25 research outputs found

    Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

    Get PDF
    Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources

    Older adults' attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Individualized decision making has been recommended for cancer screening decisions in older adults. Because older adults' preferences are central to individualized decisions, we assessed older adults' perspectives about continuing cancer screening later in life. METHODS: Face to face interviews with 116 residents age 70 or over from two long-term care retirement communities. Interview content included questions about whether participants had discussed cancer screening with their physicians since turning age 70, their attitudes about information important for individualized decisions, and their attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life. RESULTS: Forty-nine percent of participants reported that they had an opportunity to discuss cancer screening with their physician since turning age 70; 89% would have preferred to have had these discussions. Sixty-two percent believed their own life expectancy was not important for decision making, and 48% preferred not to discuss life expectancy. Attitudes about continuing cancer screening were favorable. Most participants reported that they would continue screening throughout their lives and 43% would consider getting screened even if their doctors recommended against it. Only 13% thought that they would not live long enough to benefit from cancer screening tests. Factors important to consider stopping include: age, deteriorating or poor health, concerns about the effectiveness of the tests, and doctors recommendations. CONCLUSION: This select group of older adults held positive attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life, and many may have had unrealistic expectations. Individualized decision making could help clarify how life expectancy affects the potential survival benefits of cancer screening. Future research is needed to determine whether educating older adults about the importance of longevity in screening decisions would be acceptable, affect older adults' attitudes about screening, or change their screening behavior

    The words leader/líder and their resonances in an Italo-Latin American multinational corporation

    Get PDF
    © 2017, © The Author(s) 2017. The problems of ‘lost in translation’ are well known. Yet some terms of English managerial vocabulary, which are perfectly translatable in other languages, remain untranslated. One explanation of this phenomenon is what Linguistic anthropology call negative semantic resonances. Semantic resonances focused on the issue of which meanings can or cannot be expressed by a single word in different cultures. In this paper, based on an organisational ethnography of Latin American expatriates working for an Italo-Latin-American multinational corporation (Tubworld), we analyse the resonances of the word leader/líder and director, direttore, capo, guida, coordinador, caudillo among a group of expatriates; all Italian, Spanish or multilingual speakers who use English as a second language in their everyday interactions. The paper explains how the different uses contribute to create a meaning of what a leader should and should not be; someone who leads without leading, sometimes a manager. The authors, an Italian native speaker who learnt Spanish during childhood and use English as his everyday language and a Spanish native speaker, argue that Italian or Spanish speakers not only avoid the words duce and caudillo (the vernacular vocabulary for leader, not in use due to the political and cultural meaning) but also the word leader/líder itself, as it resonate to the other two (violent, authoritarian, autocratic, antidemocratic leadership) but furthermore because the word, a lexical loan from English, failed to encapsulate the complexity of leading multilingual organisations like Tubworld

    Correlates of protection against symptomatic and asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection

    Get PDF
    The global supply of COVID-19 vaccines remains limited. An understanding of the immune response that is predictive of protection could facilitate rapid licensure of new vaccines. Data from a randomized efficacy trial of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine in the United Kingdom was analyzed to determine the antibody levels associated with protection against SARS-CoV-2. Binding and neutralizing antibodies at 28 days after the second dose were measured in infected and noninfected vaccine recipients. Higher levels of all immune markers were correlated with a reduced risk of symptomatic infection. A vaccine efficacy of 80% against symptomatic infection with majority Alpha (B.1.1.7) variant of SARS-CoV-2 was achieved with 264 (95% CI: 108, 806) binding antibody units (BAU)/ml: and 506 (95% CI: 135, not computed (beyond data range) (NC)) BAU/ml for anti-spike and anti-RBD antibodies, and 26 (95% CI: NC, NC) international unit (IU)/ml and 247 (95% CI: 101, NC) normalized neutralization titers (NF) for pseudovirus and live-virus neutralization, respectively. Immune markers were not correlated with asymptomatic infections at the 5% significance level. These data can be used to bridge to new populations using validated assays, and allow extrapolation of efficacy estimates to new COVID-19 vaccines

    Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

    Get PDF
    IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

    Rituximab Versus Cyclophosphamide for ANCA-Associated Vasculitis with Renal Involvement

    No full text
    Rituximab (RTX) is non-inferior to cyclophosphamide (CYC) followed by azathioprine (AZA) for remission-induction in severe ANCA-associated vasculitis (AAV), but renal outcomes are unknown. This is a post hoc analysis of patients enrolled in the Rituximab for ANCA-Associated Vasculitis (RAVE) Trial who had renal involvement (biopsy proven pauci-immune GN, red blood cell casts in the urine, and/or a rise in serum creatinine concentration attributed to vasculitis). Remission-induction regimens were RTX at 375 mg/m(2) x 4 or CYC at 2 mg/kg/d. CYC was replaced by AZA (2 mg/kg/d) after 3-6 months. Both groups received glucocorticoids. Complete remission (CR) was defined as Birmingham Vasculitis Activity Score/Wegener's Granulomatosis (BVAS/WG)=0 off prednisone. Fifty-two percent (102 of 197) of the patients had renal involvement at entry. Of these patients, 51 were randomized to RTX, and 51 to CYC/AZA. Mean eGFR was lower in the RTX group (41 versus 50 ml/min per 1.73 m(2); P=0.05); 61% and 75% of patients treated with RTX and 63% and 76% of patients treated with CYC/AZA achieved CR by 6 and 18 months, respectively. No differences in remission rates or increases in eGFR at 18 months were evident when analysis was stratified by ANCA type, AAV diagnosis (granulomatosis with polyangiitis versus microscopic polyangiitis), or new diagnosis (versus relapsing disease) at entry. There were no differences between treatment groups in relapses at 6, 12, or 18 months. No differences in adverse events were observed. In conclusion, patients with AAV and renal involvement respond similarly to remission induction with RTX plus glucocorticoids or CYC plus glucocorticoids

    Clinicians' views of patient-initiated follow-up in head and neck cancer: a qualitative study to inform the PETNECK2 trial

    Get PDF
    Aims Current follow-up for head and neck cancer (HNC) is ineffective, expensive and fails to address patients' needs. The PETNECK2 trial will compare a new model of patient-initiated follow-up (PIFU) with routine scheduled follow-up. This article reports UK clinicians' views about HNC follow-up and PIFU, to inform the trial design. Materials and methods Online focus groups with surgeons (ear, nose and throat/maxillofacial), oncologists, clinical nurse specialists and allied health professionals. Clinicians were recruited from professional bodies, mailing lists and personal contacts. Focus groups explored views on current follow-up and acceptability of the proposed PIFU intervention and randomised controlled trial design (presented by the study co-chief investigator), preferences, margins of equipoise, potential organisational barriers and thoughts about the content and format of PIFU. Data were interpreted using inductive thematic analysis. Results Eight focus groups with 34 clinicians were conducted. Clinicians highlighted already known limitations with HNC follow-up – lack of flexibility to address the wide-ranging needs of HNC patients, expense and lack of evidence – and agreed that follow-up needs to change. They were enthusiastic about the PETNECK2 trial to develop and evaluate PIFU but had concerns that PIFU may not suit disengaged patients and may aggravate patient anxiety/fear of recurrence and delay detection of recurrence. Anticipated issues with implementation included ensuring a reliable route back to clinic and workload burden on nurses and allied health professionals. Conclusions Clinicians supported the evaluation of PIFU but voiced concerns about barriers to help-seeking. An emphasis on patient engagement, psychosocial issues, symptom reporting and reliable, quick routes back to clinic will be important. Certain patient groups may be less suited to PIFU, which will be evaluated in the trial. Early, meaningful, ongoing engagement with clinical teams and managers around the trial rationale and recruitment process will be important to discourage selective recruitment and address risk-averse behaviour and potential workload burden. Abbreviations PIFUPatient-initiated follow-upHNCHead and neck cance
    corecore