Making decisions about treatment for localized prostate cancer

Objective To describe the decision-making processes used by men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer who were considering treatment. Patients and methods Men newly diagnosed with localized prostate cancer from outpatient urology clinics and urologist's private practices were approached before treatment. Their decision-making processes and information-seeking behaviour was assessed; demographic information was also obtained. Results Of 119 men approached, 108 (90%) were interviewed; 91% reported non-systematic decision processes, with deferral to the doctor, positive and negative recollections of others' cancer experiences, and the pre-existing belief that surgery is a better cancer treatment being most common. For systematic information processing the mean (SD, range) number of items considered was 4.19 (2.28, 0-11), with 57% of men considering four or fewer treatment/medical aspects of prostate cancer. Men most commonly considered cancer stage (59%), urinary incontinence (55%) and impotence (51%) after surgery, and low overall mortality (45%). Uncertainty about probabilities for cure was reported by 43% of men and fear of cancer spread by 37%. Men also described uncertainty about the probabilities of side-effects (27%), decisional uncertainty (25%) and anticipated decisional regret (18%). Overall, 73% of men sought information about prostate cancer from external sources, most commonly the Internet, followed by family and friends. Conclusions In general, men did not use information about medical treatments comprehensively or systematically when making treatment decisions, and their processing of medical information was biased by their previous beliefs about cancer and health. These findings have implications for the provision of informational and decisional support to men considering prostate cancer treatment.

Guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis for general practitioners

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis Australia has been committed to the education of general practitioners and the community with a series of updated guidelines on the management of osteoporosis. Since the last series was published in Australian Family Physician (August 2000), there have been further advances in our understanding of the treatments involved in both prevention of bone loss and the management of established osteoporosis. OBJECTIVE: This article represents updated guidelines for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis to assist GPs identify those women at risk and to review current treatment strategies. DISCUSSION: Osteoporosis and its associated problems are major health concerns in Australia, especially with an aging population. While important principles of management are still considered to be maximising peak bone mass and preventing postmenopausal bone loss, new clinical trial data about drugs such as the bisphosphonates, raloxifene and oestrogen have recently become available and the relative role of various agents is gradually becoming clearer. The use of long term hormone replacement therapy has mixed risks and benefits that requires individual patient counselling.

Doramectin as a treatment for canine and feline demodicosis

Twenty-three dogs and three cats with generalised demodicosis were treated with weekly subcutaneous injections of doramectin at a dose of 600mcg/kg body weight. All dogs and cats responded to treatment by going into remission. The median time until skin scrape results were negative was eight weeks (range five to 20 weeks). Ten dogs remained in remission after the first treatment, five were lost to follow up and seven needed a second course of doramectin or were maintained in remission by monthly injections. Time to when skin scrape results were negative for the cats was two to three weeks with one cat still in remission four years later. The other two cats were euthanased due to their underlying disease whilst only four and six months into remission. Weekly subcutaneous doramectin injections are useful in the treatment of generalised demodicosis in dogs and cats. No systemic side effects of the drug were seen, the injection was painless and no reactions were seen at the sites.

The efficacy of a psychosocial intervention for HIV/AIDS caregiving dyads and individual caregivers: a controlled treatment outcome study

The present study examined the comparative efficacy of intervening at the caregiver/care-recipient dyadic level, versus the individual caregiver level, for caregivers and their care-recipients with HIV/AIDS. Participants were randomly assigned to a Dyad Intervention (DI), a Caregiver Intervention (CI) or Wait List Control group (WLC), and assessed by interview and self-administered scales immediately before treatment and eight weeks later. Participants in the intervention groups also completed a four-month follow-up assessment. Dependent variables included global distress, social adjustment, dyadic adjustment, subjective health status, HIV/AIDS knowledge and target problem ratings. Results showed that caregivers in the DI group showed greater improvement from pre- to post-treatment on global distress, dyadic adjustment and target problems than the CI and WLC caregivers. The CI and DI caregivers showed greater improvement than the WLC group on all dependent variables except social adjustment. Care-recipients in the DI group improved significantly from pre- to post-treatment on dyadic adjustment, social adjustment, knowledge, subjective health status and Target Problem 1, whereas the CI and WLC care-recipients failed to improve on any of these measures. The treatment gains made by the DI caregivers and care-recipients on most dependent variables were maintained at a four-month follow-up. Findings support a reciprocal determinism approach to the process of dyadic adjustment and suggest that intervening at the caregiver/care-recipient level may produce better outcomes for both the caregiver and care-recipient than intervening at the individual caregiver level.