Search

The prevalence of bullying worldwide is high (UNESCO, 2018). Over the past decades, many anti-bullying interventions have been developed to remediate this problem. However, we lack insight into for whom these interventions work and what individual intervention components drive the total intervention effects. We conducted a large-scale individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis using data from 39,793 children and adolescents aged five to 20 years (M[subscript age] = 12.58, SD = 2.34) who had participated in quasi-experimental or randomized controlled trials of school-based anti-bullying interventions (i.e., 10 studies testing nine interventions). Multilevel logistic regression analyses showed that anti-bullying interventions significantly reduced self-reported victimization (d = - 0.14) and bullying perpetration (d = - 0.07). Anti-bullying interventions more strongly reduced bullying perpetration in younger participants (i.e., under age 12) and victimization for youth who were more heavily victimized before the intervention. We did not find evidence to show that the inclusion of specific intervention components was related to higher overall intervention effects, except for an iatrogenic effect of non-punitive disciplinary methods--which was strongest for girls. Exploratory analyses suggested that school assemblies and playground supervision may have harmful effects for some, increasing bullying perpetration in youth who already bullied frequently at baseline. In conclusion, school-based anti-bullying interventions are generally effective and work especially well for younger children and youth who are most heavily victimized. Further tailoring of interventions may be necessary to more effectively meet the needs and strengths of specific subgroups of children and adolescents.

Background: While shared decision making (SDM) is advocated for ethical reasons and beneficial outcomes, SDM might also negatively affect patients with incurable cancer. The current study explored whether SDM, and an oncologist training in SDM, are associated with adverse outcomes (i.e., patient anxiety, tension, helplessness/hopelessness, decisional uncertainty, and reduced fighting spirit). Design: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial investigating the effects of SDM interventions in the context of advanced cancer. The relations between observed SDM (OPTION12), specific SDM elements (4SDM), oncologist SDM training, and adverse outcomes were analyzed. We modeled adverse outcomes as a multivariate phenomenon, followed by univariate regressions if significant. Results: In total, 194 patients consulted by 31 oncologists were included. In a multivariate analysis, observed SDM and adverse outcomes were significantly related. More specifically, more observed SDM in the consultation was related to patients reporting more tension (P = 0.002) and more decisional uncertainty (P = 0.004) at 1 wk after the consultation. The SDM element "informing about the options" was especially found to be related to adverse outcomes, specifically to more helplessness/hopelessness (P = 0.002) and more tension (P = 0.016) at 1 wk after the consultation. Whether the patient consulted an oncologist who had received SDM training or not was not significantly related to adverse outcomes. No relations with long-term adverse outcomes were found. Conclusions: It is important for oncologists to realize that for some patients, SDM may temporarily be associated with negative emotions. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and whether and how burden may be minimized for patients. Highlights: Observed shared decision making was related to more tension and uncertainty postconsultation in advanced cancer patients However, training oncologists in SDM did not affect adverse outcomes. Further research is needed to untangle which, when, and how adverse outcomes might occur and how burden may be minimized [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior models have been developed to predict survival for patients with esophagogastric cancer undergoing curative treatment or first‐line chemotherapy (SOURCE models). Comprehensive clinical prediction models for patients with esophagogastric cancer who will receive second‐line chemotherapy or best supportive care are currently lacking. The aim of our study was to develop and internally validate a new clinical prediction model, called SOURCE beyond first‐line, for survival of patients with metastatic esophagogastric adenocarcinoma after failure of first‐line palliative systemic therapy. Patients with unresectable or metastatic esophageal or gastric adenocarcinoma (2015‐2017) who received first‐line systemic therapy (N = 1067) were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Patient, tumor and treatment characteristics at primary diagnosis and at progression of disease were used to develop the model. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was developed through forward and backward selection using Akaike's Information Criterion. The model was internally validated through 10‐fold cross‐validations to assess performance. Model discrimination (C‐index) and calibration (slope and intercept) were used to evaluate performance of the complete and cross‐validated models. The final model consisted of 11 patient tumor and treatment characteristics. The C‐index was 0.75 (0.73‐0.78), calibration slope 1.01 (1.00‐1.01) and calibration intercept 0.01 (0.01‐0.02). Internal cross‐validation of the model showed that the model performed adequately on unseen data: C‐index was 0.79 (0.77‐0.82), calibration slope 0.93 (0.85‐1.01) and calibration intercept 0.02 (−0.01 to 0.06). The SOURCE beyond first‐line model predicted survival with fair discriminatory ability and good calibration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pancreatic adenocarcinoma (PAC) is notorious for its poor survival. The provision of survival scenarios-that is, best-case, typical and worst-case scenarios-could prove valuable to patients and clinicians. This study investigated survival scenarios and how these have changed over a period of 16 years for patients with PAC. Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were used to identify patients with localized and metastatic PAC (2005-2021). Survival scenarios, including best-case, upper-typical, typical (median), lower-typical, and worst-case, were estimated based on survival curve percentiles (p10, p25, p50, p75, and p90). Annual differences were assessed for significance using weighted linear regression analyses. Factors associated with these scenarios were identified through univariable tests. Overall, 14,622 patients with localized and 20,199 with metastatic PAC were included. For patients with localized PAC, the best, upper-typical and typical survival scenarios improved statistically significant with average annual improvement of 1.54 (95%CI: 1.2-1.88), 0.67 (0.56-0.78), and 0.24 (0.19-0.29) months, respectively. For patients with metastatic PAC the best and upper-typical survival scenarios increased statically significantly with annual improvement of 0.28 (0.21-0.34) and 0.06 (0.02-0.09) months, respectively. The best-case and upper-typical scenarios were associated with younger patients, more aggressive disease-focused treatments, fewer comorbidities, and better overall performance status. Over the past 16 years, survival improvements in patients with PAC have been most notable in these scenarios. Although the absolute gains were modest, these results offer encouraging potential for advancements in life-prolonging care for this type of cancer., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Cancer published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of UICC.)