Exploring the inclusion of teaching and learning on assistive products in undergraduate curricula of health sciences faculties at three South African Universities

CITATION: Visagie, S. et al. 2021. Exploring the inclusion of teaching and learning on assistive products in undergraduate curricula of health sciences faculties at three South African Universities. Disability and rehabilitation. Assistive technology, 16(7):722–729. doi:10.1080/17483107.2019.1701104The original publication is available at https://www.tandfonline.com/journals/iidt20Background: Providers must be knowledgeable on policy, systems and products to provide a person centred service and prescribe the most appropriate assistive product for each user. Aim: This study aimed to determine to what extent teaching and learning on assistive products are included in undergraduate curricula of the Health science faculties at three universities in the Western Cape Province of South Africa. Methods Data were gathered through a cross sectional survey. Fifteen programmes were approached of whom eight participated. Information on teaching on assistive products was sourced from purposively identified key informants, through e-mail questionnaires. Descriptive analysis was done. Results: A total of 104 assistive products were included in the eight programmes. Manual wheelchairs were the only product for which teaching was underscored by policy guidelines. Handheld mobility devices and wheelchairs were covered by five programmes. Teaching on assistive products for self-care, participation in domestic life, indoor and outdoor activities, employment and leisure was limited. Thirty seven products listed on the GATE List of 50 were taught by at least one of the programmes. Teaching and examination were theoretical in nature and occurred in professional silos. Clinical exposure was often incidental. For many products none of the four service delivery steps were covered. Conclusion: Assistive products were included in all the participating undergraduate programmes. The range of included products and the level of training were insufficient to prepare graduates to effectively address user’s needs. Newly appointed graduates will require early in-service training to ensure appropriate assistive product service delivery. Implications for rehabilitation: Undergraduate teaching on assistive products is provided in professional silos. Not all products on the GATE APL of 50 are included in under graduate teaching. Teaching does not always ensure a proficiency level that will support graduates to provide an independent AT service.https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17483107.2019.1701104Publishers versio

Enhanced secondary analysis of survival data: reconstructing the data from published Kaplan-Meier survival curves

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The results of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on time-to-event outcomes that are usually reported are median time to events and Cox Hazard Ratio. These do not constitute the sufficient statistics required for meta-analysis or cost-effectiveness analysis, and their use in secondary analyses requires strong assumptions that may not have been adequately tested. In order to enhance the quality of secondary data analyses, we propose a method which derives from the published Kaplan Meier survival curves a close approximation to the original individual patient time-to-event data from which they were generated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We develop an algorithm that maps from digitised curves back to KM data by finding numerical solutions to the inverted KM equations, using where available information on number of events and numbers at risk. The reproducibility and accuracy of survival probabilities, median survival times and hazard ratios based on reconstructed KM data was assessed by comparing published statistics (survival probabilities, medians and hazard ratios) with statistics based on repeated reconstructions by multiple observers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The validation exercise established there was no material systematic error and that there was a high degree of reproducibility for all statistics. Accuracy was excellent for survival probabilities and medians, for hazard ratios reasonable accuracy can only be obtained if at least numbers at risk or total number of events are reported.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The algorithm is a reliable tool for meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analyses of RCTs reporting time-to-event data. It is recommended that all RCTs should report information on numbers at risk and total number of events alongside KM curves.</p

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Wheelchair service provision education in academia

Background: An estimated 70 million people with disabilities need wheelchairs. To address this global crisis, the World Health Organization (WHO) proposed an eight-step wheelchair service provision model to ensure service quality regardless of resource setting. The International Society of Wheelchair Professionals (ISWP) aims to facilitate the integration of the WHO eight-step model into professional rehabilitation programmes. Objective: To develop an enhanced understanding of the current wheelchair service provision education provided in professional rehabilitation programmes worldwide. Methods: In a cross-sectional design, an online survey was distributed to ISWP contacts of educational institutions. Quantitative responses were analysed through summary statistics and qualitative answers were analysed by content analyses. When relevant, educational institutions were stratified into resource settings. Results: Seventy-two representatives of educational institutions in 21 countries completed the survey. Wheelchair content was taught in 79% of represented institutions, of which 75% of respondents reported using original course material, 10% of respondents used WHO Wheelchair Service Training Packages and 15% of respondents used other available resources. The majority of educational institutions teaching with their own wheelchair-related course material taught ≤ 20 hours. Fourteen of the 15 respondents without wheelchair education, expressed an interest in integrating wheelchair education into their academic curricula. Conclusion: The majority of the educational institutions teach wheelchair education; however, there is great variability in what and how it is taught and evaluated. The results demonstrate the need for more in-depth investigation regarding the integration process of wheelchair education in educational institutions, with the ultimate goal of improving wheelchair service provision worldwide

Assistive technology products : a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit

This paper is based on work from the Global Research, Innovation, and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit that was coordinated by WHO’s Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE). The purpose of this paper is to describe the needs and opportunities embedded in the assistive product life-cycle as well as issues relating to the various stages of assistive product mobilization worldwide. The paper discusses assistive technology product terminology and the dangers of focusing on products outside the context and rolling out products without a plan. Additionally, the paper reviews concepts and issues around technology transfer, particularly in relation to meeting global needs and among countries with limited resources. Several opportunities are highlighted including technology advancement and the world nearing a state of readiness through a developing capacity of nations across the world to successfully adopt and support the assistive technology products and applications. The paper is optimistic about the future of assistive technology products reaching the people that can use it the most and the excitement across large and small nations in increasing their own capacities for implementing assistive technology. This is expressed as hope in future students as they innovate and in modern engineering that will enable assistive technology to pervade all corners of current and potential marketplaces. Importantly, the paper poses numerous topics where discussions are just superficially opened. The hope is that a set of sequels will follow to continue this critical dialog. IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION Successful assistive technology product interventions are complex and include much more than the simple selection of the right product. Assistive technology product use is highly context sensitive in terms of an individual user’s environment. The development of assistive technology products is tricky as it must be contextually sensitive to the development environment and market as well. As a field we have much to study and develop around assistive technology product interventions from a global perspective

Assistive technology products: a position paper from the first global research, innovation, and education on assistive technology (GREAT) summit

This paper is based on work from the Global Research, Innovation, and Education on Assistive Technology (GREAT) Summit that was coordinated by WHO’s Global Cooperation on Assistive Technology (GATE). The purpose of this paper is to describe the needs and opportunities embedded in the assistive product lifecycle as well as issues relating to the various stages of assistive product mobilization worldwide. The paper discusses assistive technology product terminology and the dangers of focusing on products outside the context and rolling out products without a plan. Additionally, the paper reviews concepts and issues around technology transfer, particularly in relation to meeting global needs and among countries with limited resources. Several opportunities are highlighted including technology advancement and the world nearing a state of readiness through a developing capacity of nations across the world to successfully adopt and support the assistive technology products and applications. The paper is optimistic about the future of assistive technology products reaching the people that can use it the most and the excitement across large and small nations in increasing their own capacities for implementing assistive technology. This is expressed as hope in future students as they innovate and in modern engineering that will enable assistive technology to pervade all corners of current and potential marketplaces. Importantly, the paper poses numerous topics where discussions are just superficially opened. The hope is that a set of sequels will follow to continue this critical dialog