Cognitive and emotional processes influencing patient presentation or non-presentation of oral Cancer symptoms to healthcare professionals.

OBJECTIVE: Greater time that patients take to present symptoms to health care providers (HCPs) increases the likelihood of later stage cancer, which increases mortality and morbidity in symptomatic cancers. The common-sense model (CSM) is used to understand time to first consultation with a healthcare provider, but inconsistencies exisy between its current use and important empirical findings. METHOD: To resolve inconsistencies, we conducted a qualitative examination to determine how the CSM could be revised to better account for these findings. We conducted in-depth interviews of a consecutive sample of 38 recently diagnosed patients who described events from first noticing symptoms to first consultation. Framework analysis was used to develop a theoretical model of processes leading to presentation or non-presentation. RESULTS: Patients reported median presentation times of 3-4 weeks. Early presentation was facilitated by pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability to serious illnesses and beliefs that early intervention could mitigate illness. These patients rarely tried to identify symptoms. They responded inductively, seeking help because symptoms were unusual. Where patients did not describe pre-symptom perceptions of vulnerability, many deductively tried to identify symptoms but misattributed them to minor conditions. Pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability could also prolong presentation. When vulnerability was characterized by intense fears of cancer and cancer treatment, patients tended to avoid thinking about symptoms which extended presentation time. CONCLUSION: Risk perception theories explain how participants' pre-symptomatic perceptions of vulnerability and potential treatment outcomes influence presentation time. Incorporating risk perception perspectives into the CSM can improve its ability explain responses to ambiguous symptoms.

Next generation nerve guides: materials, fabrication, growth factors, and cell delivery.

Nerve guides are increasingly being used surgically to repair acute peripheral nerve injuries. This is not only due to an increase in the number of commercially available devices, but also clinical acceptance. However, regeneration distance is typically limited to 20-25 mm, in part due to the basic tubular design. A number of experimental studies have shown improvements in nerve regeneration distance when conduits incorporate coatings, internal scaffolds, topographical cues, or the delivery of support cells. Current studies on designing nerve guides for maximizing nerve regeneration focus both on cell-containing and cell-free devices, the latter being clinically attractive as "off the shelf" products. Arguably better results are obtained when conduits are used in conjunction with support cells (e.g., Schwann cells or stem cells) that can improve regeneration distance and speed of repair, and provide informative experimental data on how Schwann and neuronal cells respond in regenerating injured nerves. In this review we discuss the range of current nerve guides commercially available and appraise experimental studies in the context of the future design of nerve guides for clinical use.