Conectar
To characterise sex and gender-based analysis (SGBA) and diversity metric reporting, representation of female/women participants in acute care trials and temporal changes in reporting before and after publication of the 2016 Sex and Gender Equity in Research guideline.
Systematic review.
We searched MEDLINE for trials published in five leading medical journals in 2014, 2018 and 2020.
Trials that enrolled acutely ill adults, compared two or more interventions and reported at least one clinical outcome.
4 reviewers screened citations and 22 reviewers abstracted data, in duplicate. We compared reporting differences between intensive care unit (ICU) and cardiology trials.
We included 88 trials (75 (85.2%) ICU and 13 (14.8%) cardiology) (n=111 428; 38 140 (34.2%) females/women). Of 23 (26.1%) trials that reported an SGBA, most used a forest plot (22 (95.7%)), were prespecified (21 (91.3%)) and reported a sex-by-intervention interaction with a significance test (19 (82.6%)). Discordant sex and gender terminology were found between headings and subheadings within baseline characteristics tables (17/32 (53.1%)) and between baseline characteristics tables and SGBA (4/23 (17.4%)). Only 25 acute care trials (28.4%) reported race or ethnicity. Participants were predominantly white (78.8%) and male/men (65.8%). No trial reported gendered-social factors. SGBA reporting and female/women representation did not improve temporally. Compared with ICU trials, cardiology trials reported significantly more SGBA (15/75 (20%) vs 8/13 (61.5%) p=0.005).
Acute care trials in leading medical journals infrequently included SGBA, female/women and non-white trial participants, reported race or ethnicity and never reported gender-related factors. Substantial opportunity exists to improve SGBA and diversity metric reporting and recruitment of female/women participants in acute care trials.
CRD42022282565.
A comprehensive patient assessment is essential for safe patient care. Patient assessment frameworks for nurses are generally restricted to patients who already have altered vital signs and are at risk of deterioration, or to specific risks or body systems such as falls, pressure injury and the Glasgow Coma Score. Comprehensive and structured evidence-based nursing assessment frameworks that consider the whole patient and extend beyond vital signs, specific risks and single systems are not routinely used in inpatient settings but are important to establish early risks for patient deterioration.
The aim of this review was to identify nursing assessment tools or frameworks used to holistically assess hospitalized patients and to identify the impact of these tools on patient and health service outcomes.
A scoping literature review was conducted. Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), ProQuest Dissertations and Thesis, Embase and Scopus were databases used in the search. The initial search was conducted in August 2021 and repeated in November 2022. No date parameters were set. The Participants, Concept, Context (PCC) framework was used to guide the development of the research question and consolidate inclusion and exclusion criteria. The PRISMA-ScR Checklist Item was followed to ensure a methodologically sound checklist was used.
Ten primary research studies evaluating six nursing assessment frameworks were included. Of the five nursing assessment frameworks, none were explicitly designed for general ward nursing, but rather the emergency department or specific patient cohorts, such as oncology. Four studies reported on reliability and/or validity; two reported on patient outcomes and four on staff satisfaction.
Evidence-based nursing patient assessment frameworks for use in general inpatient wards are lacking. Existing assessment tools are largely designed for specific patient cohorts, specific body systems or the already deteriorating patient.
A framework to enable a structured approach to patient assessment in this environment is needed for patient safety, consistency in assessment, nursing staff enablement and confidence to escalate care. Routine systematic nursing assessment could also aid timely patient escalation.
What problem did the study address? This study addresses the lack of evidence-based nursing assessment frameworks for use in hospitalized patients. The impact of this is that it highlights the need for an evidence-based, whole of patient assessment framework for use by nurses for patients admitted to a ward environment.
What were the main findings? This review identified limited comprehensive, patient assessment frameworks for use in general ward inpatient areas. Those identified were not validated for this patient cohort and are aimed at patients already deteriorating.
Where and on whom will the research have an impact? This review has the potential to impact future research and patient care. It highlights that most research is focussed on processes to detect and escalate care for the already deteriorating patient. There is a need for an evidence-based routine nursing assessment framework for patients admitted to a ward environment to promote positive patient outcomes and prevent deterioration.
This review contributes to existing knowledge of nursing patient assessment frameworks, yet it also highlights several gaps. Currently, there are no known, validated, holistic, structured nursing patient assessment frameworks for use in general ward inpatient settings. However, areas that do use such assessment frameworks (e.g. the emergency department) have shown positive patient outcomes and staff usability. Hospitalized ward patients would benefit from routine, structured nursing assessments targeting positive patient outcomes prior to the onset of deterioration.
The Strengthen the Management of Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Vietnam (V-SMART) trial is a randomised controlled trial of using mobile health (mHealth) technologies to improve adherence to medications and management of adverse events (AEs) in people with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) undergoing treatment in Vietnam. This economic evaluation seeks to quantify the cost-effectiveness of this mHealth intervention from a healthcare provider and societal perspective.
The V-SMART trial will recruit 902 patients treated for MDR-TB across seven participating provinces in Vietnam. Participants in both intervention and control groups will receive standard community-based therapy for MDR-TB. Participants in the intervention group will also have a purpose-designed App installed on their smartphones to report AEs to health workers and to facilitate timely management of AEs. This economic evaluation will compare the costs and health outcomes between the intervention group (mHealth) and the control group (standard of care). Costs associated with delivering the intervention and health service utilisation will be recorded, as well as patient out-of-pocket costs. The health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of study participants will be captured using the 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) questionnaire and used to calculate quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) will be based on the primary outcome (proportion of patients with treatment success after 24 months) and QALYs gained. Sensitivity analysis will be conducted to test the robustness of the ICERs. A budget impact analysis will be conducted from a payer perspective to provide an estimate of the total budget required to scale-up delivery of the intervention.
Ethical approval for the study was granted by the University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2019/676), the Scientific Committee of the Ministry of Science and Technology, Vietnam (08/QD-HDQL-NAFOSTED) and the Institutional Review Board of the National Lung Hospital, Vietnam (13/19/CT-HDDD). Study findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings.
ACTRN12620000681954.
FreshRSS 