841 resultados para Jeanne Dielman


Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

par Madame J[eanne] M[arie] B[ouvier] de La Mothe-Guion

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

Background. Each year thousands of people participate in mass health screenings for diabetes and hypertension, but little is known about whether or not those who receive higher than normal screening results obtain the recommended follow-up medical care, or what barriers they perceive to doing so. ^ Methods. Study participants were recruited from attendees at three health fairs in low-income neighborhoods in Houston, Texas Potential participants had higher than normal blood pressure (> 90/140 mgHg) or blood glucose readings (100 mm/dL fasting or 140 mm/dL random). Study participants were called at one, two, and three months and asked if they had obtained follow-up medical care; those who had not yet obtained follow-up care were asked to identify barriers. Using a modified Aday-Andersen model of health service access, the independent variables were individual and community characteristics and self-perceived need. The dependent variable was obtaining follow-up care, with barriers to care a secondary outcome. ^ Results. Eighty-two study participants completed the initial questionnaire and 59 participants completed the study protocol. Forty-eight participants (59% under an intent to treat analysis, 81% of those completing the study protocol) obtained follow-up care. Those who completed the initial questionnaire and who reported a regular source of care were significantly more likely to obtain follow-up care. For those who completed the study protocol the relationship between having a regular source of care and obtaining follow-up care approached but did not reach significance. For those who completed the initial questionnaire, self-described health status, when examined as a binary variable (good, very good, excellent, or poor, fair, not sure) was associated with obtaining follow-up care for those who rated their health as poor, fair, or not sure. While the group who completed the study protocol did not reach statistical significance, the same relationship between self-described health status of poor, fair, or not sure and obtaining follow-up care was present. The participants who completed the study protocol and described their blood pressure as OK or a little high were statistically more likely to get follow-up care than those who described it as high or very high. All those on oral medications for hypertension (12/12) and diabetes (4/4) who were told to obtain follow-up care did so; however, the small sample size allows this correlation to be of statistical significance only for those treating hypertension. ^ The variables significantly associated with obtaining follow-up care were having a regular source of care, self-described health status of poor, fair, or not sure, self-described blood pressure of OK or a little high, and taking medication for blood pressure. ^ At the follow-up telephone calls, 34 participants identified barriers to care; cost was a significant barrier reported by 16 participants, and 10 reported that they didn’t have time because they were working long hours after Hurricane Ike. ^ The study included the offer of access assistance: information about nearby safety-net providers, a visit to or information from the Health Information Center at their Neighborhood Center location, or information from Project Safety Net (a searchable web site for safety net providers). Access assistance was offered at the health fairs and then again at follow-up telephone calls to those who had not yet obtained follow-up care. Of the 48 participants who reported obtaining follow-up care, 26 said they had made use of the access assistance to do so. The use of access assistance was associated with being Hispanic, not having health insurance or a regular source of care, and speaking Spanish. It was also associated with being worried about blood glucose. ^ Conclusion. Access assistance, as a community enabling characteristic, may be useful in aiding low-income people in obtaining medical care. ^

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The effect of caffeine consumption on mortality was evaluated in a historical cohort study of 10064 hypertensive individuals participating in the Hypertension Detection and Follow-Up Program (HDFP) from 1973 to 1979. The study cohort was stratified into caffeine consumption groups (none, low, medium and high) based on their total level of caffeine intake from beverages (coffee and tea) and certain medications at the One-year follow-up home visit. Stratification was also made by sex, race, type of care and age. The total relative risks (RRs) when computed across strata for each caffeine consumer group (low, medium and high) were not significantly different when compared to the noncaffeine consumer group for all-cause or cause-specific mortality rates. The point estimates and 95 per cent confidence intervals for relative risks of all-cause mortality when compared to nonconsumers were as follows: Low = 0.82 (0.65-1.03), Medium: = 0.82 (0.62-1.82) and High = 0.90 (0.63-1.28). For all sex, race combinations there was an increase in the per cent of current smokers within each caffeine consumer group as the level of caffeine consumption increased. Cigarette smoking was an important confounder correlated with caffeine consumption and associated with mortality in this cohort. When confounding by cigarette smoking was adjusted for in the analysis, no association was found between the level of caffeine consumption and all-cause or cause-specific mortality. ^

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Resumo:

The genetic factors that influence bladder cancer clinical outcomes are largely unknown. In this clinical outcomes study, I assessed genetic variations in the Wnt/β-catenin stem-cell pathway genes for association with recurrence and progression. A total of 230 SNPS in 40 genes from the Wnt/β-catenin pathway were genotyped in 419 histologically confirmed non-muscle invasive bladder cancer cases. Several significant associations were observed in the clinical outcomes analysis. Under the dominant model WNT8B: rs4919464 (HR: 1.55, 95% CI: 1.17-2.06, P=2.2x10-3) and WNT8B: rs3793771 (HR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.09-1.62, P=4.6x10-3 ) were statistically significantly associated with an increase risk of recurrence while two other variants, APC2: rs11668593 (HR: 2.50, 95% CI: 1.43-4.35, P=1.2x10-3) and LRP5 : rs312778 (HR: 1.81, 95% CI: 1.23-2.65, P=2.7x10-3), were significantly associated with recurrence risk under the recessive model of inheritance. Four SNPs in the recessive model were associated with an increased risk of progression (AXIN2: rs1544427, LRP5: rs312778, AXIN1: rs370681, AXIN1: rs2301522). LRP5: rs312778 had the most significant increased risk of progression with a 2.68 (95% CI: 1.52-4.72, P=6.4x10-4)-fold increased risk. Stratification analysis based on treatment regimen (transurethral resection (TUR) and Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG)) was also performed. Individuals with at least one variant in AXIN2: rs2007085 were found to have a 2.09 (95% CI: 1.24-3.52, P=5.4x10-3) -fold increased risk of recurrence in those that received TUR only, and no statistically significant effect was seen in those that received BCG. Individuals who received TUR with at least one variant in LEF1: rs10516550 were found to have a 2.26 (95% CI: 1.22-4.18, P=9.7x10-3)-fold increase risk of recurrence and no statistically significant effect was found in individuals who received BCG. Also, the recessive model of LRP6: rs2302684 in TUR only treatment was shown to have a 1.95 (95%CI: 1.18-3.21, P=8.8x10 -3)-fold increased risk of recurrence, and a suggested protective effect associated with a (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.51-1.37, P=0.468) decreased risk of recurrence. Together, these findings implicate the Wnt/β-catenin stem-cell pathway as playing a role in bladder cancer clinical outcomes and have important implications for personalization of future treatment regimens. ^

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador:

Relevância:

10.00% 10.00%

Publicador: