Improving health literacy of antifungal use - Comparison of the readability of antifungal medicines information from Australia, EU, UK, and US of 16 antifungal agents across 5 classes (allylamines, azoles, echinocandins, polyenes, and others)

Adherence to antifungals is poor in high endemic regions where antifungal resistance is high. Poor readability of prescription/over-the-counter (OTC) antifungals may contribute to poor adherence, due to the patient not fully understanding the purpose, importance, and dosage of their antifungal medicine. As there are no reports on the readability of antifungals, this study examined the readability of patient-facing antifungal information. Antifungals (n = 16; five classes [allylamines, azoles, echinocandins, polyenes, and others—flucytosine and griseofulvin]) were selected. Readability of four sources of information, (i) summary of product characteristics, (ii) patient information leaflets (PILs), (iii) OTC patient information, and (iv) patient web-based information, was calculated using Readable software, to obtain readability scores [(i) Flesch Reading Ease [FRE], (ii) Flesch–Kinkaid Grade Level [FKGL], (iii) Gunning Fog Index, and (iv) Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) Index) and text metrics [word count, sentence count, words/sentence, and syllables/word]. PILs, web-based resources, and OTC patient information had good readability (FRE mean ± sd = 52.8 ± 6.7, 58.6 ± 6.9, and 57.3 ± 7.4, respectively), just falling short of the ≥ 60 target. For FKGL (target ≤ 8.0), PILs, web-based resources, and OTC patient information also had good readability (mean ± sd = 8.5 ± 1.0, 7.2 ± 0.86, and 7.8 ± 0.1, respectively). Improved readability scores observed correlate with reduced words, words/sentence and syllables/word. Improving readability may lead to improved patient health literacy. Healthcare professionals, academics, and publishers preparing written materials regarding antifungals for the lay/patient community are encouraged to employ readability calculators to check the readability of their work, so that the final material is within recommended readability reference parameters, to support the health literacy of their patients/readers

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

Erratum to: Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition) (Autophagy, 12, 1, 1-222, 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356

non present