Biomedical subjects

E Kaner

Publications and source records attributed to E Kaner.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2005

Use of complementary and alternative medicine among cancer patients in Israel.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has gained in popularity among cancer patients in recent years. The present study assessed the patterns of CAM use among cancer patients in Israel. The design of the study was descriptive cross-sectional, and data were collected using a 27-item questionnaire. The sample consisted of 111 Israeli cancer patients who were part of a larger European study. Among the participants, past or current CAM use was reported by 32.4% (n=36). The most common therapies used included herbal medicine (22.2%), spiritual therapies (19.4%), visualization and relaxation techniques (16.7% for each), and vitamins/minerals (13.9%). Younger patients with higher education, higher annual income, and previous standard treatment were more likely to use CAM. The mean satisfaction and perceived effectiveness scores were 5.36+/-1.37 and 5.48+/-1.39, respectively, out of a maximum score of 7. The main benefits from CAM reported by patients included improvement in emotional and physical well-being (40% and 34.3%, respectively) and increased ability to fight the disease (31.4%), although 17.1% of patients reported no benefits at all from CAM. The main sources of information about CAM were friends/family and the media. Findings suggest that due to the relatively high use of CAM among cancer patients, this topic should be taken into account in a holistic approach to this patient population.

Adult↗

PubMed1998

Prospective randomized comparison between an open and closed vaginal cuff in abdominal hysterectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare an operative and postoperative course of open vaginal cuff hysterectomy and closed vaginal cuff hysterectomy, and to correlate the length of stay, febrile morbidity and the incidence of pelvic fluid collections to the type of surgery. PARTICIPANTS: One-hundred women scheduled for hysterectomy were prospectively randomized into two groups that underwent either a closed or an open vaginal cuff technique. RESULTS: The open vaginal cuff technique took on average 19% more time than the closed vaginal cuff operation (P < 0.05, t-test). The incidence and size of pelvic fluid collections was significantly higher after the closed vaginal cuff hysterectomy than after the open technique (P < 0.01, t-test). However, the postoperative length of stay, febrile morbidity and the rate of complications were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Both techniques of hysterectomy produced a similar postoperative course despite the fact that the closed vaginal cuff technique resulted in a higher incidence of pelvic fluid collections. Therefore considering a shorter operation time for the closed vaginal cuff hysterectomy, this technique seems slightly preferable.

Adult↗

PubMed1997

The vexed question of authorship: views of researchers in a British medical faculty.

OBJECTIVE: To assess knowledge, views, and behaviour of researchers on criteria for authorship and causes and control of gift authorship. DESIGN: Interview survey of stratified sample of researchers. SETTING: University medical faculty. SUBJECTS: 66 staff (94% response rate) comprising several levels of university academic and research appointments. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Awareness and use of criteria for authorship, views on which contributions to research merit authorship, perceptions about gift authorship and strategies for reducing it, and experiences of authorship problems. RESULTS: 50 (76%) respondents supported criteria for authorship, but few knew about or used available criteria. Of the five people who could specify all three criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, only one knew that all criteria had to be met. Forty one respondents (62%) disagreed with this stipulation. A range of practical and academic contributions were seen as sufficient for authorship. Gift authorship was perceived as common, promoted by pressure to publish, to motivate research teams, and to maintain working relationships. A signed statement justifying authorship and a published statement of the contribution of each author were perceived as practical ways of tackling gift authorship. Most researchers had experienced problems with authorship, most commonly the perception that authorship had been deserved but not awarded (49%). CONCLUSION: There seems to be a gap between editors' criteria for authorship and researchers' practice. Lack of awareness of criteria is only a partial explanation. Researchers give more weight than editors to practical research contributions. Future criteria should be agreed by researchers and not be imposed by editors.

Attitude↗