Search

Background: This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.Methods: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).Results: A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.Discussion: This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Systematic reviews are a necessary, but often insufficient, source of information to address the decision-making needs of health systems. In this paper, we address when and how the use of health system data might make systematic reviews more useful to decision-makers. We describe the different ways in which health system data can be used with systematic reviews, identify scenarios in which the addition of health system data may be most helpful (i.e., to improve the strength of evidence, to improve the applicability of evidence, and to inform the implementation of evidence), and discuss the importance of framing the limitations and considerations when using unpublished health system data in reviews. We developed a framework to guide the use of health system data alongside systematic reviews based on a narrative review of the literature and empirical experience. We also offer recommendations to improve the transparency of reporting when using health system data alongside systematic reviews including providing rationale for employing additional data, details on the data source, critical appraisal to understand study design biases as well as limitations in data and information quality, and how the unpublished data compares to the systematically reviewed data. Future methodological work on how best to handle internal and external validity concerns of health system data in the context of systematically reviewed data and work on developing infrastructure to do this type of work is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite evidence-based guidelines, high-quality diabetes care is not always achieved. Identifying factors associated with the quality of management in primary care may inform service improvements, facilitating the tailoring of quality improvement interventions to practice needs and resources.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science from January 1990 to March 2019. Eligible studies were cohort studies, cross-sectional studies and randomised controlled trials (baseline data) conducted among adults with diabetes, which examined the relationship between any physician and/or practice factors and any objective measure(s) of quality. Studies which examined patient factors only were ineligible. Where possible, data were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.Results: In total, 82 studies were included. The range of individual quality measures and the construction of composite measures varied considerably. Female physicians compared with males ((odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.10), 8 studies), physicians with higher diabetes volume compared with lower volume (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05-1.47, 4 studies) and practices with Electronic Health Records (EHR) versus practices without (OR = 1.43, 95% CI: 1.11-1.84, 4 studies) were associated with a higher quality of care. There was no association between physician experience, practice location and type of practice and quality. Based on the narrative synthesis, increasing physician age and higher practice socio-economic deprivation may be associated with lower quality of care.Discussion: Identification of physician- and practice-level factors associated with the quality of care (female gender, younger age, physician-level diabetes volume, practice deprivation and EHR use) may explain differences across practices and physicians, provide potential targets for quality improvement interventions and indicate which practices need specific supports to deliver improvements in diabetes care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Impostor syndrome is increasingly presented in the media and lay literature as a key behavioral health condition impairing professional performance and contributing to burnout. However, there is no published review of the evidence to guide the diagnosis or treatment of patients presenting with impostor syndrome.Purpose: To evaluate the evidence on the prevalence, predictors, comorbidities, and treatment of impostor syndrome.Data Sources: Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO (January 1966 to May 2018) and bibliographies of retrieved articles.Study Selection: English-language reports of evaluations of the prevalence, predictors, comorbidities, or treatment of impostor syndrome.Data Extraction: Two independent investigators extracted data on study variables (e.g., study methodology, treatments provided); participant variables (e.g., demographics, professional setting); diagnostic tools used, outcome variables (e.g., workplace performance, reductions in comorbid conditions); and pre-defined quality variables (e.g., human subjects approval, response rates reported).Data Synthesis: In total, 62 studies of 14,161 participants met the inclusion criteria (half were published in the past 6 years). Prevalence rates of impostor syndrome varied widely from 9 to 82% largely depending on the screening tool and cutoff used to assess symptoms and were particularly high among ethnic minority groups. Impostor syndrome was common among both men and women and across a range of age groups (adolescents to late-stage professionals). Impostor syndrome is often comorbid with depression and anxiety and is associated with impaired job performance, job satisfaction, and burnout among various employee populations including clinicians. No published studies evaluated treatments for this condition.Limitations: Studies were heterogeneous; publication bias may be present.Conclusions: Clinicians and employers should be mindful of the prevalence of impostor syndrome among professional populations and take steps to assess for impostor feelings and common comorbidities. Future research should include evaluations of treatments to mitigate impostor symptoms and its common comorbidities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Currently, there are no accepted FDA-approved pharmacotherapies for cocaine use disorder, though numerous medications have been tested in clinical trials. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to better understand the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy for cocaine use disorder.Methods: We searched multiple data sources (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library) through November 2017 for systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological interventions in adults with cocaine use disorder. When possible, we combined the findings of trials with comparable interventions and outcome measures in random-effects meta-analyses. We assessed the risk of bias of individual trials and the strength of evidence for each outcome using standardized criteria. Outcomes included continuous abstinence (3+ consecutive weeks); cocaine use; harms; and study retention. For relapse prevention studies (participants abstinent at baseline), we examined lapse (first cocaine positive or missing UDS) and relapse (two consecutive cocaine positive or missed UDS').Results: Sixty-six different drugs or drug combinations were studied in seven systematic reviews and 48 RCTs that met inclusion criteria. Antidepressants were the most widely studied drug class (38 RCTs) but appear to have no effect on cocaine use or treatment retention. Increased abstinence was found with bupropion (2 RCTs: RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.59), topiramate (2 RCTs: RR 2.56, 95% CI 1.39 to 4.73), and psychostimulants (14 RCTs: RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.77), though the strength of evidence for these findings was low. We found moderate strength of evidence that antipsychotics improved treatment retention (8 RCTs: RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.75).Discussion: Most of the pharmacotherapies studied were not effective for treating cocaine use disorder. Bupropion, psychostimulants, and topiramate may improve abstinence, and antipsychotics may improve retention. Contingency management and behavioral interventions along with pharmacotherapy should continue to be explored.Sr Registration: Prospero CRD42018085667. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes.Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest.Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range - 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3).Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]