A systematic review of psychiatric and psychosocial comorbidities of Genetic Generalised Epilepsies (GGE)

Psychiatric disorders and associated poor psychosocial outcomes are recognised to be a common sequelae of epilepsy. The extent to which this is true of genetic generalised epilepsies (GGE), particularly syndromes other than juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) is unclear. This systematic review synthesises findings regarding psychiatric and associated comorbidities in adults and children with GGE. Systematic review yielded 34 peer-reviewed studies of psychiatric and psychosocial outcomes in adults and children with GGE. Clinically significant psychiatric comorbidity was reported in over half of all children and up to a third of all adults with GGE. There was no evidence to support the presence of personality traits specific to JME or other syndromes; rather rates mirrored community samples. A small number of studies report poor psychosocial outcomes in GGE, however the interpretation of these findings is limited by paucity of healthy comparison groups. Some evidence suggests that anti-epileptic drug polytherapy in children and seizure burden at all ages may constitute risk factors for psychopathology. Findings highlight the importance of early screening so as not to overlook early or developing symptoms of psychopathology

A model of care for osteoarthritis of the hip and knee: Development of a system-wide plan for the health sector in Victoria, Australia

Osteoarthritis (OA) imposes a significant burden to the person, the health system and thedata community. Models of Care (MoCs) drive translation of evidence into policy and practicedata.and provide a platform for health system reform. The Victorian MoC for OA of the hipdata and knee was developed following a best-practice framework, informed by best-evidencedata.and iterative cross-sector consultation, including direct consumer consultation. Governancedata.and external expert advisory committees consisting of local OA care champions facilitateddata.the development and consultation processes. The MoC outlines key components of care,data.care that is not recommended, and suggests phased implementation strategies. This paperdata.describes the MoC development process and lessons learned

Confidence and Attitudes Toward Osteoarthritis Care Among the Current and Emerging Health Workforce: A Multinational Interprofessional Study.

Objective: To measure confidence and attitudes of the current and emerging interprofessional workforce concerning osteoarthritis (OA) care. Methods: Study design is a multinational (Australia, New Zealand, Canada) cross-sectional survey of clinicians (general practitioners [GPs], GP registrars, primary care nurses, and physiotherapists) and final-year medical and physiotherapy students. GPs and GP registrars were only sampled in Australia/New Zealand and Australia, respectively. The study outcomes are as follows: confidence in OA knowledge and skills (customized instrument), biomedical attitudes to care (Pain Attitudes Beliefs Scale [PABS]), attitudes toward high- and low-value care (customized items), attitudes toward exercise/physical activity (free-text responses). Results: A total of 1886 clinicians and 1161 students responded. Although a number of interprofessional differences were identified, confidence in OA knowledge and skills was consistently greatest among physiotherapists and lowest among nurses (eg, the mean difference [95% confidence interval (CI)] for physiotherapist-nurse analyses were 9.3 [7.7-10.9] for knowledge [scale: 11-55] and 14.6 [12.3-17.0] for skills [scale: 16-80]). Similarly, biomedical attitudes were stronger in nurses compared with physiotherapists (6.9 [5.3-8.4]; scale 10-60) and in medical students compared with physiotherapy students (2.0 [1.3-2.7]). Some clinicians and students agreed that people with OA will ultimately require total joint replacement (7%-19% and 19%-22%, respectively), that arthroscopy is an appropriate intervention for knee OA (18%-36% and 35%-44%), and that magnetic resonance imaging is informative for diagnosis and clinical management of hip/knee OA (8%-61% and 21%-52%). Most agreed (90%-98% and 92%-97%) that exercise is indicated and strongly supported by qualitative data. Conclusion: Workforce capacity building that de-emphasizes biomedical management and promotes high-value first-line care options is needed. Knowledge and skills among physiotherapists support leadership roles in OA care for this discipline

Health professionals and students encounter multi-level barriers to implementing high-value osteoarthritis care: a multi-national study

Objective: Consistent evidence-practice gaps in osteoarthritis (OA) care are observed in primary care settings globally. Building workforce capacity to deliver high-value care requires a contemporary understanding of barriers to care delivery. We aimed to explore barriers to OA care delivery among clinicians and students. Design: A cross-sectional, multinational study sampling clinicians (physiotherapists, primary care nurses, general practitioners (GPs), GP registrars; total possible denominator: n = 119,735) and final-year physiotherapy and medical students (denominator: n = 2,215) across Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Respondents answered a survey, aligned to contemporary implementation science domains, which measured barriers to OA care using categorical and free-text responses. Results: 1886 clinicians and 1611 students responded. Items within the domains ‘health system’ and ‘patient-related factors’ represented the most applicable barriers experienced by clinicians (25–42% and 20–36%, respectively), whereas for students, ‘knowledge and skills’ and ‘patient-related factors’ (16–24% and 19–28%, respectively) were the most applicable domains. Meta-synthesis of qualitative data highlighted skills gaps in specific components of OA care (tailoring exercise, nutritional/overweight management and supporting positive behaviour change); assessment, measurement and monitoring; tailoring care; managing case complexity; and translating knowledge to practice (especially among students). Other barriers included general infrastructure limitations (particularly related to community facilities); patient-related factors (e.g., beliefs and compliance); workforce-related factors such as inconsistent care and a general knowledge gap in high-value care; and system and service-level factors relating to financing and time pressures, respectively. Conclusions: Clinicians and students encounter barriers to delivery of high-value OA care in clinical practice/training (micro-level); within service environments (meso-level); and within the health system (macro-level)