MATERIALS AND METHODS: The authors conducted literature search in three databases (PubMed, Cochrane, and Clinical Key) on July 15th, 2020. The keywords were ("Head and Neck Mucosal Malignancy" OR "Head and Neck Cancer") AND ("Management" OR "Head and Neck Surgery") AND ("COVID-19" OR "Pandemic"). The inclusion criteria were cancer in adult patients, published from 2020 in English, and with available access to full text. The exclusion criteria were comments, letters, and case reports. The articles were critically appraised using the Centre of Evidence-based Medicine (CEBM), University of Oxford and Duke University. The literature search strategy is illustrated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and meta-analysis (PRISMA) flow diagram.
RESULTS: A total of 150 articles were identified; 21 articles were gathered from Clinical Key, 33 from Cochrane, and 96 from Pubmed. After screening abstracts and reviewing the full text, the authors determined five articles met the inclusion criteria. There are several key points of head and neck cancer management in the COVID-19 pandemic. Head and neck cancer management is considered a high-risk procedure; the clinician should use proper personal protective equipment. Before operative treatment, all patients should undergo a PCR test 14 days before surgery. In diagnosing head and neck cancer, laryngoscopy should be considered carefully; and cytology should be preferred instead. Medically Necessary, Time-sensitive (MeNTS) score is recommended for risk stratification and surgery prioritization; it has three domains: procedure, disease, and patient. However, it is not specified to head and neck cancer; therefore, it should be combined with other references. Stanford University Head and Neck Surgery Division Department of Otolaryngology made surgery prioritization into three groups, urgent (should be operated immediately), can be postponed for 30 days, and can be postponed for 30- 90 days. Some urgent cases and should be operated on immediately include cancers involving the airways, decreased renal function, and metastases. For chemoradiation decision to delay or continue should refer to the goal of treatment, current oncologic status, and tolerance to radiation. In terms of patient's follow up, telephone consultation should be maximized.
CONCLUSION: MeNTS scoring combined with Guideline from Department of Otolaryngology at Stanford University prioritizing criteria can be helpful in decision making of stratifying Risk and prioritizing surgery in head and neck cancer management.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we tested the employment of a free and widely used social and communication app to help older adults with diabetes manage their distress and glycemic control. We also compared the effectiveness of the app with 2 other methods, namely telephone and conventional health education, and determined which subgroup experiences the most effects within each intervention.
METHODS: Adults aged ≥50 years with type 2 diabetes were recruited from Southern Taiwan (N=231) and were allocated to different 3-month interventions. Informed consent was obtained at the Ministry of Science and Technology and approved by the National Cheng Kung University Hospital Institutional Review Board (No. A-ER-102-425).
RESULTS: Participants in the mobile-based group had significant reductions in hemoglobin A1c compared with the telephone-based and usual care groups (mean changes of -0.4%, 0.1%, and 0.03%, respectively; P=.02). Diabetes-specific distress decreased to a greater extent in the mobile-based group compared to the other 2 groups (mean changes of -5.16, -3.49, and -2.44, respectively, P=.02). Subgroup analyses further revealed that the effects on reducing blood glucose levels in the social and communication app groups were especially evident in patients with lower distress scores, and diabetes-related distress was especially evident in participants who were younger than 60 years or had higher educational levels.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study inform more flexible use of social and communication apps with in-person diabetes education and counselling.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify, review, map, and summarize findings from different types of literature reviews on the use of mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve the uptake of cancer screening.
METHODS: The review methodology was guided by the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). Ovid MEDLINE, PyscINFO, and Embase were searched from inception to May 2021. The eligible criteria included reviews that focused on studies of interventions that used mobile phone devices to promote and deliver cancer screening and described the effectiveness or implementation of mHealth intervention outcomes. Key data fields such as study aims, types of cancer, mHealth formats, and outcomes were extracted, and the data were analyzed to address the objective of the review.
RESULTS: Our initial search identified 1981 titles, of which 12 (0.61%) reviews met the inclusion criteria (systematic reviews: n=6, 50%; scoping reviews: n=4, 33%; rapid reviews: n=1, 8%; narrative reviews: n=1, 8%). Most (57/67, 85%) of the interventions targeted breast and cervical cancer awareness and screening uptake. The most commonly used mHealth technologies for increasing cancer screening uptake were SMS text messages and telephone calls. Overall, mHealth interventions increased knowledge about screening and had high acceptance among participants. The likelihood of achieving improved uptake-related outcomes increased when interventions used >1 mode of communication (telephone reminders, physical invitation letters, and educational pamphlets) together with mHealth.
CONCLUSIONS: mHealth interventions increase cancer screening uptake, although multiple modes used in combination seem to be more effective.
Data Sources and Methods: A retrospective study based on telephone calls reported on poisoning caused by pharmaceutical products undertaken by the National Poisoning Centre (NPC) in Penang (Malaysia) was used as the basis of this study covering the period between 2010 and 2015. The study included the mode and type of poisoning, exposure routes as well as the incidence locations.
Results: A total of 10,998 cases were examined, finding that females represented 5,899 cases (53.6%) being intoxicated more frequently compared to the number of males, 3,839 (34.9%). The age group of poisoning cases ranged between 20 and 29 years representing 2,579 (23.4%) of reported cases. The common mode of poisoning was attributed to suicide 5,203 (47.3%) from among the 10,998 cases and the highest poisoning agents reported were from the psychiatric group of pharmaceutical products of 2,287 (21%).
Conclusion and Implications: These findings indicate a rising trend of suicidal poisoning attempts between 2013 and 2015, which emphasizes the need for more stringent and effective enforcement protocols to limit the rising incidence of poisoning. As such, analyzing the trends in poisoning in a particular zone periodically could help health policy-makers to develop management policies and prevention strategies.