Search

Thirteen years after the publication of the National Policy for the Comprehensive Health of the Black Population (PNSIPN, Política Nacional da Saúde Integral da População Negra), filling out the race/skin color question in the patient identification form remains a challenge. Authors have focused on the need to integrate knowledge from the science of implementation into public policies. The aim of this article is to describe and analyze the implementation of the collection of the race/skin color item carried out by the professionals responsible for the registration of patients at a university hospital in the city of São Paulo. This was an exploratory and descriptive study, structured from three constructs of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR): intervention, internal scenario and characteristics of individuals. Most records of race/skin color in the observed institution are made by heteroidentification. Based on the CFIR constructs, aspects identified as obstacles and facilitators are identified. The implementation of the collection of the race/skin color item by self-declaration, as provided for in the PNSIPN and in Ordinance n. 344/2017, is still incipient and depends mainly on organizational changes, which can favor its effectiveness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Although there are standards in guideline-compliant treatment of chronic wounds, little is known about the use of wound dressings in Germany. Objective The objective of the longitudinal study was to analyze the use of wound dressings, to explore regional differences and to characterize prescriptions by different physician specialties in patients with leg ulcers in Germany. Methods Wound dressing rates for incident leg ulcers were analyzed from a German statutory health insurance between 2010 and 2012. Results From 2010 to 2012, out of 7,248,644 insured persons 0.52% [95%-CI 0.51–0.52%] were identified as having an incident ulcer. 76.0% were treated with hydroactive wound dressings. By contrast, in 23.7% only non-hydroactive dressings were used, and more often prescribed in venous (24.0%) than in mixed leg ulcers (20.8%). Most frequently used products were foam dressings (49.7%), followed by gauze compresses (29.5%). Wound specialized physicians had the highest overall proportion of prescriptions (60.2%) and a slightly higher proportion of non-hydroactive wound dressings. Large regional variations were observed. Conclusion In Germany, a high level of use of hydroactive wound dressings in leg ulcers and marked regional variations were found. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Industry sponsorship has been identified as a source of bias in several fields of medical science. To date, the influence of industry sponsorship in the field of general and abdominal surgery has not been evaluated. Methods: A systematic literature search (1985-2014) was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify randomized controlled trials in general and abdominal surgery. Information on funding source, outcome, and methodological quality was extracted. Association of industry sponsorship and positive outcome was expressed as odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). A χ2 test and a multivariate logistic regression analysis with study characteristics and known sources of bias were performed. Results: A total of 7934 articles were screened and 165 randomized controlled trials were included. No difference in methodological quality was found. Industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant results for the primary endpoint (OR, 2.44; CI, 1.04-5.71; P=0.04). Eightyeight of 115 (76.5%) industry-funded trials and 19 of 50 (38.0%) non-industry-funded trials reported a positive outcome (OR, 5.32; CI, 2.60-10.88; P<0.001). Industry-funded trials more often reported a positive outcome without statistical justification (OR, 5.79; CI, 2.13-15.68; P<0.001). In a multivariate analysis, funding source remained significantly associated with reporting of positive outcome (P<0.001). Conclusions: Industry funding of surgical trials leads to exaggerated positive reporting of outcomes. This study emphasizes the necessity for declaration of funding source. Industry involvement in surgical research has to ensure scientific integrity and independence and has to be based on full transparency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim The aim of this observational study was to assess mortality of patients with type 2 diabetes by type of healthcare delivery system, i.e. through specialist centers or generalist doctors, or integrated care. Methods The study was conducted at the “Vicentino Ovest” Local Health District in the Veneto Region (north-eastern Italy) from January 1, 2008 to December 31, 2010. Patients with diabetes (≥20 years old) were identified using different public health databases. They were grouped as: patients followed up by specialists at diabetes clinics (DS); patients seen only by their own general practitioner (GP); and patients receiving integrated care (DS-GP). Cox's regression analysis was used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios for available potential predictors of death by level of care. Results The crude mortality rate was highest in the GP group (26.1 per 1000 person-years), the difference being minimal when compared with the DS group (21.7 per 1000 person-years) and more marked when compared with the DS-GP group (8.8 per 1000 person-years). Patients followed up by their GPs had a 2.7 adjusted RR for mortality by comparison with the DS-GP group. Conclusions The findings of the present study could demonstrate that it is safe and cost-effective, after a first specialist assessment at a diabetes service, for low-risk diabetic patients to be managed by family physicians as part of a coordinated care approach, based on the specialist's clinical recommendations; GPs can subsequently refer patients to a specialist whenever warranted by their clinical condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Archiv für Kriminologie is the property of Schmidt-Roemhild Verlag and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Independent of the underlying disease, intensive care unit survivors often suffer from cognitive, physical and mental impairments, also known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS). Specific follow-up services are recommended for these patients. This study aims to capture the perspectives of health care providers on the development of the first intensive care unit follow-up-clinic in Germany. A qualitative study with six focus groups (n = 41) and six expert interviews, followed by a quantitative survey was conducted, involving nine different professions. Qualitative and quantitative data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics, respectively. Participants described aftercare of former intensive care unit patients as complex and appreciated the idea of an intensive care unit follow-up clinic to improve continuity of care and multidisciplinary collaboration. The favoured model combined diagnostics and targeted referral of patients to specialists and therapists with the provision of information. In the survey, participants disagreed on how to implement this referral system but agreed that assessments should be multidimensional. The necessity of and important criteria for the design of an intensive care unit follow-up clinic were identified. We will integrate these data with further evidence to develop a concept for a complex intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article suggests several practical strategies that human factors and ergonomics (HF/E) students and practitioners may use while gaining access to and recruiting participants from a healthcare environment. One is to find research champions within the organization and offer monetary compensation to ensure participation. Another is to manage a complex hospital Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval process by viewing local IRB approval. The author hopes to encourage students to pursue healthcare research.

Copyright of Public Health Forum is the property of De Gruyter and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Crowdsourced health research studies are the nexus of three contemporary trends: 1) citizen science (non-professionally trained individuals conducting science-related activities); 2) crowdsourcing (use of web-based technologies to recruit project participants); and 3) medicine 2.0 / health 2.0 (active participation of individuals in their health care particularly using web 2.0 technologies). Crowdsourced health research studies have arisen as a natural extension of the activities of health social networks (online health interest communities), and can be researcher-organized or participant-organized. In the last few years, professional researchers have been crowdsourcing cohorts from health social networks for the conduct of traditional studies. Participants have also begun to organize their own research studies through health social networks and health collaboration communities created especially for the purpose of self-experimentation and the investigation of health-related concerns. Objective: The objective of this analysis is to undertake a comprehensive narrative review of crowdsourced health research studies. This review will assess the status, impact, and prospects of crowdsourced health research studies. Methods: Crowdsourced health research studies were identified through a search of literature published from 2000 to 2011 and informal interviews conducted 2008-2011. Keyword terms related to crowdsourcing were sought in Medline/PubMed. Papers that presented results from human health studies that included crowdsourced populations were selected for inclusion. Crowdsourced health research studies not published in the scientific literature were identified by attending industry conferences and events, interviewing attendees, and reviewing related websites. Results: Participatory health is a growing area with individuals using health social networks, crowdsourced studies, smartphone health applications, and personal health records to achieve positive outcomes for a variety of health conditions. PatientsLikeMe and 23andMe are the leading operators of researcher-organized, crowdsourced health research studies. These operators have published findings in the areas of disease research, drug response, user experience in crowdsourced studies, and genetic association. Quantified Self, Genomera, and DIYgenomics are communities of participant-organized health research studies where individuals conduct self-experimentation and group studies. Crowdsourced health research studies have a diversity of intended outcomes and levels of scientific rigor. Conclusions: Participatory health initiatives are becoming part of the public health ecosystem and their rapid growth is facilitated by Internet and social networking influences. Large-scale parameter-stratified cohorts have potential to facilitate a next-generation understanding of disease and drug response. Not only is the large size of crowdsourced cohorts an asset to medical discovery, too is the near-immediate speed at which medical findings might be tested and applied. Participatory health initiatives are expanding the scope of medicine from a traditional focus on disease cure to a personalized preventive approach. Crowdsourced health research studies are a promising complement and extension to traditional clinical trials as a model for the conduct of health research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]