FreshRSS

🔒
☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Potential impacts of adult growth hormone deficiency: a population-based study in England

Por: Criseno · S. · Gayton · E. · Araghi · M. · Machtiger-Azoulay · N. · Toogood · A. — Febrero 6th 2026 at 14:29
Objectives

To investigate the potential long-term impacts of adult growth hormone deficiency (GHD).

Design

Observational, retrospective matched cohort.

Setting

UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) Aurum database of primary care records with linkage to deprivation, secondary care and mortality data.

Participants

Adults registered with CPRD between 31/03/2002 and 29/03/2021. Individuals with GHD were exact matched up to 1:4 with unaffected controls on sex, age group (by decade) and general practice with propensity score matching on age, ethnicity and deprivation.

Outcomes

Mortality, cardiovascular disease (CVD), osteoporosis, fractures, depression, time off work and unemployment were investigated using Cox proportional hazards modelling.

Results

1573 adults with GHD were matched to 6234 unaffected controls. Median follow-up was 5.2 years for cases (IQR 2.2, 10.6) and 5.1 years for controls (IQR 2.2, 10.3). Adult GHD was associated with an increased risk of premature mortality (adjusted HR (aHR) 1.61; 95% CI 1.27, 2.03), CVD (aHR 2.38; 95% CI 1.84 to 3.07) and osteoporosis (aHR 4.03; 95% CI 2.88 to 5.65), but there was no evidence for an increased risk of fractures. A higher rate of depression (aHR 1.72; 95% CI 1.23 to 2.40) and unemployment (aHR 2.06; 95% CI 1.56 to 2.71) was also seen in adults with GHD, although there was no evidence for increased time off work.

Conclusions

GHD in adults is associated with increased risk of premature mortality, CVD, osteoporosis, depression and socioeconomic challenges such as unemployment. Timely diagnosis, appropriate treatment and comprehensive support are critical to mitigating these adverse outcomes.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Leveraging COVID-19 to modernise depression care for VA primary care populations: protocol for a sequential explanatory mixed method evaluation

Por: Leung · L. B. · Brayton · C. E. · Shepardson · R. L. · Gray · C. P. · Lee · M. L. · Funderburk · J. S. · Fortney · J. C. — Diciembre 16th 2025 at 05:04
Background

The Veterans Health Administration (VA) integrated mental and physical health services to better detect and treat depression. Primary care nurses conduct screening annually. Clinicians, including Primary Care Mental Health Integration (PCMHI) specialists, follow-up as needed for treatment. Depression detection and management processes are complex, involve multilevel stakeholders, and are subject to significant disruption from COVID-19 and from the resulting expansion of telehealth, aiming to preserve care access. This study aimed to examine whether the COVID-19 pandemic worsened depression-related care quality and/or patient outcomes (eg, suicide).

Methods

Given hypothesised care disruption (lowered care quality) during COVID-19, we will first assess the VA population’s trajectory from a new positive depression (and suicide risk) screen to appropriate treatment (ie, medication, therapy) in the Fiscal Year 2019–2323. We will also examine the changing mix of virtual and in-person depression care delivered. Second, we will use interrupted time series analyses to explore the extent to which psychiatric emergency visits and hospitalisations may be mitigated by clinician detection of depression. As well as compare mental health-related mortality rates between patients detected and not detected to have depression. Subanalyses will reveal where (eg, clinics with low PCMHI access) and for whom (eg, minorities) detection does not systematically occur, and downstream negative sequelae, to guide future intervention. Finally, we will interview 40 veterans, half of whom were detected and half not detected to have depression and 40 VA primary care and PCMHI providers about changes brought on by the pandemic and the expansion of virtual care across three VA facilities. In addition to contextualising disrupted care findings, qualitative data will help identify best practices on patient-to-provider and provider-to-provider interactions in hybrid in-person/telehealth depression care models.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval was granted by the VA Greater Los Angeles Healthcare System Institutional Review Board. Alongside journal publications, dissemination activities include briefings to our policy and operational partners, and presentations to clinical, research and policy-oriented audiences.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Assessing the efficacy, safety and utility of hybrid closed-loop glucose control compared with standard insulin therapy combined with continuous glucose monitoring in young people (>=16 years) and adults with cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CL4P-CF s

Por: Kadiyala · N. · Coleman · R. · Lakshman · R. · Wilinska · M. E. · Brennan · A. · Lumb · A. · Holt · R. I. G. · Lau · D. · Yajnik · P. · Cheah · Y. S. · Safavi · S. · Felton · I. · MacGregor · G. · Clayton · A. · Lawton · J. · Rankin · D. · Churchill · S. · Adler · A. · Hovorka · R. · Boughto — Octubre 30th 2025 at 04:18
Introduction

Cystic fibrosis-related diabetes (CFRD) is one of the most clinically impactful comorbidities associated with cystic fibrosis (CF). Current recommended management with insulin therapy is challenging due to variable daily insulin requirements and adds to the significant burden of self-management. This study aims to determine if hybrid closed-loop insulin delivery can improve glucose outcomes compared with standard insulin therapy with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in young people (≥16 years) and adults with CFRD.

Methods and analysis

This open-label, multicentre, randomised, two-arm, single-period parallel design study aims to randomise 114 young people (≥16 years) and adults with CFRD. Following a 2–3 weeks’ run-in period, during which time participants use a masked CGM, participants with time in target glucose range (3.9–10.0 mmol/L) 10.0 mmol/L), mean glucose and HbA1c. Other secondary efficacy outcomes include glucose and insulin metrics, change in forced expiratory volume in 1 s and body mass index. Safety, utility, participant experiences and participant-reported outcome measures will also be evaluated. The trial is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethics approval has been obtained from East of England–Cambridge South Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated by peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations, and findings will be shared with people living with CF, healthcare providers and relevant stakeholders.

Trial registration number

NCT05562492.

☐ ☆ ✇ Journal of Advanced Nursing

Unit Leadership and Climates for Evidence‐Based Practice Implementation in Maternal–Infant Health Units: A Cross‐Sectional Descriptive Study

Por: Jessica Hsu · Mikayla Morgan · Philip Veliz · Clayton Shuman — Octubre 18th 2025 at 19:05

ABSTRACT

Aims

To describe unit leadership and climates for evidence-based practice implementation and test for differences in unit leader and staff nurses' perceptions within maternal–infant units.

Design

A cross-sectional descriptive study.

Methods

A convenience sample of maternal–infant unit leaders and nurses (labour, postpartum, neonatal intensive care, paediatrics) from four Midwestern United States hospitals completed a survey including the Implementation Leadership Scale (ILS) and Implementation Climate Scale (ICS). Descriptive statistics described items, subscales and total scores. Independent t-tests with Bonferroni correction tested for differences in perceptions.

Results

A total of 470 nurses and 21 unit leaders responded, representing 17 units. Ratings of unit leadership and climates for implementation were modest at best [ICS: M = 2.17 (nurses), 2.41 (leaders); ILS: M = 2.4 (nurses), 2.98 (leaders)]. Unit leader ratings were statistically significant and higher than nurse ratings.

Conclusion

This study is one of the first to describe unit leadership and climates for implementation in maternal–infant health. To improve outcomes and equity in maternal–infant health, attention on leadership behaviours and unit climates for evidence-based practice implementation is needed.

Implications for the Profession

Nurse leaders are encouraged to evaluate their leadership behaviours and the unit climates they facilitate, and work to improve areas of concern or where staff perceptions differ. Staff nurses should work with their leaders to identify resources and rewards/recognition which support and facilitate EBP implementation.

Impact

This study addressed a gap in research examining the social dynamic factors of unit leadership and climate for evidence-based practice implementation in maternal–infant units. Leadership behaviours for implementation and unit climate were rated moderately by both staff and leaders. Unit leaders rated their implementation leadership and climates higher in almost all items. This study is relevant to unit leaders and nurses in maternal–infant units in the United States.

Reporting Method

This study adhered to STROBE guidelines.

Patient or Public Contribution

No patient or public contribution.

☐ ☆ ✇ BMJ Open

Australian research priorities for inherited retinal diseases: a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership

Por: Robertson · E. G. · Hetherington · K. · Prain · M. · Ma · A. · Ayton · L. N. · Jamieson · R. V. · Shepard · E. · Boyd · L. · Hall · J. · Boyd · R. · Karandrews · S. · Feller · H. · Simunovic · M. P. · Grigg · J. R. · Yamamoto · K. · Wakefield · C. E. · Gonzalez-Cordero · A. — Septiembre 30th 2025 at 09:49
Objectives

Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a broad range of diseases associated with abnormalities/degeneration of retinal cells. We aimed to identify the top 10 Australian research priorities for IRDs to ultimately facilitate more meaningful and potentially cost-effective research.

Design

We conducted a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership that involved two Australian-wide surveys and online workshops.

Setting

Australia-wide.

Participants

Individuals aged 16 years or older were eligible to participate if they had an IRD, were caregivers of an individual with an IRD or were health professionals providing care to this community.

Outcome measure

In Survey 1, we gathered participants’ unanswered questions about IRDs. We grouped these into summary questions and undertook a literature review to verify if they were truly unanswered (ie, evidence uncertainties). In Survey 2, participants voted for the uncertainties that they considered a priority. Top-ranked uncertainties progressed for discussion and final prioritisation in two workshops.

Results

In Survey 1, we collected 223 questions from 69 participants. We grouped these into 42 summary questions and confirmed 41 as evidence uncertainties. In Survey 2, 151 participants voted, with the 16 uncertainties progressing to final prioritisation. The top 10 priorities, set by the 24 workshop participants, represented (1) treatment/cure; (2) symptoms and disease progression; (3) psychosocial well-being and (4) health service delivery. The #1 priority was for treatment to prevent, slow down or stop vision loss, followed by the #2 priority to address the psychological impact of having an IRD.

Conclusion

The top 10 research priorities highlight the need for IRD research that takes a whole-person, systems approach. Collaborations to progress priorities will accelerate the translation of research into real-world benefits.

❌