or a worsened score (24 vs 12 vs 3; analysis of variance, p < 0.008). More patients in the AEP group had a >15-point improvement in QOLIE-89 score (p < 0.03). Use of the AEP was associated with a 2.8-fold increase (95% CI, 1.7 to 4.8) in AED modifications. No difference in seizure rates was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic screening for antiepileptic drug side effects may increase identification of toxicity and guide medication changes to reduce adverse effects and possibly improve subjective health status.