14 research outputs found
The role of motivation in the diffusion of innovations in Canada’s long-term care sector: a qualitative study
Abstract
Background
Long-term care facilities offer shelter and care for Canadian seniors; however, there are great variances in the quality of care that is provided to older adults across facilities. One factor that could contribute to this variation in quality is the diffusion and implementation of advice and innovations within this sector. This study sought to understand the motivations of identified opinion leaders within the Canadian long-term care sector to disseminate advice within their social networks. Research questions addressed specific drivers of motivation and the potential outcomes of having motivated opinion leaders present within interpersonal advice-seeking networks with respect to diffusion and implementation of innovations in the Canadian long-term care sector.
Methods
This secondary analysis study analyzed semi-structured qualitative interviews with opinion leaders (n = 13) and advice seekers of opinion leaders (n = 13) from a national, social network study, Advice Seeking Networks in Long Term Care (Cranley et al. 2019; Dearing et al. 2017). Constant comparison analysis was used and supported by a theoretical framework developed from diffusion of innovation theory and the COM-B framework.
Results
The motivations of opinion leaders in the Canadian long-term care sector were represented across seven themes: obligations of the position, value of education, systemness, relationships, supportiveness, passion, and caring nature.
Conclusions
This research provides further evidence that opinion leaders in the long-term care sector are motivated individuals and that they are using this motivation as a driver to create change and improve care practices. As residents of the long-term care sector continue to increase in number and complexity, the presence of motivated opinion leaders represents a promising outlook for the future through achieving specific outcomes such as the diffusion and implementation of innovations, an increased sense of community within the network, and increased readiness for the future
Intensive versus less-intensive antileukemic therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia: A systematic review.
To compare the effectiveness and safety of intensive antileukemic therapy to less-intensive therapy in older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and intermediate or adverse cytogenetics, we searched the literature in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL to identify relevant studies through July 2020. We reported the pooled hazard ratios (HRs), risk ratios (RRs), mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using random-effects meta-analyses and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Two randomized trials enrolling 529 patients and 23 observational studies enrolling 7296 patients proved eligible. The most common intensive interventions included cytarabine-based intensive chemotherapy, combination of cytarabine and anthracycline, or daunorubicin/idarubicin, and cytarabine plus idarubicin. The most common less-intensive therapies included low-dose cytarabine alone, or combined with clofarabine, azacitidine, and hypomethylating agent-based chemotherapy. Low certainty evidence suggests that patients who receive intensive versus less-intensive therapy may experience longer survival (HR 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76-0.99), a higher probability of receiving allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (RR 6.14; 95% CI, 4.03-9.35), fewer episodes of pneumonia (RR, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.06-0.98), but a greater number of severe, treatment-emergent adverse events (RR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.03-1.75), and a longer duration of intensive care unit hospitalization (MD, 6.84 days longer; 95% CI, 3.44 days longer to 10.24 days longer, very low certainty evidence). Low certainty evidence due to confounding in observational studies suggest superior overall survival without substantial treatment-emergent adverse effect of intensive antileukemic therapy over less-intensive therapy in older adults with AML who are candidates for intensive antileukemic therapy
Recommended from our members
American Society of Hematology 2020 guidelines for treating newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in older adults
Older adults with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) represent a vulnerable population in whom disease-based and clinical risk factors, patient goals, prognosis, and practitioner- and patient-perceived treatment risks and benefits influence treatment recommendations.
These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in their decisions about management of AML in older adults.
ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel that included specialists in myeloid leukemia, geriatric oncology, patient-reported outcomes and decision-making, frailty, epidemiology, and methodology, as well as patients. The McMaster Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 24 May 2019). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance to patients, as judged by the panel. The panel used the GRADE approach, including GRADE's Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.
The panel agreed on 6 critical questions in managing older adults with AML, mirroring real-time practitioner-patient conversations: the decision to pursue antileukemic treatment vs best supportive management, the intensity of therapy, the role and duration of postremission therapy, combination vs monotherapy for induction and beyond, duration of less-intensive therapy, and the role of transfusion support for patients no longer receiving antileukemic therapy.
Treatment is recommended over best supportive management. More-intensive therapy is recommended over less-intensive therapy when deemed tolerable. However, these recommendations are guided by the principle that throughout a patient's disease course, optimal care involves ongoing discussions between clinicians and patients, continuously addressing goals of care and the relative risk-benefit balance of treatment
Risk of Epidural Hematoma after Neuraxial Techniques in Thrombocytopenic Parturients : A Report from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group
BACKGROUND:: Thrombocytopenia has been considered a relative or even absolute contraindication to neuraxial techniques due to the risk of epidural hematoma. There is limited literature to estimate the risk of epidural hematoma in thrombocytopenic parturients. The authors reviewed a large perioperative database and performed a systematic review to further define the risk of epidural hematoma requiring surgical decompression in this population. METHODS:: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group database to identify thrombocytopenic parturients who received a neuraxial technique and to estimate the risk of epidural hematoma. Patients were stratified by platelet count, and those requiring surgical decompression were identified. A systematic review was performed, and risk estimates were combined with those from the existing literature. RESULTS:: A total of 573 parturients with a platelet count less than 100,000 mm who received a neuraxial technique across 14 institutions were identified in the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group database, and a total of 1,524 parturients were identified after combining the data from the systematic review. No cases of epidural hematoma requiring surgical decompression were observed. The upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk of epidural hematoma for a platelet count of 0 to 49,000 mm is 11%, for 50,000 to 69,000 mm is 3%, and for 70,000 to 100,000 mm is 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS:: The number of thrombocytopenic parturients in the literature who received neuraxial techniques without complication has been significantly increased. The risk of epidural hematoma associated with neuraxial techniques in parturients at a platelet count less than 70,000 mm remains poorly defined due to limited observations
Risk of Epidural Hematoma after Neuraxial Techniques in Thrombocytopenic Parturients : A Report from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group
BACKGROUND:: Thrombocytopenia has been considered a relative or even absolute contraindication to neuraxial techniques due to the risk of epidural hematoma. There is limited literature to estimate the risk of epidural hematoma in thrombocytopenic parturients. The authors reviewed a large perioperative database and performed a systematic review to further define the risk of epidural hematoma requiring surgical decompression in this population. METHODS:: The authors performed a retrospective cohort study using the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group database to identify thrombocytopenic parturients who received a neuraxial technique and to estimate the risk of epidural hematoma. Patients were stratified by platelet count, and those requiring surgical decompression were identified. A systematic review was performed, and risk estimates were combined with those from the existing literature. RESULTS:: A total of 573 parturients with a platelet count less than 100,000 mm who received a neuraxial technique across 14 institutions were identified in the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group database, and a total of 1,524 parturients were identified after combining the data from the systematic review. No cases of epidural hematoma requiring surgical decompression were observed. The upper bound of the 95% CI for the risk of epidural hematoma for a platelet count of 0 to 49,000 mm is 11%, for 50,000 to 69,000 mm is 3%, and for 70,000 to 100,000 mm is 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS:: The number of thrombocytopenic parturients in the literature who received neuraxial techniques without complication has been significantly increased. The risk of epidural hematoma associated with neuraxial techniques in parturients at a platelet count less than 70,000 mm remains poorly defined due to limited observations