Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
Cancer Inform ; 21: 11769351211073114, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35095270

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Participant recruitment is a challenge for any clinical trial but is especially complex in cancer specifically due to the need to initiate treatment urgently. Most participants enrolled in oncology clinical trials are identified as potential participants by the oncologist or other referring provider. Optimal clinical care for patients with cancer includes consideration of participation in a clinical trial. However, the process of finding a clinical trial that is appropriate the patient can be cumbersome and time consuming. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The University of Kansas Cancer Center has developed a mobile application (app) which streamlines the clinical trial search process for physicians, patients, and caregivers by cohesively integrating all clinical trials currently recruiting in the center and making them easy to browse. RESULTS: Key aspects of the app include simple filtering options, the ability to search for trials by name, easily accessible assistance, and in-app referral by phone or email. Initial feedback on the app has been very positive, with several suggestions already being implemented in future development. The app was designed to be used both by physicians to find trials, as well as patients in collaboration with their physicians. CONCLUSION: While long-term results will be crucial to understanding how the app can best serve our patient population, our initial results suggest that health system specific clinical trial apps can address a currently unmet need in the clinical trial recruitment process.

2.
Prev Med Rep ; 23: 101446, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34168953

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer screening guidelines serve as crucial evidence-based recommendations in deciding when to begin regular screenings. However, due to developments in breast cancer research and differences in research interpretation, screening guidelines can vary between organizations and within organizations over time. This leads to significant lapses in adopting updated guidelines, variable decision making between physicians, and unnecessary screening for low to moderate risk patients (Jacobson and Kadiyala, 2017; Corbelli et al., 2014). For analysis, risk factors were assessed for patient screening behaviors and results. The outcome variable for the first analysis was whether the patient had undergone screening. The risk factors considered were age, marital status, education level, rural versus urban residence, and family history of breast cancer. The outcome variable for the second analysis was whether patients who had undergone breast cancer screening presented abnormal results. The risk factors considered were age, Body Mass Index, family history, smoking and alcohol status, hormonal contraceptive use, Hormone Replacement Therapy use, age of first pregnancy, number of pregnancies (parity), age of first menses, rural versus urban residence, and whether or not patients had at least one child. Logistic regression analysis displayed strong associations for both outcome variables. Risk of screening nonattendance was negatively associated with age as a continuous variable, age as a dichotomous variable, being married, any college education, and family history. Risk of one or more abnormal mammogram findings was positively associated with family history, and hormonal contraceptive use. This procedure will be further developed to incorporate additional risk factors and refine the analysis of currently implemented risk factors.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...