Understanding how new evidence influences practitioners' beliefs regarding dry cow therapy: A Bayesian approach using probabilistic elicitation.

This study used probabilistic elicitation and a Bayesian framework to quantitatively explore how logically practitioners' update their clinical beliefs after exposure to new data. The clinical context was the efficacy of antibiotics versus teat sealants for preventing mammary infections during the dry period. While most practitioners updated their clinical expectations logically, the majority failed to draw sufficient strength from the new data so that their clinical confidence afterwards was lower than merited. This study provides quantitative insight into how practitioners' update their beliefs. We discuss some of the psychological issues that may be faced by practitioners when interpreting new data. The results have important implications for evidence-based practice and clinical research in terms of the impact that new data may bring to the clinical community

Understanding veterinarians' prescribing decisions on antibiotic dry cow therapy.

In the United Kingdom, blanket antibiotic dry cow therapy (BDCT) is commonly prescribed. An alternate strategy is selective dry cow therapy (SDCT) whereby a teat sealant is given instead of an antibiotic to cows with a low probability of infection. Switching from BDCT to SDCT can significantly reduce antibiotic use. The aims of this study were to explore how veterinarians (vets) rationalized their prescribing decisions for mammary treatments at drying off, and the barriers and motivators they perceived to implementing SDCT. Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 20 purposively recruited vets from 6 practices in England, United Kingdom. The data were analyzed qualitatively using an inductive thematic analysis. The majority of participants stated a personal preference for SDCT because it constitutes more responsible antibiotic use. On the majority of farms, the prescribing decision was taken by a senior veterinarian and BDCT was prescribed. Less experienced vets expressed a desire to be more involved in the decision-making process. The first theme, prioritizing responsible antimicrobial prescribing, encapsulated the difficulties vets expressed engaging with farmers, conflicts of interest, and vets' determination to take action. The second theme, the effect of a vet's experience on their ability to influence farmers, focused on the specific challenges faced by less experienced vets and the importance of vets being both trusted by farmers and being knowledgeable. The third theme, vets' perceptions about the risk and complexity of implementing SDCT, revealed markedly different levels of concern and fears about adverse outcomes with teat sealants versus antibiotics. The results also showed differences in perceptions about how difficult SDCT is to implement in practice. The last theme, vets' suggestions for facilitating the introduction of SDCT, was wide ranging and provided useful insight from a veterinary perspective into ways to facilitate SDCT. Initiatives that seek to alter vets' perceptions of the risks associated with switching to using SDCT are likely to prove useful in facilitating change. Our results also suggest that it is vital for senior vets to take a leading role in facilitating farms to implement SDCT. Less experienced colleagues may benefit from more help from senior vets to gain the trust of farmers and to become involved more quickly in herd-level preventive medicine. Vets must work together and take a united approach to reduce antimicrobial use

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Understanding how new evidence influences practitioners’ beliefs regarding dry cow therapy: A Bayesian approach using probabilistic elicitation

This study used probabilistic elicitation and a Bayesian framework to quantitatively explore how logically practitioners’ update their clinical beliefs after exposure to new data. The clinical context was the efficacy of antibiotics versus teat sealants for preventing mammary infections during the dry period. While most practitioners updated their clinical expectations logically, the majority failed to draw sufficient strength from the new data so that their clinical confidence afterwards was lower than merited. This study provides quantitative insight into how practitioners’ update their beliefs. We discuss some of the psychological issues that may be faced by practitioners when interpreting new data. The results have important implications for evidence-based practice and clinical research in terms of the impact that new data may bring to the clinical community

Investigating anthelmintic efficacy against gastrointestinal nematodes in cattle by considering appropriate probability distributions for faecal egg count data

The Faecal Egg Count Reduction Test (FECRT) is the most widely used field-based method for estimating anthelmintic efficacy and as an indicator of the presence of anthelmintic resistant nematodes in cattle, despite never having been validated against the gold standard of controlled slaughter studies. The objectives of this study were to assess the normality of cattle faecal egg count (FEC) data and their transformed versions, since confidence intervals used to aid the interpretation of the FECRT, are derived from data assumed to be normally distributed, and violation of this assumption could potentially lead to the misclassification of anthelmintic efficacy. Further, probability distributions and associated parameters were evaluated to determine those most appropriate for representing cattle FEC data, which could be used to estimate percentage reductions and confidence limits. FEC data were analysed from 2175 cattle on 52 farms using a McMaster method at two different diagnostic sensitivities (30 and 15 eggs per gram (epg)) and a sensitive centrifugal flotation technique (SCFT) with a sensitivity of 1 epg. FEC data obtained from all egg count methods were found to be non-normal even upon transformation; therefore, it would be recommended that confidence or credible intervals be generated using either a Bootstrapping or Bayesian approach, respectively, since analyses using these frameworks do not necessarily require the assumption of normality. FEC data obtained using the SCFT method were best represented by distributions associated with the negative binomial and hence arithmetic means could be used in FECRT calculations. Where FEC data were obtained with less sensitive counting techniques (i.e. McMaster 30 or 15 epg), zero-inflated distributions and their associated central tendency were the most appropriate and would be recommended to use, i.e. the arithmetic group mean divided by the proportion of non-zero counts present; otherwise apparent anthelmintic efficacy could be misrepresented