Search

Aims Underestimation of cardiovascular risk may interfere with prevention of cardiovascular diseases (CVDs). We investigate whether general health and family history of myocardial infarction (MI) are associated with underestimation of perceived cardiovascular risk, and if the participants' calculated risk modifies that association. Methods and results The analysis sample consisted of 526 individuals, 50-64 years old, from a population-based cohort study. Information on general health (poor/fairly good, good, and very good/excellent), family history of MI, and self-perceived risk relative to others of similar age and sex were collected though a web-based survey. Participants were categorized into underestimation (n = 162, 31%), accurate estimation (n = 222, 42%), and overestimation (n = 142, 27%) of cardiovascular risk by comparing calculated Systematic Coronary Risk Estimation (SCORE) with self-perceived risk. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for underestimation vs. accurate estimation of cardiovascular risk were computed using logistic regression (n = 384). Very good general health (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.10-6.16) and lack of family history (OR 2.27, 95% CI 1.24-4.18) were associated with underestimation of cardiovascular risk. The associations were modified by the participants' calculated risk level; the association was stronger for high-risk individuals; without family history OR 22.57 (95% CI 6.17-82.54); with very good/excellent health OR 15.78 (95% CI 3.73-66.87). Conclusion A good general health and the lack of family CVD history can obscure the presence of other risk factors and lead to underestimation of cardiovascular risk, especially for high-risk individuals. It is, therefore, crucial to address the fact that the development of CV disease may be silent and multifactorial.

The premise of Open Science is that research and medical management will progress faster if data and knowledge are openly shared. The value of Open Science is nowhere more important and appreciated than in the rare disease (RD) community. Research into RDs has been limited by insufficient patient data and resources, a paucity of trained disease experts, and lack of therapeutics, leading to long delays in diagnosis and treatment. These issues can be ameliorated by following the principles and practices of sharing that are intrinsic to Open Science. Here, we describe how the RD community has adopted the core pillars of Open Science, adding new initiatives to promote care and research for RD patients and, ultimately, for all of medicine. We also present recommendations that can advance Open Science more globally.

Children with cancer suffer from symptoms and burdensome treatments that often cause distress to children and their families. Mortality is one aspect of cancer diagnosis, while another is the quality of life and well-being during and after the treatment. By supporting children's communication, self-efficacy and coping ability in the care situation, children are given the possibilities for increased independence and participation and are allowed to develop an influence over their care. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of an adult-facilitated pretend play intervention for children with cancer. Five children with ongoing treatment for cancer were invited to a play intervention that consisted of six to eight sessions of structured pretend play aimed at increasing participation, independence, and well-being. A mixed method design was used to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of the play intervention. Measures were collected before and after interventions, and in conjunction with every play session. Results suggest that the children enjoyed the play intervention. Findings indicate small improvements regarding self-efficacy in care situations and equal or increased quality of life for participants. A main finding was that no adverse events or increased worrying was reported in conjunction with play sessions. Therefore, the intervention is regarded as safe, feasible, and acceptable as reported by participants and their primary caregivers and a possible means of increasing participation and independence in children with a cancer diagnosis.

Forskningsprogrammet "Mind the risk: Den genetiska riskinformationens etik för individ och samhälle" tilldelades anslag från Stiftelsen Riksbankens Jubileumsfond 2013. Målet var att analysera etiska aspekter av genetisk riskinformation inom vården: ett fält som på senare år utvecklats i rasande takt. I dag kan både enskilda och sjukvården ta reda på genetiska risker och förutsättningar. Forskare från flera länder har inom programmet analyserat debatten och hur patienter, sjukvårdspersonal och anhöriga ser på etiska dilemman inom den nya genetiska medicinen. Detta är programmets slutrapport.

Purpose: This study aims to determine research participants’ preferences for receiving genetic risk information when participating in a scientific study that uses genome sequencing. Methods: A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was sent to 650 research participants (response rate 60.5%). Four attributes were selected for the questionnaire: type of disease, disease penetrance probability, preventive opportunity, and effectiveness of the preventive measure. Panel mixed logit models were used to determine attribute level estimates and the heterogeneity in preferences. Relative importance of the attribute and the predicted uptake for different information scenarios were calculated from the estimates. In addition, this study estimates predicted uptake for receiving genetic risk information in different scenarios. Results: All characteristics influenced research participants’ willingness to receive genetic risk information. The most important characteristic was the effectiveness of the preventive opportunity. Predicted uptake ranged between 28% and 98% depending on what preventive opportunities and levels of effectiveness were presented. Conclusion: Information about an effective preventive measure was most important for participants. They valued that attribute twice as much as the other attributes. Therefore, when there is an effective preventive measure, risk communication can be less concerned with the magnitude of the probability of developing disease.

Background There is increasing interest in involving patient preferences for benefits and risks in regulatory decision making. Therefore, it is essential to identify patient perspectives regarding the value of patient preference information (PPI). Objectives The aim of this study was to explore how patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) value the use of PPI in regulatory decision making regarding medical products. Methods Regulators and patients with RA were interviewed to gather initial insights into opinions on the use of PPI in regulatory decisions regarding medical products. The interviews were used to draft and validate the interview guide for focus groups with patients with RA. Participants were purposively sampled in collaboration with the Swedish Rheumatism Association in Stockholm and Uppsala. Each focus group consisted of three to six patients (18 in total). All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using content analysis. Results According to the participants, PPI could lead to regulators considering patients’ needs, lifestyles and well-being when making decisions. PPI was important in all stages of the medical product lifecycle. Participants reported that, when participating in a preference study, it is important to be well-informed about the use of the study and the development, components, administration, and risks related to the medical products. Conclusions Patients thought PPI could be valuable to consider in regulatory decisions. It is essential for patients to be well-informed when asked for their preferences. Research on information materials to inform patients in preference studies is needed to increase the value of PPI in regulatory decision making.

In the era of patient-centered medicine, shared decision-making (SDM) - in which healthcare professionals and patients exchange information and preferences and jointly reach a decision - has emerged as the gold standard model for the provision of formal healthcare. Indeed, in many geographical settings, patients are frequently invited to participate in choices concerning the design and delivery of their medical management. From a clinical perspective, benefits of this type of patient involvement encompass, for example, enhanced treatment satisfaction, improved medical compliance, better health outcomes, and maintained or promoted quality of life. Yet, although the theory and enactment of SDM in healthcare are well-described in the literature [1-3], comparatively less attention has been devoted to contextualizing questions relating to if, when, and how to include patients in decisions within medical research. In this context, patient involvement would be expected to be potentially relevant for and applicable to a wide range of activities and processes, from the identification of research priorities and development of grant applications, to the design of patient information and consent procedures, formulation of interventions, identification and recruitment of study sample populations, feasibility of a clinical trial, identification, selection, and specification of endpoints and outcomes in clinical trials and observational studies, data collection and analysis, and dissemination of results. To this end, 45 clinicians, healthcare professionals, researchers, patients, caregivers, and representatives from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies from 15 different countries met to discuss the level of involvement of patients with neuromuscular diseases, specifically in the following settings of medical research for neuromuscular diseases: i) registries and biobanks; ii) clinical trials; and iii) regulatory processes. In this report, we present summaries of the

Objective It is well known that research participants want to receive genetic risk information that is about high risks, serious diseases and potential preventive measures. The aim of this study was to explore, by qualitative means, something less well known: how do healthy research participants themselves make sense of genetic risk information? Method A phenomenographic approach was chosen to explore research participants’ understanding and assessment of genetic risk. We conducted four focus-group (N = 16) interviews with participants in a research programme designed to identify biomarkers for cardiopulmonary disease. Results Among the research participants, we found four ways of understanding genetic risk: as a binary concept, as an explanation, as revealing who I am (knowledge of oneself) and as affecting life ahead. Conclusion Research participants tend to understand genetic risk as a binary concept. This does not necessarily imply a misunderstanding of, or an irrational approach to, genetic risk. Rather, it may have a heuristic function in decision-making. Practical implications Risk communication may be enhanced by tailoring the communication to the participants’ own lay conceptions. For example, researchers and counselors should address risk in binary terms, maybe looking out for how individual participants search for threshold figures.