Lisa M. Hess

Bio: Lisa M. Hess is an academic researcher from Eli Lilly and Company. The author has contributed to research in topics: Cancer & Medicine. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 106 publications receiving 2077 citations. Previous affiliations of Lisa M. Hess include University of Arizona & Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis.

Measurement of Adherence in Pharmacy Administrative Databases: A Proposal for Standard Definitions and Preferred Measures

Abstract: Background:A variety of measures have been developed to calculate refill adherence from administrative data such as pharmacy claims databases. These measures have focused on improving the accuracy of adherence measures or clarifying the evaluation time frame. As a result, there are many measures used to assess adherence that may or may not be comparable or accurate.Objective:To compare available refill adherence measures.Methods:A systematic literature review was conducted to identify current or recently used measures of calculating adherence from administrative data. A MEDLINE search (January 1990–March 2006) was undertaken using the search terms adherence or compliance in the title combined with administrative, pharmacy, or records in any field, including subheadings medical, nursing, and hospital records. Non-English articles were excluded. Seven hundred fifteen articles were available for review. Review articles and letters were excluded from measure selection, but were included in the search terms an...

Phase III Trial of Ursodeoxycholic Acid To Prevent Colorectal Adenoma Recurrence

Abstract: Background: Ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) treatment is associated with a reduced incidence of colonic neoplasia in preclinical models and in patients with conditions associated with an increased risk for colon cancer. We conducted a phase III, double-blind placebo-controlled trial of UDCA to evaluate its ability to prevent colorectal adenoma recurrence. Methods: We randomly assigned 1285 individuals who had undergone removal of a colorectal adenoma within the past 6 months to daily treatment with UDCA (8 – 10 mg/kg of body weight; 661 participants) or with placebo (624 participants) for 3 years or until follow-up colonoscopy. Recurrence rates (number of recurrent adenomas per unit time) were compared by use of a Huber – White variance estimator. Proportions of participants with one or more recurrent adenomas were compared with a Pearson chi-square statistic; adjusted odds ratios (ORs) were obtained by logistic regression. All statistical tests were two-sided. Results: We observed a non – statistically signifi cant 12% reduction in the adenoma recurrence rate associated with UDCA treatment, compared with placebo treatment. However, UDCA treatment was associated with a statistically signifi cant reduction ( P = .03) in the recurrence of adenomas with high-grade dysplasia (adjusted OR = 0.61, 95% confi dence interval = 0.39 to 0.96). We observed no statistically signifi cant differences between UDCA and placebo groups in recurrence with regard to adenoma size, villous histology, or location. Conclusions: UDCA treatment was associated with a non – statistically signifi cant reduction in total colorectal adenoma recurrence but with a statistically signifi cant 39% reduction in recurrence of adenomas with high-grade dysplasia. Because severely dysplastic lesions have a high risk of progression to invasive colorectal carcinoma, this fi nding indicates that future chemoprevention trials of UDCA in individuals with such lesions should be considered. [J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:846 – 53]

Chemotherapy-related change in cognitive function: a conceptual model.

Abstract: PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES To develop a conceptual model of chemotherapy-related changes in cognitive function. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, CINAHL, HealthStar, and PsycINFO databases. DATA SYNTHESIS Patients undergoing chemotherapy often complain of forgetfulness, absentmindedness, and an inability to focus when performing a variety of daily tasks. Changes in cognitive function have been referred to by the colloquial term "chemo-brain." The authors conducted an examination of the literature to investigate relationships among concepts and to synthesize current knowledge. CONCLUSIONS Cognitive function, defined as higher-order mental processes, may be altered along two distinct and interacting pathways: (a) the cancer diagnosis, which can lead to anxiety, stress, distress, and depression; and (b) the direct physiologic effects of cancer treatment. The Chemotherapy-Related Change in Cognitive Function conceptual model is informed by a review of literature that illustrates antecedents, moderators, mediators, and consequences that may be relevant to this issue. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING When a patient presents with cognitive complaints, the problems can be evaluated for intervention when an overall understanding exists of chemotherapy-related cognitive changes based on a conceptual model that continues to be informed through well-conceptualized and well-designed research.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

Abstract: Background Decision aids are intended to help people participate in decisions that involve weighing the benefits and harms of treatment options often with scientific uncertainty. Objectives To assess the effects of decision aids for people facing treatment or screening decisions. Search methods For this update, we searched from 2009 to June 2012 in MEDLINE; CENTRAL; EMBASE; PsycINFO; and grey literature. Cumulatively, we have searched each database since its start date including CINAHL (to September 2008). Selection criteria We included published randomized controlled trials of decision aids, which are interventions designed to support patients' decision making by making explicit the decision, providing information about treatment or screening options and their associated outcomes, compared to usual care and/or alternative interventions. We excluded studies of participants making hypothetical decisions. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were: A) 'choice made' attributes; B) 'decision-making process' attributes. Secondary outcomes were behavioral, health, and health-system effects. We pooled results using mean differences (MD) and relative risks (RR), applying a random-effects model. Main results This update includes 33 new studies for a total of 115 studies involving 34,444 participants. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and blinding of participants and personnel were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on 7 items, 8 of 115 studies had high risk of bias for 1 or 2 items each. Of 115 included studies, 88 (76.5%) used at least one of the IPDAS effectiveness criteria: A) 'choice made' attributes criteria: knowledge scores (76 studies); accurate risk perceptions (25 studies); and informed value-based choice (20 studies); and B) 'decision-making process' attributes criteria: feeling informed (34 studies) and feeling clear about values (29 studies). A) Criteria involving 'choice made' attributes: Compared to usual care, decision aids increased knowledge (MD 13.34 out of 100; 95% confidence interval (CI) 11.17 to 15.51; n = 42). When more detailed decision aids were compared to simple decision aids, the relative improvement in knowledge was significant (MD 5.52 out of 100; 95% CI 3.90 to 7.15; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with expressed probabilities resulted in a higher proportion of people with accurate risk perceptions (RR 1.82; 95% CI 1.52 to 2.16; n = 19). Exposure to a decision aid with explicit values clarification resulted in a higher proportion of patients choosing an option congruent with their values (RR 1.51; 95% CI 1.17 to 1.96; n = 13). B) Criteria involving 'decision-making process' attributes: Decision aids compared to usual care interventions resulted in: a) lower decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -7.26 of 100; 95% CI -9.73 to -4.78; n = 22) and feeling unclear about personal values (MD -6.09; 95% CI -8.50 to -3.67; n = 18); b) reduced proportions of people who were passive in decision making (RR 0.66; 95% CI 0.53 to 0.81; n = 14); and c) reduced proportions of people who remained undecided post-intervention (RR 0.59; 95% CI 0.47 to 0.72; n = 18). Decision aids appeared to have a positive effect on patient-practitioner communication in all nine studies that measured this outcome. For satisfaction with the decision (n = 20), decision-making process (n = 17), and/or preparation for decision making (n = 3), those exposed to a decision aid were either more satisfied, or there was no difference between the decision aid versus comparison interventions. No studies evaluated decision-making process attributes for helping patients to recognize that a decision needs to be made, or understanding that values affect the choice. C) Secondary outcomes Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people of choosing major elective invasive surgery in favour of more conservative options (RR 0.79; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.93; n = 15). Exposure to decision aids compared to usual care reduced the number of people choosing to have prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.98; n = 9). When detailed compared to simple decision aids were used, fewer people chose menopausal hormone therapy (RR 0.73; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.98; n = 3). For other decisions, the effect on choices was variable. The effect of decision aids on length of consultation varied from 8 minutes shorter to 23 minutes longer (median 2.55 minutes longer) with 2 studies indicating statistically-significantly longer, 1 study shorter, and 6 studies reporting no difference in consultation length. Groups of patients receiving decision aids do not appear to differ from comparison groups in terms of anxiety (n = 30), general health outcomes (n = 11), and condition-specific health outcomes (n = 11). The effects of decision aids on other outcomes (adherence to the decision, costs/resource use) were inconclusive. Authors' conclusions There is high-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care improve people's knowledge regarding options, and reduce their decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed and unclear about their personal values. There is moderate-quality evidence that decision aids compared to usual care stimulate people to take a more active role in decision making, and improve accurate risk perceptions when probabilities are included in decision aids, compared to not being included. There is low-quality evidence that decision aids improve congruence between the chosen option and the patient's values. New for this updated review is further evidence indicating more informed, values-based choices, and improved patient-practitioner communication. There is a variable effect of decision aids on length of consultation. Consistent with findings from the previous review, decision aids have a variable effect on choices. They reduce the number of people choosing discretionary surgery and have no apparent adverse effects on health outcomes or satisfaction. The effects on adherence with the chosen option, cost-effectiveness, use with lower literacy populations, and level of detail needed in decision aids need further evaluation. Little is known about the degree of detail that decision aids need in order to have a positive effect on attributes of the choice made, or the decision-making process.

American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for Cancer Prevention: Reducing the Risk of Cancer with Healthy Food Choices and Physical Activity

Abstract: The American Cancer Society (ACS) publishes Nutrition and Physical Activity Guidelines to serve as a foundation for its communication, policy, and community strategies and ultimately, to affect dietary and physical activity patterns among Americans. These Guidelines, published every 5 years, are developed by a national panel of experts in cancer research, prevention, epidemiology, public health, and policy, and as such, they represent the most current scientific evidence related to dietary and activity patterns and cancer risk. The ACS Guidelines include recommendations for individual choices regarding diet and physical activity patterns, but those choices occur within a community context that either facilitates or interferes with healthy behaviors. Community efforts are essential to create a social environment that promotes healthy food choices and physical activity. Therefore, this committee presents one key recommendation for community action to accompany the four recommendations for individual choices to reduce cancer risk. This recommendation for community action recognizes that a supportive social environment is indispensable if individuals at all levels of society are to have genuine opportunities to choose healthy behaviors. The ACS Guidelines are consistent with guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association for the prevention of coronary heart disease and diabetes, as well as for general health promotion, as defined by the Department of Health and Human Services' 2005 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

Nutrition and physical activity guidelines for cancer survivors.

Abstract: Cancer survivors are often highly motivated to seek information about food choices, physical activity, and dietary supplements to improve their treatment outcomes, quality of life, and overall survival. To address these concerns, the American Cancer Society (ACS) convened a group of experts in nutrition, physical activity, and cancer survivorship to evaluate the scientific evidence and best clinical practices related to optimal nutrition and physical activity after the diagnosis of cancer. This report summarizes their findings and is intended to present health care providers with the best possible information with which to help cancer survivors and their families make informed choices related to nutrition and physical activity. The report discusses nutrition and physical activity guidelines during the continuum of cancer care, briefly highlighting important issues during cancer treatment and for patients with advanced cancer, but focusing largely on the needs of the population of individuals who are disease free or who have stable disease following their recovery from treatment. It also discusses select nutrition and physical activity issues such as body weight, food choices, food safety, and dietary supplements; issues related to selected cancer sites; and common questions about diet, physical activity, and cancer survivorship.