Cost-effectiveness of alternative methods of surgical repair of inguinal hernia

Objectives: To assess the relative cost-effectiveness of laparoscopic methods of inguinal hernia repair compared with open flat mesh and open non-mesh repair. Methods: Data on the effectiveness of these alternatives came from three systematic reviews comparing: (i) laparoscopic methods with open flat mesh or non-mesh methods; (ii) open flat mesh with open non-mesh repair; and (iii) methods that used synthetic mesh to repair the hernia defect with those that did not. Data on costs were obtained from the authors of economic evaluations previously conducted alongside trials included in the reviews. A Markov model was used to model cost-effectiveness for a five-year period after the initial operation. The outcomes of the model were presented using a balance sheet approach and as cost per hernia recurrence avoided and cost per extra day at usual activities. Results: Open flat mesh was the most cost-effective method of preventing recurrences. Laparoscopic repair provided a shorter period of convalescence and less long-term pain compared with open flat mesh but was more costly. The mean incremental cost per additional day back at usual activities compared with open flat mesh was €38 and €80 for totally extraperitoneal and transabdominal preperitoneal repair, respectively. Conclusions: Laparoscopic repair is not cost-effective compared with open flat mesh repair in terms of cost per recurrence avoided. Decisions about the use of laparoscopic repair depend on whether the benefits (reduced pain and earlier return to usual activities) outweigh the extra costs and intraoperative risks. On the evidence presented here, these extra costs are unlikely to be offset by the short-term benefits of laparoscopic repair.Luke Vale, Adrian Grant, Kirsty McCormack, Neil W. Scott and the EU Hernia Trialists Collaboratio

Sex-Based Differences in Outcomes After Hip Arthroscopic Surgery for Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

A grant from the One-University Open Access Fund at the University of Kansas was used to defray the author's publication fees in this Open Access journal. The Open Access Fund, administered by librarians from the KU, KU Law, and KUMC libraries, is made possible by contributions from the offices of KU Provost, KU Vice Chancellor for Research & Graduate Studies, and KUMC Vice Chancellor for Research. For more information about the Open Access Fund, please see http://library.kumc.edu/authors-fund.xml.Background: While sex-based differences in outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery for femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) are often recorded, no studies have been dedicated to analyzing the literature as a whole. Purpose: To investigate whether sex is a predictor of outcomes in studies evaluating hip arthroscopic surgery for FAIS. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Ovid, and PubMed Central databases for English-language studies that evaluated sex-specific outcomes in human populations. The search terms used were as follows: (“Hip Arthroscopy”) AND (“Femoroacetabular Impingement” OR “FAI”) AND (“Sex” OR “Gender” OR “Male” OR “Female”). Studies with evidence levels 2 through 4 were included. The studies were then screened, followed by data extraction. Modified Harris Hip Score (mHHS) outcomes and return-to-sport (RTS) rates were recorded. These were analyzed using random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity was calculated using the I2 statistic. Results: Of 256 full-text articles screened, 48 articles were included in this analysis; of these, 14 studies (29%) concluded that female sex was a negative predictor of postoperative outcomes, while 6 studies (13%) found female sex to be positive predictor. The remaining 28 studies (58%) found no sex-based differences in postoperative outcomes. Of 7 studies (416 male and 519 female) included in the mHHS analysis, 2 studies concluded that male patients had significantly higher postoperative mHHS scores. Of 6 studies (502 male and 396 female) included in the RTS analysis, 1 study concluded that male patients had a significantly higher RTS rate. Conclusion: Almost one-third of the included studies determined that female sex was a negative predictor of postoperative outcomes, 13% found female sex to be a positive predictor, and 58% found no sex-based differences. Our study illustrates an insufficiency of high-level evidence supporting sex-specific differences in outcomes after hip arthroscopic surgery, but findings indicated that the postoperative mHHS score and RTS rate may be influenced by sex

Developing the practice context to enable more effective pain management with older people: an action research approach

Background\ud \ud This paper, which draws upon an Emancipatory Action Research (EAR) approach, unearths how the complexities of context influence the realities of nursing practice. While the intention of the project was to identify and change factors in the practice context that inhibit effective person-centred pain management practices with older people (65 years or older), reflective critical engagement with the findings identified that enhancing pain management practices with older people was dependent on cultural change in the unit as a whole. \ud \ud Methods\ud \ud An EAR approach was utilised. The project was undertaken in a surgical unit that conducted complex abdominal surgery. Eighty-five percent (n = 48) of nursing staff participated in the two-year project (05/NIR02/107). Data were obtained through the use of facilitated critical reflection with nursing staff. \ud \ud Results\ud \ud Three key themes (psychological safety, leadership, oppression) and four subthemes (power, horizontal violence, distorted perceptions, autonomy) were found to influence the way in which effective nursing practice was realised. Within the theme of 'context,' effective leadership and the creation of a psychologically safe environment were key elements in the enhancement of all aspects of nursing practice. \ud \ud Conclusions\ud \ud Whilst other research has identified the importance of 'practice context' and models and frameworks are emerging to address this issue, the theme of 'psychological safety' has been given little attention in the knowledge translation/implementation literature. Within the principles of EAR, facilitated reflective sessions were found to create 'psychologically safe spaces' that supported practitioners to develop effective person-centred nursing practices in complex clinical environments

Implementing health research through academic and clinical partnerships : a realistic evaluation of the Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC)

Background: The English National Health Service has made a major investment in nine partnerships between higher education institutions and local health services called Collaborations for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC). They have been funded to increase capacity and capability to produce and implement research through sustained interactions between academics and health services. CLAHRCs provide a natural ‘test bed’ for exploring questions about research implementation within a partnership model of delivery. This protocol describes an externally funded evaluation that focuses on implementation mechanisms and processes within three CLAHRCs. It seeks to uncover what works, for whom, how, and in what circumstances. Design and methods: This study is a longitudinal three-phase, multi-method realistic evaluation, which deliberately aims to explore the boundaries around knowledge use in context. The evaluation funder wishes to see it conducted for the process of learning, not for judging performance. The study is underpinned by a conceptual framework that combines the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services and Knowledge to Action frameworks to reflect the complexities of implementation. Three participating CLARHCS will provide indepth comparative case studies of research implementation using multiple data collection methods including interviews, observation, documents, and publicly available data to test and refine hypotheses over four rounds of data collection. We will test the wider applicability of emerging findings with a wider community using an interpretative forum. Discussion: The idea that collaboration between academics and services might lead to more applicable health research that is actually used in practice is theoretically and intuitively appealing; however the evidence for it is limited. Our evaluation is designed to capture the processes and impacts of collaborative approaches for implementing research, and therefore should contribute to the evidence base about an increasingly popular (e.g., Mode two, integrated knowledge transfer, interactive research), but poorly understood approach to knowledge translation. Additionally we hope to develop approaches for evaluating implementation processes and impacts particularly with respect to integrated stakeholder involvement

Comparing nuclear power trajectories in Germany and the UK: from ‘regimes' to ‘democracies’ in sociotechnical transitions and Discontinuities

This paper focuses on arguably the single most striking contrast in contemporary major energy politics in Europe (and even the developed world as a whole): the starkly differing civil nuclear policies of Germany and the UK. Germany is seeking entirely to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Yet the UK advocates a ‘nuclear renaissance’, promoting the most ambitious new nuclear construction programme in Western Europe.Here,this paper poses a simple yet quite fundamental question: what are the particular divergent conditions most strongly implicated in the contrasting developments in these two countries. With nuclear playing such an iconic role in historical discussions over technological continuity and transformation, answering this may assist in wider understandings of sociotechnical incumbency and discontinuity in the burgeoning field of‘sustainability transitions’. To this end, an ‘abductive’ approach is taken: deploying nine potentially relevant criteria for understanding the different directions pursued in Germany and the UK. Together constituted by 30 parameters spanning literatures related to socio-technical regimes in general as well as nuclear technology in particular, the criteria are divided into those that are ‘internal’ and ‘external’ to the ‘focal regime configuration’ of nuclear power and associated ‘challenger technologies’ like renewables. It is ‘internal’ criteria that are emphasised in conventional sociotechnical regime theory, with ‘external’ criteria relatively less well explored. Asking under each criterion whether attempted discontinuation of nuclear power would be more likely in Germany or the UK, a clear picture emerges. ‘Internal’ criteria suggest attempted nuclear discontinuation should be more likely in the UK than in Germany– the reverse of what is occurring. ‘External’ criteria are more aligned with observed dynamics –especially those relating to military nuclear commitments and broader ‘qualities of democracy’. Despite many differences of framing concerning exactly what constitutes ‘democracy’, a rich political science literature on this point is unanimous in characterising Germany more positively than the UK. Although based only on a single case,a potentially important question is nonetheless raised as to whether sociotechnical regime theory might usefully give greater attention to the general importance of various aspects of democracy in constituting conditions for significant technological discontinuities and transformations. If so, the policy implications are significant. A number of important areas are identified for future research, including the roles of diverse understandings and specific aspects of democracy and the particular relevance of military nuclear commitments– whose under-discussion in civil nuclear policy literatures raises its own questions of democratic accountability

Evaluation of the current knowledge limitations in breast cancer research: a gap analysis

BACKGROUND A gap analysis was conducted to determine which areas of breast cancer research, if targeted by researchers and funding bodies, could produce the greatest impact on patients. METHODS Fifty-six Breast Cancer Campaign grant holders and prominent UK breast cancer researchers participated in a gap analysis of current breast cancer research. Before, during and following the meeting, groups in seven key research areas participated in cycles of presentation, literature review and discussion. Summary papers were prepared by each group and collated into this position paper highlighting the research gaps, with recommendations for action. RESULTS Gaps were identified in all seven themes. General barriers to progress were lack of financial and practical resources, and poor collaboration between disciplines. Critical gaps in each theme included: (1) genetics (knowledge of genetic changes, their effects and interactions); (2) initiation of breast cancer (how developmental signalling pathways cause ductal elongation and branching at the cellular level and influence stem cell dynamics, and how their disruption initiates tumour formation); (3) progression of breast cancer (deciphering the intracellular and extracellular regulators of early progression, tumour growth, angiogenesis and metastasis); (4) therapies and targets (understanding who develops advanced disease); (5) disease markers (incorporating intelligent trial design into all studies to ensure new treatments are tested in patient groups stratified using biomarkers); (6) prevention (strategies to prevent oestrogen-receptor negative tumours and the long-term effects of chemoprevention for oestrogen-receptor positive tumours); (7) psychosocial aspects of cancer (the use of appropriate psychosocial interventions, and the personal impact of all stages of the disease among patients from a range of ethnic and demographic backgrounds). CONCLUSION Through recommendations to address these gaps with future research, the long-term benefits to patients will include: better estimation of risk in families with breast cancer and strategies to reduce risk; better prediction of drug response and patient prognosis; improved tailoring of treatments to patient subgroups and development of new therapeutic approaches; earlier initiation of treatment; more effective use of resources for screening populations; and an enhanced experience for people with or at risk of breast cancer and their families. The challenge to funding bodies and researchers in all disciplines is to focus on these gaps and to drive advances in knowledge into improvements in patient care

Assessment of variation in the alberta context tool: the contribution of unit level contextual factors and specialty in Canadian pediatric acute care settings

Background: There are few validated measures of organizational context and none that we located are parsimonious and address modifiable characteristics of context. The Alberta Context Tool (ACT) was developed to meet this need. The instrument assesses 8 dimensions of context, which comprise 10 concepts. The purpose of this paper is to report evidence to further the validity argument for ACT. The specific objectives of this paper are to: (1) examine the extent to which the 10 ACT concepts discriminate between patient care units and (2) identify variables that significantly contribute to between-unit variation for each of the 10 concepts. Methods: 859 professional nurses (844 valid responses) working in medical, surgical and critical care units of 8 Canadian pediatric hospitals completed the ACT. A random intercept, fixed effects hierarchical linear modeling (HLM) strategy was used to quantify and explain variance in the 10 ACT concepts to establish the ACT’s ability to discriminate between units. We ran 40 models (a series of 4 models for each of the 10 concepts) in which we systematically assessed the unique contribution (i.e., error variance reduction) of different variables to between-unit variation. First, we constructed a null model in which we quantified the variance overall, in each of the concepts. Then we controlled for the contribution of individual level variables (Model 1). In Model 2, we assessed the contribution of practice specialty (medical, surgical, critical care) to variation since it was central to construction of the sampling frame for the study. Finally, we assessed the contribution of additional unit level variables (Model 3). Results: The null model (unadjusted baseline HLM model) established that there was significant variation between units in each of the 10 ACT concepts (i.e., discrimination between units). When we controlled for individual characteristics, significant variation in the 10 concepts remained. Assessment of the contribution of specialty to between-unit variation enabled us to explain more variance (1.19% to 16.73%) in 6 of the 10 ACT concepts. Finally, when we assessed the unique contribution of the unit level variables available to us, we were able to explain additional variance (15.91% to 73.25%) in 7 of the 10 ACT concepts. Conclusion: The findings reported here represent the third published argument for validity of the ACT and adds to the evidence supporting its use to discriminate patient care units by all 10 contextual factors. We found evidence of relationships between a variety of individual and unit-level variables that explained much of this between-unit variation for each of the 10 ACT concepts. Future research will include examination of the relationships between the ACT’s contextual factors and research utilization by nurses and ultimately the relationships between context, research utilization, and outcomes for patients

Terrain, politics, history

This article is based on the 2019 Dialogues in Human Geography plenary lecture at the Royal Geographical Society. It has four parts. The first discusses my work on territory in relation to recent work by geographers and others on the vertical, the volumetric, the voluminous, and the milieu as ways of thinking space in three-dimensions, of a fluid and dynamic earth. Second, it proposes using the concept of terrain to analyse the political materiality of territory. Third, it adds some cautions to this, through thinking about the history of the concept of terrain in geographical thought, which has tended to associate it with either physical or military geography. Finally, it suggests that this work is a way geographers might begin to respond to the challenge recently made by Bruno Latour, where he suggests that ‘belonging to a territory is the phenomenon most in need of rethinking and careful redescription; learning new ways to inhabit the Earth is our biggest challenge’. Responding to Latour continues this thinking about the relations between territory, Earth, land, and ground, and their limits

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease

Why pharmacokinetic differences among oral triptans have little clinical importance: a comment

Triptans, selective 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonists, are specific drugs for the acute treatment of migraine that have the same mechanism of action. Here, it is discussed why the differences among kinetic parameters of oral triptans have proved not to be very important in clinical practice. There are three main reasons: (1) the differences among the kinetic parameters of oral triptans are smaller than what appears from their average values; (2) there is a large inter-subject, gender-dependent, and intra-subject (outside/during the attack) variability of kinetic parameters related to the rate and extent of absorption, i.e., those which are considered as critical for the response; (3) no dose-concentration–response curves have been defined and it is, therefore, impossible both to compare the kinetics of triptans, and to verify the objective importance of kinetic differences; (4) the importance of kinetic differences is outweighed by non-kinetic factors of variability of response to triptans. If no oral formulations are found that can allow more predictable pharmacokinetics, the same problems will probably also arise with new classes of drugs for the acute treatment of migraine