Virtue morning! This is an excerpt from Second Opinion, a weekly roundup of eclectic and under-the-radar condition and medical science news emailed to subscribers every Saturday morning. If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can do that by clicking here.
Put the smartphone down!
By Kas Roussy
To set apart the romance, research says stop sexting.
That’s what Adam Galovan determination like to share with sexters.
You know the ones. They send sexually well-defined messages or images via their smartphones to their partners.
Since done everyone owns a smartphone these days, Galovan, a family scientist in the determined of Human Ecology at the University of Alberta, wanted to find out how the gadgets are exchanging the way we interact in our relationships.
For this study, he and his colleagues surveyed 615 adults. (Half were Canadian). All were in delegate relationships, both heterosexual and same sex.
‘Actually make love, don’t send the sext.’ — Michelle Drouin
They set that those who sexted the most — categorized as “frequent” or “hyper” sexters — pieced that the provocative texting spiced up their sex lives. But here’s the downside: Sexting threatened other aspects of a healthy relationship.
These super sexters abide less secure in their relationship, had commitment issues and were sundry likely to watch porn.
“Short term, they’re getting that lift in sexual satisfaction,” Galovan told CBC News. “But they aren’t delivering benefits in other areas of their relationship.”
It might seem equivalent to a “fast and easy solution to spice up a sex life,” said co-author Michelle Drouin, a professor of lunatic at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne.
But she describes sexting as “dangerous behaviour.”
“People have to be aware. Sexting isn’t the future of what we see as a usual healthy relationship.”
But Ruth Neustifter, a sexuality therapist at the University of Guelph, charge ofs it differently. She says sexting is an opportunity to do something in a fun and flirty way.
“I certainly wouldn’t call for to discourage people from using this for positive goals in their relationship,” she rephrased.
“Certainly throughout human history we have sent each other physical messages in art, in letter writing, in stories. This is just another agency for what people have been doing all along.”
With Valentine’s Day at most around the corner, Drouin has advice for couples.
“Actually make care, don’t send the sext. I think face-to-face intimacy is far more valuable for a relationship than any technology-communicated mementoes of love.”
A drug might extend life, but is it worth it? Ask the patient
By Brandie Weikle
Clinical tentatives reveal important information about how well new drugs work to free-for-all disease or extend life. What they don’t do is tell us much around whether those treatments make life for the patient any better or stable worth living at all.
That’s why a group of researchers published recommendations this week planned at gaining insight about the impact of new treatments on patients and their prominence of life.
“Traditionally, clinical trials are designed to evaluate whether some phylum of intervention benefits the patient in some way,” says Dr. An-Wen Chan, a Toronto surgeon and one of the lucubrate’s co-authors.
“With the medical model of thinking, the measurements have been on calamitous data like whether they die or not, or whether their blood lean on improves — something we can measure objectively.”
He stipulates that a shift to more patient-focused care in recent years has renounced new interest in making sure that research data actually reflects how patients sense and how they view their conditions.
“That’s arguably more respected than what the numbers say or the lab test,” says Chan, also an associate professor in trim policy management at the University of Toronto.
Palliative care physician Dr. James Downar of Toronto’s University Form Network agrees. He says these patient-reported outcomes — or PROs, as they’re rallied — can provide critical information for prescribing physicians.
Take a late-stage cancer unfailing under the care of an oncologist or palliative care physician, for example.
“It’s utter easy to show a slight mortality benefits for people at or near the end of existence,” says Downar. What clinical trial results haven’t been expert to get at so far is whether or not those extra weeks or months of life a new treatment may countenance come with too much sacrifice to quality of life.
“The terms of survival are not satisfactory to them, or the quality of life they currently enjoy is not one that they value,” he utters. That could be the difference between spending one’s final weeks dispensation stories and card games with loved ones, rather than being disabled by brutal side-effects.
“If we’re not improving the life of the patient, then what is the thought?”
To read the entire Second Opinion newsletter every Saturday morning, subscribe by clicking here.