Healthcare professionals’ views on the most important outcomes for non-infectious uveitis of the posterior segment: A qualitative study

by Mohammad O. Tallouzi, David J. Moore, Nicholas Bucknall, Philip I. Murray, Melanie J. Calvert, Alastair K. Denniston, Jonathan Mathers

Background

Uveitis comprises a range of conditions that result in intraocular inflammation. Most sight-threatening uveitis falls into the broad category known as Non-infectious Posterior Segment-Involving Uveitis (PSIU). To evaluate treatments, trialists and clinicians must select outcome measures. The aim of this study was to understand healthcare professionals’ perspectives on what outcomes are important to adult patients with PSIU and their carers.

Methods

Twelve semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken to understand the perspectives of healthcare professionals. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and thematically analysed. Findings were compared with the views of patients and carers and outcomes abstracted from a previously published systematic review.

Results

Eleven core domains were identified as important to healthcare professionals: (1) visual function, (2) symptoms, (3) functional ability, (4) impact on relationships, (5) financial impact, (6) psychological morbidity and emotional well-being (7) psychosocial adjustment to uveitis, (8) doctor / patient / interprofessional relationships and access to health care, (9) treatment burden, (10) treatment side effects, (11) disease control. Healthcare professionals recognised a similar range of domains to patients and carers but placed more emphasis on certain outcomes, particularly in the disease control domain. In contrast the range of outcomes identified via the systematic review was limited.

Conclusion

Healthcare professionals recognise all of the published outcome domains as patients/carers in the previous publication but with subtly differing emphasis within some domains and with a priority for certain types of measures. Healthcare professionals discussed the disease control and side effects/complications to a greater degree than patients and carers in the focus groups

Using microbiological data to improve the use of antibiotics for respiratory tract infections: A protocol for an individual patient data meta-analysis

by Irene Boateng, Beth Stuart, Taeko Becque, Bruce Barrett, Jennifer Bostock, Robin Bruyndonckx, Lucy Carr-Knox, Emily J. Ciccone, Samuel Coenen, Mark Ebell, David Gillespie, Gail Hayward, Katarina Hedin, Kerenza Hood, Tin Man Mandy Lau, Paul Little, Dan Merenstein, Edgar Mulogo, Jose Ordóñez-Mena, Peter Muir, Kirsty Samuel, Nader Shaikh, Sharon Tonner, Alike W. van der Velden, Theo Verheij, Kay Wang, Alastair D. Hay, Nick Francis

Background

Resistance to antibiotics is rising and threatens future antibiotic effectiveness. ‘Antibiotic targeting’ ensures patients who may benefit from antibiotics receive them, while being safely withheld from those who may not. Point-of-care tests may assist with antibiotic targeting by allowing primary care clinicians to establish if symptomatic patients have a viral, bacterial, combined, or no infection. However, because organisms can be harmlessly carried, it is important to know if the presence of the virus/bacteria is related to the illness for which the patient is being assessed. One way to do this is to look for associations with more severe/prolonged symptoms and test results. Previous research to answer this question for acute respiratory tract infections has given conflicting results with studies has not having enough participants to provide statistical confidence.

Aim

To undertake a synthesis of IPD from both randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies of respiratory tract infections (RTI) in order to investigate the prognostic value of microbiological data in addition to, or instead of, clinical symptoms and signs.

Methods

A systematic search of Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid Medline and Ovid Embase will be carried out for studies of acute respiratory infection in primary care settings. The outcomes of interest are duration of disease, severity of disease, repeated consultation with new/worsening illness and complications requiring hospitalisation. Authors of eligible studies will be contacted to provide anonymised individual participant data. The data will be harmonised and aggregated. Multilevel regression analysis will be conducted to determine key outcome measures for different potential pathogens and whether these offer any additional information on prognosis beyond clinical symptoms and signs.

Trial registration

PROSPERO Registration number: CRD42023376769.

History of incarceration and age-related neurodegeneration: Testing models of genetic and environmental risks in a longitudinal panel study of older adults

by Peter T. Tanksley, Matthew W. Logan, J. C. Barnes

History of incarceration is associated with an excess of morbidity and mortality. While the incarceration experience itself comes with substantive health risks (e.g., injury, psychological stress, exposure to infectious disease), most individuals eventually return from prison to the general population where they will be diagnosed with the same age-related conditions that drive mortality in the non-incarcerated population but at exaggerated rates. However, the interplay between history of incarceration as a risk factor and more traditional risk factors for age-related diseases (e.g., genetic risk factors) has not been studied. Here, we focus on cognitive impairment, a hallmark of neurodegenerative conditions like Alzheimer’s disease, as an age-related state that may be uniquely impacted by the confluence of environmental stressors (e.g., incarceration) and genetic risk factors. Using data from the Health and Retirement Study, we found that incarceration and APOE-ε4 genotype (i.e., the chief genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease) both constituted substantive risk factors for cognitive impairment in terms of overall risk and earlier onset. The observed effects were mutually independent, however, suggesting that the risk conveyed by incarceration and APOE-ε4 genotype operate across different risk pathways. Our results have implications for the study of criminal-legal contact as a public health risk factor for age-related, neurodegenerative conditions.

Support, networks, and relationships: Findings from a mixed-methods evaluation of a mentorship programme for early career women researchers in sexual and reproductive health and rights

by Muhammad Asim, Peter Muriuki Gatheru, Joy J. Chebet, Mehr G. Shah, Anna Thorson, Vanessa Brizuela

Low research output among women researchers in health research has been linked to inadequate mentorship opportunities for early career women researchers and particularly in sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) field. Mentorship has been recognized as a contributor to strengthening research capacity and as beneficial for both mentors and mentees. Women researchers oftentimes experience negative impacts of organizational and structural gender inequities related to formal and informal mentoring. In 2020, the UNDP/UNFPA/UNICEF/WHO/World Bank Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction at WHO launched a mentorship programme for early career SRHR women researchers from low- and middle-income countries. The programme sought to provide professional skill-building, promote and share networking opportunities, and offer support in navigating personal and professional life. We conducted a convergent parallel mixed-methods evaluation of the 2020 pilot programme, which included 26 participants, through an online survey and semi-structured in-depth interviews (IDIs). Data collection occurred between March and May 2022. Nineteen responded to the online survey (12 mentees, 7 mentors) and 11 IDIs (7 mentees, 4 mentors) were completed. Based on a preliminary framework, we used deductive and inductive methods to identify six themes: views on mentorship; reasons for applying and expectations of participation in the programme; preferred aspects of programme implementation; challenges with the programme implementation; perceived lasting benefits of the programme; and recommendations for improvement. All participants found the initial training useful, most discussed work-life prioritization throughout the mentorship relationship, and most planned to continue with the relationship. There appear to be ample benefits to mentorship, especially when planned and implemented in a structured manner. These attributes can be particularly beneficial when they are conceived as a two-way relationship of mutual learning and support, and especially for women at the start of their research careers as they navigate structural gender inequities.

A survey of what legal populations believe and know about inattentional blindness and visual detection

by Hayley J. Cullen, Helen M. Paterson, Timothy S. Dutton, Celine van Golde

Inattentional blindness refers to when people fail to notice obvious and unexpected events when their attention is elsewhere. Existing research suggests that inattentional blindness is a poorly understood concept that violates the beliefs that are commonly held by the public about vision and attention. Given that legal cases may involve individuals who may have experienced inattentional blindness, it is important to understand the beliefs legal populations and members of the community have about inattentional blindness, and their general familiarity and experience with the concept. Australian police officers (n = 94) and lawyers (n = 98), along with psychology students (n = 99) and community members (n = 100) completed a survey where they: a) stated whether an individual would have noticed an event in six legal vignettes, b) rated whether factors would make an individual more, less, or just as likely to notice an unexpected event, c) reported their familiarity with and personal experiences of inattentional blindness, and d) indicated whether they believed individuals could make themselves more likely to notice unexpected events. Respondents in all populations frequently responded “yes” to detecting the unexpected event in most legal vignettes. They also held misconceptions about some factors (expertise and threat) that would influence the noticing of unexpected events. Additionally, personal experiences with inattentional blindness were commonly reported. Finally, respondents provided strategies for what individuals can do to make themselves more likely to notice of unexpected events, despite a lack of evidence to support them. Overall, these findings provide direction for where education and training could be targeted to address misconceptions about inattentional blindness held by legal populations, which may lead to improved decision-making in legal settings.

Is there ‘trustworthy’ evidence for using manual therapy to treat patients with shoulder dysfunction?: A systematic review

by Daniel W. Flowers, Brian T. Swanson, Stephen M. Shaffer, Derek J. Clewley, Sean P. Riley

The primary objective of this review was to create a ‘trustworthy,’ living systematic review and meta-analysis for the application of manual therapy interventions in treating patients with shoulder dysfunction. Included studies were English-language randomized controlled trials published between 1/1/2010 and 8/3/2023, with searches performed in: PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINHAL, ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health, EBSCO Medline, and PEDro. The population of focus included adults 18 years and older with musculoskeletal impairments related to shoulder dysfunction. Our primary outcomes included pain and region-specific outcome measures. We excluded trials, including participants having shoulder dysfunction resulting from surgery, radicular pain, instability/dislocation, fracture, lymphedema, and radiation. Our screening methodology was based upon a previously published ‘trustworthy’ systematic review protocol. This included the application of our PICOTS criteria in addition to screening for prospective clinical trial registration and following of prospective intent, as well as assessment of PEDro scores, risk-of-bias ratings, GRADE scoring, and examination of confidence in estimated effects. Twenty-six randomized controlled trials met our PICOTS criteria; however, only 15 of these were registered. Only three were registered prospectively. Two of these did not have discussions and conclusions that aligned with their primary outcome. The remaining single study was found to have a high risk-of-bias, meaning the remainder of the protocol could not be employed and that no randomized controlled trials could undergo further assessment or meta-analysis. The results of this systematic review indicate there are no ‘trustworthy’ randomized controlled trials examining the effectiveness of manual therapy interventions for the treatment of patients with shoulder dysfunction, as defined by the prospectively established methodology. Therefore, these findings signal that creating a ‘trustworthy,’ living systematic review on this clinically relevant topic is not yet possible due to a lack of ‘trustworthy’ randomized controlled trials.