Search

Advanced stage at diagnosis and delayed presentation are common in ovarian cancer (OC). The objective of the current study was to explore the association of adult attachment pattern with delays in accessing specialist oncology care in patients with OC. A cross-sectional structured interview study of patients with OC presenting to an Indian cancer center was undertaken. Consenting patients completed Experiences of Close Relationships–Relationship Style questionnaire (ECR-RS) and Medical Outcome Survey–Social Support Survey (MOS–SSS). Multivariate linear regression with "time to presentation to cancer specialist" as the dependent variable was undertaken. In all, 132 of 155 (85%) patients with OC who were invited were interviewed. An increased ECR-RS attachment anxiety score (P =.01) and being part of a multigenerational extended household (P =.04) were both independently associated with delay in presentation to a cancer specialist. There was no association between delay in presentation and social support. Among patients with OC, adult attachment may contribute to delays in presentation. It may be important for the cancer symptom awareness efforts in primary care to include educating physicians on recognizing and interacting with patients with insecure attachment styles. The association of delays in presentation for women with OC living in multigenerational extended households needs more indepth exploration. Supplemental data for this article is available online at https://doi.org/10.1080/07347332.2022.2025510. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While recent patient-centric medical care has many benefits, some may feel overwhelmed by participation in complex treatment decisions. Patients, however, will ultimately bear the burden of interpretations of treatment trials and thus should be asked to assess the inherent trade-offs implicated in new treatments. In Llewellyn's study, consent to a treatment choice distressingly precluded the option of another (better) treatment in the future, a decision which the patient and family considered was made without sufficiently being informed. However, there is a shift in bioethical thinking which acknowledges the importance not only of patient autonomy but solidarity and attentive commitment between a patient, their cancer treatment team, and family members (Jennings [14]). [Extracted from the article]

Treatment infrastructures Therapeutic values of novel treatments seek to transform the place of cancer in society. Treatment personalization trends depict therapies' failures and successes as based on either personal stories of those able to afford treatments who "made it", or aggregated accounts of individualized survival statistics. This tension is what Benson Mulemi understands as a core "treatment ambiguity" in Kenya through which anti-cancer treatment increases rather than alleviates suffering (Mulemi [38]), and Julie Livingston provocatively poses with the question "Leg or Life"? Therapeutic value as treatment efficacy The synchronization between the rolling out of treatment options, disease stage, and patients' fitness to endure therapy are especially nuanced in contexts of metastatic disease (Sanz [43]). [Extracted from the article]

In this era of personalisation a patient's molecular profile plays an increasingly central role in development and delivery of personalised medicine. This paper sets out to explore the sociocultural implications of mainstreaming BRCA genetic testing in the treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients, who carry a BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation. It draws on ethnographic research conducted by between April-June 2016 in a large tertiary London hospital. Participant observation was conducted across two sites. For the first two weeks participant observation was conducted in the traditional genetic testing setting in two separate clinics. From thereon, participant observation was conducted in the clinical encounters of treating patients in the ovarian cancer clinic. In addition, face-to-face interviews were conducted with medical oncologists who worked in the clinic. Contributing to the fields of cancer genetics, personalised medicine and medical material culture studies in medical anthropology the paper seeks to further discussions about the interactions and relationships unfolding between medical objects and subjects across the landscape of cancer care. It highlights the importance of clinic-based ethnography to examine the complexities of identities and technologies as they intersect with the themes of suffering and hope in new and contradictory ways for BRCA-positive patients with late-stage disease. The paper argues that a BRCA mutation is not only central to the political economy of hope but takes on a more materialist nature as it becomes an embodied practice that moves in and beyond the clinic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:This study sought to determine the effects of a heritage-in-health intervention on well-being. Benefits of arts-in-health interventions are relatively well-documented yet little robust research has been conducted using heritage-in-health interventions, such as those involving museum objects.Methods:Hospital patients (n = 57) participated in semi-structured, 30–40 minute facilitated interview sessions, discussing and handling museum objects comprising selections of six artefacts and specimens loaned from archaeology, art, geology and natural history collections. Well-being measures (Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale, Visual Analogue Scales) evaluated the sessions while inductive and deductive thematic analysis investigated psycho-educational features accounting for changes.Results:Comparison of pre- and post-session quantitative measures showed significant increases in well-being and happiness. Qualitative investigation revealed thinking and meaning-making opportunities for participants engaged with objects.Conclusions:Heritage-in-health sessions enhanced positive mood and social interaction, endorsing the need for provision of well-being-related museum and gallery activities for socially excluded or vulnerable healthcare audiences. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Do museums and other heritage organisations have something to offer the healthcare sector? Do they have a role in improving health and well-being? Increasingly both heritage and healthcare organisations think they do. A broader definition of health including well-being and an emphasis on preventative medicine and multi-agency approaches to care within the UK’s National Health Service has facilitated the work of museums and galleries in this area. However, there are still few specific heritage programmes in healthcare organisations and very little evaluation of these. Here we present key findings from a qualitative evaluation of a heritage focused intervention carried out in a range of healthcare settings. The aim of the research project was to assess the impact on well-being of taking museum objects into hospitals and healthcare contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The concept of well-being is now widely used in policy, including in the museum sector. This article addresses the need for museums to understand and be able to measure their contribution to this increasingly important instrumental value, if they are to engage with the policy. However, due to the indefinite and inconsistent definition of the concept, it is difficult to know what to measure. There are also difficulties capturing this amorphous outcome to allow for generalisability and to assign causality - the key needs of policy-oriented research and evaluation. The article outlines these issues and looks at psychology, economics, healthcare and culture for insight. It also suggests a tentative Well-being Outcomes Framework that could be used consistently in the sector, to measure evidence and advocate for museums' contribution to well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]