MATERIALS AND METHODS: SEA country-specific cancer incidence by tumor site for 2015, 2025 and 2035 was extracted from the GLOBOCAN database. We utilized the optimal radiotherapy utilization rate model by Wong et al. (2016) to calculate the optimal number of fractions for all tumor sites in each SEA country. The available machines (LINAC & Co-60) were extracted from the IAEA's Directory of Radiotherapy Centres (DIRAC) from which the number of available fractions was calculated.
RESULTS: The incidence of cancers in SEA countries are expected to be 1.1 mil cases (2025) and 1.4 mil (2035) compared to 0.9 mil (2015). The number of radiotherapy fractions needed in 2025 and 2035 are 11.1 and 14.1 mil, respectively, compared to 7.6 mil in 2015. In 2015, the radiotherapy fulfillment rate (RFR; required fractions/available fractions) varied between countries with Brunei, Singapore and Malaysia are highest (RFR > 1.0 - available fractions > required fractions), whereas Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Myanmar, Philippines, Timor-Leste and Vietnam have RFR
METHODS: The authors conducted a qualitative study using in-depth interviews and focus group discussions with 98 participants representing 23 LMICs in Eastern Europe, Central Asia, East and Southern Africa, and Latin America.
RESULTS: Despite geographic, cultural, and socioeconomic differences, the common themes that emerged from the data across the 3 regions are strikingly similar: trust, knowledge gaps, stigma, sharing experiences, and sustainability. The authors identified common facilitators (training/education, relationship building/networking, third-party facilitators, and communication) and barriers (mistrust, stigma, organizational fragility, difficulty translating HIC strategies) to establishing trust, collaboration, and advancing cancer advocacy efforts. To the authors' knowledge, the current study is the first to describe the role that coalitions and regional networks play in advancing breast cancer advocacy in LMICs across multiple regions.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the current study corroborate the importance of investing in 3-way partnerships between CSOs, political leaders, and health experts. When provided with information that is evidence-based and resource appropriate, as well as opportunities to network, advocates are better equipped to achieve their goals. The authors propose that support for CSOs focuses on building trust through increasing opportunities for engagement, disseminating best practices and evidence-based information, and fostering the creation of platforms for partnerships and networks.
METHODS: CINAHL, PubMed, and EBSCO Host and Science Direct databases were searched for articles related to the use of EOs and/or aromatherapy for nausea and vomiting. Only articles using English as a language of publication were included. Eligible articles included all forms of evidence (nonexperimental, experimental, case report). Interventions were limited to the use of EOs by inhalation of their vapors to treat symptoms of nausea and vomiting in various conditions regardless of age group. Studies where the intervention did not utilize EOs or were concerned with only alcohol inhalation and trials that combined the use of aromatherapy with other treatments (massage, relaxations, or acupressure) were excluded.
RESULTS: Five (5) articles met the inclusion criteria encompassing trials with 328 respondents. Their results suggest that the inhaled vapor of peppermint or ginger essential oils not only reduced the incidence and severity of nausea and vomiting but also decreased antiemetic requirements and consequently improved patient satisfaction. However, a definitive conclusion could not be drawn due to methodological flaws in the existing research articles and an acute lack of additional research in this area.
CONCLUSIONS: The existing evidence is encouraging but yet not compelling. Hence, further well-designed large trials are needed before confirmation of EOs effectiveness in treating nausea and vomiting can be strongly substantiated.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Systematic reviews were undertaken of English-language articles published between 2000 and 2016, identified from MEDLINE using PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases. The strength of available evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach. Recommendations were developed through consensus using the Delphi technique.
RESULTS: Fourteen axial SpA treatment recommendations were developed based on evidence summaries and consensus. The first 2 recommendations cover non-pharmacological approaches to management. Recommendations 3 to 5 describe the following: the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs as first-line symptomatic treatment; the avoidance of long-term corticosteroid use; and the utility of conventional synthetic disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (csDMARDs) for peripheral or extra-articular manifestations. Recommendation 6 refers to the indications for biological DMARDs (bDMARDs). Recommendation 7 deals specifically with screening for infections endemic to Asia, prior to use of bDMARDs. Recommendations 7 to 13 cover the role of bDMARDs in the treatment of active axial SpA and include related issues such as continuing therapy and use in special populations. Recommendation 14 deals with the utility of surgical intervention in axial SpA.
CONCLUSION: These recommendations provide up-to-date guidance for treatment of axial SpA to help meet the needs of patients and clinicians in the Asia-Pacific region.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Given the current lack of evidence on quality and safety improvements and on the cost-benefits associated with the introduction of eHealth applications, there should be a focus on implementing more mature technologies; it is also important that eHealth applications should be evaluated against a comprehensive and rigorous set of measures, ideally at all stages of their application life cycle.
METHODS: A 6-month parallel multicenter two-arm, single-blind randomized controlled trial involving 14 pharmacists at seven primary care clinics was conducted in Johor, Malaysia. Pharmacists without prior specialized diabetes training were trained to use the tool. Patients were randomized within each center to either Simpler care (SC), receiving care from pharmacists who used the tool (n =55), or usual care (UC), receiving usual care and dispensing services (n = 69).
RESULTS: Compared with UC, SC significantly reduced HbA1c (mean reduction 1.59% [95% confidence interval {CI} -2.2, -0.9] vs 0.25% [95% CI -0.62, 0.11], respectively; P ≤ 0.001), and significantly improved systolic BP (-6.28 mmHg [95% CI -10.5, 2.0] vs 0.26 mmHg [95% CI -3.74, 0.43], respectively; P = 0.005). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the SC than UC arm reached the Malaysian guideline treatment goals for HbA1c (14.3% vs 1.5%; P = 0.020), systolic BP (80% vs 42%; P = 0.001), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (60.5% vs 40.4%; P = 0.046).
CONCLUSIONS: Using the Simpler tool facilitated the delivery of comprehensive evidence-based diabetes management and significantly improved clinical outcomes. The Simpler tool supported pharmacists in providing enhanced structured diabetes care.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: International and Thai databases were searched from inception to February 2017. Clinical trials investigating effects of PM menopausal or postmenopausal women were included. Outcomes were self-reported menopausal symptoms, serum reproductive hormones, urino-genital tract function, and bone surrogates. Methodological quality was assessed by Cochrane risk-of-bias v2.0, and a 22-parameter quality score based on the CONSORT checklist for herbal medicines.
RESULTS: Eight studies (9 articles) used data from 309 menopausal patients. Five-studies demonstrated that PM was associated with climacteric scores reduced by ~50% compared to baseline. Other PM studies using limited numbers of placebo participants suggested improved vaginal and other urogenital tract symptoms. Bone alkaline phosphatase halved (suggesting lowered bone turnover). Variable serum reproductive hormone levels suggested menopausal status differed between studies. PM active ingredients and sources were not defined. Adverse event rates (mastodynia, vaginal spotting, dizziness) were similar in all groups (PM, conjugated equine estrogen, and placebos) but serum C-reactive protein doubled. These studies had design and reporting deficiencies, high risks of biases, and low quality scores.
CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of PM on menopausal symptoms remains inconclusive because of methodological short-comings especially placebo effects inherent in self-assessment/recall questionnaires and no PM standardization. PM efficacy and safety need a fundamental re-appraisal by: (i) cohort (retro- and prospective) studies on current users to define its traditional use for rejuvenation; (ii) tightly coupling long-term efficacy to safety of well-defined PM and multiple end-points; (iii) using study design related to current understanding of menopause progression and estrogen pharmacology (iv) robust pharmacovigilance.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted individual in-depth interviews with people with type 2 diabetes who were making decisions about insulin treatment. Participants were selected purposively to achieve maximum variation. A semi-structured topic guide was used to guide the interviews which were audio-recorded and analysed using a thematic approach. We interviewed 21 participants between January 2011 and March 2012. The age range of participants was 28-67 years old. Our sample comprised 9 women and 12 men. Three main themes, 'treatment-specific values', 'life goals and philosophies', and 'personal and social background', emerged from the analysis. The patients reported a variety of insulin-specific values, which were negative and/or positive beliefs about insulin. They framed insulin according to their priorities and philosophies in life. Patients' decisions were influenced by sociocultural (e.g. religious background) and personal backgrounds (e.g. family situations).
CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted the need for expanding the current concept of patient values in medical decision making. Clinicians should address more than just values related to treatment options. Patient values should include patients' priorities, life philosophy and their background. Current decision support tools, such as patient decision aids, should consider these new dimensions when clarifying patient values.