METHODS: A survey of 1000 patients and accompanying relatives, visiting general surgical and obstetrics and gynaecology clinics for matters unrelated to FI, was conducted at University Malaya Medical Centre between January 2009 and February 2010. A follow-up regression analysis of the 83 patients who had FI, to identify factors associated with health-seeking behaviour, was performed. Variables identified through univariate analysis were subjected to multivariate analysis to determine independence. Reasons for not seeking treatment were also analysed.
RESULTS: Only eight patients (9.6%) had sought medical treatment. On univariate analysis, the likelihood of seeking treatment was significantly higher among patients who had more severe symptoms (OR 30.0, p=0.002), had incontinence to liquid stool (OR 3.83, p=0.002) or when there was an alteration to lifestyle (OR: 17.34; p<0.001). Nevertheless, the only independently-associated variable was alteration in lifestyle. Common reasons given for not seeking treatment was that the condition did not affect patients' daily activities (88.0%), "social taboo" (5.3%) and "other" reasons (6.7%).
CONCLUSIONS: Lifestyle alteration is the main driver of healthseeking behaviour in FI. However, the majority do not seek treatment. Greater public and physician-awareness on FI and available treatment options is needed.
METHODS: A systematic search for studies concerning the perception of financial burden among cancer patients and their families was conducted. Several electronic resources such as Medline, Elsevier (Science Direct), Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, CINAHL and Scopus (SciVerse) were searched. Additionally, manual search through indices citation was also thoroughly utilized. The main outcome of interest was the prevalence of perceived financial hardship among cancer patients and their families. Studies reported only the cost of cancer treatment and qualitative studies were excluded. Our search was limited to articles that were published from 2003 to 2013.
RESULT: Ten studies were included in this review and with a majority originating from high-income countries. The prevalence of the financial burden perception was reported between 14.8 and 78.8 %. The most frequent and significant risk factor reported associated with the perception of financial difficulty was the households with low income. Discontinuation of treatment and poverty were conversely the important consequences of financial burden in cancer patients and their families.
CONCLUSION: Evidently, cancer is a long-term illness that requires a high financial cost, and a significant number of cancer patients and families struggle with financial difficulty. Identifying such groups with a high risk of facing financial difficulty is a crucial measure to ensure safety nets are readily available for these targeted population.
METHODS: Patients referred to the Endoscopic Unit for colonoscopy were recruited for the study. Stool samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and tested for occult blood with both gFOBT and FIT. Dietary restriction was not imposed. To assess the validity of either tests or in combination to detect a neoplasm or cancer in the colon, their false positive rates, their sensitivity (true positive rate) and the specificity (true negative rate) were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were analysed. The sensitivity for picking up any neoplasia was 53% for FIT, 40% for gFOBT and 23.3% for the combination. The sensitivities for picking up only carcinoma were 77.8% , 66.7% and 55.5%, respectively. The specificity for excluding any neoplasia was 91.7% for FIT, 74% for gFOBT and 94.5% for a combination, whereas for excluding only carcinomas they were 84%, 73.4% and 93.6%. Of the 69 with normal colonoscopic findings, FOBT was positive in 4.3%, 23.2 %and 2.9% for FIT, gFOBT, or combination of tests respectively.
CONCLUSION: FIT is the recommended method if we are to dispense with dietary restriction in our patients because of its relatively low-false positivity and better sensitivity and specificity rates.
METHODS: Data on patient costs were collected prospectively in the first year following diagnosis by using a self-administered questionnaire and telephone interviews at three time points for all four stages of colorectal cancer. The patient cost data consisted of direct out-of-pocket payments for medical-related expenses such as hospital stays, tests and treatment and for non-medical items such as travel and food associated with hospital visits. In addition, indirect cost data related to the loss of productivity of the patient and caregiver(s) was assessed. The patient's perceived level of financial difficulty and types of coping strategy were also explored.
RESULT: The total 1-year patient cost (both direct and indirect) increased with the stage of colorectal cancer: RM 6544.5 (USD 2045.1) for stage I, RM 7790.1 (USD 2434.4) for stage II, RM 8799.1 (USD 2749.7) for stage III and RM 8638.2 (USD 2699.4) for stage IV. The majority of patients perceived paying for their healthcare as somewhat difficult. The most frequently used financial coping strategy was a combination of current income and savings.
CONCLUSION: Despite the high subsidisation in public hospitals, the management of colorectal cancer imposes a substantial financial burden on patients and their families. Moreover, the majority of patients and their families perceive healthcare payments as difficult. Therefore, it is recommended that policy- and decision-makers should further consider some financial protection strategies and support for cancer treatment because cancer is a very costly and chronic disease.
METHOD: This is a prospective, observational study. The preintervention Sodergren scores of subjects with internal haemorrhoidal disease were recorded and blinded to the surgeon in charge. Sodergren scores of subjects in the two arms were unblinded and compared at the end of the study.
RESULTS: The results for 290 patients were available for final analysis. The median scores of those offered surgery and those who underwent successful rubber band ligation differed significantly [4 (interquartile range 3-10) vs 0 (interquartile range 0-4), P = 0.001]. In predicting treatment, the Sodergren score had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.735 (95% CI 0.675-0.795).
CONCLUSION: There is a significant difference in scores between patients who were offered surgery and patients with successful rubber band ligation. Our study suggests that the Sodergren score has an acceptable discrimination in predicting the need for surgery in internal haemorrhoidal disease. We propose that patients with a Sodergren score of 6 or more be considered for upfront surgery. This score could potentially be used to standardize outcomes of future haemorrhoid trials.