Person:
Jimenez, Rachel

Profile Picture

Email Address

AA Acceptance Date

Birth Date

Research Projects

Organizational Units

Job Title

Last Name

Jimenez

First Name

Rachel

Name

Jimenez, Rachel
Author's Publications: search.filters.isAuthorOfPublication.812faac9-3ec2-4974-b9ad-33d29e0da9a0

Search Results

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    United States Acculturation and Cancer Patients’ End-of-Life Care
    (Public Library of Science, 2013) Wright, Alexi; Stieglitz, Heather; Kupersztoch, Yankel M.; Paulk, M. Elizabeth; Kim, Yookyung; Katz, Ingrid; Munoz, Francisco; Jimenez, Rachel; Mutchler, Jan; Rivera, Lorna; Back, Anthony L.; Prigerson, Holly
    Background: Culture shapes how people understand illness and death, but few studies examine whether acculturation influences patients’ end-of-life treatment preferences and medical care. Methods and Findings: In this multi-site, prospective, longitudinal cohort study of terminally-ill cancer patients and their caregivers (n = 171 dyads), trained interviewers administered the United States Acculturation Scale (USAS). The USAS is a 19-item scale developed to assess the degree of “Americanization” in first generation or non-US born caregivers of terminally-ill cancer patients. We evaluated the internal consistency, concurrent, criterion, and content validity of the USAS. We also examined whether caregivers’ USAS scores predicted patients’ communication, treatment preferences, and end-of-life medical care in multivariable models that corrected for significant confounding influences (e.g. education, country of origin, English proficiency). The USAS measure was internally consistent (Cronbach α = 0.98); and significantly associated with US birthplace (r = 0.66, P<0.0001). USAS scores were predictive of patients’ preferences for prognostic information (AOR = 1.31, 95% CI:1.00–1.72), but not comfort asking physicians’ questions about care (AOR 1.23, 95% CI:0.87–1.73). They predicted patients’ preferences for feeding tubes (AOR = 0.68, 95% CI:0.49–0.99) and wish to avoid dying in an intensive care unit (AOR = 1.36, 95% CI:1.05–1.76). Scores indicating greater acculturation were also associated with increased odds of patient participation in clinical trials (AOR = 2.20, 95% CI:1.28–3.78), compared with lower USAS scores, and greater odds of patients receiving chemotherapy (AOR = 1.59, 95% CI:1.20–2.12). Conclusion: The USAS is a reliable and valid measure of “Americanization” associated with advanced cancer patients’ end-of-life preferences and care. USAS scores indicating greater caregiver acculturation were associated with increased odds of patient participation in cancer treatment (chemotherapy, clinical trials) compared with lower scores. Future studies should examine the effects of acculturation on end-of-life care to identify patient and provider factors that explain these effects and targets for future interventions to improve care (e.g., by designing more culturally-competent health education materials).
  • Thumbnail Image
    Publication
    Proton radiotherapy for chest wall and regional lymphatic radiation; dose comparisons and treatment delivery
    (BioMed Central, 2013) MacDonald, Shannon; Jimenez, Rachel; Paetzold, Peter; Adams, Judith; Beatty, Jonathan; Delaney, Thomas; Kooy, Hanne; Taghian, Alphonse; Lu, Hsiao-Ming
    Purpose The delivery of post-mastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) can be challenging for patients with left sided breast cancer that have undergone mastectomy. This study investigates the use of protons for PMRT in selected patients with unfavorable cardiac anatomy. We also report the first clinical application of protons for these patients. Methods and materials Eleven patients were planned with protons, partially wide tangent photon fields (PWTF), and photon/electron (P/E) fields. Plans were generated with the goal of achieving 95% coverage of target volumes while maximally sparing cardiac and pulmonary structures. In addition, we report on two patients with unfavorable cardiac anatomy and IMN involvement that were treated with a mix of proton and standard radiation. Results: PWTF, P/E, and proton plans were generated and compared. Reasonable target volume coverage was achieved with PWTF and P/E fields, but proton therapy achieved superior coverage with a more homogeneous plan. Substantial cardiac and pulmonary sparing was achieved with proton therapy as compared to PWTF and P/E. In the two clinical cases, the delivery of proton radiation with a 7.2 to 9 Gy photon and electron component was feasible and well tolerated. Akimbo positioning was necessary for gantry clearance for one patient; the other was treated on a breast board with standard positioning (arms above her head). LAO field arrangement was used for both patients. Erythema and fatigue were the only noted side effects. Conclusions: Proton RT enables delivery of radiation to the chest wall and regional lymphatics, including the IMN, without compromise of coverage and with improved sparing of surrounding normal structures. This treatment is feasible, however, optimal patient set up may vary and field size is limited without multiple fields/matching.