Report on ISCTM consensus meeting on clinical assessment of response to treatment of cognitive impairment in schizophrenia

Funding for this manuscript was provided by the International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology.Dr Keefe currently or in the past 3 years has received investigator-initiated research funding support from the Department of Veteran's Affair, Feinstein Institute for Medical Research, GlaxoSmithKline, National Institute of Mental Health, Novartis, Psychogenics, Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc., and the Singapore National Medical Research Council. He currently or in the past 3 years has received honoraria, served as a consultant, or advisory board member for Abbvie, Akebia, Amgen, Asubio, AviNeuro/ChemRar, BiolineRx, Biogen Idec, Biomarin, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, EnVivo/FORUM, GW Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Lundbeck, Merck, Minerva Neurosciences, Inc., Mitsubishi, Novartis, NY State Office of Mental Health, Otsuka, Pfizer, Reviva, Roche, Sanofi/Aventis, Shire, Sunovion, Takeda, Targacept, and the University of Texas South West Medical Center. Dr Keefe receives royalties from the BACS testing battery, the MATRICS battery (BACS Symbol Coding), and the Virtual Reality Functional Capacity Assessment Tool. He is also a shareholder in NeuroCog Trials, Inc. and Sengenix. Dr Haig is a full-time employee of Abbvie. Dr Marder has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Genentech, Roche, Lundbeck, Pfizer, Otsuka, Takeda, and Boeringer Ingelheim. He has received research support from Amgen, Sunovion, and Synchroneuron. Dr Harvey has received consulting fees from Abbvie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Forest Labs, Forum Pharma, Genentech, Otsuka America, Roche Pharma, Sunovion Pharma, and Takeda Pharma during the past year. He also received contract research support from Genentech. Dr Dunayevich for the past 3 years has been a full-time employee and stockholder of Amgen. Dr Medalia in the past 3 years has received research funding support from Sunovion. Dr Medalia has also currently or in the past 3 years received honoraria or served as consultant for Dainippon Sumitomo Pharma Co., Ltd., Otsuka, and Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. Dr Davidson has received research grant support and/or travel support and/or speaker fees and/or consultancy fees from Lundbeck, Eli Lilly, Servier, Abbott, Minerva and holds stocks in CTR and BiolineRx. Dr Lombardo is a full-time employee of FORUM Pharmaceuticals. Dr Bowie reports receiving grant support from Pfizer. He has also been a consultant for Lundbeck, Otsuka, Abbvie, and Takeda. Dr Buchanan reports: Advisory Board: Abbvie, Amgen, EnVivo, Roche; Consultant: Abbvie, Amgen, Bristol Myers Squibb, EnVivo, Omeros; DSMB member: Pfizer. Dr Bugarski -Kirola is a full-time employee of Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. Dr Carpenter in the past 2 years has been a consultant to Roche/Genetech. Dr Dago in the last 3 years has received honoraria from Lundbeck, Forest Pharmaceuticals, Otsuka, Pam Labs, and Astra Zeneca for lectures given in promotion of their psychotropic medications. Dr Durand in the past year has been a consultant and received honoraria from Teva Pharmaceuticals. Dr Gold receives royalty payments from the BACS. He also has served as a consultant for Amgen, Hoffman LaRoche, and Lundbeck. Dr Hooker has served as a consultant and is currently a Co-Investigator on an NIH SBIR grant with PositScience Corporation. Dr Loebel is an employee of Sunovion Pharmaceuticals. Dr McGurk reports receiving consulting fees from Abbvie and EnVivo Pharmaceuticals. Dr Pinkham in the past year has received consulting fees from Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.The following authors have declared that there are no conflicts of interest in relation to the subject of this study: Drs Csernansky, Frese, Goff, Kopelowic, Opler, and Stern. (International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology; Department of Veteran's Affair; Feinstein Institute for Medical Research; GlaxoSmithKline; National Institute of Mental Health; Novartis; Psychogenics; Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.; Singapore National Medical Research Council; Abbvie; Genentech; Roche; Lundbeck; Pfizer; Otsuka; Takeda; Boeringer Ingelheim; Amgen; Sunovion; Synchroneuron; Boehringer Ingelheim; Forest Labs; Forum Pharma; Otsuka America; Roche Pharma; Sunovion Pharma; Takeda Pharma; Eli Lilly; Servier; Abbott; Minerva; BACS; EnVivo Pharmaceuticals; Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc.)Published versio

Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) and the biology of the lichen genus rhizocarpon:challenges and future directions

Lichenometric dating (lichenometry) involves the use of lichen measurements to estimate the age of exposure of various substrata. Because of low radial growth rates and considerable longevity, species of the crustose lichen genus Rhizocarpon have been the most useful in lichenometry. The primary assumption of lichenometry is that colonization, growth and mortality of Rhizocarpon are similar on surfaces of known and unknown age so that the largest thalli present on the respective faces are of comparable age. This review describes the current state of knowledge regarding the biology of Rhizocarpon and considers two main questions: (1) to what extent does existing knowledge support this assumption; and (2) what further biological observations would be useful both to test its validity and to improve the accuracy of lichenometric dates? A review of the Rhizocarpon literature identified gaps in knowledge regarding early development, the growth rate/size curve, mortality, regeneration, competitive effects, colonization, and succession on rock surfaces. The data suggest that these processes may not be comparable on different rock surfaces, especially in regions where growth rates and thallus turnover are high. In addition, several variables could differ between rock surfaces and influence maximum thallus size, including rate and timing of colonization, radial growth rates, environmental differences, thallus fusion, allelopathy, thallus mortality, colonization and competition. Comparative measurements of these variables on surfaces of known and unknown age may help to determine whether the basic assumptions of lichenometry are valid. Ultimately, it may be possible to take these differences into account when interpreting estimated dates

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

InspirE5: a participatory, internationally informed framework for health humanities curricula in health professions education

Background Reporting on the effect of health humanities teaching in health professions education courses to facilitate sharing and mutual exchange internationally, and the generation of a more interconnected body of evidence surrounding health humanities curricula is needed. This study asked, what could an internationally informed curriculum and evaluation framework for the implementation of health humanities for health professions education look like? Methods The participatory action research approach applied was based on three iterative phases 1. Perspective sharing and collaboration building. 2. Evidence gathering 3. Development of an internationally relevant curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities. Over 2 years, a series of online meetings, virtual workshops and follow up communications resulted in the production of the curriculum framework. Results Following the perspective sharing and evidence gathering, the InspirE5 model of curriculum design and evaluation framework for health humanities in health professions education was developed. Five principal foci shaped the design of the framework. Environment: Learning and political environment surrounding the program. Expectations: Graduate capabilities that are clearly articulated for all, integrated into core curricula and relevant to graduate destinations and associated professional standards. Experience: Learning and teaching experience that supports learners’ achievement of the stated graduate capabilities. Evidence: Assessment of learning (formative and/or summative) with feedback for learners around the development of capabilities. Enhancement: Program evaluation of the students and teachers learning experiences and achievement. In all, 11 Graduate Capabilities for Health Humanities were suggested along with a summary of common core content and guiding principles for assessment of health humanities learning. Discussion Concern about objectifying, reductive biomedical approaches to health professions education has led to a growing expansion of health humanities teaching and learning around the world. The InspirE5 curriculum and evaluation framework provides a foundation for a standardised approach to describe or compare health humanities education in different contexts and across a range of health professions courses and may be adapted around the world to progress health humanities education

InspirE5: a participatory, internationally informed framework for health humanities curricula in health professions education

Background Reporting on the effect of health humanities teaching in health professions education courses to facilitate sharing and mutual exchange internationally, and the generation of a more interconnected body of evidence surrounding health humanities curricula is needed. This study asked, what could an internationally informed curriculum and evaluation framework for the implementation of health humanities for health professions education look like? Methods The participatory action research approach applied was based on three iterative phases 1. Perspective sharing and collaboration building. 2. Evidence gathering 3. Development of an internationally relevant curriculum and evaluation framework for health humanities. Over 2 years, a series of online meetings, virtual workshops and follow up communications resulted in the production of the curriculum framework. Results Following the perspective sharing and evidence gathering, the InspirE5 model of curriculum design and evaluation framework for health humanities in health professions education was developed. Five principal foci shaped the design of the framework. Environment: Learning and political environment surrounding the program. Expectations: Graduate capabilities that are clearly articulated for all, integrated into core curricula and relevant to graduate destinations and associated professional standards. Experience: Learning and teaching experience that supports learners' achievement of the stated graduate capabilities. Evidence: Assessment of learning (formative and/or summative) with feedback for learners around the development of capabilities. Enhancement: Program evaluation of the students and teachers learning experiences and achievement. In all, 11 Graduate Capabilities for Health Humanities were suggested along with a summary of common core content and guiding principles for assessment of health humanities learning. Discussion Concern about objectifying, reductive biomedical approaches to health professions education has led to a growing expansion of health humanities teaching and learning around the world. The InspirE5 curriculum and evaluation framework provides a foundation for a standardised approach to describe or compare health humanities education in different contexts and across a range of health professions courses and may be adapted around the world to progress health humanities education