The needs and experiences of skin cancer patients: a qualitative systematic review with meta-synthesis

Background: Skin cancer incidence is increasing worldwide. This is an update of a previous review published in 2010 that identified only two studies and found that the needs and experiences of individuals with skin cancer were under-researched. Objectives: To undertake a qualitative systematic review of the needs and experiences of people with a diagnosis of skin cancer. Methods: As an update of a previous review, the following databases were searched from 2010 to 30/11/15: CINAHL PsycINFO, MEDLINE and EMBASE. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Qualitative Assessment Review Instrument (QARI). The qualitative research findings were synthesised using a pragmatic meta-aggregative approach. Results: Fourteen studies (16 papers) were included. Only three studies included keratinocyte carcinoma patients. 15 categories were identified and these resulted in four overarching synthesised findings (SFs) from diagnosis (SF1) through treatment (SF2) and follow up (SF3), and then a fourth SF (SF4) that addressed patients’ satisfaction with their care and their relationship with health professionals. Conclusions: Despite the fact that keratinocyte carcinoma and melanoma patients can have very different prognosis, they also share similar needs and concerns especially around the time of diagnosis and follow up/surveillance for new lesions. Health professionals working with skin cancer patients need to understand their psychosocial concerns, and their information needs in order to design services appropriately. Future studies need to consider keratinocyte carcinoma patients as well as melanoma patients

Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges

Availability of data and materials: Not applicable for this opinion paper, but the Additional files contain a collation and account of many of the sources used.Copyright © The Author(s) 2022. During the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, astonishingly rapid research averted millions of deaths worldwide through new vaccines and repurposed and new drugs. Evidence use informed life-saving national policies including non-pharmaceutical interventions. Simultaneously, there was unprecedented waste, with many underpowered trials on the same drugs. We identified lessons from COVID-19 research responses by applying WHO’s framework for research systems. It has four functions—governance, securing finance, capacity-building, and production and use of research—and nine components. Two linked questions focused the analysis. First, to what extent have achievements in knowledge production and evidence use built on existing structures and capacity in national health research systems? Second, did the features of such systems mitigate waste? We collated evidence on seven countries, Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, to identify examples of achievements and challenges. We used the data to develop lessons for each framework component. Research coordination, prioritization and expedited ethics approval contributed to rapid identification of new therapies, including dexamethasone in the United Kingdom and Brazil. Accelerated vaccines depended on extensive funding, especially through the Operation Warp Speed initiative in the United States, and new platforms created through long-term biomedical research capacity in the United Kingdom and, for messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) vaccines, in Canada, Germany and the United States. Research capacity embedded in the United Kingdom’s healthcare system resulted in trial acceleration and waste avoidance. Faster publication of research saved lives, but raised challenges. Public/private collaborations made major contributions to vastly accelerating new products, available worldwide, though unequally. Effective developments of living (i.e. regularly updated) reviews and guidelines, especially in Australia and Canada, extended existing expertise in meeting users’ needs. Despite complexities, effective national policy responses (less evident in Brazil, the United Kingdom and the United States) also saved lives by drawing on health research system features, including collaboration among politicians, civil servants and researchers; good communications; and willingness to use evidence. Comprehensive health research strategies contributed to success in research production in the United Kingdom and in evidence use by political leadership in New Zealand. In addition to waste, challenges included equity issues, public involvement and non-COVID research. We developed recommendations, but advocate studies of further countries.United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council grant MR/K014773/1 “Time Lags in the Translation of Medical Research: Developing a Case Study Approach to Achieve a Better Understanding” from the MRC’s Economic Impact call from the Methodology Research Programme

Does the world need a scientific society for research on how to improve healthcare?

In this editorial, we reflect on the arguments for starting a scientific society focused on research on how to improve healthcare. This society would take an inclusive approach to what constitutes healthcare. For instance, it should include mental health healthcare, treatment for substance abuse, the work of allied health professions, and preventive healthcare. The society would be open to researchers from all traditions. Thus, we take an inclusive approach to what constitutes scientific research, as long as it uses rigorous methods, is focused on improving healthcare, and aims at knowledge that can be transferred across settings. The society would primarily target scientific researchers but would invite others with an interest in this area of research, regardless of their discipline, position, field of application, or group affiliation (e.g., improvement science, behavioral medicine, knowledge translation). A society would need fruitful collaboration with related societies and organizations, which may include having combined meetings. Special links may be developed with one or more journals. A website to provide information on relevant resources, events, and training opportunities is another key activity. It would also provide a voice for the field at funding agencies, political arenas, and similar institutions. An organizational structure and financial resources are required to develop and run these activities. Our aim is to start an international debate, to discover if we can establish a shared vision across academics and stakeholders engaged with creating scientific knowledge on how to improve healthcare. We invite readers to express their views in the online questionnaire accessed by following the URL link provided at the end of the editorial

Core competencies in the science and practice of knowledge translation: description of a Canadian strategic training initiative

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Globally, healthcare systems are attempting to optimize quality of care. This challenge has resulted in the development of implementation science or knowledge translation (KT) and the resulting need to build capacity in both the science and practice of KT.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We are attempting to meet these challenges through the creation of a national training initiative in KT. We have identified core competencies in this field and have developed a series of educational courses and materials for three training streams. We report the outline for this approach and the progress to date.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>We have prepared a strategy to develop, implement, and evaluate a national training initiative to build capacity in the science and practice of KT. Ultimately through this initiative, we hope to meet the capacity demand for KT researchers and practitioners in Canada that will lead to improved care and a strengthened healthcare system.</p

Community-based randomised controlled trial evaluating falls and osteoporosis risk management strategies

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Osteoporosis-related fractures are a significant public health concern. Interventions that increase detection and treatment of osteoporosis, as well as prevention of fractures and falls, are substantially underutilized. This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multifaceted community-based care program aimed at optimizing the evidence-based management of falls and fractures in patients at risk.</p> <p>Design</p> <p>6-month randomised controlled study.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This population-based study was completed in the Algoma District of Ontario, Canada a geographically vast area with Sault Ste Marie (population 78 000) as its main city. Eligible patients were allocated to an immediate intervention protocol (IP) group, or a delayed intervention protocol (DP) group. The DP group received usual care for 6 months and then was crossed over to receive the interventions. Components of the intervention were directed at the physicians and their patients and included patient-specific recommendations for osteoporosis therapy as outlined by the clinical practice guidelines developed by Osteoporosis Canada, and falls risk assessment and treatment. Two primary outcomes were measured including implementation of appropriate osteoporosis and falls risk management. Secondary outcomes included quality of life and the number of falls, fractures, and hospital admissions over a twelve-month period. The patient is the unit of allocation and analysis. Analyses will be performed on an intention to treat basis.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper outlines the protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial of a multi-faceted, community-based intervention to optimize the implementation of evidence based management for patients at risk for falls and osteoporosis.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>This trial has been registered with clinicaltrials.gov (ID: NCT00465387)</p

Group differences in physician responses to handheld presentation of clinical evidence: a verbal protocol analysis

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To identify individual differences in physicians' needs for the presentation of evidence resources and preferences for mobile devices.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Within-groups analysis of responses to semi-structured interviews. Interviews consisted of using prototypes in response to task-based scenarios. The prototypes were implemented on two different form factors: a tablet style PC and a pocketPC. Participants were from three user groups: general internists, family physicians and medicine residents, and from two different settings: urban and semi-urban. Verbal protocol analysis, which consists of coding utterances, was conducted on the transcripts of the testing sessions. Statistical relationships were investigated between staff physicians' and residents' background variables, self-reported experiences with the interfaces, and verbal code frequencies.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>47 physicians were recruited from general internal medicine, family practice clinics and a residency training program. The mean age of participants was 42.6 years. Physician specialty had a greater effect on device and information-presentation preferences than gender, age, setting or previous technical experience. Family physicians preferred the screen size of the tablet computer and were less concerned about its portability. Residents liked the screen size of the tablet, but preferred the portability of the pocketPC. Internists liked the portability of the pocketPC, but saw less advantage to the large screen of the tablet computer (F[2,44] = 4.94, p = .012).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Different types of physicians have different needs and preferences for evidence-based resources and handheld devices. This study shows how user testing can be incorporated into the process of design to inform group-based customization.</p

Influenza pandemic and professional duty: family or patients first? A survey of hospital employees

BACKGROUND: Conflicts between professional duties and fear of influenza transmission to family members may arise among health care professionals (HCP). METHODS: We surveyed employees at our university hospital regarding ethical issues arising during the management of an influenza pandemic. RESULTS: Of 644 respondents, 182 (28%) agreed that it would be professionally acceptable for HCP to abandon their workplace during a pandemic in order to protect themselves and their families, 337 (52%) disagreed with this statement and 125 (19%) had no opinion, with a higher rate of disagreement among physicians (65%) and nurses (54%) compared with administrators (32%). Of all respondents, 375 (58%) did not believe that the decision to report to work during a pandemic should be left to the individual HCP and 496 (77%) disagreed with the statement that HCP should be permanently dismissed for not reporting to work during a pandemic. Only 136 (21%) respondents agreed that HCW without children should primarily care for the influenza patients. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that a modest majority of HCP, but only a minority of hospital administrators, recognises the obligation to treat patients despite the potential risks. Professional ethical guidelines allowing for balancing the needs of society with personal risks are needed to help HCP fulfil their duties in the case of a pandemic influenza

The specialty choices of graduates from Brighton and Sussex Medical School: a longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND Since 2007 junior doctors in the UK have had to make major career decisions at a point when previously many had not yet chosen a specialty. This study examined when doctors in this new system make specialty choices, which factors influence choices, and whether doctors who choose a specialty they were interested in at medical school are more confident in their choice than those doctors whose interests change post-graduation. METHODS Two cohorts of students in their penultimate year at one medical school (n = 227/239) were asked which specialty interested them as a career. Two years later, 210/227 were sent a questionnaire measuring actual specialty chosen, confidence, influence of perceptions of the specialty and experiences on choice, satisfaction with medicine, personality, self-efficacy, and demographics. Medical school and post-graduation choices in the same category were deemed 'stable'. Predictors of stability, and of not having chosen a specialty, were calculated using bootstrapped logistic regression. Differences between specialties on questionnaire factors were analysed. RESULTS 50% responded (n = 105/277; 44% of the 239 Year 4 students). 65% specialty choices were 'stable'. Factors univariately associated with stability were specialty chosen, having enjoyed the specialty at medical school or since starting work, having first considered the specialty earlier. A regression found doctors who chose psychiatry were more likely to have changed choice than those who chose general practice. Confidence in the choice was not associated with stability. Those who chose general practice valued lifestyle factors. A psychiatry choice was associated with needing a job and using one's intellect to help others. The decision to choose surgical training tended to be made early. Not having applied for specialty training was associated with being lower on agreeableness and conscientiousness. CONCLUSION Medical school experiences are important in specialty choice but experiences post-graduation remain significant, particularly in some specialties (psychiatry in our sample). Career guidance is important at medical school and should be continued post-graduation, with senior clinicians supported in advising juniors. Careers advice in the first year post-graduation may be particularly important, especially for specialties which have difficulty recruiting or are poorly represented at medical school