NWSA News and Views

The reports in this issue on the finances of the First NWSA Convention and on NWSA\u27s Project to Improve Service Learning in Women\u27s Studies might serve as Fall reports from the National Office. Both are about NWSA activities derived from our broad definition of women\u27s studies; both announce long-awaited good news of what we hope will be the first of many successful conventions and projects that will bring women\u27s studies practitioners together to share the work of transforming curriculum and educational institutions

Radiology AI Deployment and Assessment Rubric (RADAR) to bring value-based AI into radiological practice

Objective: To provide a comprehensive framework for value assessment of artificial intelligence (AI) in radiology. Methods: This paper presents the RADAR framework, which has been adapted from Fryback and Thornbury’s imaging efficacy framework to facilitate the valuation of radiology AI from conception to local implementation. Local efficacy has been newly introduced to underscore the importance of appraising an AI technology within its local environment. Furthermore, the RADAR framework is illustrated through a myriad of study designs that help assess value. Results: RADAR presents a seven-level hierarchy, providing radiologists, researchers, and policymakers with a structured approach to the comprehensive assessment of value in radiology AI. RADAR is designed to be dynamic and meet the different valuation needs throughout the AI’s lifecycle. Initial phases like technical and diagnostic efficacy (RADAR-1 and RADAR-2) are assessed pre-clinical deployment via in silico clinical trials and cross-sectional studies. Subsequent stages, spanning from diagnostic thinking to patient outcome efficacy (RADAR-3 to RADAR-5), require clinical integration and are explored via randomized controlled trials and cohort studies. Cost-effectiveness efficacy (RADAR-6) takes a societal perspective on financial feasibility, addressed via health-economic evaluations. The final level, RADAR-7, determines how prior valuations translate locally, evaluated through budget impact analysis, multi-criteria decision analyses, and prospective monitoring.Conclusion: The RADAR framework offers a comprehensive framework for valuing radiology AI. Its layered, hierarchical structure, combined with a focus on local relevance, aligns RADAR seamlessly with the principles of value-based radiology. Critical relevance statement: The RADAR framework advances artificial intelligence in radiology by delineating a much-needed framework for comprehensive valuation. </p

Navigating Physicians’ Ethical and Legal Duties to Patients Seeking Unproven Interventions Abroad

Medical tourism (MT), the practice of traveling to another country to access medical care that is paid for out of pocket, has received considerable attention in the Canadian news media.Media and industry information sources, which are commonly accessed by medical tourists, might inadequately inform Canadians about MT safety concerns. As a result, there is concern among Canadian physicians and health and safety professionals that prospective medical tourists might not be well placed to make informed decisions about their care. As gatekeepers in the health care system and the first source of interaction between the health care system and patients, family physicians are well positioned to inform Canadians about these safety risks

The Effectiveness of Alcohol Screening and Brief Intervention in Emergency Departments: A Multicentre Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND: Alcohol misuse is common in people attending emergency departments (EDs) and there is some evidence of efficacy of alcohol screening and brief interventions (SBI). This study investigated the effectiveness of SBI approaches of different intensities delivered by ED staff in nine typical EDs in England: the SIPS ED trial. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Pragmatic multicentre cluster randomized controlled trial of SBI for hazardous and harmful drinkers presenting to ED. Nine EDs were randomized to three conditions: a patient information leaflet (PIL), 5 minutes of brief advice (BA), and referral to an alcohol health worker who provided 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counseling (BLC). The primary outcome measure was the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) status at 6 months. Of 5899 patients aged 18 or more presenting to EDs, 3737 (63·3%) were eligible to participate and 1497 (40·1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking, of whom 1204 (80·4%) gave consent to participate in the trial. Follow up rates were 72% (n?=?863) at six, and 67% (n?=?810) at 12 months. There was no evidence of any differences between intervention conditions for AUDIT status or any other outcome measures at months 6 or 12 in an intention to treat analysis. At month 6, compared to the PIL group, the odds ratio of being AUDIT negative for brief advice was 1·103 (95% CI 0·328 to 3·715). The odds ratio comparing BLC to PIL was 1·247 (95% CI 0·315 to 4·939). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. CONCLUSIONS: SBI is difficult to implement in typical EDs. The results do not support widespread implementation of alcohol SBI in ED beyond screening followed by simple clinical feedback and alcohol information, which is likely to be easier and less expensive to implement than more complex interventions

Effectiveness of screening and brief alcohol intervention in primary care (SIPS trial): pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective To evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care.The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking. Design Pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Primary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants 3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900(30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756(84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers. Interventions Practices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was patients’ self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDITresult (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking.Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months,experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire),health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients’ motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.Results Patient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for briefa dvice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings. Conclusions All patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in probation services: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

Background: A large number of randomised controlled trials in health settings have consistently reported positive effects of brief intervention in terms of reductions in alcohol use. However, although alcohol misuse is common amongst offenders, there is limited evidence of alcohol brief interventions in the criminal justice field. This factorial pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial with Offender Managers (OMs) as the unit of randomisation will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in probation and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in probation clients. Methods and design: Ninety-six OMs from 9 probation areas across 3 English regions (the North East Region (n = 4) and London and the South East Regions (n = 5)) will be recruited. OMs will be randomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a client information leaflet control condition (n = 32 OMs); 5-minute simple structured advice (n = 32 OMs) and 20-minute brief lifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (n = 32 OMs). Randomisation will be stratified by probation area. To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all OMs will be randomised to either the Modified Single Item Screening Questionnaire (M-SASQ) or the Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). There will be a minimum of 480 clients recruited into the trial. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months post intervention. Analysis will include client measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption, alcohol-related problems, re-offending, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from OMs (the extent of screening and brief intervention beyond the minimum recruitment threshold will provide data on acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention). We will also examine the practitioner and organisational factors associated with successful implementation. Discussion. The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine probation work and therefore its findings will be highly relevant to probation teams and thus the criminal justice system in the UK. © 2009 Newbury-Birch et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Screening and brief interventions for hazardous and harmful alcohol use in primary care: a cluster randomised controlled trial protocol

A large number of randomised controlled trials in health settings have consistently reported positive effects of brief intervention in terms of reductions in alcohol use. However,although alcohol misuse is common amongst offenders, there is limited evidence of alcohol brief interventions in the criminal justice field. This factorial pragmatic cluster randomised controlledtrial with Offender Managers (OMs) as the unit of randomisation will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different models of screening to identify hazardous and harmful drinkers in probation and different intensities of brief intervention to reduce excessive drinking in probation clients. Ninety-six OMs from 9 probation areas across 3 English regions (the NorthEast Region (n = 4) and London and the South East Regions (n = 5)) will be recruited. OMs will berandomly allocated to one of three intervention conditions: a client information leaflet control condition (n = 32 OMs); 5-minute simple structured advice (n = 32 OMs) and 20-minute brieflifestyle counselling delivered by an Alcohol Health Worker (n = 32 OMs). Randomisation will be stratified by probation area. To test the relative effectiveness of different screening methods all OMs will be randomised to either the Modified Single Item Screening Questionnaire (M-SASQ) orthe Fast Alcohol Screening Test (FAST). There will be a minimum of 480 clients recruited into the trial. There will be an intention to treat analysis of study outcomes at 6 and 12 months postintervention. Analysis will include client measures (screening result, weekly alcohol consumption,alcohol-related problems, re-offending, public service use and quality of life) and implementation measures from OMs (the extent of screening and brief intervention beyond the minimum recruitment threshold will provide data on acceptability and feasibility of different models of brief intervention). We will also examine the practitioner and organisational factors associated with successful implementation.The trial will evaluate the impact of screening and brief alcohol intervention in routine probation work and therefore its findings will be highly relevant to probation teams and thus the criminal justice system in the UK