Implementing person-centred outcome measures (PCOMs) into routine palliative care: A protocol for a mixed-methods process evaluation of the RESOLVE PCOM Implementation Strategy

Introduction Person-centred outcome measures improve quality of care and patient outcomes but are used inconsistently in palliative care practice. To address this implementation gap, we developed the 'RESOLVE Implementation Strategy'. This protocol describes a process evaluation to explore mechanisms through which this strategy does, or does not, support the implementation of outcome measures in routine palliative care practice. Methods and analysis Multistrand, mixed-methods process evaluation. Strand one will collect routine outcomes data (palliative Phase of Illness, Integrated Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status) to map the changes in use of outcome measures over 12 months (July 2021-July 2022). Strand two will collect survey data over the same 12-month period to explore how professionals' understandings of, skills in using and ability to build organisational practices around, outcome measures change over time. Strand three will collect interview data to understand the mechanisms underpinning/affecting our implementation strategy. Thematic framework analysis and descriptive statistics will be used to analyse qualitative and quantitative data, respectively. Ethics and dissemination For strand one, ethical approval has been obtained (Cambridge REC, REF: 20/EE/0188). For strands two and three, ethical approval has been obtained from Hull York Medical School ethics committee (2105). Tailored feedback of study findings will be provided to participating sites. Abstracts and papers will be submitted to national/international conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Lay and policy briefings and newsletters will be shared through patient and public involvement and project networks, plus via the project website

Synthesis, X-ray structure, Hirshfeld surface analysis and antimicrobial assessment of tetranuclear s-triazine hydrazine Schiff base ligand

Funding: The Deputyship for Research and Innovation, “Ministry of Education”, King Saud University (IFKSUOR3-188-3), Saudi Arabia.The unexpected tetranuclear [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6] complex was obtained by self-assembly of CuCl2.2H2O and (E)-2,4-di(piperidin-1-yl)-6-(2-(1-(pyridin-2-yl)ethylidene)hydrazinyl)-1,3,5-triazine, ( HDPPT ) in ethanol. In this tetranuclear [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6] complex, the organic ligand acts as mononegative chelate bridging two crystallographically independent Cu(II) sites. The DPPT− anion acts as a bidentate ligand with respect to Cu(1), while it is a tridentate for Cu(2). The Cu(1)N2Cl3 and Cu(2)N3Cl spheres have square pyramidal and square planar coordination geometries with some distortion, respectively. Two of the chloride ions coordinating the Cu(1) are bridging between two crystallographically related Cu(1) sites connecting two [Cu2(DPPT)Cl3] units together, leading to the tetranuclear formula [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6]. The packing of the [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6] complex is dominated by C-H…Cl contacts, leading to one-dimensional hydrogen-bond polymeric structure. According to Hirshfeld surface analysis of molecular packing, the non-covalent interactions H…H, Cl…H, Cl…C, C…H, and N…H are the most significant. Their percentages are 52.8, 19.0, 3.2, 7.7, and 9.7%, respectively. Antimicrobial assessment showed good antifungal activity of the Cu(II) complex against A. fumigatus and C. albicans compared to Ketoconazole as positive control. Moreover, the [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6] complex has higher activity against Gram-positive bacteria than Gentamycin as positive control. The opposite was observed when testing the tetranuclear [Cu4(DPPT)2Cl6] complex against the Gram-negative bacteria.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

Implementing person-centred outcome measures in palliative care: An exploratory qualitative study using Normalisation Process Theory to understand processes and context

© The Author(s) 2020. Background: Despite evidence demonstrating the utility of using Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care settings, implementing them into routine practice is challenging. Most research has described barriers to, without explaining the causal mechanisms underpinning, implementation. Implementation theories explain how, why, and in which contexts specific relationships between barriers/enablers might improve implementation effectiveness but have rarely been used in palliative care outcomes research. Aim: To use Normalisation Process Theory to understand and explain the causal mechanisms that underpin successful implementation of Person-Centred Outcome Measures within palliative care. Design: Exploratory qualitative study. Data collected through semi-structured interviews and analysed using a Framework approach. Setting/participants: 63 healthcare professionals, across 11 specialist palliative care services, were purposefully sampled by role, experience, seniority, and settings (inpatient, outpatient/day therapy, home-based/community). Results: Seven main themes were developed, representing the causal mechanisms and relationships underpinning successful implementation of outcome measures into routine practice. Themes were: Subjectivity of measures; Frequency and version of Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; Training, education, and peer support; Building and sustaining community engagement; Electronic system readiness; The art of communication; Reinforcing use through demonstrating value. Conclusions: Relationships influencing implementation resided at individual and organisational levels. Addressing these factors is key to driving the implementation of outcome measures into routine practice so that those using palliative care services can benefit from the systematic identification, management, and measurement of their symptoms and concerns. We provide key questions that are essential for those implementing and using outcome measures to consider in order to facilitate the integration of outcome measures into routine palliative care practice

Contraception use among Muslim women in Alexandria, Egypt: a descriptive pilot study

Background: This pilot study aimed to create a questionnaire survey directed to understand knowledge gaps related to contraception among Muslim women in Alexandria, Egypt, so potential interventions could be designed to enable more informed decision-making. The project was a mixed-method, cross-sectional study using a questionnaire survey.Methods: Participants were randomly selected at outpatient clinics at Alexandria university hospitals in September and October 2020. The inclusion criteria were to be an 18 year old or older woman and able to give consent. The recruitment goal for this pilot study was 100 participants. The consented participants were interviewed about demographics, socio-structural and contraception use. The questionnaire was tested using a focus group of 11 women. The study data was collected using KoBoToolbox and exported to the SPSS software for descriptive analysis. The primary outcome was to validate the survey questionnaire and the secondary outcome to assess knowledge regarding contraception methods and emergency contraception.Results: The age of study participants ranged from 18-60 with a mean of 34 years. Almost all participants had previously heard of various contraceptive methods and 75% used them before. The majority did not know about emergency contraception. Most respondents had a favorable attitude toward family planning, and their primary sources of information were family and friends.Conclusions: Preliminary findings show that most women knew about contraception methods, though few of them heard of emergency contraception. Because of the patriarchal nature of Egyptian society, family planning education should target the whole population

Abdominal Visceral Adipose Tissue and All-Cause Mortality: A Systematic Review

Introduction Increased abdominal visceral adipose tissue (VAT) implies an adverse cardio-metabolic profile. We examined the association of abdominal VAT parameters and all-cause mortality risk. Methods We systematically searched four databases. We performed citations/articles screening, data abstraction, and quality assessment in duplicate and independently (CRD42020205021). Results We included 12 cohorts, the majority used computed tomography to assess abdominal VAT area. Six cohorts with a mean age ≤ 65 years, examining all-cause mortality risk per increment in VAT area (cm2) or volume (cm3), showed a 11-98% relative risk increase with higher VAT parameters. However, the association lost significance after adjusting for glycemic indices, body mass index, or other fat parameters. In 4 cohorts with a mean age >65 years, the findings on mortality were inconsistent. Conversely, in two cohorts (mean age 73-77 years), a higher VAT density, was inversely proportional to VAT area, and implied a higher mortality risk. Conclusion A high abdominal VAT area seems to be associated with increased all-cause mortality in individuals ≤ 65 years, possibly mediated by metabolic complications, and not through an independent effect. This relationship is weaker and may reverse in older individuals, most likely secondary to confounding bias and reverse causality. An individual participant data meta-analysis is needed to confirm our findings, and to define an abdominal VAT area cutoff implying increased mortality risk. Systematic Review Registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=205021, identifier CRD42020205021

A non-randomised controlled study to assess the effectiveness of a new proactive multidisciplinary care intervention for older people living with frailty

BackgroundIntegrated care may improve outcomes for older people living with frailty. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of a new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service in improving the wellbeing and quality of life (QoL) of older people living with severe frailty.MethodsA community-based non-randomised controlled study. Participants (≥65 years, electronic Frailty Index ≥0.36) received either the new integrated care service plus usual care, or usual care alone. Data collection was at three time points: baseline, 2-4 weeks, and 10-14 weeks. The primary outcome was patient wellbeing (symptoms and other concerns) at 2-4 weeks, measured using the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS); the secondary outcome was QoL, measured using EQ-5D-5L. To test duration of effect and safety, wellbeing and QoL were also measured at 10-14 weeks. Descriptive statistics were used to characterise and compare intervention and control groups (eligible but had not accessed the new service), with t-test, Chi-Square, or Mann-Whitney U tests (as appropriate) to test differences at each time point. Generalised linear modelling, with propensity score matching, was used for further group comparisons. Data were analysed using STATA v17.Results199 intervention and 54 control participants were recruited. At baseline, intervention and control groups were similar in age, gender, ethnicity, living status, and body mass index, but not functional status or area deprivation score. At 2-4 weeks, wellbeing had improved in the intervention group but worsened in the control (median IPOS -5 versus 2, p<0.001). QoL improved in the intervention group but was unchanged in the control (median EQ-5D-5L 0.12, versus 0.00, p<0.001). After adjusting for age, gender, and living status, the intervention group had an average total IPOS score reduction at 2-4 weeks of 6.34 (95% CI: -9.01: -4.26, p<0.05); this improvement was sustained, with an average total IPOS score reduction at 10-14 weeks of 6.36 (95% CI: -8.91:-3.80, p<0.05). After propensity score matching based on functional status/area deprivation, modelling showed similar results, with a reduction in IPOS score at 2-4 weeks in the intervention group of 7.88 (95% CI: -12.80: -2.96, p<0.001).ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the new, anticipatory, multidisciplinary care service may have improved the overall wellbeing and quality of life of older people living with frailty at 2-4 weeks and the improvement in wellbeing was sustained at three months

Use of tocilizumab and sarilumab alone or in combination with corticosteroids for covid-19: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective: To compare the effects of interleukin 6 receptor blockers, tocilizumab and sarilumab, with or without corticosteroids, on mortality in patients with covid-19. Design: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources: World Health Organization covid-19 database, a comprehensive multilingual source of global covid-19 literature, and two prospective meta-analyses (up to 9 June 2021). Review methods: Trials in which people with suspected, probable, or confirmed covid-19 were randomised to interleukin 6 receptor blockers (with or without corticosteroids), corticosteroids, placebo, or standard care. The analysis used a bayesian framework and assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results from the fixed effect meta-analysis were used for the primary analysis. Results: Of 45 eligible trials (20 650 patients) identified, 36 (19 350 patients) could be included in the network meta-analysis. Of 36 trials, 27 were at high risk of bias, primarily due to lack of blinding. Tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, suggested a reduction in the risk of death compared with corticosteroids alone (odds ratio 0.79, 95% credible interval 0.70 to 0.88; 35 fewer deaths per 1000 people, 95% credible interval 52 fewer to 18 fewer per 1000; moderate certainty of evidence), as did sarilumab in combination with corticosteroids, compared with corticosteroids alone (0.73, 0.58 to 0.92; 43 fewer per 1000, 73 fewer to 12 fewer; low certainty). Tocilizumab and sarilumab, each in combination with corticosteroids, appeared to have similar effects on mortality when compared with each other (1.07, 0.86 to 1.34; eight more per 1000, 20 fewer to 35 more; low certainty). The effects of tocilizumab (1.12, 0.91 to 1.38; 20 more per 1000, 16 fewer to 59 more; low certainty) and sarilumab (1.07, 0.81 to 1.40; 11 more per 1000, 38 fewer to 55 more; low certainty), when used alone, suggested an increase in the risk of death. Conclusion: These findings suggest that in patients with severe or critical covid-19, tocilizumab, in combination with corticosteroids, probably reduces mortality, and that sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, might also reduce mortality. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, in combination with corticosteroids, could have similar effectiveness. Tocilizumab and sarilumab, when used alone, might not be beneficial.This project is supported by two Canadian Institutes of Health Research grants (VR4-172738; MM1-174897). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.publishedVersio

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both

Reporting of Financial and Non-financial Conflicts of Interest in Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research: A Cross Sectional Survey

Abstract Background: Systematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses. Results: Eighty percent of systematic reviews included authors’ COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document. Conclusion: A fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both

Ventilation Techniques and Risk for Transmission of Coronavirus Disease, Including COVID-19 A Living Systematic Review of Multiple Streams of Evidence

Background: Mechanical ventilation is used to treat respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Purpose: To review multiple streams of evidence regarding the benefits and harms of ventilation techniques for coronavirus infections, including that causing COVID-19. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020178187) Data Sources: 21 standard, World Health Organization–specific and COVID-19–specific databases, without language restrictions, until 1 May 2020. Study Selection: Studies of any design and language comparing different oxygenation approaches in patients with coronavirus infections, including severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), or with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Animal, mechanistic, laboratory, and preclinical evidence was gathered regarding aerosol dispersion of coronavirus. Studies evaluating risk for virus transmission to health care workers from aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) were included. Data Extraction: Independent and duplicate screening, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment (GRADE for certainty of evidence and AMSTAR 2 for included systematic reviews). Data Synthesis: 123 studies were eligible (45 on COVID-19, 70 on SARS, 8 on MERS), but only 5 studies (1 on COVID-19, 3 on SARS, 1 on MERS) adjusted for important confounders. A study in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 reported slightly higher mortality with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) than with invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), but 2 opposing studies, 1 in patients with MERS and 1 in patients with SARS, suggest a reduction in mortality with NIV (very low-certainty evidence). Two studies in patients with SARS report a reduction in mortality with NIV compared with no mechanical ventilation (low-certainty evidence). Two systematic reviews suggest a large reduction in mortality with NIV compared with conventional oxygen therapy. Other included studies suggest increased odds of transmission from AGPs. Limitation: Direct studies in COVID-19 are limited and poorly reported. Conclusion: Indirect and low-certainty evidence suggests that use of NIV, similar to IMV, probably reduces mortality but may increase the risk for transmission of COVID-19 to health care workers