A Fisher-eye lens on social work reform

Summary Mark Fisher’s Capitalist Realism, published in 2009, has been recognised as one of the most important contributions chronicling the rise, application and consequences of neoliberalism. However, Fisher’s ideas have until now only garnered passing mention in the study of neoliberalism in children and families social work in England, despite there being extensive research, argument and publication on the subject more broadly. This article attempts to rectify this gap and apply Fisher’s theory to the recent reforms in children and families social work in England. Findings The article applies Fisher’s commentary on the co-option of language, invoking crisis, bureaucracy and proposing change to implement no change, to the reforms in children and families social work that began with the implementation of Reclaiming Social Work in 2008. Since that time, the original architects of Reclaiming Social Work have gained significant positions of power and influence and been instrumental in introducing neoliberal reforms throughout children and families social work in England. Applications Through applying the approach and concepts of Mark Fisher, this article concludes that it is possible to determine that the current reforms are, at their core, neoliberal in nature and driven by an ideological imperative to transform children and families social work in England into a neoliberal edifice, with less public sector and state input and oversight and an increase in the influence of ‘not-for-profits’, charities and international for-profit consultancies

Antimicrobial Mouthwashes: An Overview of Mechanisms—What Do We Still Need to Know?

This narrative literature review is the first in a 6-section supplement on the role of mouthwashes in oral care. This introduction briefly summarises current knowledge on antimicrobial mechanisms, relating to some of the most common over-the-counter mouthwash products available worldwide: chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide, cetylpyridinium chloride, povidone iodine, and essential oils. The aim of this first article is to describe how mouthwashes “kill” pathogenic microbes when used adjunctively and thus provide a basis for their widespread use to manage key oral diseases, namely caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease. This article therefore sets the scene for subsequent, more detailed exploration of mouthwashes regarding their clinical effectiveness, impact on the oral microbiome, and possible effects on systemic health as well as natural alternatives and future directions. Other than the clinical effectiveness (for certain agents) of mouthwashes, on many topics there remains insufficient evidence for systematic review or formulation of robust national guidelines. The supplement, therefore, compiled by an international task team, is aimed at general dental practitioners across the globe, as an easy-to-read guide for helping to advise patients on mouthwash use based on the current best available evidence

Mouthwashes: Alternatives and Future Directions

This narrative review summarises "alternative" or "natural" over-the-counter (OTC) mouthwashes not covered elsewhere in this supplement and newly emerging products, as potential mouthwashes of the future. The "natural" mouthwashes reviewed include saltwater, baking soda, coconut oil, charcoal, propolis, seaweeds, and probiotics. Other than essential oils, it is apparent that their clinical effectiveness is still under debate, but there is some evidence to suggest that propolis reduces plaque and gingivitis. This review also covers the host immune response, via novel anti-inmmunomodulant mouthwashes, such as erythropoietin to reduce inflammation with oral mucositis (OM) after radiotherapy. The emerging concept of nanoparticle-containing mouthwashes, such as iron oxide, is further discussed for OM, this agent having the potential for more targeted delivery of chemical antimicrobials. Unfortunately, there are impacts on the environment of widening mouthwash use with more new products, including increased use of packaging, antimicrobial resistance, and possible detrimental effects on marine life. Further, there are roadblocks, relating to regularly approvals and side effects, that still need to be overcome for any OTC deivered immunomodulant or nanoformulation mouthwashes. . Despite these caveats, there are many new mouthwashes under development, which could help manage major oral diseases such as caries, gingivitis, and periodontal disease

Core Outcomes for Colorectal Cancer Surgery: A Consensus Study

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major cause of worldwide morbidity and mortality. Surgical treatment is common, and there is a great need to improve the delivery of such care. The gold standard for evaluating surgery is within well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs); however, the impact of RCTs is diminished by a lack of coordinated outcome measurement and reporting. A solution to these issues is to develop an agreed standard “core” set of outcomes to be measured in all trials to facilitate cross-study comparisons, meta-analysis, and minimize outcome reporting bias. This study defines a core outcome set for CRC surgery. Methods and Findings: The scope of this COS includes clinical effectiveness trials of surgical interventions for colorectal cancer. Excluded were nonsurgical oncological interventions. Potential outcomes of importance to patients and professionals were identified through systematic literature reviews and patient interviews. All outcomes were transcribed verbatim and categorized into domains by two independent researchers. This informed a questionnaire survey that asked stakeholders (patients and professionals) from United Kingdom CRC centers to rate the importance of each domain. Respondents were resurveyed following group feedback (Delphi methods). Outcomes rated as less important were discarded after each survey round according to predefined criteria, and remaining outcomes were considered at three consensus meetings; two involving international professionals and a separate one with patients. A modified nominal group technique was used to gain the final consensus. Data sources identified 1,216 outcomes of CRC surgery that informed a 91 domain questionnaire. First round questionnaires were returned from 63 out of 81 (78%) centers, including 90 professionals, and 97 out of 267 (35%) patients. Second round response rates were high for all stakeholders (>80%). Analysis of responses lead to 45 and 23 outcome domains being retained after the first and second surveys, respectively. Consensus meetings generated agreement on a 12 domain COS. This constituted five perioperative outcome domains (including anastomotic leak), four quality of life outcome domains (including fecal urgency and incontinence), and three oncological outcome domains (including long-term survival). Conclusion: This study used robust consensus methodology to develop a core outcome set for use in colorectal cancer surgical trials. It is now necessary to validate the use of this set in research practice

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome

Dimethyl fumarate in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

Dimethyl fumarate (DMF) inhibits inflammasome-mediated inflammation and has been proposed as a treatment for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. This randomised, controlled, open-label platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy [RECOVERY]), is assessing multiple treatments in patients hospitalised for COVID-19 (NCT04381936, ISRCTN50189673). In this assessment of DMF performed at 27 UK hospitals, adults were randomly allocated (1:1) to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus DMF. The primary outcome was clinical status on day 5 measured on a seven-point ordinal scale. Secondary outcomes were time to sustained improvement in clinical status, time to discharge, day 5 peripheral blood oxygenation, day 5 C-reactive protein, and improvement in day 10 clinical status. Between 2 March 2021 and 18 November 2021, 713 patients were enroled in the DMF evaluation, of whom 356 were randomly allocated to receive usual care plus DMF, and 357 to usual care alone. 95% of patients received corticosteroids as part of routine care. There was no evidence of a beneficial effect of DMF on clinical status at day 5 (common odds ratio of unfavourable outcome 1.12; 95% CI 0.86-1.47; p = 0.40). There was no significant effect of DMF on any secondary outcome