Treatment Goals in Psychoanalysis

Author(s):  
Edward M. Weinshel ◽  
Owen Renik
Keyword(s):  
1987 ◽  
Vol 18 (3) ◽  
pp. 206-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie Fried-Oken

A new procedure entitled the Double Administration Naming Technique is proposed to assist the clinician in obtaining qualitative information about a client's visual confrontation naming skills. It involves the administration of the standard naming test followed by a readministration of the instrument. A series of naming cues then are presented. By examining the number and types of naming errors produced during the two test presentations, the clinician distinguishes word-finding problems from expressive vocabulary limitations and qualitatively describes the language disorder. The cues that facilitate correct naming are used to plan effective treatment goals.


2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-70
Author(s):  
Jennifer Walz Garrett

Abstract School-based speech-language pathologists assess students to establish eligibility, collect baselines for treatment goals, determine progress during intervention and verify generalization of skills. Selecting appropriate assessment tools and methods can be challenging due to time constraints, agency regulations, and availability of tests. This article will describe legal considerations, types of assessments, and the factors involved with the selection and use of various assessment procedures and tools. In addition, speech-language pathologists will learn to calculate words correct per minute (WCPM) and perform miscue analysis, which can provide additional language and literacy information about a child's educational needs.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivashankara Bhat ◽  
Mukta Chowta ◽  
Nithyananda Chowta ◽  
Rajeshwari Shastry ◽  
Priyanka Kamath

Background: Type 2 diabetic patients often require insulin therapy for better glycaemic control. However, many of these patients do not receive insulin or do not receive it in a timely manner. Objective: The study was planned to assess the proportion of type 2 diabetic patients attaining treatment goals as per the ADA 2018 guidelines. In addition, patient’s perception on insulin therapy assessed and compared between insulin naïve and insulin initiated type 2 diabetic patients. Methods: The study was conducted in type 2 diabetic patients. Data on their demographics, medical history, duration of diabetes, history of diabetes related complications, the current antidiabetic medication received, most recent glycaemic parameters were noted. Patient’s perception on insulin initiation was recorded through structured interview. Results: A total of 129 patients were included in the study. Around 76.7% patients achieved HbA1c target (<7%). Duration of the disease is much higher in patients who did not meet the HBA1c target. A good number of patients felt that insulin injection would be physically painful (56.5%). Majority of the patients also felt that insulin will make their life less flexible (64.8%). Many patients are having the opinion that insulin is required for life long (73.2%). More number of patients on insulin agreed with the statement ‘Leads to good short-term outcomes as well as long-term benefits’ compared to insulin naïve patients. Conclusion: The results highlight that the proportion of patients achieving recommended glycaemic target is not satisfactory. Many patients who are inadequately controlled with oral antidiabetic drugs were reluctant to initiate insulin.


2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 378-379
Author(s):  
B. Fautrel ◽  
R. Caporali ◽  
E. Holdsworth ◽  
B. Donaghy ◽  
M. Khalid ◽  
...  

Background:The principles of treat to target (T2T) include defining an appropriate treatment target, assessed at pre-defined intervals, with a commitment to changing therapeutic approach if the target is not met (1). T2T is recommended as a key strategy for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).Objectives:To explore attitudes towards T2T, its implementation and stated treatment goals among physicians and their patients with RA.Methods:The Adelphi RA Disease Specific Programme™ was a large, quantitative, point-in-time survey conducted amongst rheumatologists (n=296) and their consulting patients with RA (n=3042) in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK) between Q4 2019–Q3 2020. Physicians were recruited via publicly available lists, completing an online survey and medical record extraction for their next 10–12 consecutive patients. The same patients were invited to voluntarily complete a self-report questionnaire (n=1098, 36% response), collecting data on attitudes towards T2T and treatment goals.Results:Physicians reported that 76% of patients were in remission (DAS28: <2.6) or had low disease activity (DAS28: 2.6 – 3.2), and 24% had moderate-high disease activity (DAS28: >3.2). Patient mean age was 53.0 years (SD 14.0), mean time since diagnosis was 7.2 years (SD 7.2). The proportion of patients currently receiving an advanced therapy (AT; defined as biologic or targeted synthetic DMARD) was 68%, of whom 70% were on a first line AT. No difference was observed between disease activity groups.In the physician survey, 86% of physicians stated they followed T2T principals in at least some of their RA patients, and would utilize a T2T approach in RA patients with moderate-high disease activity (61%), the most uncontrolled patients (37%) and those who do not respond well to initial therapy (34%). In this sample of real-world RA patients, 66% were reported by physicians to be on a T2T plan at the time of data collection. The most common physician-reported targets were remission (DAS28: <2.6) (75%), improvement of quality of life (QoL) (41%) and reduction of pain (31%), with 85% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most stated reasons for not implementing T2T was physician preference not to adjust current treatment (34%), patient preference not to adjust current treatment (23%), and there are no achievable goals for this patient (16%).Overall, 29% of patients reported they were involved in setting their T2T goals, while 34% stated their T2T goals were set by their physicians only, and 29% perceived no T2T goal had been set (n=620). The most common overall T2T goals from the patient perspective were remission (61%), controlling symptoms (41%), and reducing impact on QoL (34%). Of those patients who acknowledged a T2T goal had been set (n=407), 77% reported their T2T goal was fully or partially achieved.Of 719 patients who had moderate-high disease activity, 57% were on a T2T plan, with 46% of physicians perceiving these treatment goals were fully or partially met. The most common physician-stated reason for not implementing T2T was a lack of achievable targets (29%).Conclusion:Rheumatologists in this study reported a strong belief in T2T. The most common physician-set T2T goals were remission, improvement of QoL and reduction of pain, corresponding with T2T goals as reported by patients. However, a third of patients in this cohort were not aware of a defined T2T objective in their management, which may be a result of a perceived lack of achievable goals by physicians. It may be desirable to promote more patient involvement in defining achievable targets amongst those with moderate-high disease activity who despite best efforts may not reach a clinical state of remission. Further research is needed to identify and understand goals important to RA patients.References:[1]van Vollenhoven R. Treat-to-target in rheumatoid arthritis - are we there yet? Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2019;15(3):180-6.Acknowledgements:This study was funded by Galapagos NV, Belgium.Medical writing support was provided by Gary Sidgwick, PhD (Adelphi Real World, Bollington, UK) and editorial support was provided by Debbie Sherwood, BSc, CMPP (Aspire Scientific, Bollington, UK), both funded by Galapagos NV.Disclosure of Interests:Bruno Fautrel Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Biogen, BMS, Celgene, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Medac, MSD, Mylan, NORDIC Pharma, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi-Genzyme, SOBI, UCB, Grant/research support from: AbbVie, Lilly, MSD, Pfizer, Roberto Caporali Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Celltrion, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, UCB, Sanofi, Fresenius Kabi, Samsung Bioepis, MSD, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Elizabeth Holdsworth Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Bethany Donaghy Employee of: Adelphi Real World, Mona Khalid Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Mark Moore Shareholder of: Gilead Sciences, Speakers bureau: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Paid instructor for: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Consultant of: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Grant/research support from: Gilead Sciences (only as employee), Employee of: Gilead Sciences, and previously Sanofi and AstraZeneca, Katrien Van Beneden Shareholder of: Galapagos, Employee of: Galapagos, Yves Piette Consultant of: AbbVie, Amgen, Galapagos, Grünenthal and Sandoz, Grant/research support from: Amgen, Mylan and UCB, Susana Romero-Yuste Speakers bureau: AbbVie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, Grunenthal, Kern Pharma, Lilly, Roche, Sandoz, Sanofi, UCB, Janssen, Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Fresenius, Galapagos, Gebro, Janssen, Lilly, Grant/research support from: Bristol Myers Squibb, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Jasper Broen Shareholder of: Pharming Group, Consultant of: Galapagos, Gilead, Novartis, Peter C. Taylor Consultant of: AbbVie, Biogen, Galapagos, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi, Nordic Pharma, Fresenius, UCB, Grant/research support from: Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Lilly


Author(s):  
Christopher Mulvey ◽  
Elaine MacHale ◽  
Garrett Greene ◽  
Lorna Lombard ◽  
Joanne Walsh ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 0272989X2199895
Author(s):  
Adinda Mieras ◽  
Annemarie Becker-Commissaris ◽  
Hanna T. Klop ◽  
H. Roeline W. Pasman ◽  
Denise de Jong ◽  
...  

Background Previous studies have investigated patients’ treatment goals before starting a treatment for metastatic lung cancer. Data on the evaluation of treatment goals are lacking. Aim To determine if patients with metastatic lung cancer and their oncologists perceive the treatment goals they defined at the start of systemic treatment as achieved after treatment and if in hindsight they believe it was the right decision to start systemic therapy. Design and Participants A prospective multicenter study in 6 hospitals across the Netherlands between 2016 and 2018. Following systemic treatment, 146 patients with metastatic lung cancer and 23 oncologists completed a questionnaire on the achievement of their treatment goals and whether they made the right treatment decision. Additional interviews with 15 patients and 5 oncologists were conducted. Results According to patients and oncologists, treatment goals were achieved in 30% and 37% for ‘quality of life,’ 49% and 41% for ‘life prolongation,’ 26% and 44% for ‘decrease in tumor size,’ and 44% for ‘cure’, respectively. Most patients and oncologists, in hindsight, felt they had made the right decision to start treatment and also if they had not achieved their goals (72% and 93%). This was related to the feeling that they had to do ‘something.’ Conclusions Before deciding on treatment, the treatment options, including their benefits and side effects, and the goals patients have should be discussed. It is key that these discussions include not only systemic treatment but also palliative care as effective options for doing ‘something.’


2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (6) ◽  
pp. 934-150
Author(s):  
Alexander Nast ◽  
Andreas Altenburg ◽  
Matthias Augustin ◽  
Wolf‐Henning Boehncke ◽  
Peter Härle ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document