Objectives Appropriate administration of intraoperative analgesia is an essential factor in care and reasonable recovery times. Inappropriate intraoperative analgesia puts the patient at risk of acute postoperative pain (APOP). The absence of an objective standard for intraoperative nociceptive monitoring complicates pain care. Heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MABP) have been suggested as useful parameters during general anesthesia for nociceptive monitoring. However, studies focusing on whether intraoperative heart rate variability (HRv) and mean arterial blood pressure variability (MABPv) during general anesthesia can accurately monitor nociception in patients have remained inconclusive. The current study aimed to (1) identify the association of intraoperative heart rate and blood pressure variability in patients undergoing low-risk surgery with the incidence of APOP in the immediate postoperative setting and (2) evaluate the associations of clinical demographic factors with the incidence of APOP.
MULTIFILE
08-03-2024
BACKGROUND: Higher levels of physical activity (PA) after treatment are associated with beneficial effects on physical and psychosocial functioning of cancer survivors. However, survivors often do not meet the recommended levels of PA. In order to promote PA, we developed a closed internet-based program. The aim of the study is to evaluate the (cost-)effectiveness of an internet-based PA-promotion program, alone or combined with physiotherapy counselling, compared to usual care, on PA-levels of breast or prostate cancer survivors. In this multicenter randomised controlled trial (RCT), breast or prostate cancer survivors who completed their primary treatment 3-12 months earlier, will be randomised to either 6-months access to a fully-automated internet-based intervention alone, an internet-based intervention plus remote support by a physiotherapist, or a control group. The intervention is based on the Transtheoretical Model and includes personalized feedback, information, video's and assignments. Additionally, in a second arm, physiotherapy counselling is provided through monthly scheduled and on-demand telephone calls. The control group will receive usual care and a leaflet with PA guidelines.METHODS: At baseline, 6 and 12 months, the primary outcome (PA) will be measured during 7 consecutive days by accelerometers. Secondary outcomes are self-reported PA, fatigue, mood, health-related quality of life, and costs. The group differences for primary and secondary outcomes will be analyzed using linear mixed models.DISCUSSION: If proven to be (cost)effective, this internet-based intervention, either alone or in combination with telephone support, will be a welcome addition to previous RCT's.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Netherlands trial register (NTR6911), Date of trial registration: December 21, 2017.
MULTIFILE
31-12-2017
Background: The majority of patients diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer are in a position to choose between having a mastectomy or lumpectomy with radiation therapy (breast-conserving therapy). Since the long-term survival rates for mastectomy and for lumpectomy with radiation therapy are comparable, patients’ informed preferences are important for decision-making. Although most clinicians believe that they do include patients in the decision-making process, the information that women with breast cancer receive regarding the surgical options is often rather subjective, and does not invite patients to express their preferences. Shared decision-making (SDM) is meant to help patients clarify their preferences, resulting in greater satisfaction with their final choice. Patient decision aids can be very supportive in SDM. We present the protocol of a study to β test a patient decision aid and optimise strategies for the implementation of SDM regarding the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the actual clinical setting. Methods/design: This paper concerns a preimplementation and post-implementation study, lasting from October 2014 to June 2015. The intervention consists of implementing SDM using a patient decision aid. The intervention will be evaluated using qualitative and quantitative measures, acquired prior to, during and after the implementation of SDM. Outcome measures are knowledge about treatment, perceived SDM and decisional conflict. We will also conduct face-to-face interviews with a sample of these patients and their care providers, to assess their experiences with the implementation of SDM and the patient decision aid.
