Conectar
The aim of this study is to assess nurse practitioner students' perceptions and engagement with Isabel's artificial intelligence (AI) based differential diagnosis tool to support their decision-making skills during their theoretical and clinical placement training.
This pilot study used a cross-sectional design.
Twenty-six nurse practitioner students provided feedback on their use of an AI differential diagnosis tool in both academic and clinical contexts. This survey used the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire to assess the engagement levels and usability of the AI tool. Additional questions were included to evaluate the usage patterns, adequacy in training and confidence in diagnosis.
There were mixed engagement levels: 44.4% (n = 8/18) used Isabel in two subjects—typically one or both clinical placement units—and 27.8% (n = 5/18) in one subject; students most often used the tool to confirm differential diagnoses. Usability was rated positively with the disease ranking, red flag diagnosis and link to national guideline features demonstrating the highest student usage. While most students found the tool beneficial to use during clinical placement and completing university assignments, some reported challenges due to insufficient training, impacting confidence in clinical application.
Isabel has potential as a valuable educational tool in Nurse Practitioner programs, but successful implementation depends on adequate training and support. The findings highlight the importance of comprehensive training and support to maximise AI tool utilisation, with direct implications for programme curricula, clinical education strategies and potential improvements in diagnostic reasoning skills for future nurse practitioners.
This study provides an example of integrating artificial intelligence (AI) guided clinical decision-making training in nurse practitioner (NP) education. The findings can be used by educational institutions to trial similar AI-integrated learning approaches, enhancing diagnostic competence and potentially improving patient care outcomes.
The Study adhered to the STROBE checklist for reporting.
No patient or public contribution was made to this study.
Increased risks and concerns regarding patient safety in early-phase studies exist because knowledge about the new intervention is still accumulating. This means that narrow eligibility criteria are needed. However, if early-phase studies are narrow in their inclusion, for example, by not including diverse populations, there is a potential risk that new therapies have insufficient relevant efficacy and safety data. Existing research has explored equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) factors in early-phase pharmaceutical studies, but it has not been possible to find studies that have systematically examined whether EDI factors have been considered in surgical studies reporting innovative procedures. We aim to examine how EDI factors are considered in early-phase surgical studies and surgical innovation reports to explore how this may impact on later-phase evaluation and inclusive intervention implementation.
A scoping review following the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) and Arksey and O’Malley’s five-step process is being conducted. We will search Scopus, PubMed and Web of Science for surgical early-phase studies. A two-step screening process for eligibility is being used. Independent double screening will take place for 20% of the papers. Eligible articles will report early evaluation of an innovative surgical/invasive procedure. Excluded will be comparative and later-phase studies and early evaluations of pharmaceutical products even in a surgical setting. Data on article details, patient eligibility and whether protected characteristics are reported and considered will be extracted. Information about EDI considerations reported in the introduction or discussion of the papers will also be extracted. Findings will be discussed with a patient advisory group. A content synthesis approach will be undertaken and descriptive summaries presented.
This study does not require ethical approval being a secondary analysis. The findings will be disseminated through academic journal publications and oral presentations.
International migrants comprise 3.6% of the global population and face systemic barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services, such as contraception, safe abortion care and sexual function support. In high-income countries, policy frameworks vary widely, with migration status significantly influencing entitlement and access to host countries. This protocol outlines a planned study to systematically analyse SRH policies in high-income countries with strong migrant integration frameworks, aiming to identify policy gaps, assess inclusivity and inform recommendations to strengthen Australia’s SRH policy landscape.
This study employs a systematic policy analysis using the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology. Countries with ≥10% migrant populations and a Migrant Integration Policy Index health score ≥70 will be included. 13 countries meet these criteria, including Australia, Canada and Sweden. A comprehensive search of academic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and ProQuest Public Health) and grey literature from governmental and non-governmental sources will be conducted. Data extraction will follow Bacchi’s ‘What’s the Problem Represented to Be?’ approach. Thematic analysis will combine deductive and inductive methods to examine the extent to which SRH policies address migrant and refugee needs, including sexual function, safe abortion care and fertility care. A comparative policy matrix will identify strengths, limitations and best practices.
As this study analyses publicly available policy documents, ethics approval is not required. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and policy briefs targeting stakeholders involved in SRH policy and migrant health.
This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AYZ6P
Canadian guidelines recommend HIV testing for individuals being evaluated for syphilis. Our objective was to examine three aspects of HIV testing (ie, if an HIV test occurred, the timing of the HIV test in relation to the syphilis test and the proportion with a positive HIV test result) among syphilis tests between 2017 and 2022 from individuals with no evidence of a previous HIV diagnosis.
This study is a retrospective analysis of comprehensive laboratory testing data from Ontario’s provincial public health laboratory.
Direct fluorescent antibody (DFA) and serological non-prenatal syphilis tests were conducted from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2022, from individuals aged ≥15 years with no evidence of a previous HIV diagnosis (n=3 001 058 total tests). Positive syphilis tests were categorised using the rapid plasma reagin (RPR) titre as ‘current’ (DFA+/RPR≥1:8) or ‘historical’ (RPR
The number and proportion of syphilis tests with a corresponding HIV test on the same day or within 7, 28, 90 or 180 days, and, among those with an HIV test within 28 days, the number and proportion with an HIV-positive test result.
From 2017 to 2022, 1 516 726 and 1 484 332 syphilis tests among males and females, respectively, were included in the analysis. Individuals with a positive syphilis result were less likely to be tested for HIV within 28 days of their syphilis test compared with those with a negative syphilis test result (74.7% vs 91.1% in males, 97.5% CI (–0.17 to –0.16); 65.2% vs 92.4% in females, 97.5% CI (–0.28 to –0.26)). Males with ‘current’ positive syphilis test results were less likely than males with ‘historical’ positive syphilis results to be tested for HIV within 28 days (69.1% vs 76.6%, 97.5% CI (–0.084 to –0.066)); this was not true in females (67.1% vs 64.4%, 97.5% CI (0.0062 to 0.049)). Males overall and males with ‘current’ syphilis were more likely to be diagnosed as HIV-positive (p
Most individuals who tested for syphilis at Public Health Ontario were also tested for HIV; however, those who tested positive for syphilis were less likely to be tested, representing an opportunity for enhanced HIV testing. Ensuring that individuals with syphilis are tested for HIV may help identify previously undiagnosed individuals living with HIV.
Pharmacogenomic testing could potentially reduce the number of adverse drug reactions and improve treatment outcomes through tailoring treatment to an individual’s genetic makeup. Despite its benefits and the ambitions to integrate into routine care, the implementation of pharmacogenomic testing in primary care settings remains limited. This study aims to qualitatively explore the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and patients on implementing pharmacogenomic testing in the UK National Health Service (NHS) primary care setting and to estimate the cost-effectiveness of service-delivery implementation by comparing different HCPs’ models of care.
This study consists of three workstreams (WS). WS1 is semi-structured interviews with General Practitioners, pharmacists, nurses and patients (24 participants) to explore implementation issues, including the perceived barriers and facilitators to delivering a pharmacogenomic service. WS2 consists of focus groups (between 24–36 participants) with genomic experts to develop practical pharmacogenomic-guided clinical pathways for primary care. WS3 will estimate the cost-effectiveness of implementing pharmacogenomic testing when led by different HCPs incorporating parameters from the literature, expert opinions, as well as data from WS1 and WS2.
Thematic analysis will be used to analyse the qualitative data from WS1 and WS2, mapping findings onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains, which will also be used as the theoretical framework. WS3 will be a decision-analytic model developed in Microsoft Excel to compare the cost-effectiveness of pharmacist-led, GP-led, nurse-led or multidisciplinary pathways.
This study has been approved by the NHS Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales (24/PR/1088). Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and engagement with NHS policymakers and Genomics England.
FreshRSS 