Monika Janda

Dr. Monika Janda


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
20 July 2008 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SHSandra C Hayes
Sandra C Hayes
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
BCBruce Cornish
Bruce Cornish
DBDiana Battistutta
Diana Battistutta
BNBeth Newman
Beth Newman
Purpose: Secondary lymphedema is associated with adverse physical and psychosocial consequences among women with breast cancer (BC). This article describes the prevalence and incidence of lymphedema between 6 and 18 months after BC treatment; personal, treatment, and behavioral correlates of lymphedema status; and the presence of other upper-body symptoms (UBS) and function (UBF). Patients and Methods: A population-based sample of Australian women (n = 287) with recently diagnosed, invasive BC were evaluated on five occasions using bioimpedance spectroscopy. Lymphedema was diagnosed when the ratio of impedance values, comparing treated and untreated sides, was three standard deviations more than normative data. UBF was assessed using the validated Disability of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand questionnaire. Results: From 6 to 18 months after surgery, 33% (n = 62) of the sample were classified as having lymphedema; of these, 40% had long-term lymphedema. Although older age, more extensive surgery or axillary node dissection, and experiencing one or more treatment-related complication(s) or symptom(s) at baseline were associated with increased odds, lower socioeconomic status, having a partner, greater child care responsibilities, being treated on the dominant side, participation in regular activity, and having good UBF were associated with decreased odds of lymphedema. Not surprisingly, lymphedema leads to reduced UBF; however, BC survivors report high prevalences of other UBS (34% to 62%), irrespective of their lymphedema status. Conclusion: Lymphedema is a public health issue deserving greater attention. More systematic surveillance for earlier detection and the potential benefits of physical activity to prevent lymphedema and mitigate symptoms warrant further clinical integration and research.

4 June 2007 in Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
VBVanessa Beesley
Vanessa Beesley
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
EEElizabeth Eakin
Elizabeth Eakin
AOAndreas Obermair
Andreas Obermair
DBDiana Battistutta
Diana Battistutta
BACKGROUND.: Few studies have evaluated lymphedema after gynecological cancer treatment. The aim of this research was to establish prevalence, correlates, and supportive care needs of gynecological cancer survivors who develop lymphedema.METHODS.: In 2004, a population‐based cross‐sectional mail survey (56% response rate) was completed by 802 gynecological cancer survivors. The questionnaire included demographic questions, a validated, generic supportive care needs measure, and a supplementary, newly developed, lymphedema needs module.RESULTS.: Ten percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 8%–12%) of participants reported being diagnosed with lymphedema, and a further 15% (95% CI, 13%–17%) reported undiagnosed “symptomatic” lower limb swelling. Diagnosed lymphedema was more prevalent (36%) amongst vulvar cancer survivors. For cervical cancer survivors, those who had radiotherapy or who had lymph nodes removed had higher odds of developing swelling. For uterine and ovarian cancer survivors, those who had lymph nodes removed or who were overweight or obese had higher odds of developing swelling. Gynecological cancer survivors with lymphedema had higher supportive care needs in the information and symptom management domains compared with those who had no swelling.CONCLUSIONS.: This population‐based study provided evidence that lymphedema is a morbidity experienced by a significant proportion of gynecological cancer survivors and that there are considerable levels of associated unmet needs. Women at risk of lymphedema would benefit from instructions about early signs and symptoms and provision of referral information. Cancer 2007. © 2007 American Cancer Society.

1 August 2010 in The Lancet Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
VGVal Gebski
Val Gebski
ABAlison Brand
Alison Brand
RHRussel Hogg
Russel Hogg
TJThomas W Jobling
Thomas W Jobling
AOAndreas Obermair
Andreas Obermair
This two-stage randomised controlled trial, comparing total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) with total abdominal hysterectomy (TAH) for stage I endometrial cancer (LACE), began in 2005. The primary objective of stage 1 was to assess whether TLH results in equivalent or improved quality of life (QoL) up to 6 months after surgery compared with TAH. The primary objective of stage 2 was to test the hypothesis that disease-free survival at 4.5 years is equivalent for TLH and TAH. Here, we present the results of stage 1. Between Oct 7, 2005, and April 16, 2008, 361 participants were enrolled in the QoL substudy at 19 centres across Australia, New Zealand, and Hong Kong; 332 completed the QoL analysis. Randomisation was done centrally and independently from other study procedures via a computer-generated, web-based system (providing concealment of the next assigned treatment), using stratified permuted blocks of three and six patients. Patients with histologically confirmed stage I endometrioid adenocarcinoma and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status less than 2 were randomly assigned to TLH (n=190) or TAH (n=142), stratified by histological grade and study centre. Patients and study personnel were not masked to treatment assignment. QoL was measured at baseline, 1 and 4 weeks (early), and 3 and 6 months (late) after surgery, using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) questionnaire. The primary endpoint was the difference between groups in QoL change from baseline at early and late timepoints (a 5% difference was considered clinically significant). Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle. Patients for both stages of the trial have now been recruited and are being followed up for disease-specific outcomes. The LACE trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00096408. Eight of 332 patients (2.4%) had treatment conversion-seven from TLH to TAH and one from TAH to TLH (patient preference). In the early phase of recovery, patients who had TLH reported significantly greater improvement in QoL from baseline compared with those who had TAH, in all subscales apart from emotional and social wellbeing. Improvements in QoL up to 6 months after surgery continued to favour TLH, except in the emotional and social wellbeing measures of FACT and the visual analogue scale of the EuroQoL five dimensions (EuroQoL-VAS). Operating time was significantly longer in the TLH group (138 min [SD 43]) than in the TAH group (109 min [34]; p=0.001). Although the proportion of intraoperative adverse events was similar between groups (TAH eight of 142 [5.6%] vs TLH 14 of 190 [7.4%]; p=0.53); postoperatively, twice as many patients in the TAH group experienced adverse events of grade 3 or higher (33 of 142 [23.2%] vs 22 of 190 [11.6%] in the TLH group; p=0.004). Postoperative serious adverse events occurred more in the TAH group (27 of 142 [19.0%]) than in the TLH group (16 of 190 [7.9%]; p=0.002). QoL improvements from baseline during early and later phases of recovery, and the adverse event profile, favour TLH compared with TAH for treatment of stage I endometrial cancer. Cancer Council Queensland, Cancer Council New South Wales, Cancer Council Victoria, Cancer Council Western Australia; NHMRC project grant 456110; Cancer Australia project grant 631523; The Women and Infants Research Foundation, Western Australia; Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Foundation; Wesley Research Institute; Gallipoli Research Foundation; Gynetech; TYCO Healthcare, Australia; Johnson and Johnson Medical, Australia; Hunter New England Centre for Gynaecological Cancer; Genesis Oncology Trust; and Smart Health Research Grant QLD Health.

11 April 2019 in Journal of Medical Internet Research
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
RDRonald Dendere
Ronald Dendere
CSChristine Slade
Christine Slade
ABAndrew Burton-Jones
Andrew Burton-Jones
CSClair Sullivan
Clair Sullivan
ASAndrew Staib
Andrew Staib
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Engaging patients in the delivery of healthcare has the potential to improve health outcomes and patient satisfaction. Patient portals may enhance patient engagement; by enabling patients to access their electronic medical records (EMRs) and facilitating secure patient-provider communication. Objective: The aim of this study was to review literature describing patient portals tethered to an EMR in inpatient settings, their role in patient engagement, and their impact on healthcare delivery in order to identify factors and best practices for successful implementation of this technology, and areas that require further research. Methods: A systematic search for articles in the PubMed, CINAHL and Embase databases was conducted, using keywords associated with patient engagement, electronic health records and patient portals, and their respective subject headings in each database. Articles for inclusion were evaluated for quality using ‘A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews’ (AMSTAR 2) for systematic review articles and the ‘Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs’ (QATSDD) for empirical studies. Included studies were categorized by their focus on input factors (e.g., portal design), process factors (e.g., portal usage), and output factors (e.g., benefits), and by the valence of their findings regarding patient portals (i.e., positive, negative, or mixed). Results: The systematic search identified 58 articles for inclusion. The ‘inputs’ category was addressed by 40 articles, while the ‘processes’ and ‘outputs’ categories were addressed by 36 and 46 articles, respectively; 47 articles addressed multiple themes across the three categories and 11 addressed only a single theme. Nineteen articles had high to very high quality, 21 had medium quality and 18 had low to very low quality. Findings in the ‘inputs’ category showed wide-ranging portal designs; patients’ privacy concerns and lack of encouragement were among portal adoption barriers while information access and communication were facilitators. Several methods were used to train portal users with varying success. In the ‘processes’ category, socio-demographic characteristics and medical conditions of patients were predictors of portal usage; some patients wanted unlimited access to their EMRs, personalized medical education and non-clinical information; and patients were keen to use portals for communicating with their healthcare teams. In the ‘outputs’ category, some but not all studies found patient portals improved patient engagement; patients perceived some portal functions inadequate but others useful; patients and staff thought portals may improve patient care but could cause anxiety in some patients; and portals improved patient safety, adherence to medications, patient-provider communication but had no impact on objective health outcomes. Conclusions: While the evidence is currently immature, patient portals have demonstrated benefit by enabling the discovery of medical errors, improving adherence to medications and patient-provider communication, etc. High-quality studies are needed to fully understand, improve and evaluate their impact.

1 September 2004 in Health Promotion International
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
WSWarren R. Stanton
Warren R. Stanton
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
Peter BaadePeter Baade
Peter Baade
PAPeter Anderson
Peter Anderson
The incidence of skin cancer is increasing worldwide. Protecting the skin from the sun by wearing protective clothing, using a sunscreen with appropriate sun protection factor, wearing a hat, and avoiding the sun are recommended as primary preventive activities by cancer agencies. In this paper the recent data relating to skin cancer primary preventive behaviour in Australia and other countries is reviewed. Comparison of the studies in a table format summarizing the methods, objectives, participants, findings and implications may be obtained from the corresponding author. The sun protection knowledge, attitudes and behaviour patterns observed in Australia are similar in other countries, although Australian studies generally report higher knowledge levels about skin cancer and higher levels of sun protection. The findings suggest that sunscreen is the most frequent method of sun protection used across all age groups, despite recommendations that it should be an adjunct to other forms of protection. While young children's sun protective behaviour is largely influenced by their parents' behaviours, they are still under protected, and sun protective measures such as seeking shade, avoiding the sun and protective clothing need to be emphasized. Adolescents have the lowest skin protection rates of all age groups. Within the adult age range, women and people with sensitive skin were most likely to be using skin protection. However, women were also more likely than men to sunbath deliberately and to use sun-tanning booths. The relationship between skin protection knowledge and attitudes, attitudes towards tanning and skin protection behaviour needs further investigation. Further studies need to include detailed assessments of sunscreen use and application patterns, and future health promotion activities need to focus on sun protection by wearing clothing and seeking shade to avoid increases in the sunburn rates observed to date.

1 May 2008 in Patient Education and Counseling
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MJMonika Janda
Monika Janda
SSSuzanne Steginga
Suzanne Steginga
JDJeff Dunn
Jeff Dunn
DLDanette Langbecker
Danette Langbecker
DWDavid Walker
David Walker
EEElizabeth Eakin
Elizabeth Eakin