| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Borg, Sixten, et al.
(författare)
-
Performance of standardized cancer patient pathways in Sweden visualized using observational data and a state-transition model
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - 2045-2322. ; 13:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Standardized Cancer Patient Pathways (CPPs) were introduced in Swedish healthcare starting in 2015 to improve diagnostics for patients with symptoms of cancer, patient satisfaction and equity of care between healthcare providers. An inclusion target and a time target were set. Our primary aim was to visualize the patient population going through CPPs, in terms of investigation time and indications of the various outcomes including cancer diagnoses. Our secondary aims were to examine if targets were met, and to examine frequencies of undetected cancer. We collected data from 19,204 patients starting in a CPP, and 7895 patients diagnosed with cancer in 2018 in a region of Sweden. A state transition model was developed and used as analytical framework, and patients were mapped over time in the states of the model. Visualization of the patient-flow through the model illustrates speed of investigation, time to treatment, frequencies of detected and undetected cancer. Twelve CPPs out of 28 met the inclusion target, five met the time target. After suspicion of cancer rejected, 0.8% of patients were diagnosed with the primarily suspected cancer, 1.0% with another cancer. In patients not meeting the criteria for well-founded suspicion less than 3% were later diagnosed with cancer. The visualization of the patient flow into and through standardized cancer patient pathways illustrates investigation time, events occurring and outcomes. The use of standardized cancer patient pathways detects cancer efficiently.
|
|
| 3. |
- Svedbo Engström, Maria, 1980, et al.
(författare)
-
New Diabetes Questionnaire to add patients' perspectives to diabetes care for adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: nationwide cross-sectional study of construct validity assessing associations with generic health-related quality of life and clinical variables
- 2020
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 10:11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives To study evidence for construct validity, the aim was to describe the outcome from the recently developed Diabetes Questionnaire, assess the associations of that outcome with clinical variables and generic health-related quality of life, and study the sensitivity to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control in adults with type 1 and type 2 diabetes in a nation-wide setting. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Swedish diabetes care clinics connected to the National Diabetes Register (NDR). Participants Among 2479 adults with type 1 diabetes and 2469 with type 2 diabetes selected at random from the NDR, 1373 (55.4%) with type 1 and 1353 (54.8%) with type 2 diabetes chose to participate. Outcome measures The Diabetes Questionnaire, the generic 36-item Short Form version 2 (SF-36v2) health survey and clinical variables. Results Related to the prespecified assumptions, supporting evidence for construct validity for the Diabetes Questionnaire was found. Supporting divergent validity, the statistically significant correlations with the clinical variables were few and weak. In relation to the SF-36v2 and in support of convergent validity, the strongest correlations were seen in the Diabetes Questionnaire scales General Well-being and Mood and Energy. In those scales, machine learning analyses showed that about 40%-45% of the variance was explained by the SF-36v2 results and clinical variables. In multiple regression analyses among three groups with differing levels of glycated haemoglobin adjusted for demographics, other risk factors, and diabetes complications, the high-risk group had, in support of sensitivity to clinically relevant groups, statistically significant lower scores than the well-controlled group in most Diabetes Questionnaire scales. Conclusions This nation-wide study shows that the Diabetes Questionnaire captures some generic health-related quality-of-life dimensions, in addition to adding diabetes-specific information not covered by the SF-36v2 and clinical variables. The Diabetes Questionnaire is also sensitive to differences between clinically relevant groups of glycaemic control.
|
|
| 4. |
- Wihl, Jessica, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of the measure of case discussion complexity to guide selection of prostate cancer patients for multidisciplinary team meetings
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Cancer Medicine. - 2045-7634. ; 12:14, s. 15149-15158
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) provide an integrated team approach to ensure individualized and evidence-based treatment recommendations and best expert advice in cancer care. A growing number of patients and more complex treatment options challenge MDTM resources and evoke needs for case prioritization. In this process, decision aids could provide streamlining and standardize evaluation of case complexity. We applied the recently developed Measure of Case Discussion Complexity, MeDiC, instrument with the aim to validate its performance in another healthcare setting and diagnostic area as a means to provide cases for full MDTM discussions. Methods: The 26-item MeDiC instrument evaluates case complexity and was applied to 364 men with newly diagnosed prostate cancer in Sweden. MeDiC scores were generated from individual-level health data and were correlated with clinicopathological parameters, healthcare setting, and the observed clinical case selection for MDTMs. Results: Application of the MeDiC instrument was feasible with rapid scoring based on available clinical data. Patients with high-risk prostate cancers had significantly higher MeDiC scores than patients with low or intermediate-risk cancers. In the total study, population affected lymph nodes and metastatic disease significantly influenced MDTM referral, whereas comorbidities and age did not predict MDTM referral. When individual patient MeDiC scores were compared to the clinical MDTM case selection, advanced stage, T3/T4 tumors, involved lymph nodes, presence of metastases and significant physical comorbidity were identified as key MDTM predictive factors. Conclusions: Application of the MeDiC instrument in prostate cancer may be used to streamline case selection for MDTMs in cancer care and may complement clinical case selection.
|
|
