Lady and the accounts: Missing from accounting history?

Amanda Vickery\u27s, The Gentleman\u27s Daughter: Women\u27s Lives in Georgian England, [1998] provides a challenging and controversial account of the lives of genteel women in provincial England. In this review essay, we consider the implications of her insights and revelations for accounting history research. We argue that her work raises a number of issues concerning what and where accounting took place in the 18th century. In particular, it is suggested that the detailed accounts\u27 contained within genteel women\u27s pocket books were a means by which they came to know\u27 their household in order to manage their duties and responsibilities. Accounting historians are encouraged to consider these private\u27 records as a potentially illuminating source of material on accounting within and without the 18th-century household

Outcomes of interventions in neonatal sepsis:A systematic review of qualitative research

BackgroundWhile a systematic review exists detailing neonatal sepsis outcomes from clinical trials, there remains an absence of a qualitative systematic review capturing the perspectives of key stakeholders.ObjectivesOur aim is to identify outcomes from qualitative research on any intervention to prevent or improve the outcomes of neonatal sepsis that are important to parents, other family members, healthcare providers, policymakers, and researchers as a part of the development of a core outcome set (COS) for neonatal sepsis.Search StrategyA literature search was carried out using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycInfo databases.Selection CriteriaPublications describing qualitative data relating to neonatal sepsis outcomes were included.Data Collection and AnalysisDrawing on the concepts of thematic synthesis, texts related to outcomes were coded and grouped. These outcomes were then mapped to the domain headings of an existing model.Main ResultsOut of 6777 records screened, six studies were included. Overall, 19 outcomes were extracted from the included studies. The most frequently reported outcomes were those in the domains related to parents, healthcare workers and individual organ systemas such as gastrointestinal system. The remaining outcomes were classified under the headings of general outcomes, miscellaneous outcomes, survival, and infection.ConclusionsThe outcomes identified in this review are different from those reported in neonatal sepsis clinical trials, thus highlighting the importance of incorporating qualitative studies into COS development to encapsulate all relevant stakeholders' perspectives.This study reviews outcomes considered important in neonatal sepsis by stakeholders such as parents and healthcare providers, aiding in developing a core outcome set (COS)

COHESION: a core outcome set for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy

BACKGROUND: Heterogeneity in outcomes reported in trials of interventions for the treatment of neonatal encephalopathy (NE) makes evaluating the effectiveness of treatments difficult. Developing a core outcome set for NE treatment would enable researchers to measure and report the same outcomes in future trials. This would minimise waste, ensure relevant outcomes are measured and enable evidence synthesis. Therefore, we aimed to develop a core outcome set for treating NE.METHODS: Outcomes identified from a systematic review of the literature and interviews with parents were prioritised by stakeholders (n = 99 parents/caregivers, n = 101 healthcare providers, and n = 22 researchers/ academics) in online Delphi surveys. Agreement on the outcomes was achieved at online consensus meetings attended by n = 10 parents, n = 18 healthcare providers, and n = 13 researchers/ academics.RESULTS: Seven outcomes were included in the final core outcome set: survival; brain injury on imaging; neurological status at discharge; cerebral palsy; general cognitive ability; quality of life of the child, and adverse events related to treatment.CONCLUSION: We developed a core outcome set for the treatment of NE. This will allow future trials to measure and report the same outcomes and ensure results can be compared. Future work should identify how best to measure the COS

A core outcome set for aphasia treatment research: the ROMA consensus statement

Background: A core outcome set (COS; an agreed, minimum set of outcomes) was needed to address the heterogeneous measurement of outcomes in aphasia treatment research and to facilitate the production of transparent, meaningful and efficient outcome data. Objective: The Research Outcome Measurement in Aphasia (ROMA) consensus statement provides evidence-based recommendations for the measurement of outcomes for adults with post-stroke aphasia within phase I-IV aphasia treatment studies. Methods: This statement was informed by a four-year program of research which comprised investigation of stakeholder-important outcomes using consensus processes, a scoping review of aphasia outcome measurement instruments, and an international consensus meeting. This paper provides an overview of this process and presents the results and recommendations arising from the international consensus meeting. Results: Five essential outcome constructs were identified: Language, communication, patient-reported satisfaction with treatment and impact of treatment, emotional wellbeing, and quality of life. Consensus was reached for the following measurement instruments: Language: The Western Aphasia Battery Revised (WAB-R) (74% consensus); emotional well-being: General Health Questionnaire (GHQ)-12 (83% consensus); quality of life: Stroke and Aphasia Quality of Life Scale (SAQOL-39) (96% consensus). Consensus was unable to be reached for measures of communication (where multiple measures exist) or patient-reported satisfaction with treatment or impact of treatment (where no measures exist). Discussion: Harmonisation of the ROMA COS with other core outcome initiatives in stroke rehabilitation is discussed. Ongoing research and consensus processes are outlined. Conclusion: The WAB-R, GHQ, and SAQOL-39 are recommended to be routinely included within phase I-IV aphasia treatment studies. This consensus statement has been endorsed by the Collaboration of Aphasia Trialists, the British Aphasiology Society, the German Society for Aphasia Research and Therapy, and the Royal College of Speech Language Therapists

Antipsychotic medication versus psychological intervention versus a combination of both in adolescents with first-episode psychosis (MAPS): a multicentre, three-arm, randomised controlled pilot and feasibility study

Background Evidence for the effectiveness of treatments in early-onset psychosis is sparse. Current guidance for the treatment of early-onset psychosis is mostly extrapolated from trials in adult populations. The UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended evaluation of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs versus psychological intervention (cognitive behavioural therapy [CBT] and family intervention) versus the combination of these treatments for early-onset psychosis. The aim of this study was to establish the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial of antipsychotic monotherapy, psychological intervention monotherapy, and antipsychotics plus psychological intervention in adolescents with first-episode psychosis. Methods We did a multicentre pilot and feasibility trial according to a randomised, single-blind, three-arm, controlled design. We recruited participants from seven UK National Health Service Trust sites. Participants were aged 14–18 years; help-seeking; had presented with first-episode psychosis in the past year; were under the care of a psychiatrist; were showing current psychotic symptoms; and met ICD-10 criteria for schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, or delusional disorder, or met the entry criteria for an early intervention for psychosis service. Participants were assigned (1:1:1) to antipsychotics, psychological intervention (CBT with optional family intervention), or antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. Randomisation was via a web-based randomisation system, with permuted blocks of random size, stratified by centre and family contact. CBT incorporated up to 26 sessions over 6 months plus up to four booster sessions, and family intervention incorporated up to six sessions over 6 months. Choice and dose of antipsychotic were at the discretion of the treating consultant psychiatrist. Participants were followed up for a maximum of 12 months. The primary outcome was feasibility (ie, data on trial referral and recruitment, session attendance or medication adherence, retention, and treatment acceptability) and the proposed primary efficacy outcome was total score on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) at 6 months. Primary outcomes were analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were reported according to as-treated status, for all patients who had received at least one session of CBT or family intervention, or at least one dose of antipsychotics. The study was prospectively registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN80567433. Findings Of 101 patients referred to the study, 61 patients (mean age 16·3 years [SD 1·3]) were recruited from April 10, 2017, to Oct 31, 2018, 18 of whom were randomly assigned to psychological intervention, 22 to antipsychotics, and 21 to antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. The trial recruitment rate was 68% of our target sample size of 90 participants. The study had a low referral to recruitment ratio (around 2:1), a high rate of retention (51 [84%] participants retained at the 6-month primary endpoint), a high rate of adherence to psychological intervention (defined as six or more sessions of CBT; in 32 [82%] of 39 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups), and a moderate rate of adherence to antipsychotic medication (defined as at least 6 consecutive weeks of exposure to antipsychotics; in 28 [65%] of 43 participants in the monotherapy and combined groups). Mean scores for PANSS total at the 6-month primary endpoint were 68·6 (SD 17·3) for antipsychotic monotherapy (6·2 points lower than at randomisation), 59·8 (13·7) for psychological intervention (13·1 points lower than at randomisation), and 62·0 (15·9) for antipsychotics plus psychological intervention (13·9 points lower than at randomisation). A good clinical response at 6 months (defined as ≥50% improvement in PANSS total score) was achieved in four (22%) of 18 patients receiving antipsychotic monotherapy, five (31%) of 16 receiving psychological intervention, and five (29%) of 17 receiving antipsychotics plus psychological intervention. In as-treated groups, serious adverse events occurred in eight [35%] of 23 patients in the combined group, two [13%] of 15 in the antipsychotics group, four [24%] of 17 in the psychological intervention group, and four [80%] of five who did not receive any treatment. No serious adverse events were considered to be related to participation in the trial. Interpretation This trial is the first to show that a head-to-head clinical trial comparing psychological intervention, antipsychotics, and their combination is safe in young people with first-episode psychosis. However, the feasibility of a larger trial is unclear because of site-specific recruitment challenges, and amendments to trial design would be needed for an adequately powered clinical and cost-effectiveness trial that provides robust evidence

BHPR research: qualitative1. Complex reasoning determines patients' perception of outcome following foot surgery in rheumatoid arhtritis

Background: Foot surgery is common in patients with RA but research into surgical outcomes is limited and conceptually flawed as current outcome measures lack face validity: to date no one has asked patients what is important to them. This study aimed to determine which factors are important to patients when evaluating the success of foot surgery in RA Methods: Semi structured interviews of RA patients who had undergone foot surgery were conducted and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis of interviews was conducted to explore issues that were important to patients. Results: 11 RA patients (9 ♂, mean age 59, dis dur = 22yrs, mean of 3 yrs post op) with mixed experiences of foot surgery were interviewed. Patients interpreted outcome in respect to a multitude of factors, frequently positive change in one aspect contrasted with negative opinions about another. Overall, four major themes emerged. Function: Functional ability & participation in valued activities were very important to patients. Walking ability was a key concern but patients interpreted levels of activity in light of other aspects of their disease, reflecting on change in functional ability more than overall level. Positive feelings of improved mobility were often moderated by negative self perception ("I mean, I still walk like a waddling duck”). Appearance: Appearance was important to almost all patients but perhaps the most complex theme of all. Physical appearance, foot shape, and footwear were closely interlinked, yet patients saw these as distinct separate concepts. Patients need to legitimize these feelings was clear and they frequently entered into a defensive repertoire ("it's not cosmetic surgery; it's something that's more important than that, you know?”). Clinician opinion: Surgeons' post operative evaluation of the procedure was very influential. The impact of this appraisal continued to affect patients' lasting impression irrespective of how the outcome compared to their initial goals ("when he'd done it ... he said that hasn't worked as good as he'd wanted to ... but the pain has gone”). Pain: Whilst pain was important to almost all patients, it appeared to be less important than the other themes. Pain was predominately raised when it influenced other themes, such as function; many still felt the need to legitimize their foot pain in order for health professionals to take it seriously ("in the end I went to my GP because it had happened a few times and I went to an orthopaedic surgeon who was quite dismissive of it, it was like what are you complaining about”). Conclusions: Patients interpret the outcome of foot surgery using a multitude of interrelated factors, particularly functional ability, appearance and surgeons' appraisal of the procedure. While pain was often noted, this appeared less important than other factors in the overall outcome of the surgery. Future research into foot surgery should incorporate the complexity of how patients determine their outcome Disclosure statement: All authors have declared no conflicts of interes