Search

Background: Th EQUATOR Network improves the quality and transparency in health research, primarily by promoting awareness and use of reporting guidelines. In 2018, the UK EQUATOR Centre launched GoodReports.org , a website that helps authors find and use reporting guidelines. This paper describes the tool's development so far. We describe user experience and behaviour of using GoodReports.org both inside and outside a journal manuscript submission process. We intend to use our findings to inform future development and testing of the tool.Methods: We conducted a survey to collect data on user experience of the GoodReports website. We cross-checked a random sample of 100 manuscripts submitted to a partner journal to describe the level of agreement between the tool's checklist recommendation and what we would have recommended. We compared the proportion of authors submitting a completed reporting checklist alongside their manuscripts between groups exposed or not exposed to the GoodReports tool. We also conducted a study comparing completeness of reporting of manuscript text before an author received a reporting guideline recommendation from GoodReports.org with the completeness of the text subsequently submitted to a partner journal.Results: Seventy percent (423/599) of survey respondents rated GoodReports 8 or more out of 10 for usefulness, and 74% (198/267) said they had made changes to their manuscript after using the website. We agreed with the GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation in 84% (72/86) of cases. Of authors who completed the guideline finder questionnaire, 14% (10/69) failed to submit a completed checklist compared to 30% (41/136) who did not use the tool. Of the 69 authors who received a GoodReports reporting guideline recommendation, 20 manuscript pairs could be reviewed before and after use of GoodReports. Five included more information in their methods section after exposure to GoodReports. On average, authors reported 57% of necessary reporting items before completing a checklist on GoodReports.org and 60% after.Conclusion: The data suggest that reporting guidance is needed early in the writing process, not at submission stage. We are developing GoodReports by adding more reporting guidelines and by creating editable article templates. We will test whether GoodReports users write more complete study reports in a randomised trial targeting researchers starting to write health research articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To investigate the efficacy of waiting room media for reducing anxiety and increasing satisfaction at a paediatric rehabilitation hospital.Method: In this clustered, parallel, randomized controlled trial, 310 young people with disabilities (age range 5-19y) and their parents attending outpatient clinics were assigned to interactive media (n=113), a silent nature video (n=97), or media-free comparison (n=100) groups. Young person and parent anxiety was reported using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) on arrival and after 10 minutes in the waiting space. Questionnaires measured young person, parent, and staff satisfaction.Results: Young people exposed to interactive media reported a postexposure state anxiety that was 1.1 raw points (2.7 standardized points) lower on the STAI than the comparison group (95% confidence interval [CI] -1.9 to -0.22). There was no difference in postexposure state anxiety between the passive media and comparison groups (95% CI -0.64 to 1.1). Parents' state anxiety did not differ between conditions, but interactive media were associated with greater satisfaction (p=0.009). Of 120 staff, 119 reported that interactive media improved the clinic experience for families.Interpretation: Interactive media designed for accessible, hands-free play mitigate waiting anxiety and increases satisfaction. This paper provides evidence to guide design and decision-making around the use of interactive media in health care spaces.What This Paper Adds: Interactive media reduced preclinic waiting anxiety for young people with disabilities. Interactive media were accessible to young people with a range of mobility. Interactive media increased parental and staff satisfaction in the clinic. Guidelines for the design of hands-free, inclusive interactive media for health care facilities are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus is associated with cognitive dysfunction and an increased risk of dementia. Linagliptin is a glucose-lowering agent of the dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-IV) inhibitor class that is of particular interest for the prevention of accelerated cognitive decline, because it may potentially benefit the brain through pleiotropic effects, beyond glucose lowering. This paper presents the design of a study that aims to establish if linagliptin is superior to the sulfonylurea glimepiride in the prevention of accelerated cognitive decline in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.Methods: The cognition substudy is an integral part of the ongoing event-driven, randomised, double blind CARdiOvascular safety of LINAgliptin (CAROLINA®) trial, which evaluates the effect of treatment with linagliptin versus glimepiride on cardiovascular outcomes. CAROLINA® includes patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus with sub-optimal glycaemic control at elevated cardiovascular risk. The substudy will evaluate patients randomised and treated who have a baseline Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) score ≥ 24, documented years of formal education with at least one valid cognitive assessment at baseline and during follow-up. The primary cognitive outcome is the occurrence of accelerated cognitive decline at the end of follow-up. The two treatment groups will be compared by using a logistic regression. Accelerated cognitive decline is defined as a rate of cognitive decline that falls at or below the 16th percentile of decline for the whole cohort on either the MMSE or a combined score of the trail making and verbal fluency test. Potential confounders are taken into account at an individual patient level, using a regression based index.Discussion: Between December 2010 and December 2012, 6042 patients were randomised and treated with either linagliptin (5 mg) or glimepiride (1-4 mg) once daily in CAROLINA®. Cognitive tests were conducted in nearly 4500 participants at baseline and are scheduled for two subsequent assessments, after 160 weeks of follow-up and end of follow-up. This substudy of the ongoing CAROLINA® trial will establish if linagliptin is superior to glimepiride in the prevention of accelerated cognitive decline in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Final results are expected in 2019.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT 01243424 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many patients undergoing anaesthesia and surgery experience postoperative complications. Our aim was to investigate whether a systematic follow-up smartphone-based assessment, using recovery assessment by phone points (RAPP) compared with standard care, had a positive effect on day surgery patients' postoperative recovery. We also investigated whether there were differences in women and men's recovery and recovery scores.Methods: The study was a single-blind, multicentre randomized controlled trial. A total of 997 patients were randomly allocated to either RAPP or standard care. The Swedish web version of a quality of recovery (SwQoR) questionnaire was used to evaluate the patients' postoperative recovery, either on paper or using an application (RAPP) on postoperative days seven and 14.Results: On postoperative day seven the RAPP group reported significantly better values in seven out of 24 items of the SwQoR: sleeping difficulties; not having a general feeling of wellbeing; having difficulty feeling relaxed/comfortable; and dizziness; headache; pain in the surgical wound; and a swollen surgical wound compared with the control group, implying a good postoperative recovery. Both men and women in the RAPP group reported significantly better values (and, hence good postoperative recovery) compared with the control group in the items sleeping difficulties; not having a general feeling of wellbeing and pain in the surgical wound.Conclusions: Measurement of patient-reported outcomes using a smartphone-based application was associated with decreased discomfort from several postoperative symptoms. Systematic e-assessment can thereby increase patients' quality of recovery and identify key areas for improvement in perioperative care.Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02492191. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Communities of practice are based on the idea that learning involves a group of people exchanging experiences and knowledge. The e-MPODERA project aims to assess the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice aimed at improving primary healthcare professional attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases.Methods: This paper describes the protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. We will randomly assign 18 primary-care practices per participating region of Spain (Catalonia, Madrid and Canary Islands) to a virtual community of practice or to usual training. The primary-care practice will be the randomization unit and the primary healthcare professional will be the unit of analysis. We will need a sample of 270 primary healthcare professionals (general practitioners and nurses) and 1382 patients. We will perform randomization after professionals and patients are selected. We will ask the intervention group to participate for 12 months in a virtual community of practice based on a web 2.0 platform. We will measure the primary outcome using the Patient-Provider Orientation Scale questionnaire administered at baseline and after 12 months. Secondary outcomes will be the sociodemographic characteristics of health professionals, sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of patients, the Patient Activation Measure questionnaire for patient activation and outcomes regarding use of the virtual community of practice. We will calculate a linear mixed-effects regression to estimate the effect of participating in the virtual community of practice.Discussion: This cluster randomized controlled trial will show whether a virtual intervention for primary healthcare professionals improves attitudes to the empowerment of patients with chronic diseases.Trial Registration: ClicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016. Protocol Version. PI15.01 22 January 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective. We assessed the practices of U.S. population-based birth defects surveillance programs in addressing current and emergent public health needs. Methods. Using the CDC Strategic Framework considerations for public health surveillance (i.e., lexicon and standards, legal authority, technological advances, workforce, and analytic capacity), during 2012 and 2013, we conducted a survey of all U.S. operational birth defects programs (n=43) soliciting information on legal authorities, case definition and clinical information collected, types of data sources, and workforce staffing. In addition, we conducted semi-structured interviews with nine program directors to further understand how programs are addressing current and emergent needs. Results. Three-quarters of birth defects surveillance programs used national guidelines for case definition. Most birth defects surveillance programs (86%) had a legislative mandate to conduct surveillance, and many relied on a range of prenatal, postnatal, public health, and pediatric data sources for case ascertainment. Programs reported that the transition from paper to electronic formats was altering the information collected, offering an opportunity for remote access to improve timeliness for case review and verification. Programs also reported the growth of pooled, multistate data collaborations as a positive development. Needs identified included ongoing workforce development to improve information technology and analytic skills, more emphasis on data utility and birth defects-specific standards for health information exchange, and support to develop channels for sharing ideas on data interpretation and dissemination. Conclusion. The CDC Strategic Framework provided a useful tool to determine the birth defects surveillance areas with positive developments, such as multi-state collaborative epidemiologic studies, and areas for improvement, such as preparation for health information exchanges and workforce database and analytic skills. Our findings may inform strategic deliberations for enhancing the effectiveness of birth defects surveillance programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We implemented a comprehensive intervention program targeting general practice staff, that proved successful in optimizing practice organization and clinical decision-making. In this paper, health-related quality of life (HRQL) is investigated as a clinical outcome.Objective: To evaluate the effect of the implementation of an intervention program on the HRQL in patients at high cardiovascular risk.Research Design: Randomized controlled trial. Intervention practices (n = 62) received a comprehensive intervention program (by means of outreach visitors) lasting 21 months. HRQL of patients at high cardiovascular risk was assessed by the MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), at baseline and after intervention. Three patient categories were distinguished: diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease and hypertension.Results: HRQL deteriorated in all respondents, but more pronounced in the control group. In diabetes patients the differences between intervention and control group were significant for the Vitality and Mental Health scales, with mean difference in change of 3.93 (95% CI: 1.08-6.78) and 3.71 (95% CI: 0.73-6.68), respectively. Patients with cardiovascular disease had significantly different changes on three scales: physical functioning (3.57, 95% CI: 0.71-6.43), vitality (3.01, 95% CI: 0.72-5.30) and social functioning (3.96, 95% CI: 0.50-7.42). In patients with hypertension, there were no differences between the intervention and control group.Conclusion: Our comprehensive intervention program resulted in changes in HRQL on several domains, particularly in patients with diabetes and cardiovascular disease. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]