Linking Emergency Medical Services and Health System Data: Optimal Strategy and Bias Mitigation

Introduction Emergency Medical Services (EMS) systems dispatch paramedics to emergencies in the community. For critically ill patients, paramedic interventions and transport destination decisions may impact outcomes. Research is needed to inform paramedic care, but linking EMS data to health system outcomes is a barrier. Limited research exists on EMS data linkage. Objectives and Approach To optimize linkage of EMS data (fiscal year 2016/17) to the National Ambulatory Care Reporting System/Sunrise Clinical Manager datasets and assess bias. A random sample of EMS records were deterministically linked on provincial health number (PHN), transport destination, and EMS/emergency department arrival/presentation times ≤2hrs. Linked data were manually verified using last name, sex, date of birth, and hospital file number. For patients that remained unlinked (based on the variables listed above), further linkage attempts were made using additional variables. The combination of variables that optimized sensitivity/positive predictive value/f-measure were used to link the fiscal year. Linked/unlinked groups were descriptively compared. Results While results are still pending (available April, 2018), we hypothesize that there may be inherent differences in the clinical and encounter characteristics of patients that were linked versus unlinked. Patient identifiers such as PHN and name are important for linkage, but are not always collected on EMS events that require immediate treatment and rapid transport, yet these patients may be the most critically ill. Conclusion/Implications As more EMS systems attempt to systematically link their data to health system outcome, these results will be important to mitigate potential bias

Averting Lemur Extinctions amid Madagascar\u27s Political Crisis

The most threatened mammal group on Earth, Madagascar’s five endemic lemur families (lemurs are found nowhere else), represent more than 20% of the world’s primate species and 30% of family-level diversity. This combination of diversity and uniqueness is unmatched by any other country—remarkable considering that Madagascar is only 1.3 to 2.9% the size of the Neotropics, Africa, or Asia, the other three landmasses where nonhuman primates occur. But lemurs face extinction risks driven by human disturbance of forest habitats. We discuss these challenges and reasons for hope in light of site-specific, local actions proposed in an emergency conservation action plan

Methodology for the development of a Canadian national EMS research agenda

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many health care disciplines use evidence-based decision making to improve patient care and system performance. While the amount and quality of emergency medical services (EMS) research in Canada has increased over the past two decades, there has not been a unified national plan to enable research, ensure efficient use of research resources, guide funding decisions and build capacity in EMS research. Other countries have used research agendas to identify barriers and opportunities in EMS research and define national research priorities. The objective of this project is to develop a national EMS research agenda for Canada that will: 1) explore what barriers to EMS research currently exist, 2) identify current strengths and opportunities that may be of benefit to advancing EMS research, 3) make recommendations to overcome barriers and capitalize on opportunities, and 4) identify national EMS research priorities.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Paramedics, educators, EMS managers, medical directors, researchers and other key stakeholders from across Canada will be purposefully recruited to participate in this mixed methods study, which consists of three phases: 1) qualitative interviews with a selection of the study participants, who will be asked about their experience and opinions about the four study objectives, 2) a facilitated roundtable discussion, in which all participants will explore and discuss the study objectives, and 3) an online Delphi consensus survey, in which all participants will be asked to score the importance of each topic discovered during the interviews and roundtable as they relate to the study objectives. Results will be analyzed to determine the level of consensus achieved for each topic.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>A mixed methods approach will be used to address the four study objectives. We anticipate that the keys to success will be: 1) ensuring a representative sample of EMS stakeholders, 2) fostering an open and collaborative roundtable discussion, and 3) adhering to a predefined approach to measure consensus on each topic. Steps have been taken in the methodology to address each of these <it>a priori </it>concerns.</p

Using participatory design methodologies to co-design and culturally adapt the Spanish version of the Mental Health eClinic: Qualitative study

Background: The Mental Health eClinic (MHeC) aims to deliver best-practice clinical services to young people experiencing mental health problems by making clinical care accessible, affordable, and available to young people whenever and wherever they need it most. The original MHeC consists of home page with a visible triage system for those requiring urgent help; a online physical and mental health self-report assessment; a results dashboard; a booking and videoconferencing system; and the generation of a personalized well-being plan. Populations who do not speak English and reside in English-speaking countries are less likely to receive mental health care. In Australia, international students have been identified as disadvantaged compared with their peers; have weaker social support networks; and have higher rates of psychological distress. This scenario is acquiring significant relevance as Spanish-speaking migration is rapidly growing in Australia, and the mental health services for culturally and linguistically diverse populations are limited. Having a Spanish version (MHeC-S) of the Mental Health eClinic would greatly benefit these students. Objective: We used participatory design methodologies with users (young people aged 16-30 years, supportive others, and health professionals) to (1) conduct workshops with users to co-design and culturally adapt the MHeC; (2) inform the development of the MHeC-S alpha prototype; (3) test the usability of the MHeC-S alpha prototype; (4) translate, culturally adapt, and face-validate the MHeC-S self-report assessment; and (5) collect information to inform its beta prototype. Methods: A research and development cycle included several participatory design phases: co-design workshops; knowledge translation; language translation and cultural adaptation; and rapid prototyping and user testing of the MHeC-S alpha prototype. Results: We held 2 co-design workshops with 17 users (10 young people, 7 health professionals). A total of 15 participated in the one-on-one user testing sessions (7 young people, 5 health professionals, 3 supportive others). We collected 225 source documents, and thematic analysis resulted in 5 main themes (help-seeking barriers, technology platform, functionality, content, and user interface). A random sample of 106 source documents analyzed by 2 independent raters revealed almost perfect agreement for functionality (kappa=.86; P\u3c.001) and content (kappa=.92; P\u3c.001) and substantial agreement for the user interface (kappa=.785; P\u3c.001). In this random sample, no annotations were coded for help-seeking barriers or the technology platform. Language was identified as the main barrier to getting medical or psychological services, and smartphones were the most-used device to access the internet. Acceptability was adequate for the prototype’s 5 main elements: home page and triage system, self-report assessment, dashboard of results, booking and video visit system, and personalized well-being plan. The data also revealed gaps in the alpha prototype, such as the need for tailored assessment tools and a greater integration with Spanish-speaking services and communities. Spanish-language apps and e-tools, as well as online mental health information, were lacking. Conclusions: Through a research and development process, we co-designed and culturally adapted, developed and user tested, and evaluated the MHeC-S. By translating and culturally adapting the MHeC to Spanish, we aimed to increase accessibility and availability of e-mental health care in the developing world, and assist vulnerable populations that have migrated to English-speaking countries

FRET-Based Identification of mRNAs Undergoing Translation

We present proof-of-concept in vitro results demonstrating the feasibility of using single molecule fluorescence resonance energy transfer (smFRET) measurements to distinguish, in real time, between individual ribosomes programmed with several different, short mRNAs. For these measurements we use either the FRET signal generated between two tRNAs labeled with different fluorophores bound simultaneously in adjacent sites to the ribosome (tRNA-tRNA FRET) or the FRET signal generated between a labeled tRNA bound to the ribosome and a fluorescent derivative of ribosomal protein L1 (L1-tRNA FRET). With either technique, criteria were developed to identify the mRNAs, taking into account the relative activity of the mRNAs. These criteria enabled identification of the mRNA being translated by a given ribosome to within 95% confidence intervals based on the number of identified FRET traces. To upgrade the approach for natural mRNAs or more complex mixtures, the stoichiometry of labeling should be enhanced and photobleaching reduced. The potential for porting these methods into living cells is discussed

Reduced P300 amplitude during retrieval on a spatial working memory task in a community sample of adolescents who report psychotic symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Deficits in working memory are widely reported in schizophrenia and are considered a trait marker for the disorder. Event-related potentials (ERPs) and imaging data suggest that these differences in working memory performance may be due to aberrant functioning in the prefrontal and parietal cortices. Research suggests that many of the same risk factors for schizophrenia are shared with individuals from the general population who report psychotic symptoms. METHODS: Forty-two participants (age range 11--13 years) were divided into those who reported psychotic symptoms (N = 17) and those who reported no psychotic symptoms, i.e. the control group (N = 25). Behavioural differences in accuracy and reaction time were explored between the groups as well as electrophysiological correlates of working memory using a Spatial Working Memory Task, which was a variant of the Sternberg paradigm. Specifically, differences in the P300 component were explored across load level (low load and high load), location (positive probe i.e. in the same location as shown in the study stimulus and negative probe i.e. in a different location to the study stimulus) and between groups for the overall P300 timeframe. The effect of load was also explored at early and late timeframes of the P300 component (250-430 ms and 430-750 ms respectively). RESULTS: No between-group differences in the behavioural data were observed. Reduced amplitude of the P300 component was observed in the psychotic symptoms group relative to the control group at posterior electrode sites. Amplitude of the P300 component was reduced at high load for the late P300 timeframe at electrode sites Pz and POz. CONCLUSIONS: These results identify neural correlates of neurocognitive dysfunction associated with population level psychotic symptoms and provide insights into ERP abnormalities associated with the extended psychosis phenotype

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer—metastatic and/or castration-resistant prostate cancer: report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) 2022

Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation together with novel treatment options have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. However, we still lack high-level evidence in many areas relevant to making management decisions in daily clinical practise. The 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) addressed some questions in these areas to supplement guidelines that mostly are based on level 1 evidence. Objective: To present the voting results of the APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: The experts voted on controversial questions where high- level evidence is mostly lacking: locally advanced prostate cancer; biochemical recurrence after local treatment; metastatic hormone-sensitive, non-metastatic, and metastatic castration- resistant prostate cancer; oligometastatic prostate cancer; and managing side effects of hormonal therapy. A panel of 105 international prostate cancer experts voted on the consensus questions. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The panel voted on 198 pre-defined questions, which were developed by 117 voting and non-voting panel members prior to the conference following a modified Delphi process. A total of 116 questions on metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer are discussed in this manuscript. In 2022, the voting was done by a web-based survey because of COVID-19 restrictions. Results and limitations: The voting reflects the expert opinion of these panellists and did not incorporate a standard literature review or formal meta-analysis. The answer options for the consensus questions received varying degrees of support from panellists, as reflected in this article and the detailed voting results are reported in the supplementary material. We report here on topics in metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC), non-metastatic, castration-resistant prostate cancer (nmCRPC), metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), and oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Conclusions: These voting results in four specific areas from a panel of experts in advanced prostate cancer can help clinicians and patients navigate controversial areas of management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting and can help research funders and policy makers identify information gaps and consider what areas to explore further. However, diagnostic and treatment decisions always have to be individualised based on patient characteristics, including the extent and location of disease, prior treatment(s), co-morbidities, patient preferences, and treatment recommendations and should also incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps where there is non-consensus and that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with healthcare providers worldwide. At each APCCC, an expert panel votes on pre-defined questions that target the most clinically relevant areas of advanced prostate cancer treatment for which there are gaps in knowledge. The results of the voting provide a practical guide to help clinicians discuss therapeutic options with patients and their relatives as part of shared and multidisciplinary decision-making. This report focuses on the advanced setting, covering metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer and both non-metastatic and metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Twitter summary: Report of the results of APCCC 2022 for the following topics: mHSPC, nmCRPC, mCRPC, and oligometastatic prostate cancer. Take-home message: At APCCC 2022, clinically important questions in the management of advanced prostate cancer management were identified and discussed, and experts voted on pre-defined consensus questions. The report of the results for metastatic and/or castration- resistant prostate cancer is summarised here

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Management of patients with advanced prostate cancer. Part I: Intermediate-/high-risk and locally advanced disease, biochemical relapse, and side effects of hormonal treatment: Report of the Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference 2022

© 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier on behalf of European Association of Urology. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2022.11.002Background: Innovations in imaging and molecular characterisation and the evolution of new therapies have improved outcomes in advanced prostate cancer. Nonetheless, we continue to lack high-level evidence on a variety of clinical topics that greatly impact daily practice. To supplement evidence-based guidelines, the 2022 Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC 2022) surveyed experts about key dilemmas in clinical management. Objective: To present consensus voting results for select questions from APCCC 2022. Design, setting, and participants: Before the conference, a panel of 117 international prostate cancer experts used a modified Delphi process to develop 198 multiple-choice consensus questions on (1) intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, (2) biochemical recurrence after local treatment, (3) side effects from hormonal therapies, (4) metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer, (5) nonmetastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, (6) metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and (7) oligometastatic and oligoprogressive prostate cancer. Before the conference, these questions were administered via a web-based survey to the 105 physician panel members (“panellists”) who directly engage in prostate cancer treatment decision-making. Herein, we present results for the 82 questions on topics 1–3. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: Consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement, with strong consensus defined as ≥90% agreement. Results and limitations: The voting results reveal varying degrees of consensus, as is discussed in this article and shown in the detailed results in the Supplementary material. The findings reflect the opinions of an international panel of experts and did not incorporate a formal literature review and meta-analysis. Conclusions: These voting results by a panel of international experts in advanced prostate cancer can help physicians and patients navigate controversial areas of clinical management for which high-level evidence is scant or conflicting. The findings can also help funders and policymakers prioritise areas for future research. Diagnostic and treatment decisions should always be individualised based on patient and cancer characteristics (disease extent and location, treatment history, comorbidities, and patient preferences) and should incorporate current and emerging clinical evidence, therapeutic guidelines, and logistic and economic factors. Enrolment in clinical trials is always strongly encouraged. Importantly, APCCC 2022 once again identified important gaps (areas of nonconsensus) that merit evaluation in specifically designed trials. Patient summary: The Advanced Prostate Cancer Consensus Conference (APCCC) provides a forum to discuss and debate current diagnostic and treatment options for patients with advanced prostate cancer. The conference aims to share the knowledge of international experts in prostate cancer with health care providers and patients worldwide. At each APCCC, a panel of physician experts vote in response to multiple-choice questions about their clinical opinions and approaches to managing advanced prostate cancer. This report presents voting results for the subset of questions pertaining to intermediate- and high-risk and locally advanced prostate cancer, biochemical relapse after definitive treatment, advanced (next-generation) imaging, and management of side effects caused by hormonal therapies. The results provide a practical guide to help clinicians and patients discuss treatment options as part of shared multidisciplinary decision-making. The findings may be especially useful when there is little or no high-level evidence to guide treatment decisions.We gratefully acknowledge the following organisations for providing financial support for the APCCC 2022: The City of Lugano and Movember Foundation. Ros Eeles is supported by a National Institute of Health Research grant to the Biomedical Research Centre at The Institute of Cancer Research and Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust. We also acknowledge sponsorship from several for-profit organisations for APCCC 2022, including Advanced Accelerator Applications, Amgen, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer Health Care, Debiopharm, MSD, Janssen Oncology, Myovant Sciences, Orion Pharma, Pfizer Oncology, Roche, Telix Innovations SA, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Lantheus, and Tolmar. These for-profit organisations supported the conference financially but had no input on the scientific content or the final publication.Accepted versio