Risks and benefits of sharing patient information on social media:a digital dilemma

Social media (SoMe) has witnessed remarkable growth and emerged as a dominant method of communication worldwide. Platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have become important tools of the digital native generation. In the field of medicine, particularly, cardiology, attitudes towards SoMe have shifted, and professionals increasingly utilize it to share scientific findings, network with experts, and enhance teaching and learning. Notably, SoMe is being leveraged for teaching purposes, including the sharing of challenging and intriguing cases. However, sharing patient data, including photos or images, online carries significant implications and risks, potentially compromising individual privacy both online and offline. Privacy and data protection are fundamental rights within European Union treaties, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) serves as the cornerstone of data protection legislation. The GDPR outlines crucial requirements, such as obtaining 'consent' and implementing 'anonymization', that must be met before sharing sensitive and patient-identifiable information. Additionally, it is vital to consider the patient's perspective and prioritize ethical and social considerations when addressing challenges associated with sharing patient information on SoMe platforms. Given the absence of a peer-review process and clear guidelines, we present an initial approach, a code of conduct, and recommendations for the ethical use of SoMe. In conclusion, this comprehensive review underscores the importance of a balanced approach that ensures patient privacy and upholds ethical standards while harnessing the immense potential of SoMe to advance cardiology practice and facilitate knowledge dissemination.</p

Risks and benefits of sharing patient information on social media:a digital dilemma

Social media (SoMe) has witnessed remarkable growth and emerged as a dominant method of communication worldwide. Platforms such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), LinkedIn, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube have become important tools of the digital native generation. In the field of medicine, particularly, cardiology, attitudes towards SoMe have shifted, and professionals increasingly utilize it to share scientific findings, network with experts, and enhance teaching and learning. Notably, SoMe is being leveraged for teaching purposes, including the sharing of challenging and intriguing cases. However, sharing patient data, including photos or images, online carries significant implications and risks, potentially compromising individual privacy both online and offline. Privacy and data protection are fundamental rights within European Union treaties, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) serves as the cornerstone of data protection legislation. The GDPR outlines crucial requirements, such as obtaining 'consent' and implementing 'anonymization', that must be met before sharing sensitive and patient-identifiable information. Additionally, it is vital to consider the patient's perspective and prioritize ethical and social considerations when addressing challenges associated with sharing patient information on SoMe platforms. Given the absence of a peer-review process and clear guidelines, we present an initial approach, a code of conduct, and recommendations for the ethical use of SoMe. In conclusion, this comprehensive review underscores the importance of a balanced approach that ensures patient privacy and upholds ethical standards while harnessing the immense potential of SoMe to advance cardiology practice and facilitate knowledge dissemination.</p

Effectiveness of Pandemic H1N1-2009 Vaccination in Reducing Laboratory Confirmed Influenza Infections among Military Recruits in Tropical Singapore

10.1371/journal.pone.0026572PLoS ONE610

Vagus nerve stimulation for medically refractory epilepsy: efficacy and cost-benefit analysis

Introduction. Vagus nerve stimulation is a novel treatment for patients with medically refractory epilepsy, who are not candidates for conventional epilepsy surgery, or who have had such surgery without optimal outcome. To date only studies with relatively short follow-up are available. In these studies efficacy increased with time and reached a maximum after a period of 6 to 12 months. Implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator requires an important financial investment but a cost-benefit analysis has not been published. Patients and Methods. Our own experience with VNS in Gent comprises 15 patients with mean age of 29 years (range: 17-44 years) and mean duration of epilepsy of 18 years (range: 4-32 years). All patients underwent a comprehensive presurgical evaluation and were found not to be suitable candidates for resective epilepsy surgery. Mean post-implantation follow-up is 24 months (range: 7-43 months). In patients with follow-up of at least one year, efficacy of treatment in terms of seizure control and seizure severity was assessed one year before and after the implantation of a vagus nerve stimulator. Epilepsy-related direct medical costs (ERDMC) before and after the implantation were also compared. Results. A mean reduction of seizure frequency from 14 seizures/month (range: 2-40/month) to 8 seizures/month (range: 0-30/month) was achieved (Wilcoxon signed rank test n = 14; p = 0.0016). Five patients showed a marked seizure reduction of greater than or equal to 50%; 6 became free of complex partial seizures, 3 of whom became entirely seizure free for more than 12 months; 2 patients had a worthwhile reduction of seizure frequency between 30-50%; in 2 patients seizure frequency reduction has remained practically unchanged. Seizure freedom or greater than or equal to 50% seizure reduction was achieved within the first 4 months after implantation in 6/11 patients. Before the implantation, the mean yearly epilepsy-related direct medical costs per patient were estimated to be 8830 US$(n = 13; range: 1879-31129 US$; sd = 7667); the average number of hospital admission days per year was 21 (range: 4-100; sd = 25.7). In the 12 months after implantation, ERDMC had decreased to 4215 US$(range: 615-11794 US$; sd = 3558) (Wilcoxon signed rank test n = 13; p = 0.018) and the average number of admission days to 8 (range: 0-35) (Wilcoxon signed rank test n = 13; p = 0.023). Conclusion. VNS is an effective treatment of refractory epilepsy and remains effective during long-term follow-up. Cost-benefit analysis suggests that the cost of VNS is saved within two years following implantation

Molecular velocity auto-correlation of simple liquids observed by NMR MGSE method

The velocity auto-correlation spectra of simple liquids obtained by the NMR method of modulated gradient spin echo show features in the low frequency range up to a few kHz, which can be explained reasonably well by a $t^{-3/2}$ long time tail decay only for non-polar liquid toluene, while the spectra of polar liquids, such as ethanol, water and glycerol, are more congruent with the model of diffusion of particles temporarily trapped in potential wells created by their neighbors. As the method provides the spectrum averaged over ensemble of particle trajectories, the initial non-exponential decay of spin echoes is attributed to a spatial heterogeneity of molecular motion in a bulk of liquid, reflected in distribution of the echo decays for short trajectories. While at longer time intervals, and thus with longer trajectories, heterogeneity is averaged out, giving rise to a spectrum which is explained as a combination of molecular self-diffusion and eddy diffusion within the vortexes of hydrodynamic fluctuations.Comment: 8 pages, 6 figur

Seroconversion and asymptomatic infections during oseltamivir prophylaxis against Influenza A H1N1 2009

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anti-viral prophylaxis is used to prevent the transmission of influenza. We studied serological confirmation of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) infections during oseltamivir prophylaxis and after cessation of prophylaxis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between 22 Jun and 16 Jul 09, we performed a cohort study in 3 outbreaks in the Singapore military where post-exposure oseltamivir ring chemoprophylaxis (75 mg daily for 10 days) was administered. The entire cohort was screened by RT-PCR (with HA gene primers) using nasopharyngeal swabs three times a week. Three blood samples were taken for haemagglutination inhibition testing - at the start of outbreak, 2 weeks after completion of 10 day oseltamivir prophylaxis, and 3 weeks after the pandemic's peak in Singapore. Questionnaires were also administered to collect clinical symptoms.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>237 personnel were included for analysis. The overall infection rate of 2009 Influenza A (H1N1) during the three outbreaks was 11.4% (27/237). This included 11 index cases and 16 personnel (7.1%) who developed four-fold or higher rise in antibody titres during oseltamivir prophylaxis. Of these 16 personnel, 8 (3.5%) were symptomatic while the remaining 8 personnel (3.5%) were asymptomatic and tested negative on PCR. Post-cessation of prophylaxis, an additional 23 (12.1%) seroconverted. There was no significant difference in mean fold-rise in GMT between those who seroconverted during and post-prophylaxis (11.3 vs 11.7, p = 0.888). No allergic, neuropsychiatric or other severe side-effects were noted.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Post-exposure oseltamivir prophylaxis reduced the rate of infection during outbreaks, and did not substantially increase subsequent infection rates upon cessation. Asymptomatic infections occur during prophylaxis, which may confer protection against future infection. Post-exposure prophylaxis is effective as a measure in mitigating pandemic influenza outbreaks.</p

A clinical diagnostic model for predicting influenza among young adult military personnel with febrile respiratory illness in Singapore

10.1371/journal.pone.0017468PLoS ONE63

Cognitive behavioural therapy for adults with dissociative seizures (CODES): a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Dissociative seizures are paroxysmal events resembling epilepsy or syncope with characteristic features that allow them to be distinguished from other medical conditions. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) plus standardised medical care with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of dissociative seizure frequency. METHODS: In this pragmatic, parallel-arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial, we initially recruited participants at 27 neurology or epilepsy services in England, Scotland, and Wales. Adults (≥18 years) who had dissociative seizures in the previous 8 weeks and no epileptic seizures in the previous 12 months were subsequently randomly assigned (1:1) from 17 liaison or neuropsychiatry services following psychiatric assessment, to receive standardised medical care or CBT plus standardised medical care, using a web-based system. Randomisation was stratified by neuropsychiatry or liaison psychiatry recruitment site. The trial manager, chief investigator, all treating clinicians, and patients were aware of treatment allocation, but outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of treatment allocation. Patients were followed up 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was monthly dissociative seizure frequency (ie, frequency in the previous 4 weeks) assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes assessed at 12 months were: seizure severity (intensity) and bothersomeness; longest period of seizure freedom in the previous 6 months; complete seizure freedom in the previous 3 months; a greater than 50% reduction in seizure frequency relative to baseline; changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others); health-related quality of life; psychosocial functioning; psychiatric symptoms, psychological distress, and somatic symptom burden; and clinical impression of improvement and satisfaction. p values and statistical significance for outcomes were reported without correction for multiple comparisons as per our protocol. Primary and secondary outcomes were assessed in the intention-to-treat population with multiple imputation for missing observations. This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial registry, ISRCTN05681227, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325544. FINDINGS: Between Jan 16, 2015, and May 31, 2017, we randomly assigned 368 patients to receive CBT plus standardised medical care (n=186) or standardised medical care alone (n=182); of whom 313 had primary outcome data at 12 months (156 [84%] of 186 patients in the CBT plus standardised medical care group and 157 [86%] of 182 patients in the standardised medical care group). At 12 months, no significant difference in monthly dissociative seizure frequency was identified between the groups (median 4 seizures [IQR 0-20] in the CBT plus standardised medical care group vs 7 seizures [1-35] in the standardised medical care group; estimated incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0·78 [95% CI 0·56-1·09]; p=0·144). Dissociative seizures were rated as less bothersome in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference -0·53 [95% CI -0·97 to -0·08]; p=0·020). The CBT plus standardised medical care group had a longer period of dissociative seizure freedom in the previous 6 months (estimated IRR 1·64 [95% CI 1·22 to 2·20]; p=0·001), reported better health-related quality of life on the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions-5 Level Health Today visual analogue scale (estimated mean difference 6·16 [95% CI 1·48 to 10·84]; p=0·010), less impairment in psychosocial functioning on the Work and Social Adjustment Scale (estimated mean difference -4·12 [95% CI -6·35 to -1·89]; p<0·001), less overall psychological distress than the standardised medical care group on the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation-10 scale (estimated mean difference -1·65 [95% CI -2·96 to -0·35]; p=0·013), and fewer somatic symptoms on the modified Patient Health Questionnaire-15 scale (estimated mean difference -1·67 [95% CI -2·90 to -0·44]; p=0·008). Clinical improvement at 12 months was greater in the CBT plus standardised medical care group than the standardised medical care alone group as reported by patients (estimated mean difference 0·66 [95% CI 0·26 to 1·04]; p=0·001) and by clinicians (estimated mean difference 0·47 [95% CI 0·21 to 0·73]; p<0·001), and the CBT plus standardised medical care group had greater satisfaction with treatment than did the standardised medical care group (estimated mean difference 0·90 [95% CI 0·48 to 1·31]; p<0·001). No significant differences in patient-reported seizure severity (estimated mean difference -0·11 [95% CI -0·50 to 0·29]; p=0·593) or seizure freedom in the last 3 months of the study (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1·77 [95% CI 0·93 to 3·37]; p=0·083) were identified between the groups. Furthermore, no significant differences were identified in the proportion of patients who had a more than 50% reduction in dissociative seizure frequency compared with baseline (OR 1·27 [95% CI 0·80 to 2·02]; p=0·313). Additionally, the 12-item Short Form survey-version 2 scores (estimated mean difference for the Physical Component Summary score 1·78 [95% CI -0·37 to 3·92]; p=0·105; estimated mean difference for the Mental Component Summary score 2·22 [95% CI -0·30 to 4·75]; p=0·084), the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 scale score (estimated mean difference -1·09 [95% CI -2·27 to 0·09]; p=0·069), and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 scale depression score (estimated mean difference -1·10 [95% CI -2·41 to 0·21]; p=0·099) did not differ significantly between groups. Changes in dissociative seizures (rated by others) could not be assessed due to insufficient data. During the 12-month period, the number of adverse events was similar between the groups: 57 (31%) of 186 participants in the CBT plus standardised medical care group reported 97 adverse events and 53 (29%) of 182 participants in the standardised medical care group reported 79 adverse events. INTERPRETATION: CBT plus standardised medical care had no statistically significant advantage compared with standardised medical care alone for the reduction of monthly seizures. However, improvements were observed in a number of clinically relevant secondary outcomes following CBT plus standardised medical care when compared with standardised medical care alone. Thus, adults with dissociative seizures might benefit from the addition of dissociative seizure-specific CBT to specialist care from neurologists and psychiatrists. Future work is needed to identify patients who would benefit most from a dissociative seizure-specific CBT approach. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research, Health Technology Assessment programme