PubMed · 8144712
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
L Laster. 1994-04-15. Oh, yeah.. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548331.1994.11443007
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
UNLABELLED: The efficacy of a treatment is primarily based on objective criteria, such as mortality and morbidity. Besides these criteria, the interest in measuring quality of life (QOL) in relation to health care has increased in recent years. Although the concept of patients' QOL is inherently subjective, and definitions vary, it can be assessed on a basis of 3 major components: physical condition, psychological well-being, and social activities. The basic requirements of QOL assessments are: multidimensional construct, reliability, validity, sensitivity, responsiveness, appropriateness to question or use, and practical utility. The instruments to assess QOL can be disease specific or generic, depending on the context. In 1991 a prospective and systematic evaluation of QOL in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients was started at the University of Bonn: psychological profile and patient acceptance were assessed in 57 consecutive patients using a specifically designed questionnaire. The results of this pilot study demonstrated that the acceptance of the ICD was remarkably high. Restrictions on driving a vehicle may have a substantial impact on QOL in patients with ICDs. A specifically designed questionnaire was addressed to 47 European national delegates in order to determine their present practices and criteria utilized when advising driving restrictions to patients after ICD implantation. Of the 39 (83%) respondents, 22 (56%) cardiologists advised all patients to abstain from driving--13 (33%) advising permanent abstinence, while 26 (67%) recommended temporary driving abstinence for periods of 3-18 months (mean 9 +/- 4 months). Despite medical advice not to drive, one third of the patients resume driving; half of the patients resumed driving after 6 months, with the vast majority driving within 12 months after ICD surgery. Two patients experienced ICD discharges while driving, but no motor vehicle accident occurred. Another patient had a motor vehicle collision with a fatal outcome, which was not caused by loss of consciousness or ICD discharge. CONCLUSIONS: (1) Fatal accidents or ICD discharges while driving are a rare finding in ICD patients. (2) About half of the physicians always advise their patients to cease driving for a period of 9 +/- 4 months. Despite this medical advice, the majority of the patients resume driving within 6 months of ICD implantation. (3) Criteria used in advising driving abstinence are not uniform among physicians.
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
OBJECTIVE: To determine current expert opinion and recommendations regarding the controversial issue of the use of growth hormone (GH) to treat short children who do not have classical GH deficiency (non-GHD children). STUDY DESIGN: Analysis of a national survey mailed to 534 US physician experts on the management of short stature (pediatric endocrinologists) with a response rate of 81.3%. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The experts' GH treatment recommendations. RESULTS: The physicians reported that approximately 58% of their current patients undergoing GH therapy have classical GH deficiency, while 42% have other conditions. The proportion of physicians who recommended GH treatment of short non-GHD children ranged from 1% to 74% over all case scenarios presented. The likelihood of GH being recommended depended on the physiological growth characteristics of the child (ie, the child's height, growth rate, and predicted adult height), contingency factors (ie, strong family wishes or a reduction in GH cost), and physician beliefs (ie, the impact of short stature on well-being, the effectiveness of GH therapy). Each of these factors exerted highly significant, independent, and additive effects on decisions to recommend GH. CONCLUSION: Our results indicate that many pediatric endocrinologists consider GH treatment appropriate for selected short non-GHD children, going beyond current Food and Drug Administration-approved indications for GH. Decisions to recommend GH for a non-GHD child rest on a combination of medical, social, and perceptual factors; variations in treatment patterns stem from variations in these influences. Future GH use will likely be determined not only by the results of controlled trials, but also by family preferences, producer pricing, and physician perceptions of the value of height and GH therapy.