China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Faked Pain and Loss of Sensation
Published in Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier, Detecting Malingering and Deception, 2020
Harold V. Hall, Joseph G. Poirier
Medical “tests of malingering” in pain-related evaluations have been reported by Greer, Chamliss, and Mackler (2005). Used in various forms for over a century, these authors reported that McBride’s test for symptoms of back pain with radicular symptoms, which involves standing on one leg and flexing the symptomatic leg, and raising it to the chest has no published peer-reviewed studies. The authors note that either or both: (1) refusal to undergo the test or (2) reported pain, supposedly indicates a “non-organic” cause. Such a conclusion likely increases the rate of false positives when some other dynamic may actually be occurring.
Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Algorithms for Cancer Diagnosis
Published in Sandeep Kumar, Anand Nayyar, Anand Paul, Swarm Intelligence and Evolutionary Algorithms in Healthcare and Drug Development, 2019
Bandana Mahapatra, Anand Nayyar
Screening—the process of screening supports in early detection of cancer cells before visibility or appearance of related symptoms. It is always easy to treat an abnormal tissue or cancer at an early stage since by the time symptoms appear the cancer is probably grown spreading out across, making the treatment all the more harder as well as incurable; on the other hand, a doctor suggesting the screening test does not always indicate it is a cancer. People who are suspected suffering from cancer are investigated with medical tests which include blood tests, X-rays, MRIs, biopsy, pap smear, CT scan, endoscopy and much more.
Reporting Guidelines
Published in Abhaya Indrayan, Research Methods for Medical Graduates, 2019
Medical tests are quite commonly used in clinical settings to provide a certain degree of assurance and to confirm the diagnosis for a disease or any other health condition. The term medical test is generic and refers to any method of obtaining additional information on the patient, and includes not just laboratory and imaging tests but also history and examination. Thus, it can include only the signs and symptoms. These tests help in initiating a treatment and in deciding when to modify or stop the treatment. However, the problem is that these tests rarely, if ever, provide infallible results, and the validity of the results depends on a host of factors such as condition of the patient, method of administering the test, inherent qualities of the test, quality of reagents, care in following the recommended procedure, and other such considerations.
Perspectives of patients with chronic pain about a pain science education video
Published in Physiotherapy Theory and Practice, 2022
Erin A. Dannecker, Lisa A. Royse, Daniel Vilceanu, Melissa D. Warne-Griggs, Shady Adib Keleh, Renee Stucky, Tina L. Bloom, David R. Mehr
In general, patients feeling pain have a strong need for their pain to be validated by others. They commonly report that others do not believe they feel pain (Dewar, Gregg, White, and Lander, 2009; Esquibel and Borkan, 2014; Glenton, 2003; Hansson et al., 2011; Holloway, Sofaer-Bennett, and Walker, 2007; Nguyen et al., 2013; Slade, Molloy, and Keating, 2009; Upshur, Bacigalupe, and Luckmann, 2010; Werner and Malterud, 2003), and this perception drives some of them to seek medical tests to expose their “inside” tissue damage (Rhodes, McPhillips-Tangum, Markham, and Klenk, 1999; Stenner et al., 2015). Their belief that tests must confirm a tissue source for their pain may be perpetuated by HCPs. There are many reports that HCPs are skeptical of participants’ pain reports without tests detecting tissue damage (Berg, Arnsten, Sacajiu, and Karasz, 2009; Bergman, Matthias, Coffing, and Krebs, 2013; De Ruddere et al., 2013; Matthias et al., 2010; Slade, Molloy, and Keating, 2012; Tait, Chibnall, and Kalauokalani, 2009; Taylor, Stern, and Kubiszyn, 1984; Weiner and Rudy, 2002).
Overutilization in laboratory medicine: tackling the problem with quality improvement science
Published in Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences, 2021
Daniel R. Beriault, Julie A. Gilmour, Lisa K. Hicks
It has been widely reported that overutilization of medical tests is a common and recurring feature of contemporary health care [1–3]. Estimates of laboratory overutilization typically range from 10–30% of all tests [4,5], but can be as high as 70% for specific tests in localized settings [6]. At the same time, clinical laboratory testing is a growing industry that represents a market value of $86 billion in North America [3,7], and it is estimated to account for 4% of total healthcare expenditure [3]. Amid the COVID-19 crisis and looming economic recession, global growth in laboratory expenditure is expected to increase over the next five years [8]. Paradoxically, many laboratory budgets do not allow for such growth, and in many cases, laboratories are asked to cut costs despite mounting service requests [9]. This places laboratories in a precarious situation, as it is difficult to request a higher budget for new and essential tests without also acknowledging and addressing areas of overutilization in the laboratory. The on-going COVID-19 pandemic has amplified these longstanding challenges. For laboratories to be successful, inappropriate utilization must be addressed.
I wanted it as soon as possible: a qualitative exploration of reactions to access to same-day ART start among participants in San Diego’s ART-NET project
Published in AIDS Care, 2020
K. Rivet Amico, Jessica Miller, Cynthia Schairer, Sara Gianella, Susan J. Little, Martin Hoenigl
Twelve interviewees reported delaying ART, but none of the interviewees delayed for a substantial period of time; most requested to delay start only by days or weeks. When delays in ART start were discussed, two main themes emerged: (1) needing/wanting to confirm insurance or drug access and coverage for long-term use; and (2) noting that the delay in ART initiation gave the participant “time to absorb” the diagnosis. Although some explained important conversations with providers that addressed fears of side effects like those experienced by individuals taking earlier formulations of ART, generally participants discussed confidence in the efficacy of the medications. The timeline for those who had delays appeared largely due to logistics, such as confirming drug coverage or awaiting medical tests results (e.g., genotype test results). Among the few reporting intentional delays of several weeks, discourse centered on wanting to gather their own information. Participants did report concerns about short and long-term side effects of ART medications, but these were more in relation to discussions about early experiences with ART than as reasons for delaying ART start.