Expectancy confirmation effects: accumulation and moderation by social interaction

The confirmation of expectancies may result in either a self-fulfilling prophecy or perceptual bias, altering social reality. The current research posits that expectancy confirmation processes may become more powerful through accumulation of expectancy effects across perceivers. It also investigates the implicit question that these effects may be highly pervasive and have the potential to accumulate across perceivers who share similar false expectancies, but do not have contact with one another. There were two perceivers and one target in each group of participants for a total of 114 groups. Perceivers were induced with either a hostile or non-hostile expectancy and then interacted with targets in a discussion task. Results failed to support either a self-fulfilling prophecy or perceptual bias. Failure to find effects may have been due to social norms that conflicted with the hostile expectancy, but other paradigms may be more conducive for finding the accumulation of expectancy confirmation processes

The use of patient-reported outcome measures to guide referral for hip and knee replacement. Part 1: the development of an evidence based model linking pre-operative score to the probability of gaining benefit from surgery

Aims To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee arthroplasty varies with preoperative patient-reported scores. Methods Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip arthroplasty patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their preoperative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically meaningful improvement after arthroplasty was defined as ≥ 8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥ 7 in OKS. Results The upper preoperative score threshold, above which patients are unlikely to achieve any meaningful improvement from surgery, is 41 for knees and 40 for hips. At lower scores, the probability of improvement increased towards a maximum of 88% (knee) and 95% for (hips). Conclusion By our definition of meaningful improvement, patients with preoperative scores above 41 (OKS) and 40 (OHS) should not be routinely referred to secondary care for possible arthroplasty. Using lower thresholds would incrementally increase the probability of meaningful benefit for those referred but will exclude some patients with potential to benefit. The findings are useful to support the complex shared decision-making process in primary care for referral to secondary care; and in secondary care for experienced clinicians counselling patients considering knee or hip arthroplasty, but should not be used in isolation

Post-operative determinants of chronic pain after primary knee replacement surgery:Analysis of data on 258,386 patients from the National Joint Registry for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man (NJR)

Objective: To identify post-operative risk factors for the development of chronic pain after knee replacement. Design: Primary knee replacements in persons aged ≥18 years between April 2008 and December 2016 from the National Joint Registry, linked with English Hospital Episode Statistics data, and Patient Reported Outcome Measures. The outcome was chronic pain 6-months after surgery (Oxford Knee pain score). Logistic regression modelling identified risk factors for chronic pain outcome. Results: 258,386 patients; 56.7% women; average age 70.1 years (SD ​± ​8.8 years). 43,702 (16.9%) were identified as having chronic pain 6-months post-surgery. Within 3 months of surgery complications were uncommon: intra-operative complications 1224 (0.5%); ≥1 medical complication 6073 (2.4%)); 32,930 (12.7%) hospital readmissions; 3848 (1.5%) re-operation; 835 (0.3%) revision. Post-surgical risk factors of chronic pain were: mechanical complication of prosthesis odds ratio (OR) 1.56 (95% Confidence Interval 1.35, 1.80); surgical site infection OR 1.13 (0.99, 1.29); readmission OR 1.47 (1.42, 1.52); re-operation OR 1.39 (1.27, 1.51); revision OR 1.92 (1.64, 2.25); length of stay e.g. 6+ vs. <2 days OR 1.48 (1.35, 1.63), blood transfusion OR 0.47 (0.26, 0.86) and myocardial infarction OR 0.69 (0.49, 0.97). Discriminatory ability of the model was only fair (c-statistic 0.71) indicating that post-surgical predictors explain a limited amount of variability in chronic pain. Conclusions: We identified a number of post-operative factors relating to the operation and early recovery that are associated with chronic pain following primary knee replacement. The model had weak discriminatory ability indicating that there remains considerable unexplained variability in chronic pain outcome

Risk factors associated with poor pain outcomes following primary knee replacement surgery: analysis of data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Patient Reported Outcomes as part of the STAR research programme

OBJECTIVE: Identify risk factors for poor pain outcomes six months after primary knee replacement surgery. METHODS: Observational cohort study on patients receiving primary knee replacement from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Patient Reported Outcomes. A wide range of variables routinely collected in primary and secondary care were identified as potential predictors of worsening or only minor improvement in pain, based on the Oxford Knee Score pain subscale. Results are presented as relative risk ratios and adjusted risk differences (ARD) by fitting a generalized linear model with a binomial error structure and log link function. RESULTS: Information was available for 4,750 patients from 2009 to 2016, with a mean age of 69, of whom 56.1% were female. 10.4% of patients had poor pain outcomes. The strongest effects were seen for pre-operative factors: mild knee pain symptoms at the time of surgery (ARD 18.2% (95% Confidence Interval 13.6, 22.8), smoking 12.0% (95% CI:7.3, 16.6), living in the most deprived areas 5.6% (95% CI:2.3, 9.0) and obesity class II 6.3% (95% CI:3.0, 9.7). Important risk factors with more moderate effects included a history of previous knee arthroscopy surgery 4.6% (95% CI:2.5, 6.6), and use of opioids 3.4% (95% CI:1.4, 5.3) within three months after surgery. Those patients with worsening pain state change had more complications by 3 months (11.8% among those in a worse pain state vs. 2.7% with the same pain state). CONCLUSIONS: We quantified the relative importance of individual risk factors including mild pre-operative pain, smoking, deprivation, obesity and opioid use in terms of the absolute proportions of patients achieving poor pain outcomes. These findings will support development of interventions to reduce the numbers of patients who have poor pain outcomes

Better post-operative prediction and management of chronic pain in adults after total knee replacement:the multidisciplinary STAR research programme including RCT

Background: The treatment of osteoarthritis with knee replacement aims to reduce pain and disability. However, some people experience chronic pain. Objectives: To improve outcomes for people with chronic pain after knee replacement by identifying post-surgical predictors and effective interventions, characterising patient pathways and resource use, developing and evaluating a new care pathway, and exploring non-use of services. Design: The programme comprised systematic reviews, national database analyses, a cohort study, intervention development, a randomised controlled trial, health economic analyses, qualitative studies and stakeholder engagement. Extensive and meaningful patient and public involvement underpinned all studies. Setting: NHS, secondary care, primary care. Participants: People with, or at risk of, chronic pain after knee replacement and health-care professionals involved in the care of people with pain. Interventions: A care pathway for the management of people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement. Main outcome measures: Patient-reported outcomes and cost-effectiveness over 12 months. Data sources: Literature databases, the National Joint Registry, Hospital Episode Statistics, patient- reported outcomes, the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study, the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial, interviews with 90 patients and 14 health-care professionals, and stakeholder events. Review methods: Systematic reviews of cohort studies or randomised trials, using meta-analysis or narrative synthesis. Results: In the Clinical Outcomes in Arthroplasty Study cohort, 14% of people experienced chronic pain 1 year after knee replacement. By 5 years, 65% reported no pain, 31% fluctuated and 4% remained in chronic pain. People with chronic pain had a worse quality of life, higher primary care costs, and more frequent analgesia prescriptions, particularly for opioids, than those not in chronic pain. People with chronic pain after knee replacement who made little or no use of services often felt nothing more could be done, or that further treatments may have no benefit or cause harm. People described a feeling of disconnection from their replaced knee. Analysis of UK databases identified risk factors for chronic pain after knee replacement. Pre- operative predictors were mild knee pain, smoking, deprivation, body mass index between 35 and 40 kg/m2 and knee arthroscopy. Peri- and post-operative predictors were mechanical complications, infection, readmission, revision, extended hospital stay, manipulation under anaesthetic and use of opioids or antidepressants. In systematic reviews, pre-operative exercise and education showed no benefit in relation to chronic pain. Peri-operative interventions that merit further research were identified. Common peri- operative treatments were not associated with chronic pain. There was no strong evidence favouring specific post-operative physiotherapy content. We evaluated the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement care pathway in a multicentre randomised controlled trial. We randomised 363 people with pain at 3 months after knee replacement from eight NHS Trusts in England and Wales. At 12 months’ follow-up, the intervention group had lower mean pain severity (adjusted difference –0.65, 95% confidence interval –1.17 to -0.13; p = 0.014) and pain interference (adjusted difference –0.68, 95% confidence interval –1.29 to -0.08; p = 0.026), as measured on the Brief Pain Inventory subscales (scale 0–10). People receiving the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway had lower NHS and Personal Social Services costs (–£724, 95% confidence interval –£150 to £51) and higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.03, 95% confidence interval –0.008 to 0.06) than those with usual care. The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway was cost-effective with an incremental net monetary benefit at the £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year threshold of £1256 (95% confidence interval £164 to £2348), indicating a 98.79% probability that the intervention is the cost-effective option. Participants found the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway acceptable, with opportunities to receive information and discuss concerns while ensuring further treatment and support. In systematic reviews considering treatments for chronic pain after surgery we identified some unifactorial interventions that merit further research after knee replacement. Health-care professionals delivering and implementing the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway valued its focus on neuropathic pain and psychosocial issues, enhanced patient care, formalised referrals, and improved pain management. Stakeholders supported pathway implementation. Limitations: Database analyses were limited to factors recorded in data sets. Pain was only measured 6 months after surgery. However, analyses including large numbers of centres and patients should be generalisable across the NHS. In many studies found in systematic reviews, long-term pain was not a key outcome. Conclusions: The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway is a clinically effective and cost-effective, acceptable intervention for the management of chronic pain after knee replacement. Unifactorial interventions merit further study before inclusion in patient care. People with pain should be empowered to seek health care, with the support of health-care professionals. Future work: Future work should include research relating to the implementation of the Support and Treatment After joint Replacement pathway into the NHS, an assessment of its long-term clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and wider application, and an evaluation of new interventions for incorporation in the pathway. It will also be important to design and conduct research to improve communication between patients and health-care professionals before surgery; explore whether or not education and support can enable earlier recognition of chronic pain; consider research that may identify how to support people’s feelings of disconnectedness from their new knee; and design and evaluate a pre-surgical intervention based on risk factors. Study registration: All systematic reviews were registered on PROSPERO (CRD42015015957, CRD42016041374 and CRD42017041382). The Support and Treatment After joint Replacement randomised trial was registered as ISRCTN92545361. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 11, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information

Genetic determinants of telomere length from 109,122 ancestrally diverse whole-genome sequences in TOPMed

Genetic studies on telomere length are important for understanding age-related diseases. Prior GWAS for leukocyte TL have been limited to European and Asian populations. Here, we report the first sequencing-based association study for TL across ancestrally-diverse individuals (European, African, Asian and Hispanic/Latino) from the NHLBI Trans-Omics for Precision Medicine (TOPMed) program. We used whole genome sequencing (WGS) of whole blood for variant genotype calling and the bioinformatic estimation of telomere length in n=109,122 individuals. We identified 59 sentinel variants (p-value OBFC1indicated the independent signals colocalized with cell-type specific eQTLs for OBFC1 (STN1). Using a multi-variant gene-based approach, we identified two genes newly implicated in telomere length, DCLRE1B (SNM1B) and PARN. In PheWAS, we demonstrated our TL polygenic trait scores (PTS) were associated with increased risk of cancer-related phenotypes

How is Climate Change Reshaping Our Future?

We learn how four of Vancouver’s leading thinkers on environmental change see that future unfolding: and why global warming is already remaking our technology, our business models, our political discourse and our relationship to nature – indeed, our entire culture. &nbsp; Panelists: Jim Hoggan, President, Hoggan &amp; Associates, Keith Gillard, General Partner, Pangaea Ventures, Carleen Thomas, Councillor, Tsleil-Waututh Nation&nbsp;, Christie Stephenson, Manager of Environmental, Social and Governance Evaluations and Research, NEI Investments &nbsp; &nbsp

Reports of patent causes decided in the Circuit Courts of the United States since January 1, 1874 /

Mode of access: Internet

The use of patient-reported outcome measures to guide referral for hip and knee replacement: Part 1 – the development of an evidence based model linking pre-operative score to the probability of gaining benefit from surgery

Objective: To calculate how the likelihood of obtaining measurable benefit from hip or knee replacement varies with pre-operative patient-reported scores to guide decision-making and referrals. Design: Existing UK data from 222,933 knee and 209,760 hip replacement patients were used to model an individual’s probability of gaining meaningful improvement after surgery based on their pre-operative Oxford Knee or Hip Score (OKS/OHS). A clinically-meaningful improvement after joint replacement was defined as an ≥8 point improvement in OHS, and ≥7 for OKS. Results: The upper pre-operative score threshold, above which patients are unlikely to achieve any meaningful improvement from surgery, is 41 for knees and 40 for hips. At lower scores, the probability of improvement increased towards a maximum of 87% (knee) and 94% for (hips). Conclusion: Patients with pre-operative scores above 41 (OKS) and 40 (OHS) should not be routinely referred to secondary care for possible joint replacement. Using lower thresholds would incrementally increase the probability of meaningful benefit for those referred but will exclude some patients with potential to benefit. The findings are useful to support the shared decision-making process for referral to secondary care and should not be used in isolation. The output can also help, but not replace, the complex shared decision-making process in secondary care delivered by experienced clinicians.</p

Dissemination of Quality-of-Care Research Findings to Breast Oncology Surgeons

The Internet is a useful tool for providing relevant clinical research to providers, but in the future could be tailored to an individual's needs, aiding synthesis and, hopefully, improving the quality of clinical care