Search

Abstract Background Many breastfeeding women seek medical care from general practitioners (GPs) for various health problems and GPs may consider prescribing medicines in these consultations. Prescribing medicines to a breastfeeding mother may lead to untimely cessation of breastfeeding or a breastfeeding mother may be denied medicines due to the possible risk to her infant, both of which may lead to unwanted consequences. Information on factors governing GPs' decision-making and their views in such situations is limited. Methods GPs providing shared maternity care at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne were surveyed using an anonymous postal survey to determine their knowledge, attitudes and practices on medicines and breastfeeding, in 2007/2008 (n = 640). Content analysis of their response to a question concerning decision-making about the use of medicine for a breastfeeding woman was conducted. A thematic network was constructed with basic, organising and global themes. Results 335 (52%) GPs responded to the survey, and 253 (76%) provided information on the last time they had to decide about the use of medicine for a breastfeeding woman. Conditions reported were mastitis (24%), other infections (24%) and depressive disorders (21%). The global theme that emerged was "complexity of managing risk in prescribing for breastfeeding women". The organising themes were: certainty around decision-making; uncertainty around decision-making; need for drug information to be available, consistent and reliable; joint decision-making; the vulnerable "third party" and infant feeding decision. Decision-making is a spectrum from a straight forward decision, such as treatment of mastitis, to a complicated one requiring multiple inputs and consideration. GPs use more information seeking and collaboration in decision-making when they perceive the problem to be more complex, for example, in postnatal depression. Conclusion GPs feel that prescribing medicines for breastfeeding women is a contentious issue. They manage the risk of prescribing by gathering information and assessing the possible effects on the breastfed infant. Without evidence-based information, they sometimes recommend cessation of breastfeeding unnecessarily.

Abstract Background Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice. Methods General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level. Results Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing. Conclusions A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.

Objective To evaluate the evidence from randomised trials for the efficacy and safety of phytotherapeutic interventions in the management of biochemically recurrent (BCR) prostate cancer, indicated by prostate-specific antigen (PSA) progression, numbers progressing to/time to initiation of androgen-deprivation therapy or salvage therapy. Patients and Methods MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), AMED (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched. Clinical trials investigating phytotherapeutic interventions as dietary supplements or dietary components, including multi-component herbal formulations, in men with BCR prostate cancer were located. Eight of nine authors contacted for further information responded. Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias assessment tool. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed. Results Of 23 full-text articles assessed for eligibility, five met the criteria for inclusion. Two studies were placebo controlled; two were active control trials; and one a high-/low-dose trial. The interventions were administered as isolated phytochemicals (sulphoraphane), phytotherapeutic extracts [Pomi-T (pomegranate, turmeric, green tea and broccoli sprout extract), soy, lycopene, and POMx (pomegranate extract)], or plant-derived dietary items (soy and lycopene). All studies found serum PSA levels to stabilise, decrease or rise more slowly in a significant number of men, and three studies reported stabilising or lengthening of PSA-doubling time. Studies were generally of good quality, but sample sizes were predominantly small, and durations short. Conclusions High-quality studies in this area are lacking. Sulphoraphane, lycopene, soy isoflavones, POMx, and Pomi-T are safe and well tolerated. There is limited evidence that they can affect PSA dynamics. No recommendation can be made for the use of these agents in managing prostate cancer morbidity and mortality until high-quality, fully powered studies are available. Recommendations are made for improving reproducibility and translation of findings with regard to study population, study endpoints, design, and the reporting of phytotherapeutic interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To evaluate the evidence from randomized controlled trials ( RCTs) on the efficacy and safety of soy/isoflavones in men with prostate cancer ( PCa) or with a clinically identified risk of PCa., Patients and Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Allied and Complementary Medicine ( AMED), the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ( CINAHL) and the Cochrane Library databases were searched., We identified RCTs investigating soy/soy isoflavones as dietary supplements or dietary components for the secondary prevention or treatment of PCa in men with PCa or with a clinically identified risk of developing PCa. Studies of multi-component formulations were excluded., Six authors were contacted for further information for the meta-analyses., Methodological quality was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's risk-of- bias tool., The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews was followed., Results Of the eight RCTs that met the inclusion criteria, six restricted recruitment to men diagnosed with PCa, while two included men with clinically identified risk of PCa., A large degree of heterogeneity was found with respect to dosages and preparations of soy/isoflavones administered., Most studies had small sample sizes and were of short duration., The risk of bias was assessed as low in all assessed studies except for one, for which the risk of bias was unclear. Meta-analyses of the two studies including men with identified risk of PCa found a significant reduction in PCa diagnosis after administration of soy/soy isoflavones (risk ratio = 0.49, 95% CI 0.26, 0.95)., Meta-analyses indicated no significant differences between groups for prostate-specific antigen ( PSA) levels or sex steroid endpoints (sex hormone-binding globulin [ SHBG], testosterone, free testosterone, oestradiol and dihydrotestosterone)., Conclusions The results of a meta-analysis of two studies suggest there may be support for epidemiological findings of a potential role for soy/soy isoflavones in PCa risk reduction; however, a clear understanding of the impact of soy/isoflavones on PSA, total testosterone, free testosterone and SHBG levels in men with, or at identified risk of, PCa could not be derived from these data, given the limitations of sample size and study duration in individual trials., A good safety profile is shown by this meta-analysis for soy/soy isoflavones supplementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many breastfeeding women seek medical care from general practitioners (GPs) for various health problems and GPs may consider prescribing medicines in these consultations. Prescribing medicines to a breastfeeding mother may lead to untimely cessation of breastfeeding or a breastfeeding mother may be denied medicines due to the possible risk to her infant, both of which may lead to unwanted consequences. Information on factors governing GPs' decision-making and their views in such situations is limited. Methods: GPs providing shared maternity care at the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne were surveyed using an anonymous postal survey to determine their knowledge, attitudes and practices on medicines and breastfeeding, in 2007/2008 (n = 640). Content analysis of their response to a question concerning decision-making about the use of medicine for a breastfeeding woman was conducted. A thematic network was constructed with basic, organising and global themes. Results: 335 (52%) GPs responded to the survey, and 253 (76%) provided information on the last time they had to decide about the use of medicine for a breastfeeding woman. Conditions reported were mastitis (24%), other infections (24%) and depressive disorders (21%). The global theme that emerged was "complexity of managing risk in prescribing for breastfeeding women". The organising themes were: certainty around decision-making; uncertainty around decision-making; need for drug information to be available, consistent and reliable; joint decision-making; the vulnerable "third party" and infant feeding decision. Decision-making is a spectrum from a straight forward decision, such as treatment of mastitis, to a complicated one requiring multiple inputs and consideration. GPs use more information seeking and collaboration in decision-making when they perceive the problem to be more complex, for example, in postnatal depression. Conclusion: GPs feel that prescribing medicines for breastfeeding women is a contentious issue. They manage the risk of prescribing by gathering information and assessing the possible effects on the breastfed infant. Without evidencebased information, they sometimes recommend cessation of breastfeeding unnecessarily. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]