Whatever Happened to Evidence-Based Practice During COVID-19?

Contemporary medical practice is grounded in rigorous scientific evidence in concert with best clinical practices and informed shared decision making with patients. During these times of uncertainty, disruption, and even anxiety, it becomes critical that we engage with our patients and communities in thoughtful dialogue and realistic expectations regarding treatments surrounding COVID-19. The hope for a “miracle” cure and urgency to return back to normal times can stimulate irrational thought and behavior and even desperate measures by individuals or groups. It becomes especially important that we continue to use reasonable, informed clinical judgment in discussing the various options with patients

The power of interdependence: Linking health systems, communities, and health professions educational programs to better meet the needs of patients and populations

Promoting optimal health outcomes for diverse patients and populations requires the acknowledgement and strengthening of interdependent relationships between health professions education programs, health systems, and the communities they serve. Educational programs must recognize their role as integral components of a larger system. Educators must strive to break down silos and synergize efforts to foster a health care workforce positioned for collaborative, equitable, community-oriented practice. Sharing interprofessional and interinstitutional strategies can foster wide propagation of educational innovation while accommodating local contexts. This paper outlines how member schools of the American Medical Association Accelerating Change in Medical Education Consortium leveraged interdependence to accomplish transformative innovations catalyzed by systems thinking and a community of innovation

Geospatial relationships of air pollution and acute asthma events across the Detroit–Windsor international border: Study design and preliminary results

The Geospatial Determinants of Health Outcomes Consortium (GeoDHOC) study investigated ambient air quality across the international border between Detroit, Michigan, USA and Windsor, Ontario, Canada and its association with acute asthma events in 5- to 89-year-old residents of these cities. NO2, SO2, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were measured at 100 sites, and particulate matter (PM) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) at 50 sites during two 2-week sampling periods in 2008 and 2009. Acute asthma event rates across neighborhoods in each city were calculated using emergency room visits and hospitalizations and standardized to the overall age and gender distribution of the population in the two cities combined. Results demonstrate that intra-urban air quality variations are related to adverse respiratory events in both cities. Annual 2008 asthma rates exhibited statistically significant positive correlations with total VOCs and total benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene (BTEX) at 5-digit zip code scale spatial resolution in Detroit. In Windsor, NO2, VOCs, and PM10 concentrations correlated positively with 2008 asthma rates at a similar 3-digit postal forward sortation area scale. The study is limited by its coarse temporal resolution (comparing relatively short term air quality measurements to annual asthma health data) and interpretation of findings is complicated by contrasts in population demographics and health-care delivery systems in Detroit and Windsor

International consensus statement on allergy and rhinology: Allergic rhinitis – 2023

Background In the 5 years that have passed since the publication of the 2018 International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2018), the literature has expanded substantially. The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update presents 144 individual topics on allergic rhinitis (AR), expanded by over 40 topics from the 2018 document. Originally presented topics from 2018 have also been reviewed and updated. The executive summary highlights key evidence-based findings and recommendation from the full document. Methods ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 employed established evidence-based review with recommendation (EBRR) methodology to individually evaluate each topic. Stepwise iterative peer review and consensus was performed for each topic. The final document was then collated and includes the results of this work. Results ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 includes 10 major content areas and 144 individual topics related to AR. For a substantial proportion of topics included, an aggregate grade of evidence is presented, which is determined by collating the levels of evidence for each available study identified in the literature. For topics in which a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention is considered, a recommendation summary is presented, which considers the aggregate grade of evidence, benefit, harm, and cost. Conclusion The ICAR-Allergic Rhinitis 2023 update provides a comprehensive evaluation of AR and the currently available evidence. It is this evidence that contributes to our current knowledge base and recommendations for patient evaluation and treatment

International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis

Background: Critical examination of the quality and validity of available allergic rhinitis (AR) literature is necessary to improve understanding and to appropriately translate this knowledge to clinical care of the AR patient. To evaluate the existing AR literature, international multidisciplinary experts with an interest in AR have produced the International Consensus statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Allergic Rhinitis (ICAR:AR). Methods: Using previously described methodology, specific topics were developed relating to AR. Each topic was assigned a literature review, evidence-based review (EBR), or evidence-based review with recommendations (EBRR) format as dictated by available evidence and purpose within the ICAR:AR document. Following iterative reviews of each topic, the ICAR:AR document was synthesized and reviewed by all authors for consensus. Results: The ICAR:AR document addresses over 100 individual topics related to AR, including diagnosis, pathophysiology, epidemiology, disease burden, risk factors for the development of AR, allergy testing modalities, treatment, and other conditions/comorbidities associated with AR. Conclusion: This critical review of the AR literature has identified several strengths; providers can be confident that treatment decisions are supported by rigorous studies. However, there are also substantial gaps in the AR literature. These knowledge gaps should be viewed as opportunities for improvement, as often the things that we teach and the medicine that we practice are not based on the best quality evidence. This document aims to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the AR literature to identify areas for future AR research and improved understanding

COVID-19 and the Widening Gap in Health Inequity

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has brought to light significant health inequities that have existed in our society for decades. Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and immigrants are the populations most likely to experience disparities related to burden of disease, health care, and health outcomes. Increasingly, national and state statistics on COVID-19 report disproportionately higher mortality rates in blacks. There has never been a more pressing time for us to enact progressive and far-reaching changes in social, economic, and political policies that will shape programs aimed at improving the health of all people living in the United States

COVID-19 Disparities and Vaccine Hesitancy in Black Americans: What Ethical Lessons Can Be Learned?

Objective This state of the art review focuses on bioethical questions and considerations from research findings and methodological issues, including design and recruitment of participants, in studies related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitation in Black individuals. Ethical concerns identified were applied to otolaryngology with recommendations for improving health inequities within subspecialties. Data Sources An internet search through PubMed, CINAHL, and socINDEX was conducted to identify articles on COVID-19 vaccine hesitation among the Black population between 2020 and 2021. Review Methods A systematic review approach was taken to search and analyze the research on this topic, which was coupled with expert analysis in identifying and classifying vital ethical considerations. Conclusions The most common COVID-19 vaccine hesitation factors were related to the development of the vaccine, mistrust toward government agencies, and misconceptions about safety and side effects. These findings raised bioethical concerns around mistrust of information, low health literacy, insufficient numbers of Black participants in medical research, and the unique positions of health professionals as trusted sources. These bioethical considerations can be applied in otolaryngology and other health-related areas to aid the public in making informed medical decisions regarding treatments, which may reduce health inequalities among Black Americans and other racial and ethnic minority groups. Implications for Practice Addressing ethical questions by decreasing mistrust, tailoring information for specific populations, increasing minority representation in research, and using health professionals as primary sources for communicating health information and recommendations may improve relationships with Black communities and increase acceptance of new knowledge and therapies such as COVID-19 vaccination

Obstacles to preventive care for individuals with disability: Implications for nurse practitioners

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Individuals with disabilities have been identified as a population with a significantly lower usage of preventive services. Nurse practitioners (NPs) provide a key access point in the healthcare delivery system for preventive services for vulnerable populations such as those with disabilities. It is essential to understand existing barriers that prohibit access to effective preventive care for this vulnerable population. METHODS: Systematic search and review of Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, PubMed, Google Scholar, and government reports and World Health Organizations reports. Twenty-six articles were included in the review. CONCLUSIONS: This literature review confirmed previous notions that people with disabilities are receiving much fewer preventive services than the general population. The studies reviewed identified four major barriers that contributed to the lack of preventive care. These barriers included physical environment and system, transportation, provider knowledge and attitude, and financial. Recognition of the obstacles that this subpopulation faces in accessing preventive care services is the first step to effectively remedying this problem. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Preventive services have been identified as one of the cornerstones to improving health and quality of life. By understanding the circumstances that restrict those with disabilities from accessing preventive services, NPs can provide meaningful and effective solutions

Whatever Happened to Evidence-Based Practice During COVID-19?

Contemporary medical practice is grounded in rigorous scientific evidence in concert with best clinical practices and informed shared decision making with patients. During these times of uncertainty, disruption, and even anxiety, it becomes critical that we engage with our patients and communities in thoughtful dialogue and realistic expectations regarding treatments surrounding COVID-19. The hope for a “miracle” cure and urgency to return back to normal times can stimulate irrational thought and behavior and even desperate measures by individuals or groups. It becomes especially important that we continue to use reasonable, informed clinical judgment in discussing the various options with patients