FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
Ayer — Mayo 14th 2024Tus fuentes RSS

Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews

Por: Bennett-Weston · A. · Keshtkar · L. · Jones · M. · Sanders · C. · Lewis · C. · Nockels · K. · Solomon · J. · Howick · J.
Objective

To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance medical student well-being.

Design

Overview of systematic reviews.

Data sources

The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL and Scopus were searched from database inception until 31 May 2023 to identify systematic reviews of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. Ancestry searching and citation chasing were also conducted.

Data extraction and synthesis

The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews V.2 tool was used to appraise the quality of the included reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and the evidence of effectiveness for each intervention was rated.

Results

13 reviews (with 94 independent studies and 17 616 students) were included. The reviews covered individual-level and curriculum-level interventions. Individual interventions included mindfulness (n=12), hypnosis (n=6), mental health programmes (n=7), yoga (n=4), cognitive and behavioural interventions (n=1), mind-sound technology (n=1), music-based interventions (n=1), omega-3 supplementation (n=1), electroacupuncture (n=1) and osteopathic manipulative treatment (n=1). The curriculum-level interventions included pass/fail grading (n=4), problem-based curriculum (n=2) and multicomponent curriculum reform (n=2). Most interventions were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish effectiveness. Eleven reviews were rated as having ‘critically low’ quality, and two reviews were rated as having ‘low’ quality.

Conclusions

Individual-level interventions (mindfulness and mental health programmes) and curriculum-level interventions (pass/fail grading) can improve medical student well-being. These conclusions should be tempered by the low quality of the evidence. Further high-quality research is required to explore additional effective interventions to enhance medical student well-being and the most efficient ways to implement and combine these for maximum benefit.

AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Talking in primary care (TIP): protocol for a cluster-randomised controlled trial in UK primary care to assess clinical and cost-effectiveness of communication skills e-learning for practitioners on patients musculoskeletal pain and enablement

Por: Bishop · F. L. · Cross · N. · Dewar-Haggart · R. · Teasdale · E. · Herbert · A. · Robinson · M. E. · Ridd · M. J. · Mallen · C. · Clarson · L. · Bostock · J. · Becque · T. · Stuart · B. · Garfield · K. · Morrison · L. · Pollet · S. · Vennik · J. · Atherton · H. · Howick · J. · Leydon · G. M
Introduction

Effective communication can help optimise healthcare interactions and patient outcomes. However, few interventions have been tested clinically, subjected to cost-effectiveness analysis or are sufficiently brief and well-described for implementation in primary care. This paper presents the protocol for determining the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rigorously developed brief eLearning tool, EMPathicO, among patients with and without musculoskeletal pain.

Methods and analysis

A cluster randomised controlled trial in general practitioner (GP) surgeries in England and Wales serving patients from diverse geographic, socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. GP surgeries are randomised (1:1) to receive EMPathicO e-learning immediately, or at trial end. Eligible practitioners (eg, GPs, physiotherapists and nurse practitioners) are involved in managing primary care patients with musculoskeletal pain. Patient recruitment is managed by practice staff and researchers. Target recruitment is 840 adults with and 840 without musculoskeletal pain consulting face-to-face, by telephone or video. Patients complete web-based questionnaires at preconsultation baseline, 1 week and 1, 3 and 6 months later. There are two patient-reported primary outcomes: pain intensity and patient enablement. Cost-effectiveness is considered from the National Health Service and societal perspectives. Secondary and process measures include practitioner patterns of use of EMPathicO, practitioner-reported self-efficacy and intentions, patient-reported symptom severity, quality of life, satisfaction, perceptions of practitioner empathy and optimism, treatment expectancies, anxiety, depression and continuity of care. Purposive subsamples of patients, practitioners and practice staff take part in up to two qualitative, semistructured interviews.

Ethics approval and dissemination

Approved by the South Central Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee on 1 July 2022 and the Health Research Authority and Health and Care Research Wales on 6 July 2022 (REC reference 22/SC/0145; IRAS project ID 312208). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed academic publications, conference presentations and patient and practitioner outlets. If successful, EMPathicO could quickly be made available at a low cost to primary care practices across the country.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN18010240.

❌