Search

The overuse of antimicrobials in primary care can be linked to an increased risk of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria for individual patients. Although there are promising signs of the benefits associated with Antimicrobial Stewardship Programs (ASPs) in hospitals and long-term care settings, there is limited knowledge in primary care settings and how to implement ASPs in these settings is unclear. In this context, a qualitative study was undertaken to explore the perceptions of primary care prescribers of the usefulness, feasibility, and experiences associated with the implementation of a pilot community-focused ASP intervention in three primary care clinics. Qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care clinicians, including local ASP champions, prescribers, and other primary health care team members, while they participated in an ASP initiative within one of three primary care clinics. An iterative conventional content analyses approach was used to analyze the transcribed interviews. Themes emerged around the key enablers and barriers associated with ASP implementation. Study findings point to key insights relevant to the scalability of community ASP activities with primary care providers.

Sequential antimicrobial de-escalation aims to minimize resistance to high-value broad-spectrum empiric antimicrobials by switching to alternative drugs when testing confirms susceptibility. Though widely practiced, the effects de-escalation are not well understood. Definitions of interventions and outcomes differ among studies. We use mathematical models of the transmission and evolution of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in an intensive care unit to assess the effect of de-escalation on a broad range of outcomes, and clarify expectations. In these models, de-escalation reduces the use of high-value drugs and preserves the effectiveness of empiric therapy, while also selecting for multidrug-resistant strains and leaving patients vulnerable to colonization and superinfection. The net effect of de-escalation in our models is to increase infection prevalence while also increasing the probability of effective treatment. Changes in mortality are small, and can be either positive or negative. The clinical significance of small changes in outcomes such as infection prevalence and death may exceed more easily detectable changes in drug use and resistance. Integrating harms and benefits into ranked outcomes for each patient may provide a way forward in the analysis of these tradeoffs. Our models provide a conceptual framework for the collection and interpretation of evidence needed to inform antimicrobial stewardship.

BackgroundSix independent studies have identified linkage to chromosome 18 for developmental dyslexia or general reading ability. Until now, no candidate genes have been identified to explain this linkage. Here, we set out to identify the gene(s) conferring susceptibility by a two stage strategy of linkage and association analysis.Methodology/principal findingsLinkage analysis: 264 UK families and 155 US families each containing at least one child diagnosed with dyslexia were genotyped with a dense set of microsatellite markers on chromosome 18. Association analysis: Using a discovery sample of 187 UK families, nearly 3000 SNPs were genotyped across the chromosome 18 dyslexia susceptibility candidate region. Following association analysis, the top ranking SNPs were then genotyped in the remaining samples. The linkage analysis revealed a broad signal that spans approximately 40 Mb from 18p11.2 to 18q12.2. Following the association analysis and subsequent replication attempts, we observed consistent association with the same SNPs in three genes; melanocortin 5 receptor (MC5R), dymeclin (DYM) and neural precursor cell expressed, developmentally down-regulated 4-like (NEDD4L).ConclusionsAlong with already published biological evidence, MC5R, DYM and NEDD4L make attractive candidates for dyslexia susceptibility genes. However, further replication and functional studies are still required.

PurposeRecreational runners who need refractive visual correction will need to choose the type of visual correction (spectacles, contact lenses, or no correction) to wear when running. The prevalence of correction choices and distinguishing demographic features associated with these choices of correction were investigated.MethodsA 26-item online questionnaire covering demographics, running habits, and visual corrections used was answered by 941 people. Participants were aged 18 years or older, considered themselves a recreational runner and reported needing refractive correction for everyday life. Bivariate analyses and binary logistic regression were used to determine the variables independently associated with including or avoiding types of correction for running.Results & conclusionsParticipants ran an average of 3.8times, 3.6hours, and 33.4km per week. Running habits were not associated with type of visual correction, suggesting that visual correction does not present a barrier to participating in recreational running. Solely using spectacles for running was the most common choice (38.8%) and they were worn for running at least sometimes by 65.8%. Fewer people wore spectacles for running than for general purposes (98.9%), suggesting spectacles have limitations for running. Spectacle wear for running was significantly associated with not having contact lenses available and longer duration of wearing visual correction. Running without correction was a common choice, with 15.5% of the sample only running without correction, and 26.2% running at least sometimes without their visual correction. Not wearing correction was significantly associated with not having contact lenses, a shorter duration of wearing visual correction, and a lower myopic refractive error. Contact lenses were the sole correction for running for 15.6% and were worn for running at least sometimes by 40.5%. Contact lenses were significantly more likely to be used by women and younger runners. Signposting runners to contact lenses if this has not previously been considered is recommended.

Most studies reporting ethnic disparities in the quality of healthcare come from developed countries and rely on observational methods. We conducted the first experimental study to evaluate whether health providers in Peru provide differential quality of care for family planning services, based on the indigenous or mestizo (mixed ethnoracial ancestry) profile of the patient. In a crossover randomized controlled trial conducted in 2012, a sample of 351 out of the 408 public health establishments in Metropolitan Lima, Peru were randomly assigned to receive unannounced simulated patients enacting indigenous and mestizo profiles (sequence-1) or mestizo and then indigenous profiles (sequence-2), with a five week wash-out period. Both ethnic profiles used the same scripted scenario for seeking contraceptive advice but had distinctive cultural attributes such as clothing, styling of hair, make-up, accessories, posture and patterns of movement and speech. Our primary outcome measure of quality of care is the proportion of technical tasks performed by providers, as established by Peruvian family planning clinical guidelines. Providers and data analysts were kept blinded to the allocation. We found a non-significant mean difference of -0.7% (p = 0.23) between ethnic profiles in the percentage of technical tasks performed by providers. However we report large deficiencies in the compliance with quality standards of care for both profiles. Differential provider behaviour based on the patient's ethnic profiles compared in the study did not contribute to deficiencies in family planning outcomes observed. The study highlights the need to explore other determinants for poor compliance with quality standards, including demand and supply side factors, and calls for interventions to improve the quality of care for family planning services in Metropolitan Lima.