EQ-5D-3L Derived Population Norms for Health Related Quality of Life in Sri Lanka

Background Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) is an important outcome measure in health economic evaluation that guides health resource allocations. Population norms for HRQoL are an essential ingredient in health economics and in the evaluation of population health. The aim of this study was to produce EQ-5D-3L-derived population norms for Sri Lanka. Method A population sample (n =  780) was selected from four districts of Sri Lanka. A stratified cluster sampling approach with probability proportionate to size was employed. Twenty six clusters of 30 participants each were selected; each participant completed the EQ-5D-3L in a face-to-face interview. Utility weights for their EQ-5D-3L health states were assigned using the Sri Lankan EQ-5D-3L algorithm. The population norms are reported by age and socio-economic variables. Results The EQ-5D-3L was completed by 736 people, representing a 94% response rate. Sixty per cent of the sample reported being in full health. The percentage of people responding to any problems in the five EQ-5D-3L dimensions increased with age. The mean EQ-5D-3L weight was 0.85 (SD 0.008; 95%CI 0.84-0.87). The mean EQ-5D-3L weight was significantly associated with age, housing type, disease experience and religiosity. People above 70 years of age were 7.5 times more likely to report mobility problems and 3.7 times more likely to report pain/discomfort than those aged 18-29 years. Those with a tertiary education were five times less likely to report any HRQoL problems than those without a tertiary education. A person living in a shanty was 4.3 more likely to have problems in usual activities than a person living in a single house. Conclusion The population norms in Sri Lanka vary with socio-demographic characteristics. The socioeconomically disadvantaged have a lower HRQoL. The trends of population norms observed in this lower middle income country were generally similar to those previously reported in high income countries

Conscious thought beats deliberation without attention in diagnostic decision-making: at least when you are an expert

Contrary to what common sense makes us believe, deliberation without attention has recently been suggested to produce better decisions in complex situations than deliberation with attention. Based on differences between cognitive processes of experts and novices, we hypothesized that experts make in fact better decisions after consciously thinking about complex problems whereas novices may benefit from deliberation-without-attention. These hypotheses were confirmed in a study among doctors and medical students. They diagnosed complex and routine problems under three conditions, an immediate-decision condition and two delayed conditions: conscious thought and deliberation-without-attention. Doctors did better with conscious deliberation when problems were complex, whereas reasoning mode did not matter in simple problems. In contrast, deliberation-without-attention improved novices’ decisions, but only in simple problems. Experts benefit from consciously thinking about complex problems; for novices thinking does not help in those cases

Professional approaches in clinical judgements among senior and junior doctors: implications for medical education

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical experience has traditionally been highly valued in medical education and clinical healthcare. On account of its multi-faceted nature, clinical experience is mostly difficult to articulate, and is mainly expressed in clinical situations as professional approaches. Due to retirement, hospitals in Scandinavia will soon face a substantial decrease in the number of senior specialist doctors, and it has been discussed whether healthcare will suffer an immense loss of experienced-based knowledge when this senior group leaves the organization. Both senior specialists and junior colleagues are often involved in clinical education, but the way in which these two groups vary in professional approaches and contributions to clinical education has not been so well described. Cognitive psychology has contributed to the understanding of how experience may influence professional approaches, but such studies have not included the effect of differences in position and responsibilities that junior and senior doctors hold in clinical healthcare. In the light of the discussion above, it is essential to describe the professional approaches of senior doctors in relation to those of their junior colleagues. This study therefore aims to describe and compare the professional approaches of junior and senior doctors when making clinical judgements.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Critical incident technique was used in interviews with nine senior doctors and nine junior doctors in internal medicine. The interviews were subjected to qualitative content analysis.</p> <p>Result</p> <p>Senior and junior doctors expressed a variety of professional approaches in clinical judgement as follows: use of theoretical knowledge, use of prior experience of cases and courses of events, use of ethical and moral values, meeting and communicating with the patient, focusing on available information, relying on their own ability, getting support and guidance from others and being directed by the organization.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The most prominent varieties of professional approaches were seen in use of knowledge and work-related experience. Senior doctors know how the organization has worked in the past and have acquired techniques with respect to long-term decisions and their consequences. Junior doctors, on the other hand, have developed techniques and expertise for making decisions based on a restricted amount of information, in relation to patients' wellbeing as well as organizational opportunities and constraints. This study contributes to medical education by elucidating the variation in professional approaches among junior and senior doctors, which can be used as a basis for discussion about clinical judgement, in both pre-clinical and clinical education. Further research is required to explain how these professional approaches are expressed and used in clinical education.</p

Pathophysiology of acute experimental pancreatitis: Lessons from genetically engineered animal models and new molecular approaches

The incidence of acute pancreatitis is growing and worldwide population-based studies report a doubling or tripling since the 1970s. 25% of acute pancreatitis are severe and associated with histological changes of necrotizing pancreatitis. There is still no specific medical treatment for acute pancreatitis. The average mortality resides around 10%. In order to develop new specific medical treatment strategies for acute pancreatitis, a better understanding of the pathophysiology during the onset of acute pancreatitis is necessary. Since it is difficult to study the early acinar events in human pancreatitis, several animal models of acute pancreatitis have been developed. By this, it is hoped that clues into human pathophysiology become possible. In the last decade, while employing molecular biology techniques, a major progress has been made. The genome of the mouse was recently sequenced. Various strategies are possible to prove a causal effect of a single gene or protein, using either gain-of-function (i.e., overexpression of the protein of interest) or loss-of-function studies (i.e., genetic deletion of the gene of interest). The availability of transgenic mouse models and gene deletion studies has clearly increased our knowledge about the pathophysiology of acute pancreatitis and enables us to study and confirm in vitro findings in animal models. In addition, transgenic models with specific genetic deletion or overexpression of genes help in understanding the role of one specific protein in a cascade of inflammatory processes such as pancreatitis where different proteins interact and co-react. This review summarizes the recent progress in this field. Copyright (c) 2005 S. Karger AG, Basel

Problem formulation by medical students: an observation study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Medical problems are often complex and ill-structured. In formulating the problem, one has to discriminate pertinent elements from irrelevant information in order to effectively find a solution. In this observation study, we describe how medical students formulate the problem of a complex case.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>32 third year medical students were presented with a complex case of endocarditis. They were asked to synthesize the case and give the best formulation of the problem. They were then asked to provide a diagnosis. A subsequent group of 25 students were presented with the problem already formulated and were also asked for the diagnosis. We analyzed the student's problem formulations using the presence or absence of essential elements of the case, the use of higher-order concepts and the use of relations between concepts.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>12/32 students presented with the case made the correct diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was significantly associated with the use of higher-order concepts and relations between concepts. Establishing explicit relations was particularly important. Almost all students who missed the diagnosis could not elicit any relations between concepts but only reported factual observations. When presented with an already formulated problem, 19/25 students made the correct diagnosis. (p < 0.05)</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>When faced with a complex new case, students may not have the structured knowledge to recognize the nature of the problem. They have to build new schema or problem representation. Our observations suggest that this process involves using higher-order concepts and establishing new relations between concepts. The fact that students could recognize the disease when presented with a formulated problem but had more difficulty when presented with the original complex case indicates that knowledge of the clinical features may be necessary but not sufficient for problem formulation. Our hypothesis is that problem formulation represents a distinct ability.</p

Script Concordance Tests: Guidelines for Construction

International audienc

The use of contextualised standardised client simulation to develop clinical reasoning in final year veterinary students

Clinical reasoning is an important skill for veterinary students to develop before graduation. Simulation has been studied in medical education as a method for developing clinical reasoning in students, but evidence supporting it is limited. This study involved the creation of a contextualized, standardized client simulation session that aimed to improve the clinical reasoning ability and confidence of final-year veterinary students. Sixty-eight participants completed three simulated primary-care consultations, with the client played by an actor and the pet by a healthy animal. Survey data showed that all participants felt that the session improved their clinical decision-making ability. Quantitative clinical reasoning self-assessment, performed using a validated rubric, triangulated this finding, showing an improvement in students’ perception of several components of their clinical reasoning skill level from before the simulation to after it. Blinded researcher analysis of the consultation video recordings found that students showed a significant increase in ability on the history-taking and making-sense-of-data (including formation of a differential diagnosis) components of the assessment rubric. Thirty students took part in focus groups investigating their experience with the simulation. Two themes arose from thematic analysis of these data: variety of reasoning methods and “It’s a different way of thinking.” The latter highlights differences between the decision making students practice during their time in education and the decision making they will use once they are in practice. Our findings suggest that simulation can be used to develop clinical reasoning in veterinary students, and they demonstrate the need for further research in this area