Pediatric joint hypermobility: a diagnostic framework and narrative review

BACKGROUND: Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome (hEDS) and hypermobility spectrum disorders (HSD) are debilitating conditions. Diagnosis is currently clinical in the absence of biomarkers, and criteria developed for adults are difficult to use in children and biologically immature adolescents. Generalized joint hypermobility (GJH) is a prerequisite for hEDS and generalized HSD. Current literature identifies a large proportion of children as hypermobile using a Beighton score ≥ 4 or 5/9, the cut off for GJH in adults. Other phenotypic features from the 2017 hEDS criteria can arise over time. Finally, many comorbidities described in hEDS/HSD are also seen in the general pediatric and adolescent population. Therefore, pediatric specific criteria are needed. The Paediatric Working Group of the International Consortium on EDS and HSD has developed a pediatric diagnostic framework presented here. The work was informed by a review of the published evidence. OBSERVATIONS: The framework has 4 components, GJH, skin and tissue abnormalities, musculoskeletal complications, and core comorbidities. A Beighton score of ≥ 6/9 best identifies children with GJH at 2 standard deviations above average, based on published general population data. Skin and soft tissue changes include soft skin, stretchy skin, atrophic scars, stretch marks, piezogenic papules, and recurrent hernias. Two symptomatic groups were agreed: musculoskeletal and systemic. Emerging comorbid relationships are discussed. The framework generates 8 subgroups, 4 pediatric GJH, and 4 pediatric generalized hypermobility spectrum disorders. hEDS is reserved for biologically mature adolescents who meet the 2017 criteria, which also covers even rarer types of Ehlers-Danlos syndrome at any age. CONCLUSIONS: This framework allows hypermobile children to be categorized into a group describing their phenotypic and symptomatic presentation. It clarifies the recommendation that comorbidities should be defined using their current internationally accepted frameworks. This provides a foundation for improving clinical care and research quality in this population

The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project: An open-label pragmatic randomised control trial comparing the efficacy of differing therapeutic agents for primary care detoxification from either street heroin or methadone [ISRCTN07752728]

BACKGROUND: Heroin is a synthetic opioid with an extensive illicit market leading to large numbers of people becoming addicted. Heroin users often present to community treatment services requesting detoxification and in the UK various agents are used to control symptoms of withdrawal. Dissatisfaction with methadone detoxification [8] has lead to the use of clonidine, lofexidine, buprenorphine and dihydrocodeine; however, there remains limited evaluative research. In Leeds, a city of 700,000 people in the North of England, dihydrocodeine is the detoxification agent of choice. Sublingual buprenorphine, however, is being introduced. The comparative value of these two drugs for helping people successfully and comfortably withdraw from heroin has never been compared in a randomised trial. Additionally, there is a paucity of research evaluating interventions among drug users in the primary care setting. This study seeks to address this by randomising drug users presenting in primary care to receive either dihydrocodeine or buprenorphine. METHODS/DESIGN: The Leeds Evaluation of Efficacy of Detoxification Study (LEEDS) project is a pragmatic randomised trial which will compare the open use of buprenorphine with dihydrocodeine for illicit opiate detoxification, in the UK primary care setting. The LEEDS project will involve consenting adults and will be run in specialist general practice surgeries throughout Leeds. The primary outcome will be the results of a urine opiate screening at the end of the detoxification regimen. Adverse effects and limited data to three and six months will be acquired

Do Interventions Designed to Support Shared Decision-Making Reduce Health Inequalities? : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Copyright: © 2014 Durand et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background: Increasing patient engagement in healthcare has become a health policy priority. However, there has been concern that promoting supported shared decision-making could increase health inequalities. Objective: To evaluate the impact of SDM interventions on disadvantaged groups and health inequalities. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational studies.Peer reviewe

Strategies to reduce clinical inertia in hypertensive kidney transplant recipients

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Many kidney transplant recipients have hypertension. Elevated systolic blood pressures are associated with lower patient and kidney allograft survival.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This retrospective analysis examined the prevalence of clinical inertia (failure to initiate or increase therapy) in the treatment of hypertension before and after the introduction of an automated device (BpTRU) in the kidney transplant clinic.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Historically only 36% (49/134) of patients were prescribed a change in therapy despite a systolic blood pressure ≥ 130 mmHg. After the introduction of BpTRU, 56% (62/110) of the patients had a change in therapy. In a multivariate logistic regression analysis of the entire cohort (n = 244) therapeutic changes were associated with higher blood pressures (OR 1.08 per mmHg, 95% CI 1.04–1.12) and use of the BpTRU (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.72–3.83). In addition patients on more medications were also more likely to have a change in therapy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Blood pressure measurement with automated devices may help reduce clinical inertia in the kidney transplant clinic.</p

The health care information directive

BACKGROUND: Developments in information technology promise to revolutionise the delivery of health care by providing access to data in a timely and efficient way. Information technology also raises several important concerns about the confidentiality and privacy of health data. New and existing legislation in Europe and North America may make access to patient level data difficult with consequent impact on research and health surveillance. Although research is being conducted on technical solutions to protect the privacy of personal health information, there is very little research on ways to improve individuals power over their health information. This paper proposes a health care information directive, analogous to an advance directive, to facilitate choices regarding health information disclosure. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A health care information directive is described which creates a decision matrix that combines the ethical appropriateness of the use of personal health information with the sensitivity of the data. It creates a range of possibilities with in which individuals can choose to contribute health information with or without consent, or not to contribute information at all. CONCLUSION: The health care information directive may increase individuals understanding of the uses of health information and increase their willingness to contribute certain kinds of health information. Further refinement and evaluation of the directive is required

Efficacy of a training intervention on the quality of practitioners' decision support for patients deciding about place of care at the end of life: A randomized control trial: Study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most people prefer home palliation but die in an institution. Some experience decisional conflict when weighing options regarding place of care. Clinicians can identify patients' decisional needs and provide decision support, yet generally lack skills and confidence in doing so. This study aims to determine whether the quality of clinicians' decision support can be improved with a brief, theory-based, skills-building intervention.</p> <p>Theory</p> <p>The Ottawa Decision Support Framework (ODSF) guides an evidence based, practical approach to assist clinicians in providing high-quality decision support. The ODSF proposes that decisional needs [personal uncertainty, knowledge, values clarity, support, personal characteristics] strongly influence the quality of decisions patients make. Clinicians can improve decision quality by providing decision support to address decisional needs [clarify decisional needs, provide facts and probabilities, clarify values, support/guide deliberation, monitor/facilitate progress].</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The efficacy of a brief education intervention will be assessed in a two-phase study. In phase one a focused needs assessment will be conducted with key informants. Phase two is a randomized control trial where clinicians will be randomly allocated to an intervention or control group. The intervention, informed by the needs assessment, knowledge transfer best practices and the ODSF, comprises an online tutorial; an interactive skills building workshop; a decision support protocol; performance feedback, and educational outreach. Participants will be assessed: a) at baseline (quality of decision support); b) after the tutorial (knowledge); and c) four weeks after the other interventions (quality of decision support, intention to incorporate decision support into practice and perceived usefulness of intervention components). Between group differences in the primary outcome (quality of decision support scores) will be analyzed using ANOVA.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Few studies have investigated the efficacy of an evidence-based, theory guided intervention aimed at assisting clinicians to strengthen their patient decision support skills. Expanding our understanding of how clinicians can best support palliative patients' decision-making will help to inform best practices in patient-centered palliative care. There is potential transferability of lessons learned to other care situations such as chronic condition management, advance directives and anticipatory care planning. Should the efficacy evaluation reveal clear improvements in the quality of decision support provided by clinicians who received the intervention, a larger scale implementation and effectiveness trial will be considered.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This study is registered as NCT00614003</p

Research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond: A call to action for psychological science

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) that has caused the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic represents the greatest international biopsychosocial emergency the world has faced for a century, and psychological science has an integral role to offer in helping societies recover. The aim of this paper is to set out the shorter- and longer-term priorities for research in psychological science that will (a) frame the breadth and scope of potential contributions from across the discipline; (b) enable researchers to focus their resources on gaps in knowledge; and (c) help funders and policymakers make informed decisions about future research priorities in order to best meet the needs of societies as they emerge from the acute phase of the pandemic. The research priorities were informed by an expert panel convened by the British Psychological Society that reflects the breadth of the discipline; a wider advisory panel with international input; and a survey of 539 psychological scientists conducted early in May 2020. The most pressing need is to research the negative biopsychosocial impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to facilitate immediate and longer-term recovery, not only in relation to mental health, but also in relation to behaviour change and adherence, work, education, children and families, physical health and the brain, and social cohesion and connectedness. We call on psychological scientists to work collaboratively with other scientists and stakeholders, establish consortia, and develop innovative research methods while maintaining high-quality, open, and rigorous research standards