Are "part-time" general practitioners workforce idlers or committed professionals?

BACKGROUND: The traditional view of general practice holds that only general practitioners (GPs) in full-time clinical practice can provide quality patient care. Nevertheless, increasing numbers of GPs are choosing to work sessionally, that is, ostensibly “part-time”. There are concerns about the health workforce’s ability to meet demand and also fears that patient care may be compromised. We sought answers to a) what activities do GPs undertake when not consulting patients, b) why do they choose to work sessionally, and c) does sessional general practice reflect a lack of commitment to patients and the profession? METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs who worked sessionally, (i.e. six or fewer sessions a week in clinical general practice, where a session comprises four consecutive hours of patient care). These data were analysed qualitatively and saturation was reached. RESULTS: The majority of participants were in full-time paid employment, while part-time in clinical general practice. They reported that consultations increasingly required the management of patients with complex, chronic conditions who also required psychological management. Coupled with unrealistic patient expectations, these factors led GPs to be concerned about maintaining the quality patient care they considered professionally desirable. Many diversified their work activities to ensure that they retained their professional standards. CONCLUSIONS: “Part-time” general practice is a misnomer that masks the contribution these GPs make as part of the health workforce. Sessional practice more accurately describes the nature of our participants’ clinical work. Their choice of sessional work is a professional response to the increasing demands within the consultation. It enables GPs to maintain their commitment to quality patient care and their profession, while attenuating the challenges of demanding consultations. Sessional general practitioners demonstrate strong commitment to their patients and the profession

Why carers use adult day respite: a mixed method case study

BACKGROUND: We need to improve our understanding of the complex interactions between family carers’ emotional relationships with care-recipients and carers use of support services. This study assessed carer’s expectations and perceptions of adult day respite services and their commitment to using services. METHODS: A mixed-method case study approach was used with psychological contract providing a conceptual framework. Data collection was situated within an organisational case study, and the total population of carers from the organisation’s day respite service were approached. Fifty respondents provided quantitative and qualitative data through an interview survey. The conceptual framework was expanded to include Maslow’s hierarchy of needs during analysis. RESULTS: Carers prioritised benefits for and experiences of care-recipients when making day respite decisions. Respondents had high levels of trust in the service and perceived that the major benefits for care-recipients were around social interaction and meaningful activity with resultant improved well-being. Carers wanted day respite experiences to include all levels of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs from the provision of physiological care and safety through to the higher levels of belongingness, love and esteem. CONCLUSION: The study suggests carers need to trust that care-recipients will have quality experiences at day respite. This study was intended as a preliminary stage for further research and while not generalizable it does highlight key considerations in carers’ use of day respite services

Extent, Awareness and Perception of Dissemination Bias in Qualitative Research: An Explorative Survey

BACKGROUND: Qualitative research findings are increasingly used to inform decision-making. Research has indicated that not all quantitative research on the effects of interventions is disseminated or published. The extent to which qualitative researchers also systematically underreport or fail to publish certain types of research findings, and the impact this may have, has received little attention. METHODS: A survey was delivered online to gather data regarding non-dissemination and dissemination bias in qualitative research. We invited relevant stakeholders through our professional networks, authors of qualitative research identified through a systematic literature search, and further via snowball sampling. RESULTS: 1032 people took part in the survey of whom 859 participants identified as researchers, 133 as editors and 682 as peer reviewers. 68.1% of the researchers said that they had conducted at least one qualitative study that they had not published in a peer-reviewed journal. The main reasons for non-dissemination were that a publication was still intended (35.7%), resource constraints (35.4%), and that the authors gave up after the paper was rejected by one or more journals (32.5%). A majority of the editors and peer reviewers "(strongly) agreed" that the main reasons for rejecting a manuscript of a qualitative study were inadequate study quality (59.5%; 68.5%) and inadequate reporting quality (59.1%; 57.5%). Of 800 respondents, 83.1% "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination and possible resulting dissemination bias might undermine the willingness of funders to support qualitative research. 72.6% and 71.2%, respectively, "(strongly) agreed" that non-dissemination might lead to inappropriate health policy and health care. CONCLUSIONS: The proportion of non-dissemination in qualitative research is substantial. Researchers, editors and peer reviewers play an important role in this. Non-dissemination and resulting dissemination bias may impact on health care research, practice and policy. More detailed investigations on patterns and causes of the non-dissemination of qualitative research are needed

A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome : A PROSPERO register study

OBJECTIVES: To examine outcome reporting bias of systematic reviews registered in PROSPERO. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective cohort study. The primary outcomes from systematic review publications were compared with those reported in the corresponding PROSPERO records; discrepancies in the primary outcomes were assessed as upgrades, additions, omissions or downgrades. Relative risks (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated to determine the likelihood of having a change in primary outcome when the meta-analysis result was favourable and statistically significant. RESULTS: 96 systematic reviews were published. A discrepancy in the primary outcome occurred in 32% of the included reviews and 39% of the reviews did not explicitly specify a primary outcome(s); 6% of the primary outcomes were omitted. There was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.53 to 8.63) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR 0.76, 0.27-2.17) an outcome when the meta-analysis result was favourable and statistically significant. As well, there was no significant increased risk of adding/upgrading (RR 0.89, 0.31-2.53) or decreased risk of downgrading (RR 0.56, 0.29-1.08) an outcome when the conclusion was positive. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend review authors carefully consider primary outcome selection and journals are encouraged to focus acceptance on registered systematic reviews

Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense

Prospective registration of systematic reviews promotes transparency, helps reduce potential for bias and serves to avoid unintended duplication of reviews. Registration offers advantages to many stakeholders in return for modest additional effort from the researchers registering their reviews

Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review

Background: Rigorous, informative meta-analyses rely on availability of appropriate summary statistics or individual participant data. For continuous outcomes, especially those with naturally skewed distributions, summary information on the mean or variability often goes unreported. While full reporting of original trial data is the ideal, we sought to identify methods for handling unreported mean or variability summary statistics in meta-analysis. Methods: We undertook two systematic literature reviews to identify methodological approaches used to deal with missing mean or variability summary statistics. Five electronic databases were searched, in addition to the Cochrane Colloquium abstract books and the Cochrane Statistics Methods Group mailing list archive. We also conducted cited reference searching and emailed topic experts to identify recent methodological developments. Details recorded included the description of the method, the information required to implement the method, any underlying assumptions and whether the method could be readily applied in standard statistical software. We provided a summary description of the methods identified, illustrating selected methods in example meta-analysis scenarios. Results: For missing standard deviations (SDs), following screening of 503 articles, fifteen methods were identified in addition to those reported in a previous review. These included Bayesian hierarchical modelling at the meta-analysis level; summary statistic level imputation based on observed SD values from other trials in the meta-analysis; a practical approximation based on the range; and algebraic estimation of the SD based on other summary statistics. Following screening of 1124 articles for methods estimating the mean, one approximate Bayesian computation approach and three papers based on alternative summary statistics were identified. Illustrative meta-analyses showed that when replacing a missing SD the approximation using the range minimised loss of precision and generally performed better than omitting trials. When estimating missing means, a formula using the median, lower quartile and upper quartile performed best in preserving the precision of the meta-analysis findings, although in some scenarios, omitting trials gave superior results. Conclusions: Methods based on summary statistics (minimum, maximum, lower quartile, upper quartile, median) reported in the literature facilitate more comprehensive inclusion of randomised controlled trials with missing mean or variability summary statistics within meta-analyses

Publication rates of editorial board members in oral health journals

The aim of this study was to measure the publication rate of editorial board members in their board journals and to evaluate associated variables. We evaluated the ten highest-ranked journals according to the 5-year impact factor under ‘Dentistry, Oral Surgery & Medicine’ subject category for 2010, 2011, and 2012. All original research papers with at least one member of the editorial board as author were counted. Final analyses assessed associated variables such as size of the editorial board, number of papers published each year, and each journal’s impact factor. Overall, there was an increase in the average number of articles published from 2010 (115.2 ± 52.2) to 2012 (134.7 ± 47.4). The number and percentage of articles published with editorial board members as authors over the three years did not follow the same pattern, with a slight decrease from 2010 to 2011 and an increase in 2012. The number of articles with editorial board members as authors was significantly higher for journals with impact factors ≥4.0. Journals with a higher impact factor and larger editorial board were associated with higher chances of editorial board members publishing in their respective journals. Participation of editorial board members as authors in publishing varies significantly among journals

The semen microbiome and its relationship with local immunology and viral load in HIV infection

Semen is a major vector for HIV transmission, but the semen HIV RNA viral load (VL) only correlates moderately with the blood VL. Viral shedding can be enhanced by genital infections and associated inflammation, but it can also occur in the absence of classical pathogens. Thus, we hypothesized that a dysregulated semen microbiome correlates with local HIV shedding. We analyzed semen samples from 49 men who have sex with men (MSM), including 22 HIV-uninfected and 27 HIV-infected men, at baseline and after starting antiretroviral therapy (ART) using 16S rRNA gene-based pyrosequencing and quantitative PCR. We studied the relationship of semen bacteria with HIV infection, semen cytokine levels, and semen VL by linear regression, non-metric multidimensional scaling, and goodness-of-fit test. Streptococcus, Corynebacterium, and Staphylococcus were common semen bacteria, irrespective of HIV status. While Ureaplasma was the more abundant Mollicutes in HIV-uninfected men, Mycoplasma dominated after HIV infection. HIV infection was associated with decreased semen microbiome diversity and richness, which were restored after six months of ART. In HIV-infected men, semen bacterial load correlated with seven pro-inflammatory semen cytokines, including IL-6 (p = 0.024), TNF-α (p = 0.009), and IL-1b (p = 0.002). IL-1b in particular was associated with semen VL (r2 = 0.18, p = 0.02). Semen bacterial load was also directly linked to the semen HIV VL (r2 = 0.15, p = 0.02). HIV infection reshapes the relationship between semen bacteria and pro-inflammatory cytokines, and both are linked to semen VL, which supports a role of the semen microbiome in HIV sexual transmission

Reporting of clinical trials: a review of research funders' guidelines

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the gold standard methodological design to evaluate the effectiveness of an intervention in humans but they are subject to bias, including study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. National and international organisations and charities give recommendations for good research practice in relation to RCTs but to date no review of these guidelines has been undertaken with respect to reporting bias. METHODS: National and international organisations and UK based charities listed on the Association for Medical Research Charities website were contacted in 2007; they were considered eligible for this review if they funded RCTs. Guidelines were obtained and assessed in relation to what was written about trial registration, protocol adherence and trial publication. It was also noted whether any monitoring against these guidelines was undertaken. This information was necessary to discover how much guidance researchers are given on the publication of results, in order to prevent study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. RESULTS: Seventeen organisations and 56 charities were eligible of 140 surveyed for this review, although there was no response from 12. Trial registration, protocol adherence, trial publication and monitoring against the guidelines were often explicitly discussed or implicitly referred too. However, only eleven of these organisations or charities mentioned the publication of negative as well as positive outcomes and just three of the organisations specifically stated that the statistical analysis plan should be strictly adhered to and all changes should be reported. CONCLUSION: Our review indicates that there is a need to provide more detailed guidance for those conducting and reporting clinical trials to help prevent the selective reporting of results. Statements found in the guidelines generally refer to publication bias rather than outcome reporting bias. Current guidelines need to be updated and include the statement that all primary and secondary outcomes prespecified in the protocol should be fully reported and should not be selected for inclusion in the final report based on their results