Is there a difference in clinical skills gained between healthcare professionals of high- and low and middle-income countries with online simulation-based learning?

Background: Healthcare professionals in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) compared with those in high-income countries (HICs) face unequal clinical learning opportunities, caused by barriers such as cost, time, and accessibility. Simulation via Instant Messaging - Birmingham Advance (SIMBA) overcomes these barriers, acting as a free virtual simulation-based model which supports clinicians’ professional development. The study compared the impact of SIMBA in LMICs and HICs. Method: Sixteen SIMBA sessions were conducted between May 2020 and October 2021. Participants solved anonymised real-life clinical scenarios by interacting with moderators over WhatsApp. Participants completed pre- and post- SIMBA surveys; responses were grouped into HICs and LMICs using the 2022 World Bank Report. Participants’ performance, perceptions, and improvements in core competencies were compared using the Chi-square test. Thematic analysis of open-ended questions was also performed. Findings: 462 participants (29.7% from LMICs, n137) completed both the pre- and postSIMBA surveys. Participants from HICs showed better knowledge on patient management (p=.01), whereas participants from LMICs reported higher improvement in professionalism (p=.02). Both groups reported similar gains in patient care (p=.28), systems-based practice (p=.052), practice-based learning (p=.15), communication skills (p=.22), application to practice (p=.266), engagement (p=.197), and overall quality of the session (p=.101). In thematic analysis, strengths of SIMBA included providing individualised, structured, and engaging sessions. Conclusions: Healthcare professionals from both LMICs and HICs improved in their competencies, illustrating that SIMBA produces equivalent teaching experiences. Furthermore, SIMBA’s virtual nature enables international accessibility and potential for global scalability. This model could steer future standardised education policy development in LMICs

A systematic review of models of care for polycystic ovary syndrome highlights a gap in the literature, especially in developing countries

Introduction The aim of the study was to identify available polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) models of care (MoCs) and describe their characteristics and alignment with the international PCOS guideline. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, All EBM, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception until 11 July 2022. Any study with a description of a PCOS MoC was included. Non-evidence-based guidelines, abstracts, study protocols, and clinical trial registrations were excluded. We also excluded MoCs delivered in research settings to minimize care bias. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity across MoCs. We describe and evaluate each MoC based on the recommendations made by the international evidence-based guideline for assessing and managing PCOS. Results Of 3,671 articles, six articles describing five MoCs were included in our systematic review. All MoCs described a multidisciplinary approach, including an endocrinologist, dietitian, gynecologist, psychologist, dermatologist, etc. Three MoCs described all aspects of PCOS care aligned with the international guideline recommendations. These include providing education on long-term risks, lifestyle interventions, screening and management of emotional well-being, cardiometabolic diseases, and the dermatological and reproductive elements of PCOS. Three MoCs evaluated patients’ and healthcare professionals’ satisfaction, with generally positive findings. Only one MoC explored the impact of their service on patients’ health outcomes and showed improvement in BMI. Conclusion There is limited literature describing PCOS MoCs in routine practice. Future research should explore developing cost-effective co-created multidisciplinary PCOS MoCs globally. This may be facilitated by the exchange of best practices between institutions with an established MoC and those who are interested in setting one up. Systematic review registratio

Interventions for the prevention of adrenal crisis in adults with primary adrenal insufficiency : a systematic review

Objective: The incidence of adrenal crisis remains high, particularly for people with primary adrenal insufficiency, despite the introduction of behavioural interventions. The present study aimed to identify and evaluate available evidence of interventions aiming to prevent adrenal crisis in primary adrenal insufficiency. Design: Systematic review of literature and theoretical mapping. Methods: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, ERIC, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) and trial registries were searched from inception to November 2021. Three reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. Two reviewers appraised the studies for risk of bias. Results: Seven observational or mixed methods studies were identified where interventions were designed to prevent adrenal crisis in adrenal insufficiency. Patient education was the focus of all interventions and utilised the same two behaviour change techniques, instruction on how to perform a behaviour’ and ‘pharmacological support’. Barrier and facilitator themes aiding or hindering the intervention included: knowledge, behaviour, emotions, skills, social influences and environmental context and resources. Most studies did not measure effectiveness and assessment of knowledge was variable across studies. Study quality was moderate. Conclusion: This is an emerging field with limited studies available. Further research is required in relation to the development and assessment of different behaviour change interventions to prevent adrenal crisis

Effect of COVID-19 on the clinical course of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA) in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes

Objective COVID-19 in people with diabetes is associated with a disproportionately worse prognosis. DKA is an acute complication of diabetes with a mortality rate of approximately 0.67%. Little is known about the natural history of DKA in the presence of COVID-19. This study aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19 on presentation, clinical course and outcome in patients presenting with DKA. Design Retrospective cohort study. Methods All patients treated for DKA between 1 March 2020 and 30 May 2020 were included. Patients were categorised as COVID-positive or COVID-negative based on the swab test. A pre-COVID group was established using data from 01 March 2019 to 30 May 2019 as external control. Data regarding demographics, diabetes type, pH, bicarbonate, lactate, glucose, DKA duration, complications and outcome were collected. Results A total of 88 DKA episodes were included in this study. There was no significant difference in the severity or duration of DKA between the three groups. COVID-positive T1DM were more hyperglycaemic on admission compared to COVID-negative and pre-COVID patients. There was an over representation of T2DM in COVID-positive patients with DKA than in pre-COVID or COVID-negative groups. Conclusion COVID-19 appears to influence the natural history of DKA differently in T1DM and T2DM. Patients with T1DM and COVID-19 presented with more hyperglycaemia (60 mmol/L (35.9–60.0) vs 31.4 mmol/L (28.0–39.1) vs 24 mmol/L (20.2–33.75), respectively). Patients with T2DM were unusually presenting in DKA when infected with COVID-19 with greater ICU need and higher mortality rates. A collaborative, multi-centre study is needed to provide more definitive results

Recommendations from the 2023 international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome

Study question What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? Summary answer International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. What is known already The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from 6 continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low- to low-quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus-based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, the evidence quality was low, and evidence-practice gaps persist. Study design, size, and duration The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update re-engaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation, and ultimately recommendation strength, and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. Participants/materials, setting, and methods This summary should be read in conjunction with the full guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a 6-continent international advisory and management committee, 5 guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health, and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians, and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and 5 face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across 5 guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council. Main results and the role of chance The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past 5 years but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpin 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include the following: (1) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm, and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; (2) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnoea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; (3) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care, and shared decision-making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; (4) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional well-being, and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and (5) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. Limitations and reasons for caution Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved but remains generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. Wider implications of the findings The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input, and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated, and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation programme supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation programme

Recommendations from the 2023 international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from six continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low to low quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, evidence quality was low and evidence-practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update reengaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations, with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS This summary should be read in conjunction with the full Guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a six-continent international advisory and management committee, five guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and five face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past five years, but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpins 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include: i) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; ii) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; iii) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care and shared decision making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; iv) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and v) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved, but remains generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the Guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This effort was primarily funded by the Australian Government via the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (APP1171592), supported by a partnership with American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and European Society for Endocrinology. The Commonwealth Government of Australia also supported Guideline translation through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFCRI000266). HJT and AM are funded by NHMRC fellowships. JT is funded by a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) fellowship. Guideline development group members were volunteers. Travel expenses were covered by the partnering organizations. Disclosures of interest were strictly managed according to NHMRC policy and are available with the full guideline, technical evidence report, peer review and responses (www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/pcos). Of named authors HJT, CTT, AD, LM, LR, JBoyle, AM have no conflicts of interest to declare. JL declares grant from Ferring and Merck; consulting fees from Ferring and Titus Health Care; speaker’s fees from Ferring; unpaid consultancy for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Ansh Labs; and sits on advisory boards for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics, Ansh Labs, and Gedeon Richter. TP declares a grant from Roche; consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Organon; speaker’s fees from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; travel support from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; unpaid consultancy for Roche Diagnostics; and sits on advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics. MC declares travels support from Merck; and sits on an advisory board for Merck. JBoivin declares grants from Merck Serono Ltd.; consulting fees from Ferring B.V; speaker’s fees from Ferring Arzneimittell GmbH; travel support from Organon; and sits on an advisory board for the Office of Health Economics. RJN has received speaker’s fees from Merck and sits on an advisory board for Ferring. AJoham has received speaker’s fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our 39 partner and collaborating organizations, was independently methodologically assessed against AGREEII criteria and was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and by the NHMRC