The Impact of a Student-Led Health Education Clinic on the Health Literacy and Behaviors of a Rural Community in the State of Pennsylvania, USA.

Rural populations experience a number of disparities that place them at increased risk of morbidity and mortality related to chronic disease, including lower health literacy and greater distance to medical care. Community-based free healthcare education can offer targeted preventive care to these vulnerable populations; however, limited quantitative research exists measuring their impact, specifically on health literacy and likelihood for behavior change. To investigate this, a student-led health education clinic was held in January 2023 in the rural community of Lykens, Pennsylvania by the Student-run and Collaborative Outreach Program for Health Equity (SCOPE). Fifty-five pre- and post-clinic surveys using Likert-style questions measured the knowledge and likelihood of behavioral change for several preventive health topics, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cancer screenings, childhood vaccinations, skin cancer, mental health, addiction, and nutrition. From pre- to post-clinic, there was a significant increase in knowledge of hypertension (p = 0.023) and diabetes (p = 0.014), likelihood of attending cancer screenings (p = 0.038), and confidence in identifying cancerous moles (p = < 0.001). There was a non-significant increase in understanding of mental health and nutrition, and no change in understanding of addiction or childhood vaccinations. It is likely that the level of interaction in education provided and relevance of information to participants contributed to effective uptake of information. The results demonstrate an immediate impact on health literacy and likelihood of behavioral change for several important preventive health topics, and advocate for the use of student-run healthcare interventions in addressing the prevalence of chronic disease in rural communities.

Evaluating Practice Patterns of Observation Periods Following Epinephrine Administration for Anaphylaxis Among Pediatric Patients.

Objective Current guidelines recommend that anaphylactic patients be observed for 4-6 hours following epinephrine administration to monitor for biphasic reactions. There is conflicting data regarding the efficacy of these guidelines and the prevalence of biphasic reactions among the pediatric population. This retrospective study aimed to investigate the appropriateness of these guidelines through evaluation of observation periods and patterns of biphasic reaction development among pediatric anaphylactic patients at a single-institution ED. Methods Patients less than 18 years of age who presented to the ED of a tertiary academic medical center between 2017 and 2022 and were treated with epinephrine for anaphylaxis were included in the study. The frequency and timing of biphasic reactions were observed. Duration of ED observation, time between symptom onset and first dose of epinephrine, number and category of anaphylactic symptoms, and allergen type were compared between patients who did and did not experience a biphasic reaction. Additional variables analyzed included persistence of anaphylactic symptoms, additional doses of epinephrine, and adjuvant medications. Contingency tables and two-sample t-tests were used to compare categorical and continuous variables, respectively, between those who did and did not develop a biphasic reaction. Results A total of 292 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. All patients were observed in the ED for a mean of 233.1 minutes. Ten patients (3.4%) developed a biphasic reaction. Six had a reaction within 150 minutes of initial symptom resolution, and four developed one after discharge, within 10 to 33 hours following symptom resolution. There was no significant difference in the length of time observed in the ED (p=0.98) or from symptom onset to the first epinephrine dose (p=0.90) between groups. Presenting with respiratory symptoms was associated with persistent anaphylactic symptoms despite epinephrine administration (p=0.01). Patients with symptoms involving at least two organ systems were 3.45 times more likely to experience persistent symptoms post-epinephrine than those with involvement of only one organ system (OR=3.45; CI: 1.28-9.30). Allergen type, anaphylactic symptoms, or the number of organ systems involved were not linked to developing a biphasic reaction or the need for additional epinephrine doses. Conclusions The patients who developed a biphasic reaction did so either shortly following initial symptom resolution or many hours past the recommended observation period. Extending the observation period of patients within reasonable parameters would not have reduced the number of patients who experienced a biphasic reaction after discharge. The results of this study support potentially adopting a more individualized approach to anaphylaxis management following epinephrine administration. Shortening the observation period for patients at low risk for biphasic reactions could reduce the patient burden on EDs without negatively impacting patient outcomes. Although no significant risk factors for biphasic reactions were identified in this study, closer monitoring of patients with respiratory symptoms and/or involvement of a greater number of organ systems may help mitigate the number of patients who experience persistence of anaphylaxis despite treatment.

Maternal and perinatal health research during emerging and ongoing epidemic threats: a landscape analysis and expert consultation.

INTRODUCTION: Pregnant women and their offspring are often at increased direct and indirect risks of adverse outcomes during epidemics and pandemics. A coordinated research response is paramount to ensure that this group is offered at least the same level of disease prevention, diagnosis, and care as the general population. We conducted a landscape analysis and held expert consultations to identify research efforts relevant to pregnant women affected by disease outbreaks, highlight gaps and challenges, and propose solutions to addressing them in a coordinated manner. METHODS: Literature searches were conducted from 1 January 2015 to 22 March 2022 using Web of Science, Google Scholar and PubMed augmented by key informant interviews. Findings were reviewed and Quid analysis was performed to identify clusters and connectors across research networks followed by two expert consultations. These formed the basis for the development of an operational framework for maternal and perinatal research during epidemics. RESULTS: Ninety-four relevant research efforts were identified. Although well suited to generating epidemiological data, the entire infrastructure to support a robust research response remains insufficient, particularly for use of medical products in pregnancy. Limitations in global governance, coordination, funding and data-gathering systems have slowed down research responses. CONCLUSION: Leveraging current research efforts while engaging multinational and regional networks may be the most effective way to scale up maternal and perinatal research preparedness and response. The findings of this landscape analysis and proposed operational framework will pave the way for developing a roadmap to guide coordination efforts, facilitate collaboration and ultimately promote rapid access to countermeasures and clinical care for pregnant women and their offspring in future epidemics.

Microdiscectomy compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for persistent radicular pain caused by prolapsed intervertebral disc: the NERVES RCT.

BACKGROUND: Sciatica is a common condition reported to affect > 3% of the UK population at any time and is most often caused by a prolapsed intervertebral disc. Currently, there is no uniformly adopted treatment strategy. Invasive treatments, such as surgery (i.e. microdiscectomy) and transforaminal epidural steroid injection, are often reserved for failed conservative treatment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for the management of radicular pain secondary to lumbar prolapsed intervertebral disc for non-emergency presentation of sciatica of < 12 months' duration. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised to either (1) microdiscectomy or (2) transforaminal epidural steroid injection. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, randomised prospective trial comparing microdiscectomy with transforaminal epidural steroid injection for sciatica due to prolapsed intervertebral disc with < 1 year symptom duration. SETTING: NHS services providing secondary spinal surgical care within the UK. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 163 participants (aged 16-65 years) were recruited from 11 UK NHS outpatient clinics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was participant-completed Oswestry Disability Questionnaire score at 18 weeks post randomisation. Secondary outcomes were visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain; modified Roland-Morris score (for sciatica), Core Outcome Measures Index score and participant satisfaction at 12-weekly intervals. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life were assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version; Hospital Episode Statistics data; medication usage; and self-reported cost data at 12-weekly intervals. Adverse event data were collected. The economic outcome was incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS in England. RESULTS: Eighty-three participants were allocated to transforaminal epidural steroid injection and 80 participants were allocated to microdiscectomy, using an online randomisation system. At week 18, Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores had decreased, relative to baseline, by 26.7 points in the microdiscectomy group and by 24.5 points in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection. The difference between the treatments was not statistically significant (estimated treatment effect -4.25 points, 95% confidence interval -11.09 to 2.59 points). Nor were there significant differences between treatments in any of the secondary outcomes: Oswestry Disability Questionnaire scores, visual analogue scores for leg pain and back pain, modified Roland-Morris score and Core Outcome Measures Index score up to 54 weeks. There were four (3.8%) serious adverse events in the microdiscectomy group, including one nerve palsy (foot drop), and none in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group. Compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection, microdiscectomy had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38,737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained and a probability of 0.17 of being cost-effective at a willingness to pay threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year. LIMITATIONS: Primary outcome data was invalid or incomplete for 24% of participants. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated robustness to assumptions made regarding missing data. Eighteen per cent of participants in the transforaminal epidural steroid injection group subsequently received microdiscectomy prior to their primary outcome assessment. CONCLUSIONS: To the best of our knowledge, the NErve Root Block VErsus Surgery trial is the first trial to evaluate the comparative clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of microdiscectomy and transforaminal epidural steroid injection. No statistically significant difference was found between the two treatments for the primary outcome. It is unlikely that microdiscectomy is cost-effective compared with transforaminal epidural steroid injection at a threshold of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year for sciatica secondary to prolapsed intervertebral disc. FUTURE WORK: These results will lead to further studies in the streamlining and earlier management of discogenic sciatica. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN04820368 and EudraCT 2014-002751-25. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?: Sciatica or pain related to nerve irritation travelling down the leg is common in young working adults and most likely to be caused by a 'slipped' (prolapsed) disc. Although the majority of cases get better on their own and within 4­6 weeks, a significant group of patients struggle with disabling symptoms sometimes beyond 1 year. Consequently, patients struggle to maintain their home and working lives. Many treatments are available for sciatica, but simpler treatments (e.g. pain tablets, physiotherapy and changing one's lifestyle) are often not very effective and patients have often tried all of them by the time they are seen in hospital to have tests, such as scans, done. Surgery to remove part of the disc is recommended in cases where the pain is accompanied by severe weakness in one or both legs, or where doctors think that nerves may be damaged because patients have bladder, bowel and sexual functioning difficulties (i.e. red flag symptoms). Surgery works well in alleviation of referred leg pain and also to relieve pressure on a physically compressed nerve that may be showing clinical sign of injury/weakness. An alternative to surgery is to inject a mixture of anaesthetic and steroid close to the site of the disc injury and nerve, but at the moment we do not know whether or not these injections work in the long term. They are cheaper and less invasive, with fewer risks than surgery, such as from anaesthetic or infection. WHAT DID OUR STUDY INVESTIGATE?: This study compared the usefulness of surgery with injections for patients who have had sciatica for < 1 year and who have tried simple remedies but are still in pain. Patients were allocated to have either surgery or the injection. Symptoms (e.g. pain) were assessed after 18 weeks. WHAT DID WE FIND?: We found that there was no significant difference between surgery and injection at the primary end point. Surgery was not significantly different from injection in terms of clinical outcome and was not cost-effective compared with injection. OUR CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: Given the cost of surgery and the risks to patients, we suggest that further studies should be carried out to explore whether or not all patients with sciatica due to a slipped disc should be considered suitable for an injection, unless there is a good reason not to.

Surgical microdiscectomy versus transforaminal epidural steroid injection in patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc (NERVES): a phase 3, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The optimal invasive treatment for sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc remains controversial, with a paucity of evidence for use of non-surgical treatments such as transforaminal epidural steroid injection (TFESI) over surgical microdiscectomy. We aimed to investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these options for management of radicular pain secondary to herniated lumbar disc. METHODS: We did a pragmatic, multicentre, phase 3, open-label, randomised controlled trial at 11 spinal units across the UK. Eligible patients were aged 16-65 years, had MRI-confirmed non-emergency sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc with symptom duration between 6 weeks and 12 months, and had leg pain that was not responsive to non-invasive management. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either TFESI or surgical microdiscectomy by an online randomisation system that was stratified by centre with random permuted blocks. The primary outcome was Oswestry Disability Questionnaire (ODQ) score at 18 weeks. All randomly assigned participants who completed a valid ODQ at baseline and at 18 weeks were included in the analysis. Safety analysis included all treated participants. Cost-effectiveness was estimated from the EuroQol-5D-5L, Hospital Episode Statistics, medication usage, and self-reported resource-use data. This trial was registered with ISRCTN, number ISRCTN04820368, and EudraCT, number 2014-002751-25. FINDINGS: Between March 6, 2015, and Dec 21, 2017, 163 (15%) of 1055 screened patients were enrolled, with 80 participants (49%) randomly assigned to the TFESI group and 83 participants (51%) to the surgery group. At week 18, ODQ scores were 30·02 (SD 24·38) for 63 assessed patients in the TFESI group and 22·30 (19·83) for 61 assessed patients in the surgery group. Mean improvement was 24·52 points (18·89) for the TFESI group and 26·74 points (21·35) for the surgery group, with an estimated treatment difference of -4·25 (95% CI -11·09 to 2·59; p=0·22). There were four serious adverse events in four participants associated with surgery, and none with TFESI. Compared with TFESI, surgery had an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £38 737 per quality-adjusted life-year gained, and a 0·17 probability of being cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20 000 per quality-adjusted life-year. INTERPRETATION: For patients with sciatica secondary to herniated lumbar disc, with symptom duration of up to 12 months, TFESI should be considered as a first invasive treatment option. Surgery is unlikely to be a cost-effective alternative to TFESI. FUNDING: Health Technology Assessment programme of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), UK.

Symptoms, attitudes and treatment perceptions of vulvo-vaginal atrophy in UK postmenopausal women: Results from the REVIVE-EU study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the attitudes and perceptions of postmenopausal women from the United Kingdom regarding menopause, vulvo-vaginal atrophy and its therapeutic management. STUDY DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the United Kingdom population from the REVIVE-EU Study. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey contained questions about women's knowledge of menopause and vulvo-vaginal atrophy symptoms, impact on their life and sexual activities, communication with healthcare professionals and treatments. RESULTS: The most frequent symptom of menopause was hot flushes (75%). Vulvo-vaginal atrophy symptoms had a significant impact on participants' ability to enjoy sexual intercourse (66%), spontaneity (62%) and ability to be intimate (61%); however, only 68% of women had been to their healthcare professional for advice. Half of the sample expected that doctors would initiate a discussion of menopausal symptoms and sexual health, but was in fact rare (5%). Only 27% were under current treatment without a clear therapy pattern, of which 43% used vaginal over-the-counter treatments, 28% prescription (Rx), and 13% both. Efficacy was the main limitation for over-the-counter treatments, while for Rx products were side effects and safety. Women highlighted the restoring of the natural condition of the vagina as the main goal for a treatment (35%). Many United Kingdom women did not feel the need to see any healthcare professional for their gynaecological symptoms. Overall satisfaction with treatment was only 44%. CONCLUSIONS: Vulvo-vaginal atrophy remains underdiagnosed and undertreated in United Kingdom. There is a lack of coherent discussion about vulvo-vaginal atrophy symptoms with clinicians. Many United Kingdom healthcare professionals could improve proactive communication with patients about vulvo-vaginal atrophy.

A patient and public involvement (PPI) toolkit for meaningful and flexible involvement in clinical trials - a work in progress.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Funders of research are increasingly requiring researchers to involve patients and the public in their research. Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research can potentially help researchers make sure that the design of their research is relevant, that it is participant friendly and ethically sound. Using and sharing PPI resources can benefit those involved in undertaking PPI, but existing PPI resources are not used consistently and this can lead to duplication of effort. This paper describes how we are developing a toolkit to support clinical trials teams in a clinical trials unit. The toolkit will provide a key 'off the shelf' resource to support trial teams with limited resources, in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: ● listen to the views and experience of both research teams and patient and public contributors who use the tools; ● modify the tools based on our experience of using them; ● identify the need for future tools; ● update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; ● raise awareness of the toolkit and ● work in collaboration with others to either develop or test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI. ABSTRACT: Background Patient and public involvement (PPI) in research is increasingly a funder requirement due to the potential benefits in the design of relevant, participant friendly, ethically sound research. The use and sharing of resources can benefit PPI, but available resources are not consistently used leading to duplication of effort. This paper describes a developing toolkit to support clinical trials teams to undertake effective and meaningful PPI. Methods The first phase in developing the toolkit was to describe which PPI activities should be considered in the pathway of a clinical trial and at what stage these activities should take place. This pathway was informed through review of the type and timing of PPI activities within trials coordinated by the Clinical Trials Research Centre and previously described areas of potential PPI impact in trials. In the second phase, key websites around PPI and identification of resources opportunistically, e.g. in conversation with other trialists or social media, were used to identify resources. Tools were developed where gaps existed. Results A flowchart was developed describing PPI activities that should be considered in the clinical trial pathway and the point at which these activities should happen. Three toolkit domains were identified: planning PPI; supporting PPI; recording and evaluating PPI. Four main activities and corresponding tools were identified under the planning for PPI: developing a plan; identifying patient and public contributors; allocating appropriate costs; and managing expectations. In supporting PPI, tools were developed to review participant information sheets. These tools, which require a summary of potential trial participant characteristics and circumstances help to clarify requirements and expectations of PPI review. For recording and evaluating PPI, the planned PPI interventions should be monitored in terms of impact, and a tool to monitor public contributor experience is in development. Conclusions This toolkit provides a developing 'off the shelf' resource to support trial teams with limited resources in undertaking PPI. Key activities in further developing and maintaining the toolkit are to: listen to the views and experience of both research teams and public contributors using the tools, to identify the need for future tools, to modify tools based on experience of their use; to update the toolkit based on any newly identified resources that come to light; to raise awareness of the toolkit and to work in collaboration with others to both develop and test out PPI resources in order to reduce duplication of work in PPI.

Commissioning for menopause specialist services: A local perspective: An internet-based survey to assess the potential demand for menopause care in West Cheshire and the skills of local primary care clinicians in this field, with a view to informing future commissioning locally.

OBJECTIVE: This study explores the perceived volume of women affected by peri- or post-menopausal issues that present to primary care clinicians in West Cheshire, plus the self-reported confidence of those clinicians in managing the menopause, and whether or not they feel that they and their patients should have access to a specialist menopause service. STUDY DESIGN: Completion of an electronic survey. POPULATION: General practitioners and practice nurses working in West Cheshire. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: To provide evidence for future local commissioning of menopause services. RESULTS: Ninety-one clinicians working within West Cheshire were sent an email request to complete the survey with 53 responses received (58%). The majority were general practitioners and were within the 35-54 year age range. The majority perceived that, each week in their clinical practice, they see between one and eight women who are affected by peri- or post-menopausal symptoms. Regarding their self-reported skills and knowledge in managing the menopause, almost half felt they had 'good' knowledge but 'recognised (they) had learning needs'. Seven of the 53 (13%) felt their skills were 'not good'. Two-thirds of those clinicians who completed the survey felt that they and their patients should have access to a specialist menopause service locally. CONCLUSIONS: In the area covered by West Cheshire clinical commissioning group, there is no currently commissioned menopause service. This study has demonstrated that a substantial number of women present each week to clinicians working in this area who are felt to have peri- or post-menopausal symptoms. The clinicians have self-reported learning needs. Qualitative data from the survey would suggest training can be difficult to access. There is a clear need, both ethically and medically, for the commissioning of a West Cheshire specialist menopause service, with the proposed model being an integrated and holistic care model. Menopause care, and post-reproductive healthcare generally, provides an opportunity for collaboration and partnership working within an outcomes-based commissioning model. This study could be reviewed and replicated in other areas for comparison.