Medical student perceptions of gender and pain: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: Gender bias exists in healthcare and affects how pain is assessed and managed. This bias affects patient outcomes and their trust in healthcare professionals. We also know that future clinicians develop their attitudes early in training. Medical school is therefore an opportunity to shape the values of future doctors and to combat systemic gender bias in healthcare. This systematic review aims to explore medical student perceptions of the relationship between patients' gender and their pain, so that recommendations can be made for developing medical education. METHODS: Embase, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, LILACS, Global Index Medicus, PakMediNet and ERIC were searched for articles relating to medical student perceptions of gender and pain, with no geographical or language limitations. Quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Index and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist. RESULTS: Nine publications were identified, two qualitative and seven quantitative. All studies had methodological limitations. Many different study designs were used, although most involved simulated patients. All studies referred to gender as binary. Multiple studies found that women's pain is more likely to be underestimated by medical students and that the patient's gender drives different approaches during clinical history taking, examination and management in these simulated situations. Only one study found no effect of patients' gender on students' perception of their pain. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst there is a paucity of high-quality studies in this area, patients' gender was found to affect how their pain is perceived by medical students. No studies explored where students' attitudes towards gender and pain arise from, and few involved 'real life situations'. We propose that further work into medical student perceptions in 'real situations' is needed. This will help to inform how undergraduate medical education can be developed to tackle gender bias, and ultimately improve outcomes for patients.

Co-producing Human and Animal Experimental Subjects: Exploring the Views of UK COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Participants on Animal Testing.

Preclinical (animal) testing and human testing of drugs and vaccines are rarely considered by social scientists side by side. Where this is done, it is typically for theoretically exploring the ethics of the two situations to compare relative treatment. In contrast, we empirically explore how human clinical trial participants understand the role of animal test subjects in vaccine development. Furthermore, social science research has only concentrated on broad public opinion and the views of patients about animal research, whereas we explore the views of a public group particularly implicated in pharmaceutical development: experimental subjects. We surveyed and interviewed COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK, on their views about taking part in a vaccine trial and the role of animals in trials. We found that trial participants mirrored assumptions about legitimate reasons for animal testing embedded in regulation and provided insight into (i) the nuances of public opinion on animal research; (ii) the co-production of human and animal experimental subjects; (iii) how vaccine and medicine testing, and the motivations and demographics of clinical trial participants, change in an outbreak; and (iv) what public involvement can offer to science.

Roles and responsibilities of participants, researchers, and the media in the communication of vaccine trials: Experience from the United Kingdom's first COVID-19 vaccine trial.

BACKGROUND: The media have played an important part in presenting arguments for and against vaccination. The potential for the media to influence public attitudes to vaccines is becoming increasingly crucial to address. METHODS: To understand the differing roles and responsibilities in the communication of vaccine trials we draw insight from a retrospective study of 349 survey responses and 102 semi-structured interviews conducted in 2020 with participants in the United Kingdom's first-in-human clinical trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. RESULTS: We found that trial participants had mixed views as to whether their participation conferred responsibility to communicate more widely about their trial experiences. Some participants perceived themselves to have an altruistic obligation to communicate to the media about the trial, and others felt that those who did share their participation had 'attention-seeking' motives. When participants did speak out they preferred to do so anonymously. Frustration was also reported with sensationalised and false media stories. Social media was viewed as a means to accelerate misinformation or as a force for recruitment and public education about trials. Participants were pleased to see trial investigators and trial team playing prominent roles in the media and this instilled confidence in the vaccine and the trial. We discuss these evolving roles and responsibilities for trial communication, concentrating on the views of participants about experiences, opportunities, and risks. CONCLUSIONS: We argue that the pandemic has demonstrated the need for clinical trials to be made more transparent as a scientific practice that requires better public understanding and engagement. For high-profile vaccine trials we recommend; (1) explicit and comprehensive guidance aimed at all participants for interactions with the media; (2) prioritising having open and effectively expressed accounts of trial composition, processes, and participation; (3) offering support and a direct communication channel for journalists to report trials by utilising internal press officers to engage with journalists.

UK consensus definitions for necrotising otitis externa: a Delphi study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus definitions for necrotising otitis externa (NOE) to facilitate the diagnosis and exclusion of NOE in clinical practice and expedite future high-quality study of this neglected condition. DESIGN: The work comprised of a systematic review of the literature, five iterative rounds of consultation via a Delphi process and open discussion within the collaborative. An expert panel analysed the results to produce the final outputs which were shared with and endorsed by national specialty bodies. SETTING: Secondary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: UK clinical specialists practising in infection, ear nose and throat (ENT) surgery or radiology. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Definitions and statements meeting the following criteria were accepted: (a) minimum of 70% of respondents in agreement or strong agreement with a definition/statement AND (b) <15% of respondents in disagreement or strong disagreement with a definition/statement. RESULTS: Seventy-four UK clinicians specialising in ENT, Infection and Radiology with a special interest in NOE took part in the work which was undertaken between 2019 and 2021. The minimum response rate for a Round was 76%. Consensus criteria for all proposed case definitions, outcome definitions and consensus statements were met in the fifth round. CONCLUSIONS: This work distills the clinical opinion of a large group of multidisciplinary specialists from across the UK to create practical definitions and statements to support clinical practice and research for NOE. This is the first step in an iterative process. Further work will seek to validate and test these definitions and inform their evolution.

The collective voice of early phase COVID-19 vaccine trial participants: Insights for improving confidence in novel vaccines.

In early 2020, adult volunteers were invited to participate in a first-in-human trial of the COVID-19 vaccine, ChAdOx1 nCoV-19, in the United Kingdom (UK) at the height of the global pandemic when there was uncertainty regarding vaccine efficacy and side-effects. We conducted a retrospective survey of these uniquely situated individuals to gain insight into their views about the risks, motivations, and expectations of the trial and potential vaccine deployment. Our data from 349 respondents show that these volunteers were educated to a high-level with a clear understanding of the seriousness of the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as an appreciation of the role of science and research in developing a vaccine to address this global problem. Individuals were primarily motivated with altruistic intent and expressed a desire to contribute to the scientific effort. Respondents appreciated that their participation was associated with risk but appeared comfortable that this risk was low. Through our analysis, we highlight these individuals as a group with strong levels of trust in science and a sense of societal responsibility, and therefore are a potential valuable resource to improve confidence in novel vaccines. Vaccine trial participants could offer a credible collective voice to support positive messaging around vaccination.

What is the Diagnostic Accuracy of Novel Urine Biomarkers for Urinary Tract Infection?

Background: Urinary tract infection (UTI) affects half of women at least once in their lifetime. Current diagnosis involves urinary dipstick and urine culture, yet both methods have modest diagnostic accuracy, and cannot support decision-making in patient populations with high prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, such as older adults. Detecting biomarkers of host response in the urine of hosts has the potential to improve diagnosis. Objectives: To synthesise the evidence of the diagnostic accuracy of novel biomarkers for UTI, and of their ability to differentiate UTI from asymptomatic bacteriuria. Design: A systematic review. Data Sources and Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science for studies of novel biomarkers for the diagnosis of UTI. We excluded studies assessing biomarkers included in urine dipsticks as these have been well described previously. We included studies of adult patients (≥16 years) with a suspected or confirmed urinary tract infection using microscopy and culture as the reference standard. We excluded studies using clinical signs and symptoms, or urine dipstick only as a reference standard. Quality appraisal was performed using QUADAS-2. We summarised our data using point estimates and data accuracy statistics. Results: We included 37 studies on 4009 adults measuring 66 biomarkers. Study quality was limited by case-control design and study size; only 4 included studies had a prospective cohort design. IL-6 and IL-8 were the most studied biomarkers. We found plausible evidence to suggest that IL-8, IL-6, GRO-a, sTNF-1, sTNF-2 and MCR may benefit from more rigorous evaluation of their potential diagnostic value for UTI. Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of any novel biomarker for UTI diagnosis at present. Further evaluation of the more promising candidates, is needed before they can be recommended for clinical use.

Vaccine nationalism and internationalism: perspectives of COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Vaccine nationalism has become a key topic of discussion during the development, testing, and rollout of COVID-19 vaccines. Media attention has highlighted the ways that global, coordinated access to vaccines has been limited during the pandemic. It has also exposed how some countries have secured vaccine supply, through bilateral purchase agreements and the way pharmaceutical companies have priced, negotiated, and delivered these supplies. Much of the focus of this debate has been on the vaccine supply 'winners' and 'losers', but the voices of public opinion have been more limited. METHODS: We explore the concepts of vaccine nationalism and internationalism from the perspective of vaccine trial participants, using an empirical perspectives study that involved interviews with phase I/II COVID-19 vaccine trial participants in Oxford, UK. We surveyed and interviewed participants between September and October 2020 about their views, motivations and experiences in taking part in the trial. RESULTS: First, we show how trial participants describe national and international ideas about vaccination as intertwined and challenge claims that these positions are mutually exclusive or oppositional. Second, we analyse these viewpoints further to show that vaccine nationalism is closely connected with national pride and metaphors of a country's scientific achievements. Participants held a global outlook and were highly supportive of the prioritisation of vaccines by global need, but many were also pessimistic that such a solution could be possible. CONCLUSION: Trial participants constitute an informed public group, with situated public expertise that the global community could draw on as an expert opinion. We argue that vaccine nationalism is strongly attached to national character and, therefore, it is more difficult for ownership of a vaccine to be though of as international.