Promoting respectful maternal and newborn care using the Dignity game: A quasi-experimental study

Aim This study assessed a) the impact of playing the Dignity board game on participants’ understanding of respectful maternal and newborn care and b) participants’ perceptions of how the game influenced their subsequent practice in Malawi and Zambia. Background Nurse-midwives’ poor understanding of respectful maternal and newborn care can lead to substandard practice; thus, effective education is pivotal. Used in several disciplines, game-based learning can facilitate skills acquisition and retention of knowledge. Design a quasi-experimental study, using mixed-methods of data collection. Methods Data were collected between January and November 2020. Nurse-midwives (N = 122) and students (N = 115) were recruited from public hospitals and nursing schools. Completion of paper-based questionnaires, before and after game-playing, assessed knowledge of respectful care principles and perceptions around behaviours and practice. Face-to-face interviews (n = 18) explored perceived impact of engaging with the game in clinical practice. Paired and unpaired t-test were used to compare scores. Qualitative data were analysed and reported thematically. Results The study was completed by 215 (90.7 %) participants. Post-test scores improved significantly for both groups combined; from 25.91 (SD 3.73) pre-test to 28.07 (SD 3.46) post-test (paired t = 8.67, 95 % confidence interval 1.67–2.65), indicating an increased knowledge of respectful care principles. Nurse-midwives performed better than students, both before and after. In Malawi, the COVID pandemic prevented a third of nurse-midwives’ from completing post-game questionnaires. Qualitative findings indicate the game functioned as a refresher course and helped nurse-midwives to translate principles of respectful care into practice. It was also useful for self-reflection. Conclusions The Dignity board game has the potential to enhance understanding and practice of respectful maternal and newborn care principles in low-resource settings. Integration into nursing and midwifery curricula and in-service training for students and healthcare workers should be considered

Feasibility study of mobile phone photography as a possible outcome measure of systemic sclerosis-related digital lesions

Objective: Clinical trials assessing systemic sclerosis (SSc)-related digital ulcers have been hampered by a lack of reliable outcome measures of healing. Our objective was to assess the feasibility of patients collecting high-quality mobile phone images of their digital lesions as a first step in developing a smartphone-based outcome measure. Methods: Patients with SSc-related digital (finger) lesions photographed one or more lesions each day for 30 days using their smartphone and uploaded the images to a secure Dropbox folder. Image quality was assessed using six criteria: blurriness, shadow, uniformity of lighting, dot location, dot angle and central positioning of the lesion. Patients completed a feedback questionnaire. Results: Twelve patients returned 332 photographs of 18 lesions. Each patient sent a median of 29.5 photographs [interquartile range (IQR) 15-33.5], with a median of 15 photographs per lesion (IQR 6-32). Twenty-two photographs were duplicates. Of the remaining 310 images, 256 (77%) were sufficiently in focus; 268 (81%) had some shadow; lighting was even in 56 (17%); dot location was acceptable in 233 (70%); dot angle was ideal in 107 (32%); and the lesion was centred in 255 (77%). Patient feedback suggested that 6 of 10 would be willing to record images daily in future studies, and 9 of 10 at least one to three times per week. Conclusion: Taking smartphone photographs of digital lesions was feasible for most patients, with most lesions in focus and central in the image. These promising results will inform the next research phase (to develop a smartphone monitoring application incorporating photographs and symptom tracking)

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: received 2020-08-11, rev-recd 2020-12-04, accepted 2020-12-10, registration 2020-12-11, pub-electronic 2021-03-25, online 2021-03-25, pub-print 2021-05-25Publication status: PublishedAbstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study.

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: Outcomes from the UK 'Alert Level 4' phase of the B-MaP-C study

Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Correction: Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

From Springer Nature via Jisc Publications RouterHistory: registration 2021-03-26, online 2021-04-12, pub-electronic 2021-04-12, pub-print 2021-08-31Publication status: PublishedA Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-021-01378-

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Substantially more children receiving antidepressants see a specialist than reported by Jack et al.

Abstract We would like to draw attention to evidence of substantial bias in the article published in this journal by Jack et al. (BMC Med 18:1-12, 2020). They provide an analysis of antidepressant prescribing to children and young people (CYP; ages 5 to 17) in primary care in England and reported that only 24.7% of CYP prescribed SSRIs for the first time were seen by a child and adolescent psychiatrist—contrary to national guidelines. We believe that their analysis is based on incomplete data that misses a large proportion of specialist mental health contacts. This is because the dataset Jack et al. used to capture specialist mental health contact—The Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) dataset—has poor coverage, as most CYP mental health services do not submit data. We demonstrate the level of underreporting with an analysis of events in a large primary care dataset where there has been a record of definite contact with CYP mental health services. We report that as many as three quarters of specialist CYP contacts with mental health specialists are missed in the HES dataset, indicating that the figure presented by Jack et al. is substantially wrong