Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation for the Treatment of Cocaine Addiction: A Systematic Review

Cocaine use disorder; Craving; Non-invasive brain stimulationTrastorn per consum de cocaïna; Ànsia; Estimulació cerebral no invasivaTrastorno por consumo de cocaína; Ansia; Estimulación cerebral no invasivaLong-term cocaine use is associated with cognitive deficits and neuro-psychiatric pathologies. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) is an emerging therapeutic strategy relating to changes in brain activity. It stimulates the prefrontal cortex and is involved in inhibitory cognitive control, decision making and care. This systematic review aims to evaluate and synthesize the evidence on the safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of rTMS for the treatment of cocaine addiction. A systematic review of the literature was carried out. The following electronic databases were consulted from inception to October 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials and case-series and full economic evaluations were included. Twelve studies were included. No identified study reported data on cost-effectiveness. Significant results of the efficacy of TMS have been observed in terms of the reduction of craving to consume and the number of doses consumed. No serious adverse effects have been observed. Despite the low quality of the studies, the first results were observed in terms of reduction of cocaine use and craving. In any case, this effect is considered moderate. Studies with larger sample sizes and longer follow-ups are required

Processes for evidence summarization for patient decision aids: A Delphi consensus study

Abstract Background Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence‐based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed‐upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs. Objective To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs. Design A two‐round modified Delphi survey. Setting and participants A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. Data collection We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. Analysis Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion. Results Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence). Conclusion A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high‐quality PDAs. Patient contribution A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey

A three-talk model for shared decision making: multistage consultation process

© 2017 The Authors. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article available under a Creative Commons licence. The published version can be accessed at the following link on the publisher’s website: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4891Objectives To revise an existing three-talk model for learning how to achieve shared decision making, and to consult with relevant stakeholders to update and obtain wider engagement. Design Multistage consultation process. Setting Key informant group, communities of interest, and survey of clinical specialties. Participants 19 key informants, 153 member responses from multiple communities of interest, and 316 responses to an online survey from medically qualified clinicians from six specialties. Results After extended consultation over three iterations, we revised the three-talk model by making changes to one talk category, adding the need to elicit patient goals, providing a clear set of tasks for each talk category, and adding suggested scripts to illustrate each step. A new three-talk model of shared decision making is proposed, based on “team talk,” “option talk,” and “decision talk,” to depict a process of collaboration and deliberation. Team talk places emphasis on the need to provide support to patients when they are made aware of choices, and to elicit their goals as a means of guiding decision making processes. Option talk refers to the task of comparing alternatives, using risk communication principles. Decision talk refers to the task of arriving at decisions that reflect the informed preferences of patients, guided by the experience and expertise of health professionals. Conclusions The revised three-talk model of shared decision making depicts conversational steps, initiated by providing support when introducing options, followed by strategies to compare and discuss trade-offs, before deliberation based on informed preferences

RARE-Bestpractices: a platform for sharing best practices for the management of rare diseases

No abstract available

RARE-Bestpractices: a platform for sharing best practices for the management of rare diseases

No abstract available

Mindfulness-based interventions for the treatment of depressive rumination: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Antecedentes/Objetivo: Revisión sistemática para evaluar el efecto de las inter- venciones basadas en la atención plena y/o en el proceso de aceptación de pensamientos rumiativos en la depresión. Método: Búsquedas sistemáticas en Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycInfo y Cinahl hasta diciembre 2016 y búsquedas manuales identificaron once estu- dios. Resultados: Un metanálisis que comparó el efecto de la intervención basada en Mindfulness con la atención habitual mostró una reducción significativa y moderada de pensamientos rumia- tivos. Los hallazgos sugieren que los procesos de atención/aceptación producen cambios en las rumiaciones e influyen en el efecto clínico de las intervenciones. Otro metanálisis con estudios que compararon la intervención basada en Mindfulness con otros tratamientos activos (medi- cación, activación conductual y terapia cognitivo-conductual, respectivamente) no mostraron diferencias significativas ( g = − 0,02, 95% CI: − 0,39, 0,35; I 2 = 0%). Conclusiones: Mindfulness en comparación con la atención habitual, produce una reducción significativa y moderada en la rumia. Este efecto parece independiente de la fase de tratamiento o del número de episodios depresivos pasados, y se mantuvo un mes después del final del tratamiento. Sin embargo, se necesitan más estudios controlados con pacientes reales que comparen las técnicas cognitivo- conductuales más utilizadas para tratar los pensamientos rumiativos con técnicas de aceptación y atención plena

European Experience with Shared Decision Making

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is frequently advocated but not yet widely implemented in European countries. Experience suggests that various incentives must be in alignment to encourage wider uptake. Objectives: To assess readiness for mainstream implementation of SDM in five European countries. Methods: Qualitative assessment of clinical policies and the availability of various SDM support services in Germany, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK. Results: All five countries have research groups working on SDM, patient groups calling for its wider use, and ethical and professional standards indicating its desirability, but apart from a small number of demonstration projects, there is no evidence of a systematic approach to implementation in any of the countries as yet. Conclusions: Greater attention will need to be given to the provision of effective leadership, training and practical support if SDM is to become a regular feature of clinical practice in these countries

European Experience with Shared Decision Making

International audienc