PubMed · 10326521
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
T Finlay. Inflammatory bowel diseases.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10326521/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
In this experiment, we evaluated over a longer time period the previously demonstrated effects of a short prism adaptation on hemispatial neglect. We followed two patients (PE and SA), during a period of 5 days (1 day before and 4 days after the prism adaptation procedure), repeatedly measuring their performances on a straight-ahead pointing task and a line bisection task. We also assessed the comparative temporal evolution of the rightward biased egocentric reference frame (as measured by the straight-ahead demonstration) and a classical neuropsychological symptom of neglect, namely the rightward bias observed on line bisection. Firstly, the results showed that prismatic effect could be maintained for 4 days, on the two tasks (separately straight-ahead for PE, line bisection for SA). This long-term effect implies a very profound action of prism adaptation based on active processes and opens large possibilities for clinical applications. Secondly, no correlation was found between the evolution of the performances on the two tasks, neither for patient PE, nor for patient SA (within-subject double-dissociation). Moreover, a double-dissociation between subjects was demonstrated on long-term effects. A new conception has thus to be found to explain the various symptoms manifested in neglect and more investigations have to be performed in order to establish to what extent they can be considered independent. It can be concluded that elucidating the mechanism through which prism adaptation affects neglect could lead to a better understanding of the neglect syndrome.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
PURPOSE: To determine whether making patient-reported cancer needs, quality-of-life (QOL), and psychosocial information available to the health care team, allowing coordinated specifically targeted psychosocial interventions, resulted in reduced cancer needs, improved QOL, and increased satisfaction with care received. METHODS: Self-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial information was collected from 450 people with cancer, using standardized questionnaires via a touch-screen computer. For a randomly chosen two thirds, this information was made available to the health care team who coordinated targeted psychosocial interventions. Information from the remaining one third was not seen. Patients were assessed 2 and 6 months after randomization for changes in their cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial functioning and satisfaction with overall care received. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the two arms with respect to changes in cancer needs, QOL, or psychosocial functioning between the baseline and follow-up assessments, nor with respect to satisfaction with care. However, for the subgroup of patients who were moderately or severely depressed at baseline, there was a significant reduction in depression for the intervention arm relative to the control arm at the 6-month assessment (P =.001). CONCLUSION: Making patient-reported cancer needs, QOL, and psychosocial data available to the health care team at a single consultation together with coordinated psychosocial interventions does not seem to reduce cancer needs nor improve QOL, psychosocial functioning, or satisfaction with the care received. However, identification of patients with moderate or severe levels of depression may be valuable in reducing subsequent levels of depression.