A decade of Australian general practice activity 2001–02 to 2010–11

In the last decade, the opening and the bigger exposure of Azores Autonomic Region in the media, as well the assumption of the importance of tourism to the regional economy by the local government, introduced the planning of this sector in those islands. Even if all regions have specific features as the main touristic Portuguese regions such as Algarve, Madeira and Lisboa, the Azores product - Natural landscape - is different from the all the rest. Its difference and specification is directed to niche markets, which means not to attract the consumer populations of the most searched touristic product - Sun and beach. Due the fragility and weak capacity of the Azorean touristic product renovation, but still with the necessity of economical income, it’s essential the non-allowance of tourist masses but at- tract a highly economic value and academic instructed tourist type. The Scandinavian population has been one of the bets for a sustainable tourism in Azores, and Finland one of the some questions: Is this a correct bet? What can Azores offer? What are Finnish searching in their vacations periods? To answer those questions a bibliographic search and an inquiry were Azores offer it ́s pretended

sj-docx-2-ctj-10.1177_17407745231225618 – Supplemental material for The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-2-ctj-10.1177_17407745231225618 for The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review by Salma Fahridin, Neeru Agarwal, Karen Bracken, Stephen Law and Rachael L Morton in Clinical Trials</p

sj-docx-1-ctj-10.1177_17407745231225618 – Supplemental material for The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-ctj-10.1177_17407745231225618 for The use of linked administrative data in Australian randomised controlled trials: A scoping review by Salma Fahridin, Neeru Agarwal, Karen Bracken, Stephen Law and Rachael L Morton in Clinical Trials</p

Low back pain and best practice care : a survey of general practice physicians

Background: Acute low back pain (LBP) is primarily managed in general practice. We aimed to describe the usual care provided by general practitioners (GPs) and to compare this with recommendations of best practice in international evidence-based guidelines for the management of acute LBP. Methods: Care provided in 3533 patient visits to GPs for a new episode of LBP was mapped to key recommendations in treatm ent guidelines. The proportion of patient encounters in which care arranged by aGPaligned with these key recommendations was determined for the period 2005 through 2008 and separately for the period before the release of the local guideline in 2004 (2001-2004). Results: Although guidelines discourage the use of imaging, over one-quarter of patients were referred for imaging. Guidelines recommend that initial care should focus on advice and simple analgesics, yet only 20.5% and 17.7% of patients received these treatments, respectively. Instead, the analgesics provided were typically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (37.4%) and opioids (19.6%). This pattern of care was the same in the periods before and after the release of the local guideline. Conclusions: The usual care provided by GPs for LBP does not match the care endorsed in international evidence-based guidelines and may not provide the best outcomes for patients. This situation has not improved over time. The unendorsed care may contribute to the high costs of managing LBP, and some aspects of the care provided carry a higher risk of adverse effects.7 page(s

Responsibilities for receiving and using individual participant data

BackgroundSharing of individual participant data enhances the value of existing data to generate new evidence and inform decision-making. While there is strong in-principle support for data sharing, in practice study data are often difficult to find, access, and re-use. Currently, there is no consensus statement to guide the data-sharing process. In particular, more guidance is needed on the responsibilities of data recipients for re-using individual participant data.PurposeTo determine views on the responsibilities of recipients of study data, and to propose how these responsibilities could be met.MethodsA 2-h online focus group was conducted at the 2021 Association for Interdisciplinary Meta-research and Open Science conference. Three example data-sharing scenarios were discussed (evidence synthesis, study reproducibility, and secondary analyses). Notes and audio transcripts were collated using thematic analysis and shared with attendees for further iterative input.ResultsA purposive sample of 16 conference delegates attended the focus group. Analyses revealed four recurring themes that were synthesized into recommendations. The “privacy and ethics” theme described the need for data recipients to prioritize the protection of participant privacy, and the recommendation to proactively share a secure data management plan and evidence of ethical oversight with the data provider. The “capability and resourcing” theme required recipients to demonstrate sufficient capacity to process and analyze study data. The “recognition and collaboration” theme asserted the responsibility to acknowledge the contributions of data providers and invite them to contribute to the secondary project. Last, the “compliance” theme focused on the responsibility to adhere to local data sharing regulations.ConclusionsSuccessful data sharing and re-use requires cooperation from multiple stakeholders. We identified the responsibilities of recipients of study data to the individual from whom data arose and the research team who collected the data. Implementation of these in practice could facilitate increased data sharing