An update of Murrayan needs: A pilot study among American college students

Much research work on motives has been based on the taxonomy of psychogenic needs originally proposed by Murray and his colleagues in 1938. However, many of these needs have received little attention, and some of them may be less relevant now than they were 70 years ago. Two studies were conducted to investigate current motives. In Study 1, we used the Striving Assessment to elicit the personal strivings of 255 undergraduate university students. Murray’s taxonomy was unable to account for 50% of the 2,937 strivings. These strivings were thematically groups into 11 new categories and combined with 7 Murrayan needs to form the Comprehensive Motivation Coding System (CMCS). In Study 2, Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) stories produced by 143 undergraduate student participants were coded by these two systems. Murray’s system was unable to fully account for 42% of motives identified in the TAT stories, but the CMCS was able to account for 89%. These findings suggest that Murrayan needs may not adequately describe contemporary motivations and that the CMCS has the potential to do so. However, due to the limited demographics of our sample, further investigations are needed.

Colorectal preOperative surgical score (CrOSS) for mortality in major colorectal surgery

BACKGROUND: Colorectal surgery carries a significant mortality risk, with reported rates of 1-6% for elective surgery and up to 22% in the emergency setting. Both clinicians and patients will benefit from being able to predict the likelihood of death before surgery. Recently, we have described and validated two risk stratification models for colorectal surgery, the Barwon Health 2012 and Association Française de Chirurgie models. However, these models are not suitable for assessment at patient's bedside. The purpose of this study is to develop a simplified preoperative model capable of predicting mortality following colorectal surgery. METHODS: The new model is termed Colorectal preOperative Surgical Score (CrOSS). The development and internal validation of CrOSS was performed using a prospectively maintained colorectal database. External validation was performed using retrospective data. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed in model development. Calibration and discrimination were used for model validation. RESULTS: There were 474 and 389 consecutive colorectal surgeries at Geelong Hospital and Western Hospital. Overall mortality rates were 5.16% and 1.03%, respectively. Significant predictors for mortality were as follows: age ≥70, urgent operation, albumin ≤30 g/L and congestive heart failure (receiver operating characteristic (ROC) = 0.870, calibration P-value = 0.937). The predicted risk of mortality was stratified according to the risk profile of 0.39-66.51%. When validated externally, CrOSS predicted mortality accurately (ROC = 0.847, calibration P-value = 0.199). CONCLUSIONS: A robust and simple preoperative model has been created to risk-stratify patients for colorectal surgery. This was successfully validated at another tertiary hospital.

Health-care costs over 15 years after bariatric surgery for patients with different baseline glucose status: results from the Swedish Obese Subjects study

BACKGROUND: Bariatric surgery prevents and induces remission of type 2 diabetes in many patients. The effect of preoperative glucose status on long-term health-care costs is unknown. We aimed to assess health-care costs over 15 years for patients with obesity treated conventionally or with bariatric surgery and who had either euglycaemia, prediabetes, or type 2 diabetes before intervention. METHODS: The Swedish Obese Subjects (SOS) study is a prospective study of adults who had bariatric surgery and contemporaneously matched controls who were treated conventionally (age 37-60 years; BMI of ≥34 in men and ≥38 in women) recruited from 25 Swedish surgical departments and 480 primary health-care centres. Exclusion criteria were identical for both study groups, and were previous gastric or bariatric surgery, recent malignancy or myocardial infarction, selected psychiatric disorders, and other contraindicating disorders to bariatric surgery. Conventional treatment ranged from no treatment to lifestyle intervention and behaviour modification. In this study, we retrieved prescription drug costs for the patients in the SOS study via questionnaires and the nationwide Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. We retrieved data for inpatient and outpatient visits from the Swedish National Patient Register. We followed up the sample linked to register data for up to 15 years. We adjusted mean differences for baseline characteristics. Analyses were by intention to treat. The SOS study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01479452. FINDINGS: Between Sept 1, 1987, and Jan 31, 2001, 2010 adults who had bariatric surgery and 2037 who were treated conventionally were enrolled into the SOS study. In this study, we followed up 4030 patients (2836 who were euglycaemic; 591 who had prediabetes; 603 who had diabetes). Drug costs did not differ between the surgery and conventional treatment groups in the euglycaemic subgroup (surgery US$10,511 vs conventional treatment $10,680; adjusted mean difference -$225 [95% CI -2080 to 1631]; p=0·812), but were lower in the surgery group in the prediabetes ($10,194 vs $13,186; -$3329 [-5722 to -937]; p=0·007) and diabetes ($14,346 vs $19,511; -$5487 [-7925 to -3049]; p<0·0001) subgroups than in the conventional treatment group. Compared with the conventional treatment group, we noted greater inpatient costs in the surgery group for the euglycaemic ($51,225 vs $25,313; $22,931 [19,001-26,861]; p<0·0001), prediabetes ($58,699 vs $32,861; $27,152 [18,736-35,568]; p<0·0001), and diabetes ($61,569 vs $47,569; 18,697 [9992-27,402]; p<0·0001) subgroups. We noted no differences in outpatient costs. Total health-care costs were higher in the surgery group in the euglycaemic ($71,059 vs $45,542; $22,390 [17,358-27,423]; p<0·0001) and prediabetes ($78,151 vs $54,864; $26,292 [16,738-35,845]; p<0·0001) subgroups than in the conventional treatment group, whereas we detected no difference between treatment groups in patients with diabetes ($88,572 vs $79,967; $9081 [-1419 to 19,581]; p=0·090). INTERPRETATION: Total health-care costs were higher for patients with euglycaemia or prediabetes in the surgery group than in the conventional treatment group, but we detected no difference between the surgery and conventional treatment groups for patients with diabetes. Long-term health-care cost results support prioritisation of patients with obesity and type 2 diabetes for bariatric surgery. FUNDING: AFA Försäkring and Swedish Scientific Research Council.