Search

Background There is an ethical imperative to offer the results of trials to those who participated. Existing research highlights that less than a third of trials do so, despite the desire of participants to receive the results of the trials they participated in. This scoping review aimed to identify, collate, and describe the available evidence relating to any aspect of disseminating trial results to participants. Methods A scoping review was conducted employing a search of key databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) from January 2008 to August 2019) to identify studies that had explored any aspect of disseminating results to trial participants. The search strategy was based on that of a linked existing review. The evidence identified describes the characteristics of included studies using narrative description informed by analysis of relevant data using descriptive statistics. Results Thirty-three eligible studies, including 12,700 participants (which included patients, health care professionals, trial teams), were identified and included. Reporting of participant characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity) across the studies was poor. The majority of studies investigated dissemination of aggregate trial results. The most frequently reported mode of disseminating of results was postal. Overall, the results report that participants evaluated receipt of trial results positively, with reported benefits including improved communication, demonstration of appreciation, improved retention, and engagement in future research. However, there were also some concerns about how well the dissemination was resourced and done, worries about emotional effects on participants especially when reporting unfavourable results, and frustration about the delay between the end of the trial and receipt of results. Conclusions This scoping review has highlighted that few high-quality evaluative studies have been conducted that can provide evidence on the best ways to deliver results to trial participants. There have been relatively few qualitative studies that explore perspectives from diverse populations, and those that have been conducted are limited to a handful of clinical areas. The learning from these studies can be used as a platform for further research and to consider some core guiding principles of the opportunities and challenges when disseminating trial results to those who participated.

Community mental health teams (CMHTs) in England face mounting service pressures due to an increased focus on out-of-hospital care. Interprofessional working is essential to providing good mental healthcare in community settings. Simulation training is underused in mental health, despite strong support for its improvement of clinical skills, confidence, teamwork, and interprofessional collaboration in other healthcare settings. This study aims to evaluate the impact of simulation training on community mental health professionals. An interprofessional simulation training course on assessment and team working skills for community mental health professionals was developed and delivered at a time of service reorganisation in South London services, including changes to job roles and responsibilities. In total, 57 course participants completed a survey that measured perceptions of knowledge and confidence, as well as a general view of the course. Eight participants took part in further semi-structured interviews 2-3 months after the course to provide perceptions about this experience's subsequent impact. There were statistically significant increases in knowledge and confidence scores with large effect sizes. Thematic analyses of open-text survey and interview data identified emergent themes of interprofessional understanding; attitudes in clinical practice; staff well-being; the value of reflection; opportunity for feedback; and fidelity to clinical practice. Simulation training can improve confidence and knowledge in core skills and team working for CMHTs. Participants reported benefits to key areas of community mental healthcare, such as interprofessional collaboration, reflective practice, and staff well-being. Findings represented individual and team learning, as well as subsequent changes to clinical practice, and were related back to the interactive and reflective nature of the simulation. Implications are highlighted concerning the use of interprofessional simulation training in mental health, particularly relating to staff well-being, attitudes, and interprofessional working.

This article is a report of the fourth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in Malmo, Sweden on 23-24 April 2015 (HOME IV). The aim of the meeting was to achieve consensus over the preferred outcome instruments for measuring patient-reported symptoms and quality of life for the HOME core outcome set for atopic eczema (AE). Following presentations, which included data from systematic reviews, consensus discussions were held in a mixture of whole group and small group discussions. Small groups were allocated a priori to ensure representation of different stakeholders and countries. Decisions were voted on using electronic keypads. For the patient-reported symptoms, the group agreed by vote that itch, sleep loss, dryness, redness/inflamed skin and irritated skin were all considered essential aspects of AE symptoms. Many instruments for capturing patient-reported symptoms were discussed [ including the Patient-Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Self-Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index, Itch Severity Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore and the Nottingham Eczema Severity Score] and, by consensus, POEM was selected as the preferred instrument to measure patient-reported symptoms. Further work is needed to determine the reliability and measurement error of POEM. Further work is also required to establish the importance of pain/soreness and the importance of collecting information regarding the intensity of symptoms in addition to their frequency. Much of the discussion on quality of life concerned the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis; however, consensus on a preferred instrument for measuring this domain could not be reached. In summary, POEM is recommended as the HOME core outcome instrument for measuring AE symptoms.

Background The Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative has identified quality of life (QoL) as a core outcome domain to be evaluated in every eczema trial. It is unclear which of the existing QoL instruments is most appropriate for this domain. Thus, the aim of this review was to systematically assess the measurement properties of existing measurement instruments developed and/or validated for the measurement of QoL in adult eczema. Methods We conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Embase identifying studies on measurement properties of adult eczema QoL instruments. For all eligible studies, we assessed the adequacy of the measurement properties and the methodological quality with the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. A best evidence synthesis summarizing findings from different studies was the basis to assign four degrees of recommendation (A–D). Results A total of 15 articles reporting on 17 instruments were included. No instrument fulfilled the criteria for category A. Six instruments were placed in category B, meaning that they have the potential to be recommended depending on the results of further validation studies. Three instruments had poor adequacy in at least one required adequacy criterion and were therefore put in category C. The remaining eight instruments were minimally validated and were thus placed in category D. Conclusions Currently, no QoL instrument can be recommended for use in adult eczema. The Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis (QoLIAD) and the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) are recommended for further validation research.

At the current level of membership examination fees at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, a resident in psychiatry who passes every part first time pays a total of £2136.[1][1] These costs are intended to cover only expenses rather than to generate profit, a message which many of us have accepted