FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Defining acceptable data collection and reuse standards for queer artificial intelligence research in mental health: protocol for the online PARQAIR-MH Delphi study

Por: Joyce · D. W. · Kormilitzin · A. · Hamer-Hunt · J. · McKee · K. R. · Tomasev · N.
Introduction

For artificial intelligence (AI) to help improve mental healthcare, the design of data-driven technologies needs to be fair, safe, and inclusive. Participatory design can play a critical role in empowering marginalised communities to take an active role in constructing research agendas and outputs. Given the unmet needs of the LGBTQI+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex) community in mental healthcare, there is a pressing need for participatory research to include a range of diverse queer perspectives on issues of data collection and use (in routine clinical care as well as for research) as well as AI design. Here we propose a protocol for a Delphi consensus process for the development of PARticipatory Queer AI Research for Mental Health (PARQAIR-MH) practices, aimed at informing digital health practices and policy.

Methods and analysis

The development of PARQAIR-MH is comprised of four stages. In stage 1, a review of recent literature and fact-finding consultation with stakeholder organisations will be conducted to define a terms-of-reference for stage 2, the Delphi process. Our Delphi process consists of three rounds, where the first two rounds will iterate and identify items to be included in the final Delphi survey for consensus ratings. Stage 3 consists of consensus meetings to review and aggregate the Delphi survey responses, leading to stage 4 where we will produce a reusable toolkit to facilitate participatory development of future bespoke LGBTQI+–adapted data collection, harmonisation, and use for data-driven AI applications specifically in mental healthcare settings.

Ethics and dissemination

PARQAIR-MH aims to deliver a toolkit that will help to ensure that the specific needs of LGBTQI+ communities are accounted for in mental health applications of data-driven technologies. The study is expected to run from June 2024 through January 2025, with the final outputs delivered in mid-2025. Participants in the Delphi process will be recruited by snowball and opportunistic sampling via professional networks and social media (but not by direct approach to healthcare service users, patients, specific clinical services, or via clinicians’ caseloads). Participants will not be required to share personal narratives and experiences of healthcare or treatment for any condition. Before agreeing to participate, people will be given information about the issues considered to be in-scope for the Delphi (eg, developing best practices and methods for collecting and harmonising sensitive characteristics data; developing guidelines for data use/reuse) alongside specific risks of unintended harm from participating that can be reasonably anticipated. Outputs will be made available in open-access peer-reviewed publications, blogs, social media, and on a dedicated project website for future reuse.

Physician and nurse well-being, patient safety and recommendations for interventions: cross-sectional survey in hospitals in six European countries

Por: Aiken · L. H. · Sermeus · W. · McKee · M. · Lasater · K. B. · Sloane · D. · Pogue · C. A. · Kohnen · D. · Dello · S. · Maier · C. B. B. · Drennan · J. · McHugh · M. D. · For the Magnet4Europe Consortium · Sermeus · Bruyneel · Witte · Schaufeli · Dello · Kohnen · Aiken · McHugh · Smith
Objectives

To determine the well-being of physicians and nurses in hospital practice in Europe, and to identify interventions that hold promise for reducing adverse clinician outcomes and improving patient safety.

Design

Baseline cross-sectional survey of 2187 physicians and 6643 nurses practicing in 64 hospitals in six European countries participating in the EU-funded Magnet4Europe intervention to improve clinicians’ well-being.

Setting

Acute general hospitals with 150 or more beds in six European countries: Belgium, England, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.

Participants

Physicians and nurses with direct patient contact working in adult medical and surgical inpatient units, including intensive care and emergency departments.

Main outcome measures

Burnout, job dissatisfaction, physical and mental health, intent to leave job, quality of care and patient safety and interventions clinicians believe would improve their well-being.

Results

Poor work/life balance (57% physicians, 40% nurses), intent to leave (29% physicians, 33% nurses) and high burnout (25% physicians, 26% nurses) were prevalent. Rates varied by hospitals within countries and between countries. Better work environments and staffing were associated with lower percentages of clinicians reporting unfavourable health indicators, quality of care and patient safety. The effect of a 1 IQR improvement in work environments was associated with 7.2% fewer physicians and 5.3% fewer nurses reporting high burnout, and 14.2% fewer physicians and 8.6% fewer nurses giving their hospital an unfavourable rating of quality of care. Improving nurse staffing levels (79% nurses) and reducing bureaucracy and red tape (44% physicians) were interventions clinicians reported would be most effective in improving their own well-being, whereas individual mental health interventions were less frequently prioritised.

Conclusions

Burnout, mental health morbidities, job dissatisfaction and concerns about patient safety and care quality are prevalent among European hospital physicians and nurses. Interventions to improve hospital work environments and staffing are more important to clinicians than mental health interventions to improve personal resilience.

Trends in inequalities in avoidable hospitalisations across the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study of 23.5 million people in England

Objective

To determine whether periods of disruption were associated with increased ‘avoidable’ hospital admissions and wider social inequalities in England.

Design

Observational repeated cross-sectional study.

Setting

England (January 2019 to March 2022).

Participants

With the approval of NHS England we used individual-level electronic health records from OpenSAFELY, which covered ~40% of general practices in England (mean monthly population size 23.5 million people).

Primary and secondary outcome measures

We estimated crude and directly age-standardised rates for potentially preventable unplanned hospital admissions: ambulatory care sensitive conditions and urgent emergency sensitive conditions. We considered how trends in these outcomes varied by three measures of social and spatial inequality: neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, ethnicity and geographical region.

Results

There were large declines in avoidable hospitalisations during the first national lockdown (March to May 2020). Trends increased post-lockdown but never reached 2019 levels. The exception to these trends was for vaccine-preventable ambulatory care sensitive admissions which remained low throughout 2020–2021. While trends were consistent by each measure of inequality, absolute levels of inequalities narrowed across levels of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation, Asian ethnicity (compared with white ethnicity) and geographical region (especially in northern regions).

Conclusions

We found no evidence that periods of healthcare disruption from the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in more avoidable hospitalisations. Falling avoidable hospital admissions has coincided with declining inequalities most strongly by level of deprivation, but also for Asian ethnic groups and northern regions of England.

Determining the impact of an artificial intelligence tool on the management of pulmonary nodules detected incidentally on CT (DOLCE) study protocol: a prospective, non-interventional multicentre UK study

Por: O'Dowd · E. · Berovic · M. · Callister · M. · Chalitsios · C. V. · Chopra · D. · Das · I. · Draper · A. · Garner · J. L. · Gleeson · F. · Janes · S. · Kennedy · M. · Lee · R. · Mauri · F. · McKeever · T. M. · McNulty · W. · Murray · J. · Nair · A. · Park · J. · Rawlinson · J. · Sagoo · G. S.
Introduction

In a small percentage of patients, pulmonary nodules found on CT scans are early lung cancers. Lung cancer detected at an early stage has a much better prognosis. The British Thoracic Society guideline on managing pulmonary nodules recommends using multivariable malignancy risk prediction models to assist in management. While these guidelines seem to be effective in clinical practice, recent data suggest that artificial intelligence (AI)-based malignant-nodule prediction solutions might outperform existing models.

Methods and analysis

This study is a prospective, observational multicentre study to assess the clinical utility of an AI-assisted CT-based lung cancer prediction tool (LCP) for managing incidental solid and part solid pulmonary nodule patients vs standard care. Two thousand patients will be recruited from 12 different UK hospitals. The primary outcome is the difference between standard care and LCP-guided care in terms of the rate of benign nodules and patients with cancer discharged straight after the assessment of the baseline CT scan. Secondary outcomes investigate adherence to clinical guidelines, other measures of changes to clinical management, patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness.

Ethics and dissemination

This study has been reviewed and given a favourable opinion by the South Central—Oxford C Research Ethics Committee in UK (REC reference number: 22/SC/0142).

Study results will be available publicly following peer-reviewed publication in open-access journals. A patient and public involvement group workshop is planned before the study results are available to discuss best methods to disseminate the results. Study results will also be fed back to participating organisations to inform training and procurement activities.

Trial registration number

NCT05389774.

❌