Interventions and decision-making at the end of life: the effect of establishing the terminal illness situation

Background: Mobile learning (m-learning) has becoming very popular in education due to the rapidly advancing technology in our society. The potentials of the mobile applications should be used to enhance the education process. Few mobile applications have been designed to complement the study of physical therapy skills for physiotherapy students. The aim of this study was to investigate whether a mobile application, as a supplement to traditional learning, is useful for physiotherapy students in the acquisition of palpation and ultrasound skills in the shoulder area. Methods: Forty-nine students participated in this single-blinded, randomized controlled study. They were randomly distributed into two groups: experimental, with free access to the mobile application; and control, with access to traditional learning materials on the topic. Objective structured clinical evaluation (OSCE) and multiple-choice questionnaire (MCQ) were used to assess the educational intervention. Then, we also assessed the time taken to get a reliable ultrasound image and to localize a specific shoulder structure by palpation. Results: There was no significant intergroup difference in the acquisition of theoretical knowledge (p = .089). Scores were significantly higher in the experimental group than in the control group for the majority items in the ultrasound assessment; positioning of patient (p < .001), positioning of ultrasound probe (p = 0.007), handling of ultrasound probe (p = .013) and global OSCE (p < .001) and skills in palpation of the shoulder; position of patient (p = .009), direction of palpation contact (p = .021) and global OSCE (p = .034). There were no significant differences in the time required to perform the examination between groups in ultrasound (p = .944) and palpation (p = .393). The results from the post-program survey assessing the global satisfaction with the mobile application were high (8.200 ± .767), on an 11 numeric point rating scale. Conclusion: These results suggest the effectiveness of an m-learning program as a complement to traditional education for developing skills in ultrasound and palpation of the shoulder region in undergraduate physiotherapy students.The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by a grant from the Educational Innovation Unit of the University of Granada, Spain (PID 13–86)

Edoxaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation

Contains fulltext : 125374.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Edoxaban is a direct oral factor Xa inhibitor with proven antithrombotic effects. The long-term efficacy and safety of edoxaban as compared with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation is not known. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, double-dummy trial comparing two once-daily regimens of edoxaban with warfarin in 21,105 patients with moderate-to-high-risk atrial fibrillation (median follow-up, 2.8 years). The primary efficacy end point was stroke or systemic embolism. Each edoxaban regimen was tested for noninferiority to warfarin during the treatment period. The principal safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: The annualized rate of the primary end point during treatment was 1.50% with warfarin (median time in the therapeutic range, 68.4%), as compared with 1.18% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.79; 97.5% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 0.99; P<0.001 for noninferiority) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 1.07; 97.5% CI, 0.87 to 1.31; P=0.005 for noninferiority). In the intention-to-treat analysis, there was a trend favoring high-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 97.5% CI, 0.73 to 1.04; P=0.08) and an unfavorable trend with low-dose edoxaban versus warfarin (hazard ratio, 1.13; 97.5% CI, 0.96 to 1.34; P=0.10). The annualized rate of major bleeding was 3.43% with warfarin versus 2.75% with high-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.91; P<0.001) and 1.61% with low-dose edoxaban (hazard ratio, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.55; P<0.001). The corresponding annualized rates of death from cardiovascular causes were 3.17% versus 2.74% (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77 to 0.97; P=0.01), and 2.71% (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.96; P=0.008), and the corresponding rates of the key secondary end point (a composite of stroke, systemic embolism, or death from cardiovascular causes) were 4.43% versus 3.85% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.78 to 0.96; P=0.005), and 4.23% (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.05; P=0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Both once-daily regimens of edoxaban were noninferior to warfarin with respect to the prevention of stroke or systemic embolism and were associated with significantly lower rates of bleeding and death from cardiovascular causes. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development; ENGAGE AF-TIMI 48 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00781391.)