Lost in translation: how can education about dementia be effectively integrated into medical school contexts? A realist synthesis

\ua9 Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. OBJECTIVES: The prevalence of dementia in both community and hospital settings requires a clinical workforce that is skilled in diagnosis and management of the condition to competently care for patients. Though evidence of successful educational interventions about dementia exists, effective translation into medical school curricula is the exception rather than the norm. DESIGN: We adopted a realist synthesis approach following Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) guidelines to answer the following questions: (1) what are the barriers to integrating effective interventions about dementia into medical school curricula and (2) where they are successfully delivered, what are the contextual factors that allow for this enactment? DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO using the MesH terms Schools, Medical; Students, Medical; Education, Medical AND Neurocognitive disorders or the closest possible set of terms within each database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Undergraduate or graduate entry medical school programme, teaching and learning focussing on dementia, evaluating student outcomes (satisfaction, knowledge, skills, attitudes or behaviours), interventions described clearly enough to classify teaching method, any research design (quantitative and qualitative), English language. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We used a shared spreadsheet to enter key information about eligible studies and the reasons for excluding studies that did not fit eligibility criteria. We extracted descriptive data about the nature of educational interventions and narrative information as to barriers and facilitators to implementing those interventions. RESULTS: Our initial literature search identified 16 relevant papers for review. Systematic extraction of data informed the development of an initial programme theory (IPT) structured around four contextual barriers: \u27culture\u27, \u27concern for patient welfare\u27, \u27student attitudes\u27 and \u27logistics\u27 with associated facilitatory mechanisms embed medical education about dementia. CONCLUSIONS: We outline the process of generating our IPT, including overlap with Cultural Historical Activity Theory. We outline our intention to refine our programme theory through ongoing review of the evidence base and collaboration with stakeholders, with the aim of finalising a model for successful integration of dementia education

KNOWLEDGE ABSORPTIVE CAPACITY AND PROCESS INNOVATION: THE MODERATING EFFECT OF ENVIRONMENTAL DYNAMISM

A firm’s absorptive capacity through its knowledge-processing capabilities is crucial in increasing the firm’s innovation performance and fostering competitive advantage. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to investigate the relationship between firms’ absorptive capacity and their process innovation performance by taking into consideration absorptive capacity as a multidimensional, dynamic construct consisting of knowledge acquisition, dissemination and utilization capabilities. Furthermore, this study examined the moderating effect of environmental dynamism on the relationship between firms’ absorptive capacity and innovation performance. Data was gathered from 69 manufacturing firms operating in the northern region of Malaysia. The analyses results showed that knowledge dissemination and utilization had a significant, positive relationship with process innovation. It was also found that in highly dynamic environmental conditions, the impact of knowledge acquisition on process innovation is less pronounced. In stark contrast, the impact of knowledge dissemination on process innovation is enhanced during highly dynamic environmental conditions

Successful therapeutic rechallenge after a severe episode of high dose methotrexate-induced choreoathetosis: A case report

10.3892/mco.2019.1898Molecular and Clinical Oncology114354-35

Global variation in postoperative mortality and complications after cancer surgery: a multicentre, prospective cohort study in 82 countries

© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 licenseBackground: 80% of individuals with cancer will require a surgical procedure, yet little comparative data exist on early outcomes in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We compared postoperative outcomes in breast, colorectal, and gastric cancer surgery in hospitals worldwide, focusing on the effect of disease stage and complications on postoperative mortality. Methods: This was a multicentre, international prospective cohort study of consecutive adult patients undergoing surgery for primary breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer requiring a skin incision done under general or neuraxial anaesthesia. The primary outcome was death or major complication within 30 days of surgery. Multilevel logistic regression determined relationships within three-level nested models of patients within hospitals and countries. Hospital-level infrastructure effects were explored with three-way mediation analyses. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03471494. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and Jan 31, 2019, we enrolled 15 958 patients from 428 hospitals in 82 countries (high income 9106 patients, 31 countries; upper-middle income 2721 patients, 23 countries; or lower-middle income 4131 patients, 28 countries). Patients in LMICs presented with more advanced disease compared with patients in high-income countries. 30-day mortality was higher for gastric cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (adjusted odds ratio 3·72, 95% CI 1·70–8·16) and for colorectal cancer in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (4·59, 2·39–8·80) and upper-middle-income countries (2·06, 1·11–3·83). No difference in 30-day mortality was seen in breast cancer. The proportion of patients who died after a major complication was greatest in low-income or lower-middle-income countries (6·15, 3·26–11·59) and upper-middle-income countries (3·89, 2·08–7·29). Postoperative death after complications was partly explained by patient factors (60%) and partly by hospital or country (40%). The absence of consistently available postoperative care facilities was associated with seven to 10 more deaths per 100 major complications in LMICs. Cancer stage alone explained little of the early variation in mortality or postoperative complications. Interpretation: Higher levels of mortality after cancer surgery in LMICs was not fully explained by later presentation of disease. The capacity to rescue patients from surgical complications is a tangible opportunity for meaningful intervention. Early death after cancer surgery might be reduced by policies focusing on strengthening perioperative care systems to detect and intervene in common complications. Funding: National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit

Effects of hospital facilities on patient outcomes after cancer surgery: an international, prospective, observational study

© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 licenseBackground: Early death after cancer surgery is higher in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with in high-income countries, yet the impact of facility characteristics on early postoperative outcomes is unknown. The aim of this study was to examine the association between hospital infrastructure, resource availability, and processes on early outcomes after cancer surgery worldwide. Methods: A multimethods analysis was performed as part of the GlobalSurg 3 study—a multicentre, international, prospective cohort study of patients who had surgery for breast, colorectal, or gastric cancer. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and 30-day major complication rates. Potentially beneficial hospital facilities were identified by variable selection to select those associated with 30-day mortality. Adjusted outcomes were determined using generalised estimating equations to account for patient characteristics and country-income group, with population stratification by hospital. Findings: Between April 1, 2018, and April 23, 2019, facility-level data were collected for 9685 patients across 238 hospitals in 66 countries (91 hospitals in 20 high-income countries; 57 hospitals in 19 upper-middle-income countries; and 90 hospitals in 27 low-income to lower-middle-income countries). The availability of five hospital facilities was inversely associated with mortality: ultrasound, CT scanner, critical care unit, opioid analgesia, and oncologist. After adjustment for case-mix and country income group, hospitals with three or fewer of these facilities (62 hospitals, 1294 patients) had higher mortality compared with those with four or five (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 3·85 [95% CI 2·58–5·75]; p<0·0001), with excess mortality predominantly explained by a limited capacity to rescue following the development of major complications (63·0% vs 82·7%; OR 0·35 [0·23–0·53]; p<0·0001). Across LMICs, improvements in hospital facilities would prevent one to three deaths for every 100 patients undergoing surgery for cancer. Interpretation: Hospitals with higher levels of infrastructure and resources have better outcomes after cancer surgery, independent of country income. Without urgent strengthening of hospital infrastructure and resources, the reductions in cancer-associated mortality associated with improved access will not be realised. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research