Conectar
An association between deep sedation and adverse short-term outcomes has been demonstrated although this evidence has been inconsistent. The A2B (alpha-2 agonists for sedation in critical care) sedation trial is designed to determine whether the alpha-2 agonists clonidine and dexmedetomidine, compared with usual care, are clinically and cost-effective. The A2B intervention is a complex intervention conducted in 39 intensive care units (ICUs) in the UK. Multicentre organisational factors, variable cultures, perceptions and practices and the involvement of multiple members of the healthcare team add to the complexity of the A2B trial. From our pretrial contextual exploration it was apparent that routine practices such as type and frequency of pain, agitation and delirium assessment, as well as the common sedative agents used, varied widely across the UK. Anticipated challenges in implementing A2B focused on the impact of usual practice, perceptions of risk, ICU culture, structure and the presence of equipoise. Given this complexity, a process evaluation has been embedded in the A2B trial to uncover factors that could impact successful delivery and explore their impact on intervention delivery and interpretation of outcomes.
This is a mixed-methods process evaluation guided by the A2B intervention logic model. It includes two phases of data collection conducted during and at the end of trial. Data will be collected using a combination of questionnaires, stakeholder interviews and routinely collected trial data. A framework approach will be used to analyse qualitative data with synthesis of data within and across the phases. The nature of the relationship between delivery of the A2B intervention and the trial primary and secondary outcomes will be explored.
All elements of the A2B trial, including the process evaluation, are approved by Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref. 18/SS/0085). Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and media engagement.
Caregivers of children with chronic diseases suffer from great parenting pressure, which directly affects the treatment and rehabilitation of children, reduces the quality of life of caregivers and damages family functioning. Existing reviews have not systematically summarized and evaluated interventions for parenting stress in caregivers of children with chronic diseases.
Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, OVID, CNKI, CBM, Wan Fang and Cochrane Library were searched for eligible reviews in November 2021 and October 2022.
Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts, reviewed full texts of articles for eligibility, and appraised the quality of reviews using JBI. The quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. Findings are reported in accordance with PRISMA checklist. Narrative summaries grouped findings by intervention types.
Out of 2632 records, we included 21 systematic reviews for a synthesis. Interventions for parenting stress in children with chronic diseases were divided into seven categories. Cognitive behavioural interventions, psychosocial interventions, child behavioural and/or developmental parent interventions and synthesized interventions have shown high-level evidence in reducing parenting stress for caregivers of children with chronic diseases. Furthermore, outcome measures and intervention protocols were highly heterogeneous across interventions.
This umbrella review suggest that reducing the parenting stress of caregivers of children with chronic diseases can directly target caregivers' parenting stress through cognitive behavioural interventions/psychosocial interventions and/or provide guidance to parents on the behavioural and developmental problems of children with chronic diseases. A more standardized approach to outcome measures is essential to assess efficacy and compare interventions across studies.
The findings provide information and evidence for reducing parenting stress among caregivers of children with chronic diseases to guide the development of comprehensive intervention strategies.
Patient or public contribution does not apply to this study.
To investigate the association between older patients’ willingness to have one or more medications deprescribed and: (1) change in medications, (2) change in the appropriateness of medications and (3) implementation of prescribing recommendations generated by the electronic decision support system tested in the ‘Optimising PharmacoTherapy In the Multimorbid Elderly in Primary CAre’ (OPTICA) trial.
A longitudinal sub-study of the OPTICA trial, a cluster randomised controlled trial.
Swiss primary care settings.
Participants were aged ≥65 years, with ≥3 chronic conditions and ≥5 regular medications recruited from 43 general practitioner (GP) practices.
Patients’ willingness to have medications deprescribed was assessed using three questions from the ‘revised Patient Attitudes Towards Deprescribing’ (rPATD) questionnaire and its concerns about stopping score.
Medication-related outcomes were collected at 1 year follow-up. Aim 1 outcome: change in the number of long-term medications between baseline and 12 month follow-up. Aim 2 outcome: change in medication appropriateness (Medication Appropriateness Index). Aim 3 outcome: binary variable on whether any prescribing recommendation generated during the OPTICA medication review was implemented. We used multilevel linear regression analyses (aim 1 and aim 2) and multilevel logistic regression analyses (aim 3). Models were adjusted for sociodemographic variables and the clustering effect at GP level.
298 patients completed the rPATD, 45% were women and 78 years was the median age. A statistically significant association was found between the concerns about stopping score and the change in the number of medications over time (per 1-unit increase in the score the average number of medications use was 0.65 higher; 95% CI: 0.08 to 1.22). Other than that we did not find evidence for statistically significant associations between patients’ agreement with deprescribing and medication-related outcomes.
We did not find evidence for an association between most measures of patient agreement with deprescribing and medication-related outcomes over 1 year.
The Self-Management Analysis in Chronic Conditions (SMACC) checklist was developed as a guidance tool to support the development, comparison and evaluation of self-management support programmes for persons with a chronic condition. The checklist was based on a previously performed concept analysis of self-management. The aim of this study was to validate its content using an international Delphi study and to deliver a final version.
A two-round Delphi study was conducted between October 2022 and January 2023. Using the researchers’ networks, professionals with research or clinical expertise in self-management support and chronic conditions were recruited via online purposive snowball sampling. Participants were asked to score each item of the checklist (16 items total) on 3 content validity indicators: (1) clarity and comprehensibility, (2) relevance and importance and (3) degree of alignment with the overall goal of the checklist to promote adequate and comprehensive self-management support programmes. A consensus threshold of 75% agreement was used. The participants were also asked general questions about the checklist as a whole and were asked to provide feedback considering its refinement.
Fifty-four professionals with an average 14.5 years of experience participated in round 1, 48 with an average 12.5 years of experience participated in round 2. The majority of professionals were from Western Europe. For the majority of items consensus was reached after round 1. In round 2, 3 of the 4 remaining items reached consensus, 1 last item was retained based on highly recurring feedback.
The SMACC checklist was considered a valid and comprehensive tool to aid the development, evaluation and comparison of self-management support programmes. It was acknowledged as a useful instrument to supplement existing frameworks and was seen as feasible to implement in both research and clinical settings. Further validation in the field, with input from patients and peer experts, will be valuable.
Almost all patients receiving mechanical ventilation (MV) in intensive care units (ICUs) require analgesia and sedation. The most widely used sedative drug is propofol, but there is uncertainty whether alpha2-agonists are superior. The alpha 2 agonists for sedation to produce better outcomes from critical illness (A2B) trial aims to determine whether clonidine or dexmedetomidine (or both) are clinically and cost-effective in MV ICU patients compared with usual care.
Adult ICU patients within 48 hours of starting MV, expected to require at least 24 hours further MV, are randomised in an open-label three arm trial to receive propofol (usual care) or clonidine or dexmedetomidine as primary sedative, plus analgesia according to local practice. Exclusions include patients with primary brain injury; postcardiac arrest; other neurological conditions; or bradycardia. Unless clinically contraindicated, sedation is titrated using weight-based dosing guidance to achieve a Richmond-Agitation-Sedation score of –2 or greater as early as considered safe by clinicians. The primary outcome is time to successful extubation. Secondary ICU outcomes include delirium and coma incidence/duration, sedation quality, predefined adverse events, mortality and ICU length of stay. Post-ICU outcomes include mortality, anxiety and depression, post-traumatic stress, cognitive function and health-related quality of life at 6-month follow-up. A process evaluation and health economic evaluation are embedded in the trial.
The analytic framework uses a hierarchical approach to maximise efficiency and control type I error. Stage 1 tests whether each alpha2-agonist is superior to propofol. If either/both interventions are superior, stages 2 and 3 testing explores which alpha2-agonist is more effective. To detect a mean difference of 2 days in MV duration, we aim to recruit 1437 patients (479 per group) in 40–50 UK ICUs.
The Scotland A REC approved the trial (18/SS/0085). We use a surrogate decision-maker or deferred consent model consistent with UK law. Dissemination will be via publications, presentations and updated guidelines.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03653832.
by Yanhong Wang, Weiran Zhou, Lin Wang, Qianbing Ying
The Yangtze River Economic Belt, as a globally important economic growth pole and population concentration area, has always received attention to its ecological and environmental issues. Currently, there is little research on the synergy among the ecological environment risk prevention and control mechanisms in this region. Strengthening research in this area has important scientific value for improving the effectiveness of ecological risk prevention and control and the sustainable development of the Yangtze River Economic Belt. Based on the data from 11 provinces and cities in the Yangtze River Economic Belt from 2017 to 2021, this study establishes an indicator system with benefit incentive mechanisms, risk regulatory mechanisms, and risk governance mechanisms as frameworks. By employing a composite system synergy model, this study utilizes the entropy weight method to assign weights to each indicator and calculates the orderliness and synergy of the three mechanisms separately. The results show that: (1) There are differences in the orderliness of mechanisms among the regions. The downstream area has the highest orderliness of the three mechanisms, with the middle stream area higher than the upstream area in terms of incentive mechanisms and risk governance mechanisms. (2) The orderliness of each mechanism has slight fluctuations but shows an overall upward trend, with the orderliness of regulatory mechanisms significantly higher than that of incentive mechanisms and governance mechanisms. (3) In terms of synergy, the three major mechanisms show a stable upward trend in synergy but with a relatively low degree of synergy. Based on these findings, future efforts should focus on optimizing mechanism construction and information sharing, improving incentive mechanisms, strengthening risk regulatory mechanisms, and consolidating the effectiveness of risk governance mechanisms.Osteogenesis imperfecta (OI) is a rare genetic disease associated with multiple fractures throughout life. It is often treated with osteoporosis medications but their effectiveness at preventing fractures is unknown. The Treatment of Osteogenesis Imperfecta with Parathyroid Hormone and Zoledronic Acid trial will determine if therapy with teriparatide (TPTD) followed by zoledronic acid (ZA) can reduce the risk of clinical fractures in OI.
Individuals aged ≥18 years with a clinical diagnosis of OI are eligible to take part. At baseline, participants will undergo a spine X-ray, and have bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) at the spine and hip. Information on previous fractures and previous bone targeted treatments will be collected. Questionnaires will be completed to assess pain and other aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Participants will be randomised to receive a 2-year course of TPTD injections 20 µg daily followed by a single intravenous infusion of 5 mg ZA, or to receive standard care, which will exclude the use of bone anabolic drugs. Participants will be followed up annually, have a repeat DXA at 2 years and at the end of study. Spine X-rays will be repeated at the end of study. The duration of follow-up will range between 2 and 8 years. The primary endpoint will be new clinical fractures confirmed by X-ray or other imaging. Secondary endpoints will include participant reported fractures, BMD and changes in pain and HRQoL.
The study received ethical approval in December 2016. Following completion of the trial, a manuscript will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal. The results will inform clinical practice by determining if TPTD/ZA can reduce the risk of fractures in OI compared with standard care.
It is common for community-based healthcare providers (CHPs)—many of whom have not received specialised training in wound care—to deliver initial and ongoing management for various wound types and diverse populations. Wounds in any setting can rapidly transition to a stalled, hard-to-heal wound (HTHW) that is not following a normal healing trajectory. Failure to recognise or address issues that cause delayed healing can lead to increased costs, healthcare utilisation and suffering. To encourage early intervention by CHPs, a panel of wound care experts developed actionable evidence-based recommendations for CHPs delineating characteristics and appropriate care in identifying and treating HTHWs. A HTHW is a wound that fails to progress towards healing with standard therapy in an orderly and timely manner and should be referred to a qualified wound care provider (QWCP) for advanced assessment and diagnosis if not healed or reduced in size by 40%–50% within 4 weeks. HTHWs occur in patients with multiple comorbidities, and display increases in exudate, infection, devitalised tissue, maceration or pain, or no change in wound size. CHPs can play an important initial role by seeing the individual's HTHW risk, addressing local infection and providing an optimal wound environment. An easy-to-follow one-page table was developed for the CHP to systematically identify, evaluate and treat HTHWs, incorporating a basic toolkit with items easily obtainable in common office/clinic practice settings. A flow chart using visual HTHW clinical cues is also presented to address CHPs with different learning styles. These tools encourage delivery of appropriate early interventions that can improve overall healthcare efficiency and cost.
FreshRSS 