Prophylactic Onlay Mesh Repair (POMR) Versus Primary Suture Repair (PSR) for Prevention of Incisional Hernia (IH) After Abdominal Wall Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: With many different operative techniques in use to reduce the incidence of incisional hernias (IH) following a midline laparotomy, there is no consensus among the clinicians on the efficacy and safety of any particular repair technique. This meta-analysis compares the prophylactic onlay mesh repair (POMR) and primary suture repair (PSR) for the incidence of IH. METHODS: A meta-analysis and systematic review of MEDLINE, PubMed Central (via PubMed), Embase (via Ovid), SCOPUS, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, SCI and Cochrane Library databases were undertaken. Seven randomized controlled trials assessing the outcomes of PSR and POMR were analyzed in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The risk of bias was assessed using the Rob2 tool. RESULTS: According to the pooled analysis, POMR significantly reduced the incidence of IH compared to the PSR (OR 5.82 [95% CI 2.69, 12.58] P < 0.01) with a significantly higher seroma formation rate post-surgery (OR 0.35 [95% CI 0.18, 0.67] P < 0.01). Furthermore, the length of hospital stay (WMD -0.78 [95% CI -1.58, 0.02] P = 0.05) was significantly shorter for PSR compared to POMR group. Comparable effects were noted for reintervention, postoperative ileus, postoperative hematoma, postoperative mortality, long-term intervention and long-term deaths between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: POMR significantly reduces the risk of IH when compared to the PSR, with an increased risk of postoperative seroma formation and longer hospital stay. However, more RCTs with standardized protocols are needed for meaningful comparisons of the two interventions, along with longer duration of follow-up to assess the impact on the occurrence of IH.

Design and Development of a Suite of Intimate Partner Violence Screening and Safety Planning Web Apps: User-Centered Approach.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of mobile health (mHealth) technology has resulted in the development of numerous apps for almost every condition and disease management. mHealth and eHealth solutions for increasing awareness about, and safety around, intimate partner violence are no exception. These apps allow women to control access to these resources and provide unlimited, and with the right design features, safe access when these resources are needed. Few apps, however, have been designed in close collaboration with intended users to ensure relevance and effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this paper is to discuss the design of a suite of evidence-based mHealth and eHealth apps to facilitate early identification of unsafe relationship behaviors and tailored safety planning to reduce harm from violence including the methods by which we collaborated with and sought input from a population of intended users. METHODS: A user-centered approach with aspects of human-centered design was followed to design a suite of 3 app-based safety planning interventions. RESULTS: This review of the design suite of app-based interventions revealed challenges faced and lessons learned that may inform future efforts to design evidence-based mHealth and eHealth interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Following a user-centered approach can be helpful in designing mHealth and eHealth interventions for marginalized and vulnerable populations, and led to novel insights that improved the design of our interventions.

Asking the Right Questions: Screening Men for Partner Violence.

With lifetime intimate partner violence (IPV) victimization rates for self-identified men between 14% and 20%, and an expanding understanding of gender as a nonbinary construct, practitioners in some clinical environments have expressed interest in screening all patients for IPV. Yet, few IPV screening instruments have been validated for use in nonfemale populations. This research tests the appropriateness and acceptability of a screening instrument developed for use with women.A literature review was completed to determine the current state of research into IPV screening practices tailored to men. Next, cognitive interviews were conducted to test a 9-question IPV screening instrument with men considered at average and elevated risk for experiencing partner violence. Participants were read the questions aloud and asked about item comprehension and question appropriateness and acceptability.The literature review uncovered no published reports describing routine clinic based IPV screening of men, and only two screening instruments had been validated with men. Twenty men participated in cognitive interviews from a variety of settings in a large urban center. All participants accurately described the intended meaning of each question and verified the appropriateness of asking the questions.This work addresses the gap in research on routine IPV screening with men, building on efforts to screen individuals and support improved health and response to violence to those across the gender spectrum.