National prospective cohort study of the burden of acute small bowel obstruction

BackgroundSmall bowel obstruction is a common surgical emergency, and is associated with high levels of morbidity and mortality across the world. The literature provides little information on the conservatively managed group. The aim of this study was to describe the burden of small bowel obstruction in the UK.MethodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted in 131 acute hospitals in the UK between January and April 2017, delivered by trainee research collaboratives. Adult patients with a diagnosis of mechanical small bowel obstruction were included. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included complications, unplanned intensive care admission and readmission within 30 days of discharge. Practice measures, including use of radiological investigations, water soluble contrast, operative and nutritional interventions, were collected.ResultsOf 2341 patients identified, 693 (29·6 per cent) underwent immediate surgery (within 24 h of admission), 500 (21·4 per cent) had delayed surgery after initial conservative management, and 1148 (49·0 per cent) were managed non-operatively. The mortality rate was 6·6 per cent (6·4 per cent for non-operative management, 6·8 per cent for immediate surgery, 6·8 per cent for delayed surgery; P = 0·911). The major complication rate was 14·4 per cent overall, affecting 19·0 per cent in the immediate surgery, 23·6 per cent in the delayed surgery and 7·7 per cent in the non-operative management groups (P < 0·001). Cox regression found hernia or malignant aetiology and malnutrition to be associated with higher rates of death. Malignant aetiology, operative intervention, acute kidney injury and malnutrition were associated with increased risk of major complication.ConclusionSmall bowel obstruction represents a significant healthcare burden. Patient-level factors such as timing of surgery, acute kidney injury and nutritional status are factors that might be modified to improve outcomes

Global Media Coverage of the Benefits and Harms of Early Detection Tests

This cross-sectional study examines global media coverage of the benefits and harms of early detection tests for asymptomatic individuals

Overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE: To identify and summarize the evidence about the extent of overuse of medications in low- and middle-income countries, its drivers, consequences and potential solutions. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO® and Global Index Medicus using a combination of MeSH terms and free text words around overuse of medications and overtreatment. We included studies in any language published before 25 October 2021 that reported on the extent of overuse, its drivers, consequences and solutions. FINDINGS: We screened 3489 unique records and included 367 studies reporting on over 5.1 million prescriptions across 80 low- and middle-income countries – with studies from 58.6% (17/29) of all low-, 62.0% (31/50) of all lower-middle- and 60.0% (33/55) of all upper-middle-income countries. Of the included studies, 307 (83.7%) reported on the extent of overuse of medications, with estimates ranging from 7.3% to 98.2% (interquartile range: 30.2–64.5). Commonly overused classes included antimicrobials, psychotropic drugs, proton pump inhibitors and antihypertensive drugs. Drivers included limited knowledge of harms of overuse, polypharmacy, poor regulation and financial influences. Consequences were patient harm and cost. Only 11.4% (42/367) of studies evaluated solutions, which included regulatory reforms, educational, deprescribing and audit–feedback initiatives. CONCLUSION: Growing evidence suggests overuse of medications is widespread within low- and middle-income countries, across multiple drug classes, with few data of solutions from randomized trials. Opportunities exist to build collaborations to rigorously develop and evaluate potential solutions to reduce overuse of medications

Evidence-informed health policy 1 – Synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Background: Organizations have been established in many countries and internationally to support the use of research evidence by producing clinical practice guidelines, undertaking health technology assessments, and/or directly supporting the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level. Learning from these organizations can reduce the need to 'reinvent the wheel' and inform decisions about how best to organize support for such organizations, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We undertook a multi-method study in three phases – a survey, interviews, and case descriptions that drew on site visits – and in each of the second and third phases we focused on a purposive sample of those involved in the previous phase. We used the seven main recommendations that emerged from the advice offered in the interviews to organize much of the synthesis of findings across phases and methods. We used a constant comparative method to identify themes from across phases and methods. Results: Seven recommendations emerged for those involved in establishing or leading organizations that support the use of research evidence in developing health policy: 1) collaborate with other organizations; 2) establish strong links with policymakers and involve stakeholders in the work; 3) be independent and manage conflicts of interest among those involved in the work; 4) build capacity among those working in the organization; 5) use good methods and be transparent in the work; 6) start small, have a clear audience and scope, and address important questions; and 7) be attentive to implementation considerations, even if implementation is not a remit. Four recommendations emerged for the World Health Organization (WHO) and other international organizations and networks: 1) support collaborations among organizations; 2) support local adaptation efforts; 3) mobilize support; and 4) create global public goods. Conclusion: This synthesis of findings from a multi-method study, along with the more detailed findings from each of the three phases of the study (which are reported in the three following articles in the series), provide a strong basis on which researchers, policymakers, international organizations (and networks) like WHO can respond to the growing chorus of voices calling for efforts to support the use of research evidence in developing health policy

Evidence-informed health policy 3 – Interviews with the directors of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Background: Previous surveys of organizations that support the development of evidence-informed health policies have focused on organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) or undertake health technology assessments (HTAs). Only rarely have surveys focused at least in part on units that directly support the use of research evidence in developing health policy on an international, national, and state or provincial level (i.e., government support units, or GSUs) that are in some way successful or innovative or that support the use of research evidence in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: We drew on many people and organizations around the world, including our project reference group, to generate a list of organizations to survey. We modified a questionnaire that had been developed originally by the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation in Europe (AGREE) collaboration and adapted one version of the questionnaire for organizations producing CPGs and HTAs, and another for GSUs. We sent the questionnaire by email to 176 organizations and followed up periodically with non-responders by email and telephone. Results: We received completed questionnaires from 152 (86%) organizations. More than one-half of the organizations (and particularly HTA agencies) reported that examples from other countries were helpful in establishing their organization. A higher proportion of GSUs than CPG-or HTA-producing organizations involved target users in the selection of topics or the services undertaken. Most organizations have few (five or fewer) full-time equivalent (FTE) staff. More than four-fifths of organizations reported providing panels with or using systematic reviews. GSUs tended to use a wide variety of explicit valuation processes for the research evidence, but none with the frequency that organizations producing CPGs, HTAs, or both prioritized evidence by its quality. Between one-half and two-thirds of organizations do not collect data systematically about uptake, and roughly the same proportions do not systematically evaluate their usefulness or impact in other ways. Conclusion: The findings from our survey, the most broadly based of its kind, both extend or clarify the applicability of the messages arising from previous surveys and related documentary analyses, such as how the 'principles of evidence-based medicine dominate current guideline programs' and the importance of collaborating with other organizations. The survey also provides a description of the history, structure, processes, outputs, and perceived strengths and weaknesses of existing organizations from which those establishing or leading similar organizations can draw

Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles

The motivations for the adoption of management innovation by local governments and its performance effects

This article analyses the economic, political and institutional antecedents and performance effects of the adoption of shared Senior Management Teams (SMTs) – a management innovation (MI) that occurs when a team of senior managers oversees two or more public organizations. Findings from statistical analysis of 201 English local governments and interviews with organizational leaders reveal that shared SMTs are adopted to develop organisational capacity in resource‐challenged, politically risk‐averse governments, and in response to coercive and mimetic institutional pressures. Importantly, sharing SMTs may reduce rather than enhance efficiency and effectiveness due to redundancy costs and the political transaction costs associated with diverting resources away from a high‐performing partner to support their lower‐performing counterpart

COVID vaccines offer the pharma industry a once-in-a-generation opportunity to reset its reputation. But it’s after decades of big profits and scandals

Just weeks before the first COVID-19 cases emerged, Gallup published its latest poll on America’s views about business. At the bottom of the list of 25 sectors was the pharmaceutical industry. Below advertising. Below oil and gas. Below the banks.The pandemic and the new vaccines have of course turned that reputation around, but let’s not forget why the pharmaceutical industry’s credibility sank so low