Life partnerships in childhood cancer survivors, their siblings, and the general population

Background: Life partnerships other than marriage are rarely studied in childhood cancer survivors (CCS). We aimed (1) to describe life partnership and marriage in CCS and compare them to life partnerships in siblings and the general population; and (2) to identify socio-demographic and cancer-related factors associated with life partnership and marriage. Methods: As part of the Swiss Childhood Cancer Survivor Study (SCCSS), a questionnaire was sent to all CCS (aged 20–40 years) registered in the Swiss Childhood Cancer Registry (SCCR), aged <16 years at diagnosis, who had survived ≥5 years. The proportion with life partner or married was compared between CSS and siblings and participants in the Swiss Health Survey (SHS). Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with life partnership or marriage. Results: We included 1,096 CCS of the SCCSS, 500 siblings and 5,593 participants of the SHS. Fewer CCS (47%) than siblings (61%, P < 0.001) had life partners, and fewer CCS were married (16%) than among the SHS population (26%, P > 0.001). Older (OR = 1.14, P < 0.001) and female CCS (OR = 1.85, <0.001) were more likely to have life partners. CCS who had undergone radiotherapy, bone marrow transplants (global PTreatment = 0.018) or who had a CNS diagnosis (global PDiagnosis < 0.001) were less likely to have life partners. Conclusion: CCS are less likely to have life partners than their peers. Most CCS with a life partner were not married. Future research should focus on the effect of these disparities on the quality of life of CCS.

Status and Future of Mountain Research: Results of two Surveys by the Research Initative of the Mountain Partnership

This report contains the results of two e-surveys conducted in 2005 and 2006 on the status and future of mountain research, as it presents itself within the Mt. Partnership. The surveys are the main outcome of a meeting of the leading members of the Mountain Partnership’s Research Initiative in 2004.

Current State of Reporting Pain Outcomes in Cochrane Reviews of Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Conditions and Considerations for an OMERACT Research Agenda.

OBJECTIVE To assess the current state of reporting of pain outcomes in Cochrane reviews on chronic musculoskeletal painful conditions and to elicit opinions of patients, healthcare practitioners, and methodologists on presenting pain outcomes to patients, clinicians, and policymakers. METHODS We identified all reviews in the Cochrane Library of chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions from Cochrane review groups (Back, Musculoskeletal, and Pain, Palliative, and Supportive Care) that contained a summary of findings (SoF) table. We extracted data on reported pain domains and instruments and conducted a survey and interviews on considerations for SoF tables (e.g., pain domains, presentation of results). RESULTS Fifty-seven SoF tables in 133 Cochrane reviews were eligible. SoF tables reported pain in 56/57, with all presenting results for pain intensity (20 different outcome instruments), pain interference in 8 SoF tables (5 different outcome instruments), and pain frequency in 1 multiple domain instrument. Other domains like pain quality or pain affect were not reported. From the survey and interviews [response rate 80% (36/45)], we derived 4 themes for a future research agenda: pain domains, considerations for assessing truth, discrimination, and feasibility; clinically important thresholds for responder analyses and presenting results; and establishing hierarchies of outcome instruments. CONCLUSION There is a lack of standardization in the domains of pain selected and the manner that pain outcomes are reported in SoF tables, hampering efforts to synthesize evidence. Future research should focus on the themes identified, building partnerships to achieve consensus and develop guidance on best practices for reporting pain outcomes.