RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The central role of microbiota and the contribution of diet in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMID) are increasingly examined. However, patients' perspectives on nutrition and its impact on their disease has not received a lot of attention. We aimed to directly collect information from patients with IMID about their dietary behaviors and their perceptions of the influence of nutrition on their disease. METHODS: Adult patients with rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, Crohn's disease, ulcerative colitis or psoriasis registered in an online patient community were invited to participate in the study and complete an online self-administered questionnaire. We assessed patients' dietary knowledge and choices by collecting information on the diet regimens they were following or recommended and their perceptions of the diet and its consequences on their disease. RESULTS: Fifty patients per target disease were included with a mean age of 48.1 years (95%CI 46.7-49.6). Other sociodemographic and clinical characteristics varied across the diseases. Since diagnosis, 44% of the patients changed their eating habits, mainly patients with inflammatory bowel disease with 69% of these making the change on their own initiative. Patients who did not change their diet habits reported not having received nutritional advice from their healthcare professionals (HCP) in 69% of the cases. The perceived impact of nutrition on their symptoms was mixed (overall 74% of the patients reported positive consequences and 60% negative ones) and varied across the diseases. Patients with psoriasis only experienced positive consequences from changing their diet, such as reduction of stress and improved mental health, while patients with Crohn's disease reported more negative effects such as increased fatigue and disturbed sleep. Patients with rheumatic diseases and ulcerative colitis reported weight loss and better physical fitness, but also increased fatigue. CONCLUSIONS: Even if differences exist across diseases, the importance of nutrition and its potential positive role in symptom management is acknowledged by the majority of the patients. However, there is a need and a demand from patients to receive more dietary advice. Developing therapeutic education tools on nutrition for people with IMID and involving patients' organizations would provide useful information and encourage communication between HCP and patients.
RESUMO
UNLABELLED: Measuring waiting times is a good indicator of quality of cancer care and could reveal inequalities in cancer care access. AIMS: To determine the most representative waiting times in breast, lung, colon and prostate cancer care in several regions of France. To analyze the influence of individual, medical or health care system factors on those waiting times. METHODS: This study was piloted by the French Cancer Institute in partnership with the National Federation of the Regional Health Observatories and was driven by the Regional Oncology Networks and the Regional Health Observatories. In 2011, 2,530 women with breast cancer and 1,945 patient with lung cancer were included in eight regions, and in 2012, 3,248 patients with colon cancer and 4,207 men with prostate cancer were included in 13 regions, two of which were overseas departments. Data were analyzed from multidisciplinary discussion reports and from medical records. RESULTS: The mean time intervals (± standard deviation) for the various components of access to care were as follows in breast cancer: mammography to pathologist diagnosis, 17,7 days (±15,9); diagnosis (or treatment proposal) to surgery, 22,9 days (±13,9). In lung cancer: first suspect medical image to pathologist diagnosis, 21,5 days (±17,6); diagnosis to treatment proposal, 13,5 days (±10,7). In colon cancer: coloscopy to pathologist diagnosis, 4,5 days (±4,1); diagnosis to surgery, 18,9 days (±14,9). In prostate cancer: pathologist diagnosis to treatment proposal, 36,5 days (±26,5); treatment proposal to surgery, 45,2 days (±30,1). Data collection was particularly difficult because of very heterogeneous way in medical records filling by care centers, so the data collection method used in the study could not be used in routine procedures. Waiting times measured in the four cancers had an important variability. In fact, age, circumstance of diagnosis, tumor stage and category of care center had an influence. After considering those different factors, differences between regions remained from range 2 to 4. Those regional differences could be explained by organizational factors but were not explored in our study. In the same way, data on individual factors (social vulnerability, category of employment) were not available to measure their effects on this study. Besides, our results were comparable to those in international publications or national recommendations in other countries. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that waiting times could be good indicators and could reveal inequalities in cancer care access. Measuring them would lead to characterize those inequalities and to propose actions to improve access to cancer care whose impact could be measured.
