Client Participation in Moral Case Deliberation: A Precarious Relational Balance

Moral case deliberation (MCD) is a form of clinical ethics support in which the ethicist as facilitator aims at supporting professionals with a structured moral inquiry into their moral issues from practice. Cases often affect clients, however, their inclusion in MCD is not common. Client participation often raises questions concerning conditions for equal collaboration and good dialogue. Despite these questions, there is little empirical research regarding client participation in clinical ethics support in general and in MCD in particular. This article aims at describing the experiences and processes of two MCD groups with client participation in a mental healthcare institution. A responsive evaluation was conducted examining stakeholders’ issues concerning client participation. Findings demonstrate that participation initially creates uneasiness. As routine builds up and client participants meet certain criteria, both clients and professionals start thinking beyond ‘us-them’ distinctions, and become more equal partners in dialogue. Still, sentiments of distrust and feelings of not being safe may reoccur. Client participation in MCD thus requires continuous reflection and alertness on relational dynamics and the quality of and conditions for dialogue. Participation puts the essentials of MCD (i.e., dialogue) to the test. Yet, the methodology and features of MCD offer an appropriate platform to introduce client participation in healthcare institutions

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.METHODS: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies' findings.RESULTS: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.CONCLUSION: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed.</p

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Methodological quality of 100 recent systematic reviews of health-related outcome measurement instruments:an overview of reviews

Purpose: Systematic reviews evaluating and comparing the measurement properties of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) play an important role in OMI selection. Earlier overviews of review quality (2007, 2014) evidenced substantial concerns with regards to alignment to scientific standards. This overview aimed to investigate whether the quality of recent systematic reviews of OMIs lives up to the current scientific standards.Methods: One hundred systematic reviews of OMIs published from June 1, 2021 onwards were randomly selected through a systematic literature search performed on March 17, 2022 in MEDLINE and EMBASE. The quality of systematic reviews was appraised by two independent reviewers. An updated data extraction form was informed by the earlier studies, and results were compared to these earlier studies’ findings.Results: A quarter of the reviews had an unclear research question or aim, and in 22% of the reviews the search strategy did not match the aim. Half of the reviews had an incomprehensive search strategy, because relevant search terms were not included. In 63% of the reviews (compared to 41% in 2014 and 30% in 2007) a risk of bias assessment was conducted. In 73% of the reviews (some) measurement properties were evaluated (58% in 2014 and 55% in 2007). In 60% of the reviews the data were (partly) synthesized (42% in 2014 and 7% in 2007); evaluation of measurement properties and data syntheses was not conducted separately for subscales in the majority. Certainty assessments of the quality of the total body of evidence were conducted in only 33% of reviews (not assessed in 2014 and 2007). The majority (58%) did not make any recommendations on which OMI (not) to use.Conclusion: Despite clear improvements in risk of bias assessments, measurement property evaluation and data synthesis, specifying the research question, conducting the search strategy and performing a certainty assessment remain poor. To ensure that systematic reviews of OMIs meet current scientific standards, more consistent conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs is needed

Inter-method reliability of the modified Rankin Scale in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) is one of the most frequently used outcome measures in trials in patients with an aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH). The assessment method of the mRS is often not clearly described in trials, while the method used might influence the mRS score. The aim of this study is to evaluate the inter-method reliability of different assessment methods of the mRS. METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized, multicenter study with follow-up at 6 weeks and 6 months. Patients aged ≥ 18 years with aSAH were randomized to either a structured interview or a self-assessment of the mRS. Patients were seen by a physician who assigned an mRS score, followed by either the structured interview or the self-assessment. Inter-method reliability was assessed with the quadratic weighted kappa score and percentage of agreement. Assessment of feasibility of the self-assessment was done by a feasibility questionnaire. RESULTS: The quadratic weighted kappa was 0.60 between the assessment of the physician and structured interview and 0.56 between assessment of the physician and self-assessment. Percentage agreement was, respectively, 50.8 and 19.6%. The assessment of the mRS through a structured interview and by self-assessment resulted in systematically higher mRS scores than the mRS scored by the physician. Self-assessment of the mRS was proven feasible. DISCUSSION: The mRS scores obtained with different assessment methods differ significantly. The agreement between the scores is low, although the reliability between the assessment methods is good. This should be considered when using the mRS in clinical trials. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.trialregister.nl; Unique identifier: NL7859. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10880-4

Meanings of being received and met by others as experienced by women with MS

In order to elucidate meanings of being received and met by others as experienced by women with multiple sclerosis (MS) we conducted a qualitative inquiry. We interviewed 15 women with MS and analysed the interviews with a phenomenological hermeneutic interpretation. The findings were presented in two themes: experiencing oneself as a valuable person and experiencing oneself as diminished. Meanings of being received and met by others, as experienced by women with MS, can be understood as containing two dimensions where treatment from others can mean recognising oneself through confirmation, as well as being ignored due to missing togetherness with others

The capability set for work - correlates of sustainable employability in workers with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine whether work capabilities differ between workers with Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and workers from the general population. The second aim was to investigate whether the capability set was related to work and health outcomes. METHODS: A total of 163 workers with MS from the MS@Work study and 163 workers from the general population were matched for gender, age, educational level and working hours. All participants completed online questionnaires on demographics, health and work functioning. The Capability Set for Work Questionnaire was used to explore whether a set of seven work values is considered valuable (A), is enabled in the work context (B), and can be achieved by the individual (C). When all three criteria are met a work value can be considered part of the individual's 'capability set'. RESULTS: Group differences and relationships with work and health outcomes were examined. Despite lower physical work functioning (U = 4250, p = 0.001), lower work ability (U = 10591, p = 0.006) and worse self-reported health (U = 9091, p ≤ 0.001) workers with MS had a larger capability set (U = 9649, p ≤ 0.001) than the general population. In workers with MS, a larger capability set was associated with better flexible work functioning (r = 0.30), work ability (r = 0.25), self-rated health (r = 0.25); and with less absenteeism (r = - 0.26), presenteeism (r = - 0.31), cognitive/neuropsychiatric impairment (r = - 0.35), depression (r = - 0.43), anxiety (r = - 0.31) and fatigue (r = - 0.34). CONCLUSIONS: Workers with MS have a larger capability set than workers from the general population. In workers with MS a larger capability set was associated with better work and health outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This observational study is registered under NL43098.008.12: 'Voorspellers van arbeidsparticipatie bij mensen met relapsing-remitting Multiple Sclerose'. The study is registered at the Dutch CCMO register ( https://www.toetsingonline.nl ). This study is approved by the METC Brabant, 12 February 2014. First participants are enrolled 1st of March 2014

Can energy self‑sufficiency be achieved? Case study of Warmińsko‑Mazurskie Voivodeship (Poland)

An analysis was carried out to show whether the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship (Poland) could become energy selfsufficient. The technical potential of electricity and heat from renewable sources has been calculated. The calculated values are 6.93 TWh/year of electricity and 15.84 PJ/year of heat—these amounts would ensure the energy independence of the Voivodeship. The Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship is an example of transformation towards “green” energy, it shows that such transformation is also possible in Poland even in short term. This would reduce air pollution as well as limit the import of energy resources. It is very important, it allows us to think with optimism and implement Poland’s energy transformation towards renewable energy (RE). Additionally, a SWOT analysis of each type of RE in the Warmińsko-Mazurskie Voivodeship was presented. The SWOT analysis makes it possible to identify the strengths, weaknesses, prospects and threats for RE in the Voivodeship and the whole country. It has been found that there is a great interest of investors in RE in the Voivodeship, there is usually a great public support for new energy sources, and the biggest barriers are high investment costs and complicated law in Poland