Limits of 'patient-centredness'; valuing contextually specific communication patterns

Context Globally, doctor–patient communication is becoming synonymous with high-quality health care in the 21st century. However, what is meant by ‘good communication’ and whether there is consensus internationally remain unclear. Objectives Here, we characterise understandings of ‘good communication’ in future doctors from medical schools in three contextually contrasting continents. Given locally specific socio-cultural influences, we hypothesised that there would be a lack of global consensus on what constitutes ‘good communication’. Methods A standardised two-phase methodology was applied in turn to each of three medical schools in the UK, Egypt and India (n = 107 subjects), respectively, in which students were asked: ‘What is good communication?’ Phase I involved exploratory focus groups to define preliminary themes (mean number of participants per site: 17). Phase II involved thematic confirmation and expansion in one-to-one semi-structured interviews (mean number of participants per site: 18; mean hours of dialogue captured per site: 55). Findings were triangulated and analysed using grounded theory. Results The overarching theme that emerged from medical students was that ‘good communication’ requires adherence to certain ‘rules of communication’. A shared rule that doctors must communicate effectively despite perceived disempowerment emerged across all sites. However, contradictory culturally specific rules about communication were identified in relation to three major domains: family; gender, and emotional expression. Egyptian students perceived emotional aspects of Western doctors’ communication strikingly negatively, viewing these doctors as problematically cold and unresponsive. Conclusions Contradictory perceptions of ‘good communication’ in future doctors are found cross-continentally and may contribute to prevalent cultural misunderstandings in medicine. The lack of global consensus on what defines good communication challenges prescriptively taught Western ‘patient-centredness’ and questions assumptions about international transferability. Health care professionals must be educated openly about flexible, context-specific communication patterns so that they can avoid cultural incompetence and tailor behaviours in ways that optimise therapeutic outcomes wherever they work around the globe

Adenoidectomy for otitis media with effusion (OME) in children

BACKGROUND: Otitis media with effusion (OME) is an accumulation of fluid in the middle ear cavity, common amongst young children. The fluid may cause hearing loss. When persistent, it may lead to developmental delay, social difficulty and poor quality of life. Management of OME includes watchful waiting, autoinflation, medical and surgical treatment. Adenoidectomy has often been used as a potential treatment for this condition. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of adenoidectomy, either alone or in combination with ventilation tubes (grommets), for OME in children. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane ENT Information Specialist searched the Cochrane ENT Register; Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Ovid MEDLINE; Ovid Embase; Web of Science; ClinicalTrials.gov; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the search was 20 January 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised trials in children aged 6 months to 12 years with unilateral or bilateral OME. We included studies that compared adenoidectomy (alone, or in combination with ventilation tubes) with either no treatment or non-surgical treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes (determined following a multi-stakeholder prioritisation exercise): 1) hearing, 2) otitis media-specific quality of life, 3) haemorrhage. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: 1) persistence of OME, 2) adverse effects, 3) receptive language skills, 4) speech development, 5) cognitive development, 6) psychosocial skills, 7) listening skills, 8) generic health-related quality of life, 9) parental stress, 10) vestibular function, 11) episodes of acute otitis media. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each outcome. Although we included all measures of hearing assessment, the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing was our preferred method to assess hearing, due to challenges in interpreting the results of mean hearing thresholds. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies (1785 children). Many of the studies used concomitant interventions for all participants, including insertion of ventilation tubes or myringotomy. All included studies had at least some concerns regarding the risk of bias. We report results for our main outcome measures at the longest available follow-up. We did not identify any data on disease-specific quality of life for any of the comparisons. Further details of additional outcomes and time points are reported in the review. 1) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus no treatment/watchful waiting (three studies) After 12 months there was little difference in the proportion of children whose hearing had returned to normal, but the evidence was very uncertain (adenoidectomy 68%, no treatment 70%; risk ratio (RR) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.46; number needed to treat to benefit (NNTB) 50; 1 study, 42 participants). There is a risk of haemorrhage from adenoidectomy, but the absolute risk appears small (1/251 receiving adenoidectomy compared to 0/229, Peto odds ratio (OR) 6.77, 95% CI 0.13 to 342.54; 1 study, 480 participants; moderate certainty evidence). The risk of persistent OME may be slightly lower after two years in those receiving adenoidectomy (65% versus 73%), but again the difference was small (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.00; NNTB 13; 3 studies, 354 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 2) Adenoidectomy (with or without myringotomy) versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison. 3) Adenoidectomy and bilateral ventilation tubes versus bilateral ventilation tubes (four studies) There was a slight increase in the proportion of ears with a return to normal hearing after six to nine months (57% adenoidectomy versus 42% without, RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.89; NNTB 7; 1 study, 127 participants (213 ears); very low-certainty evidence). Adenoidectomy may give an increased risk of haemorrhage, but the absolute risk appears small, and the evidence was uncertain (2/416 with adenoidectomy compared to 0/375 in the control group, Peto OR 6.68, 95% CI 0.42 to 107.18; 2 studies, 791 participants). The risk of persistent OME was similar for both groups (82% adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes compared to 85% ventilation tubes alone, RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.07; very low-certainty evidence). 4) Adenoidectomy and unilateral ventilation tube versus unilateral ventilation tube (two studies) Slightly more children returned to normal hearing after adenoidectomy, but the confidence intervals were wide (57% versus 46%, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.96; NNTB 9; 1 study, 72 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Fewer children may have persistent OME after 12 months, but again the confidence intervals were wide (27.2% compared to 40.5%, RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.29; NNTB 8; 1 study, 74 participants). We did not identify any data on haemorrhage. 5) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus no treatment/watchful waiting (two studies) We did not identify data on the proportion of children who returned to normal hearing. However, after two years, the mean difference in hearing threshold for those allocated to adenoidectomy was -3.40 dB (95% CI -5.54 to -1.26; 1 study, 211 participants; very low-certainty evidence). There may be a small reduction in the proportion of children with persistent OME after two years, but the evidence was very uncertain (82% compared to 90%, RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.01; NNTB 13; 1 study, 232 participants). We noted that many children in the watchful waiting group had also received surgery by this time point. 6) Adenoidectomy and ventilation tubes versus non-surgical treatment No studies were identified for this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When assessed with the GRADE approach, the evidence for adenoidectomy in children with OME is very uncertain. Adenoidectomy may reduce the persistence of OME, although evidence about the effect of this on hearing is unclear. For patients and carers, a return to normal hearing is likely to be important, but few studies measured this outcome. We did not identify any evidence on disease-specific quality of life. There were few data on adverse effects, in particular postoperative bleeding. The risk of haemorrhage appears to be small, but should be considered when choosing a treatment strategy for children with OME. Future studies should aim to determine which children are most likely to benefit from treatment, rather than offering interventions to all children

Treatment of polymyalgia rheumatica: British Society for Rheumatology guideline scope

The last British Society for Rheumatology (BSR) guideline on PMR was published in 2009. The guideline needs to be updated to provide a summary of the current evidence for pharmacological and non-pharmacological management of adults with PMR. This guideline is aimed at healthcare professionals in the UK who directly care for people with PMR, including general practitioners, rheumatologists, nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, pharmacists, psychologists and other health professionals. It will also be relevant to people living with PMR and organisations that support them in the public and third sector, including charities and informal patient support groups. This guideline will be developed using the methods and processes outlined in the BSR Guidelines Protocol. Here we provide a brief summary of the scope of the guideline update in development

Comparison of the benefits of cochlear implantation versus contra-lateral routing of signal hearing aids in adult patients with single-sided deafness: study protocol for a prospective within-subject longitudinal trial

Background Individuals with a unilateral severe-to-profound hearing loss, or single-sided deafness, report difficulty with listening in many everyday situations despite having access to well-preserved acoustic hearing in one ear. The standard of care for single-sided deafness available on the UK National Health Service is a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid which transfers sounds from the impaired ear to the non-impaired ear. This hearing aid has been found to improve speech understanding in noise when the signal-to-noise ratio is more favourable at the impaired ear than the non-impaired ear. However, the indiscriminate routing of signals to a single ear can have detrimental effects when interfering sounds are located on the side of the impaired ear. Recent published evidence has suggested that cochlear implantation in individuals with a single-sided deafness can restore access to the binaural cues which underpin the ability to localise sounds and segregate speech from other interfering sounds. Methods/Design The current trial was designed to assess the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid in restoring binaural hearing in adults with acquired single-sided deafness. Patients are assessed at baseline and after receiving a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid. A cochlear implant is then provided to those patients who do not receive sufficient benefit from the hearing aid. This within-subject longitudinal design reflects the expected care pathway should cochlear implantation be provided for single-sided deafness on the UK National Health Service. The primary endpoints are measures of binaural hearing at baseline, after provision of a contra-lateral routing of signals hearing aid, and after cochlear implantation. Binaural hearing is assessed in terms of the accuracy with which sounds are localised and speech is perceived in background noise. The trial is also designed to measure the impact of the interventions on hearing- and health-related quality of life. Discussion This multi-centre trial was designed to provide evidence for the efficacy of cochlear implantation compared to the contra-lateral routing of signals. A purpose-built sound presentation system and established measurement techniques will provide reliable and precise measures of binaural hearing. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN33301739 (05/JUL/2013

Still too far to walk: Literature review of the determinants of delivery service use

BACKGROUND: Skilled attendance at childbirth is crucial for decreasing maternal and neonatal mortality, yet many women in low- and middle-income countries deliver outside of health facilities, without skilled help. The main conceptual framework in this field implicitly looks at home births with complications. We expand this to include "preventive" facility delivery for uncomplicated childbirth, and review the kinds of determinants studied in the literature, their hypothesized mechanisms of action and the typical findings, as well as methodological difficulties encountered. METHODS: We searched PubMed and Ovid databases for reviews and ascertained relevant articles from these and other sources. Twenty determinants identified were grouped under four themes: (1) sociocultural factors, (2) perceived benefit/need of skilled attendance, (3) economic accessibility and (4) physical accessibility. RESULTS: There is ample evidence that higher maternal age, education and household wealth and lower parity increase use, as does urban residence. Facility use in the previous delivery and antenatal care use are also highly predictive of health facility use for the index delivery, though this may be due to confounding by service availability and other factors. Obstetric complications also increase use but are rarely studied. Quality of care is judged to be essential in qualitative studies but is not easily measured in surveys, or without linking facility records with women. Distance to health facilities decreases use, but is also difficult to determine. Challenges in comparing results between studies include differences in methods, context-specificity and the substantial overlap between complex variables. CONCLUSION: Studies of the determinants of skilled attendance concentrate on sociocultural and economic accessibility variables and neglect variables of perceived benefit/need and physical accessibility. To draw valid conclusions, it is important to consider as many influential factors as possible in any analysis of delivery service use. The increasing availability of georeferenced data provides the opportunity to link health facility data with large-scale household data, enabling researchers to explore the influences of distance and service quality

Identifying the deficiencies of current diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 using databases of 2777 individuals with molecular testing

Purpose We have evaluated deficiencies in existing diagnostic criteria for neurofibromatosis 2 (NF2). Methods Two large databases of individuals fulfilling NF2 criteria (n = 1361) and those tested for NF2 variants with criteria short of diagnosis (n = 1416) were interrogated. We assessed the proportions meeting each diagnostic criterion with constitutional or mosaic NF2 variants and the positive predictive value (PPV) with regard to definite diagnosis. Results There was no evidence for usefulness of old criteria “glioma“ or “neurofibroma.” “Ependymoma” had 100% PPV and high levels of confirmed NF2 diagnosis (67.7%). Those with bilateral vestibular schwannoma (VS) alone aged ≥60 years had the lowest confirmation rate (6.6%) and reduced PPV (80%). Siblings as a first-degree relative, without an affected parent, had 0% PPV. All three individuals with unilateral VS and an affected sibling were proven not to have NF2. The biggest overlap was with LZTR1-associated schwannomatosis. In this category, seven individuals with unilateral VS plus ≥2 nondermal schwannomas reduced PPV to 67%. Conclusions The present study confirms important deficiencies in NF2 diagnostic criteria. The term “glioma” should be dropped and replaced by “ependymoma.” Similarly “neurofibroma” should be removed. Dropping “sibling” from first-degree relatives should be considered and testing of LZTR1 should be recommended for unilateral VS