A validation of the Postpartum Specific Anxiety Scale 12-item research short-form for use during global crises with five translations.

BACKGROUND: Global crises inevitably increase levels of anxiety in postpartum populations. Effective and efficient measurement is therefore essential. This study aimed to create a 12-item research short form of the 51-item Postpartum Specific Anxiety Scale [PSAS] and validate it for use in rapid response research at a time of global crises [PSAS-RSF-C]. We also present the same 12-items, in five other languages (Italian, French, Chinese, Spanish, Dutch) to increase global accessibility of a psychometric tool to assess maternal mental health. METHODS: Twelve items from the PSAS were selected on the basis of a review of their factor loadings. An on-line sample of UK mothers (N = 710) of infants up to 12 weeks old completed the PSAS-RSF-C during COVID-19 'lockdown'. RESULTS: Principal component analyses on a randomly split sample (n = 344) revealed four factors, identical in nature to the original PSAS, which in combination explained 75% of the total variance. Confirmatory factor analyses (n = 366) demonstrated the four-factor model fit the data well. Reliability of the overall scale and of the underlying factors in both samples proved excellent. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the PSAS-RSF-C may prove useful as a clinical screening tool and is the first postpartum-specific psychometric scale to be validated during the COVID-19 pandemic. This offers psychometrically sound assessment of postpartum anxiety. By increasing the accessibility of the PSAS, we aim to enable researchers the opportunity to measure maternal anxiety, rapidly, at times of global crisis

Early mobilisation in intensive care units in Australia and Scotland:A prospective, observational cohort study examining mobilisation practises and barriers

Introduction: Mobilisation of patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) is an area of growing research. Currently, there is\ud little data on baseline mobilisation practises and the barriers to them for patients of all admission diagnoses.\ud Methods: The objectives of the study were to (1) quantify and benchmark baseline levels of mobilisation in Australian\ud and Scottish ICUs, (2) compare mobilisation practises between Australian and Scottish ICUs and (3) identify barriers to\ud mobilisation in Australian and Scottish ICUs. We conducted a prospective, observational, cohort study with a 4-week\ud inception period. Patients were censored for follow-up upon ICU discharge or after 28 days, whichever occurred first.\ud Patients were included if they were >18 years of age, admitted to an ICU and received mechanical ventilation in the ICU.\ud Results: Ten tertiary ICUs in Australia and nine in Scotland participated in the study. The Australian cohort had a large\ud proportion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery (43.3 %), whereas the Scottish cohort had none. Therefore,\ud comparison analysis was done after exclusion of patients admitted for cardiothoracic surgery. In total, 60.2 % of the 347\ud patients across 10 Australian ICUs and 40.1 % of the 167 patients across 9 Scottish ICUs mobilised during their ICU stay\ud (p < 0.001). Patients in the Australian cohort were more likely to mobilise than patients in the Scottish cohort (hazard\ud ratio 1.83, 95 % confidence interval 1.38–2.42). However, the percentage of episodes of mobilisation where patients\ud were receiving mechanical ventilation was higher in the Scottish cohort (41.1 % vs 16.3 %, p < 0.001). Sedation was the\ud most commonly reported barrier to mobilisation in both the Australian and Scottish cohorts. Physiological instability\ud and the presence of an endotracheal tube were also frequently reported barriers.\ud Conclusions: This is the first study to benchmark baseline practise of early mobilisation internationally, and it\ud demonstrates variation in early mobilisation practises between Australia and Scotland

Performance measures of the specialty referral process: a systematic review of the literature

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Performance of specialty referrals is coming under scrutiny, but a lack of identifiable measures impedes measurement efforts. The objective of this study was to systematically review the literature to identify published measures that assess specialty referrals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We performed a systematic review of the literature for measures of specialty referral. Searches were made of MEDLINE and HealthSTAR databases, references of eligible papers, and citations provided by content experts. Measures were eligible if they were published from January 1973 to June 2009, reported on validity and/or reliability of the measure, and were applicable to Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development healthcare systems. We classified measures according to a conceptual framework, which underwent content validation with an expert panel.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We identified 2,964 potentially eligible papers. After abstract and full-text review, we selected 214 papers containing 244 measures. Most measures were applied in adults (57%), assessed structural elements of the referral process (60%), and collected data via survey (62%). Measures were classified into non-mutually exclusive domains: need for specialty care (N = 14), referral initiation (N = 73), entry into specialty care (N = 53), coordination (N = 60), referral type (N = 3), clinical tasks (N = 19), resource use (N = 13), quality (N = 57), and outcomes (N = 9).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Published measures are available to assess the specialty referral process, although some domains are limited. Because many of these measures have been not been extensively validated in general populations, assess limited aspects of the referral process, and require new data collection, their applicability and preference in assessment of the specialty referral process is needed.</p

Early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients:A systematic integrative review of definitions and activities

From PubMed via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2018-10-23, accepted 2018-12-11Publication status: epublishMechanically ventilated patients often develop muscle weakness post-intensive care admission. Current evidence suggests that early mobilisation of these patients can be an effective intervention in improving their outcomes. However, what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients (EM-MV) remains unclear. We aimed to systematically explore the definitions and activity types of EM-MV in the literature. Whittemore and Knafl's framework guided this review. CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ASSIA, and Cochrane Library were searched to capture studies from 2000 to 2018, combined with hand search of grey literature and reference lists of included studies. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. Data extraction and quality assessment of studies were performed independently by each reviewer before coming together in sub-groups for discussion and agreement. An inductive and data-driven thematic analysis was undertaken on verbatim extracts of EM-MV definitions and activities in included studies. Seventy-six studies were included from which four major themes were inferred: (1) , (2) , (3) and (4) . The first theme indicates that EM-MV is either not fully defined in studies or when a definition is provided this is not standardised across studies. The remaining themes reflect the diversity of EM-MV activities which depends on patients' characteristics and ICU settings; the negotiated decision-making process between patients and staff; and their interdependent relationship during the implementation. This review highlights the absence of an agreed definition and on what constitutes early mobilisation in mechanically ventilated patients. To advance research and practice an agreed and shared definition is a pre-requisite