Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn 2020, the new coronavirus disease has seen many countries adopt mitigation activities to interrupt human‐to‐human transmission, radically changing daily life habits with secondary effects on the environment. The aim of this article is to comment on these events from a systemic point of view, referring to systems theories and the non‐linear causal relation between human behaviour and the environment. As Bateson stated, linear thinking has led human beings to exploit the environment, causing an ecological crisis and disequilibrium within the system, because the mutual interrelationship and homeostasis mechanisms between humans and their environment were ignored. Taking into account the pandemic and its effects, the new coronavirus provides an opportunity to see otherwise invisible or obscured relational phenomena, such as the mutual relationship between humans and their environment.

Due to the lack of other treatment options, patient candidates for participation in phase I clinical trials are considered the most vulnerable, and many ethical concerns have emerged regarding the informed consent process used in the experimental design of such trials. Starting with these considerations, this nonsystematic review is aimed at analyzing the decision-making processes underlying patients' decision about whether to participate (or not) in phase I trials in order to clarify the cognitive and emotional aspects most strongly implicated in this decision. Considering that there is no uniform decision calculus and that many different variables other than the patient-physician relationship (including demographic, clinical, and personal characteristics) may influence patients' preferences for and processing of information, we conclude that patients' informed decision-making can be facilitated by creating a rigorously developed, calibrated, and validated computer tool modeled on each single patient's knowledge, values, and emotional and cognitive decisional skills. Such a tool will also help oncologists to provide tailored medical information that is useful to improve the shared decision-making process, thereby possibly increasing patient participation in clinical trials.

Gabriella Pravettoni,1,2 Ilaria Cutica,1,2 Simona Righetti,1 Ketti Mazzocco1,2 1Department of Oncology and Hematology, University of Milan, 2Applied Research Division for Cognitive and Psychological Science, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy Purpose: The aim of this study was to review the experiences of direct involvement in patient survivorship for treatment and research. Methods: This is a narrative-focused review of the following two recent experiences of patient involvement: the Chordoma Foundation and the Triple Negative Breast Cancer Foundation. Results: These two examples represent concrete experiences that patients have built to favor a real involvement in the care and treatment of tumors. These experiences are profoundly modifying how cancer research is conducted and draw attention to the psychosocial dimensions of health care. Conclusion: These examples represent the new scenario in which modern medicine faces completely new challenges, copes with new needs, and cooperates with new health care professionals. Implications: Involving patients in a new perspective raises practical and ethical challenges for organizations to work together, for health providers to be professionally skilled and for the government to promote safeguarding policies. Keywords: patient empowerment, patients' association, empowerment, skills, codesign ­techniques, cancer