Search

Objective: Interprofessional education (IPE) is when two or more students from different professions learn with, from, and about each other to improve collaboration and quality of healthcare. In October 2019, a first interprofessional education (IPE) day was held in the canton of Zurich with the aim of teaching interprofessional skills to participating students. Methodology: The IPE day was developed by an interprofessional team of students. After a short introduction, the roles and tasks of the professional groups involved were discussed. This was followed by two case studies with simulation persons and reflection rounds. For the evaluation of the day, 15 semi-structured interviews with students and lecturers were conducted and qualitatively evaluated by means of thematic analysis. Results: The students and lecturers had a very positive experience of the IPE day. Especially the participation of medical and pharmacy students, the practical case studies with simulation persons and the informal exchange during the breaks were appreciated. There was room for improvement in the development of role models. Through an open attitude and good communication, the students learned to know and appreciate the competencies of the other professional groups. All those interviewed wished for more interprofessional teaching opportunities and the students felt encouraged to apply what they had learned in their later professional practice. Conclusion: The IPE day could be carried out successfully and the didactic concept worked largely well. The evaluation provided subjective evidence that the students were able to improve the interprofessional competencies of teamwork, communication, openness, appreciation and reflectiveness. In the future, the IPE day should be anchored in the curricula.

Importance: There are few robust evaluations of disease-specific question prompt sheets (QPS) in patient-physician communication among patients with advanced cancer. Objective: To compare the patient perception of helpfulness, global evaluation, and preference for the QPS vs a general information sheet (GIS), and to examine the effect of the QPS on participants' anxiety, participants' speaking time, number of questions asked, and length of the clinical encounter. Design: , setting, and participants: This controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted at an outpatient palliative and supportive care clinic in a cancer center in the US. Eligible patients were 18 years or older, had a cancer diagnosis, and were undergoing their first outpatient consultation visit with a palliative care physician from September 1, 2017, to May 31, 2019. Data analysis used a modified intention-to-treat design. Data were analyzed from May 18 to June 27, 2022. Intervention: QPS, a 25-item list of questions developed by expert palliative care clinicians using a Delphi process and tested among ambulatory advanced cancer patients. The control was GIS, generic information material given routinely to patients seen at the supportive care clinic. Main outcomes and measures: The main outcome was patient perception of helpfulness. Secondary outcomes included global evaluation and preference of QPS compared with GIS immediately after the encounter. Results: A total of 130 patients (mean [SD] age, 58.6 [13.3] years; 79 [60.8%] female) were randomized to receive either QPS (67 patients [51.5%]) or GIS (63 patients [48.5%]). Patients considered QPS and GIS equally helpful, with no statistically significant difference (mean [SD] helpfulness score, 7.2 [2.3] points vs 7.1 [2.7] points; P =.79). The QPS group, compared with the GIS group, had a higher global positive view of the material (mean [SD] global perception score, 7.1 [1.3] vs 6.5 [1.7]; P =.03) and felt it prompted them more to generate new questions (mean [SD] rating, 7.0 [2.9] vs 5.3 [3.5]; P =.005). Of 47 patients asked their preference between the items, more participants preferred the QPS to the GIS in communicating with their physicians (24 patients [51.1%] vs 7 patients [14.9%]; P =.01) at the 4-week follow-up. No significant differences between the QPS and GIS groups were observed regarding participant anxiety, speaking time, number of questions asked, or consultation length (eg, mean [SD] anxiety rating, 2.3 [3.7] vs 1.6 [2.7]; P =.19). Conclusions: and relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, participants perceived both QPS and GIS as equally helpful, but they had a more positive global view of and preferred the QPS. QPS facilitated generation of new questions without increasing patient anxiety nor prolonging the consultation. The findings provide support for increased adoption and integration of QPS into routine oncologic care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG 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.)

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG 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: Acupuncture is commonly used to treat migraine. We assessed the efficacy of acupuncture at migraine-specific acupuncture points compared with other acupuncture points and sham acupuncture. Methods: We performed a multicentre, singleblind randomized controlled trial. In total, 480 patients with migraine were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture, Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture, Yangming-specific acupuncture or sham acupuncture [control]). All groups received 20 treatments, which included electrical stimulation, over a period of four weeks. The primary outcome was the number of days with a migraine experienced during weeks 5–8 after randomization. Our secondary outcomes included the frequency of migraine attack, migraine intensity and migrainespecific quality of life. Results: Compared with patients in the control group, patients in the acupuncture groups reported fewer days with a migraine during weeks 5–8, however the differences between treatments were not significant (p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the number of days with a migraine during weeks 13–16 in all acupuncture groups compared with control (Shaoyang-specific acupuncture v. control: difference −1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) −1.77 to −0.5], p = 0.003; Shaoyang-nonspecific acupuncture v. control: difference −1.22 [95% CI −1.92 to −0.52], p < 0.001; Yangming-specific acupuncture v. control: difference −0.91 [95% CI −1.61 to −0.21], p = 0.011). We found that there was a significant, but not clinically relevant, benefit for almost all secondary outcomes in the three acupuncture groups compared with the control group. We found no relevant differences between the three acupuncture groups. Interpretation: Acupuncture tested appeared to have a clinically minor effect on migraine prophylaxis compared with sham acupuncture. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00599586 [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The mechanisms of action underlying acupuncture, including acupuncture point specificity, are not well understood. In the previous decade, an increasing number of studies have applied fMRI to investigate brain response to acupuncture stimulation. Our aim was to provide a systematic overview of acupuncture fMRI research considering the following aspects: 1) differences between verum and sham acupuncture, 2) differences due to various methods of acupuncture manipulation, 3) differences between patients and healthy volunteers, 4) differences between different acupuncture points. Methodology/Principle Findings: We systematically searched English, Chinese, Korean and Japanese databases for literature published from the earliest available up until September 2009, without any language restrictions. We included all studies using fMRI to investigate the effect of acupuncture on the human brain (at least one group that received needle-based acupuncture). 779 papers were identified, 149 met the inclusion criteria for the descriptive analysis, and 34 were eligible for the meta-analyses. From a descriptive perspective, multiple studies reported that acupuncture modulates activity within specific brain areas, including somatosensory cortices, limbic system, basal ganglia, brain stem, and cerebellum. Meta-analyses for verum acupuncture stimuli confirmed brain activity within many of the regions mentioned above. Differences between verum and sham acupuncture were noted in brain response in middle cingulate, while some heterogeneity was noted for other regions depending on how such meta-analyses were performed, such as sensorimotor cortices, limbic regions, and cerebellum. Conclusions: Brain response to acupuncture stimuli encompasses a broad network of regions consistent with not just somatosensory, but also affective and cognitive processing. While the results were heterogeneous, from a descriptive perspective most studies suggest that acupuncture can modulate the activity within specific brain areas, and the evidence based on meta-analyses confirmed some of these results. More high quality studies with more transparent methodology are needed to improve the consistency amongst different studies. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Interprofessionelle Lehre (IPL) bedeutet, dass Studierende verschiedener Professionen mit-, von- und übereinander lernen. 2019 wurde im Kanton Zürich ein interprofessioneller Ausbildungstag (IPE-Tag) mit 68 Studierenden und acht Dozierenden über acht Lektionen durchgeführt mit dem Ziel, interprofessionelle Kompetenzen zu verbessern. Studierende aus sechs Fachbereichen des Gesundheitswesens und PhD-Studierende mit unterschiedlichem fachlichem Hintergrund mussten gemeinsam in Gruppen zwei Fälle mit Simulationspatienten/-innen bearbeiten. Zur Evaluation des IPE Tages wurde eine Prä-Post-Online-Befragung durchgeführt. Sie umfassten unter anderem eine Selbsteinschätzung mittels Items aus dem Kompetenzrahmen der Zürcher InterProfessionellen AusbildungsStation (ZIPAS®) und dem Interprofessional Collaborative Competency Attainment Survey (ICCAS) sowie offene Fragen zum IPE-Tag. Dabei wurden ZIPAS®-Kompetenzrahmen und ICCAS quantitativ, die offenen Fragen qualitativ ausgewertet. Es zeigten sich statistisch signifikante Verbesserungen in den meisten Subskalen des ZIPAS®-Kompetenzrahmens, aber nur in einem Drittel der Subskalen des ICCAS. Außerdem zeigten sich in der qualitativen Analyse der Aussagen insbesondere Verbesserungen in der Kollaboration sowie positive Aussagen zum Austausch mit Studierenden anderer Professionen, wobei viele Studierende dem Thema «Interprofessionalität» eine große Bedeutung zugeschrieben und ihren Blick bereits auf die Zukunft und ihren Alltag gerichtet haben. Der IPE-Tag könnte eine gute Methode sein, um die Zusammenarbeit und Kommunikation mit Studierenden anderer Professionen aus dem Gesundheitsbereich zu verbessern.

For more than 200 years, homeopathic doctors have been carrying out homeopathic drug provings (HDPs),which embodies the traditional self drug testing, an integral part of the homeopathic medical profession. However,according to national authorities, testing homeopathic drugs is a phase I clinical trial for which the German Federal Drug Law applies. Adapting a 200-year-old primary qualitative study design to modern drug law and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines generates several difficulties, in particular, blinding, informed consent and the classification of adverse events. In addition, in Germany naturopaths (German: ‘Heilpraktiker’) are excluded from leading HDP trials. The costs are climbing, and the organizational over heads for a HDP are enormous. Implications for the future are discussed., (Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)