mixSTM: Adapting the Structural Topic Model for a quantitative analysis of focus group data

The Structural Topic Model (STM) incorporates external information about expected document-topic proportions to enhance the model. Motivated by focus groups, whose transcripts represent text data inherently grouped by session, we propose three extensions to the STM: 1) mean document-topic proportion estimation using a regression with random effects; 2) partitioned estimation of group-specific topic covariance matrices; and 3) a post hoc mixed effects regression on topic prevalence which incorporates latent variable uncertainty into the coefficient estimates. We explore the utility of these modifications through simulated examples and apply them to focus group transcripts from a pan-Canadian study on homelessness. The new methods, collectively the “mixSTM , improved topic model fit when there was complex group-related variation in topic prevalence and provided new avenues for interpretation. These methods may better represent analyst beliefs about qualities of grouped text data, although there is a risk of over-complicating the estimation given small, qualitative data sources

Patient and public involvement in pragmatic trials : online survey of corresponding authors of published trials

Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge Dr. Paxton Montgomery Moon, Alison Howie, Hayden Nix and Dr. Merrick Zwarenstein for their contributions to the data extraction. They also thank Drs. Bruno Giraudeau and Agnes Caille (University of Tours), Dr. Laura Hanson (University of North Carolina School of Medicine) and Dr. Jill Harrison (Brown University) for assistance with pilot testing of the survey questionnaire. Funding: This work was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research through the Project Grant competition (competitive, peer-reviewed), award number PJT-153045, and the National Institute of Aging ( NIA) of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number U54AG063546, which funds NIA Imbedded Pragmatic Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Dementias Clinical Trials Collaboratory ( NIA IMPACT Collaboratory). The funders had no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the article for publication.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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

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

Review of pragmatic trials found that multiple primary outcomes are common but so too are discrepancies between protocols and final reports

International audienceObjectives: To describe prevalence of multiple primary outcomes, changes in primary outcomes and target sample sizes between protocols and final reports, and how issues of multiplicity are addressed in pragmatic trials.Study design and setting: Individually randomized trials labeled as pragmatic, published 2014-2019 in MEDLINE and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.Results: We identified 262 final reports and located protocols for 159 (61%); primary outcomes were clearly reported in 145 (91%) protocols and 256 (98%) final reports. Thirty (19%) protocols and 38 (15%) final reports had multiple primary outcomes. Primary outcomes were present and identical in 128 (81%) matched protocol-final reports. Among 140 pairs with target sample sizes reported, 28 (20.0%) reduced their target sample size (mean 543 fewer participants per trial) and 16 (11.4%) increased it (mean 192 more participants per trial). Thirteen (29.5%) provided an explanation. Only 2 of 30 (7%) protocols and 4 of 38 (11%) final reports with co-primary outcomes explained how results would be interpreted in light of multiplicity; 21 of 30 (70%) protocols and 20 of 38 (53%) final reports accounted for co-primary outcomes in power calculations.Conclusion: Co-primary outcomes are common in pragmatic trials; improved transparency around design and analysis decisions involving co-primary outcomes is required

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

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 coprioritized 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