RESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline to update recommendations on newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes. This clinical guideline is based on the best available evidence for effectiveness, comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and costs. METHODS: This clinical guideline is based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and harms of newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, a GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins, used either as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. The Clinical Guidelines Committee prioritized the following outcomes, which were evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progression of chronic kidney disease, serious adverse events, and severe hypoglycemia. Weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis and were not rated with GRADE. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). ⢠Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure. ⢠Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV , Hipoglucemiantes , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2 , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamiento farmacológico , Hipoglucemiantes/uso terapéutico , Hipoglucemiantes/efectos adversos , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores del Cotransportador de Sodio-Glucosa 2/efectos adversos , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Dipeptidil-Peptidasa IV/efectos adversos , Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/agonistas , Péptido 1 Similar al Glucagón/uso terapéutico , Adulto , Quimioterapia Combinada , Insulina/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress is commonly seen in adults with pre-existing diabetes and is associated with worsened glycemic management and self-management practices. While a majority of women report increased stress during pregnancy, it is unknown how women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes experience diabetes distress during this unique and transitional time. PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of diabetes distress in women with pre-existing diabetes during pregnancy. METHODS: A qualitative study using an interpretive description approach was conducted. In-depth, one to one interviewing was used to capture rich descriptions of the pregnancy experience. Nested, stratified, and theoretical sampling was used to recruit 18 participants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes from the quantitative strand of this mixed methods study. Constant comparative analysis was used to inductively analyze the data and develop themes. FINDINGS: Four themes, each with several subthemes, emerged under the main finding of "Diabetes Distress": 1) Worry for Baby's Health - "What's this going to do to the baby?"' 2) Feeling Overwhelmed with Diabetes Management-"It just seemed unattainable"; 3) Living with Diabetes - "There's no way out" and 4) Cycle of Diabetes Distress. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study identify the sources and experiences of diabetes distress during pregnancy in women with pre-existing diabetes. Diabetes distress often presents as cyclical and multifaceted during pregnancy, with elements of fear for the unborn baby, difficulties with diabetes management, and having negative lived experiences of diabetes. Further work is needed to develop appropriate screening tools for pregnancy and interventions to mitigate diabetes distress. Diabetes educators are well-positioned provide emotional support and person-centred self-management education to individuals with diabetes.
Asunto(s)
Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2 , Embarazo , Adulto , Femenino , Humanos , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/complicaciones , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/terapia , Investigación Cualitativa , EmocionesRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. METHODS: The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. PRACTICE POINT 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 3: Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 4: Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 5: Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 6: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 7: Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 8: Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 9: Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 10: Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 11: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 12: Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 13: Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 14: Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.
Asunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria , Antivirales , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Adulto , Humanos , Antivirales/uso terapéutico , COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/virología , Ritonavir/uso terapéutico , SARS-CoV-2/genética , Estados Unidos , Sociedades Médicas , Guías de Práctica Clínica como AsuntoRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC. METHODS: This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: Clinicians should start screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults at age 50 years. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: Clinicians should consider not screening asymptomatic average-risk adults between the ages of 45 to 49 years. Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: Clinicians should stop screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults older than 75 years or in asymptomatic average-risk adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A: Clinicians should select a screening test for colorectal cancer in consultation with their patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values and preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B: Clinicians should select among a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years as a screening test for colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C: Clinicians should not use stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum screening tests for colorectal cancer.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Colorrectales , Médicos , Adulto , Humanos , Estados Unidos , Persona de Mediana Edad , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Colonoscopía , Sigmoidoscopía , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Neoplasias Colorrectales/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Colorrectales/epidemiología , Sangre OcultaRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD. RECOMMENDATION 1A: ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B: ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: ⢠Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) ⢠Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.
Asunto(s)
Trastorno Depresivo Mayor , Médicos , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño , Humanos , Adulto , Trastorno Depresivo Mayor/tratamiento farmacológico , Trastornos del Inicio y del Mantenimiento del Sueño/tratamiento farmacológico , Comorbilidad , Antidepresivos/efectos adversosRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: Evidence for the use of outpatient treatments in adults with confirmed COVID-19 continues to evolve with new data. This is version 2 of the American College of Physicians (ACP) living, rapid practice points focusing on 22 outpatient treatments for COVID-19, specifically addressing the dominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. METHODS: The Population Health and Medical Science Committee (formerly the Scientific Medical Policy Committee) developed this version of the living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). This topic will be maintained as living and rapid by continually monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. PRACTICE POINT 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 3: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 4: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Médicos , Adulto , Humanos , Pacientes Ambulatorios , SARS-CoV-2 , Antivirales/uso terapéuticoRESUMEN
AIM: To examine healthcare providers' extent of and perceived barriers and facilitators to screening for intimate partner violence in pregnant women attending prenatal clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive design was used to collect data from 130 healthcare providers. METHODS: Seventeen healthcare providers from 17 prenatal clinics in Kanungu district, Uganda, were recruited via convenience sampling to participate in an online survey implementing a modified Normalization Measure Development instrument. Data were collected between February 2023 and March 2023 (02/8/2023 to 03/12/2023) and analysed using descriptive and Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Slightly more than half (56%) of healthcare providers report screening pregnant women for intimate partner violence. There was a statistically significant relationship between healthcare providers screening for intimate partner violence and having previous training on intimate partner violence screening. The only barrier to screening identified was a lack of understanding of how intimate partner violence screening affects the nature of participant's own work. There were numerous potential facilitators identified for healthcare providers' intimate partner violence screening. CONCLUSION: Although higher-than-expected number of healthcare providers reported screening of pregnant women for intimate partner violence, the extent of screening is still suboptimal. The barrier to screening identified needs to be addressed and facilitators promoted. Receiving training among healthcare providers on intimate partner violence screening was associated with higher levels of screening; thus, this needs to be enhanced to optimize screening rates. Future studies should assess screening practices objectively and implement interventions to improve healthcare providers' intimate partner violence screening rates. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Screening for intimate partner violence should be part of standard care provided by healthcare providers to all pregnant women during prenatal clinic visits. The study supports the need for more training for healthcare providers in aspects related to intimate partner violence screening in order to ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment of those affected, identify those at risk and increase awareness. There is a need to enhance healthcare providers' capacity for intimate partner violence screening through education by integrating intimate partner violence screening pre- and post-registration courses and preparation programs or curriculum. IMPACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) in pregnancy is a global health problem. Screening for IPV by healthcare providers is suboptimal. This study found that only 56% of healthcare providers were routinely screening for IPV in Ugandan prenatal clinics. This study identified the main facilitators and one barrier to IPV screening. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines for quantitative studies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient was involved in this study.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: Poor oral feeding is a known contributor to growth challenges in neonates with complex CHD who require early surgery. Almost 60% of these infants do not achieve full oral feeding by hospital discharge. This study's objective was to identify predictors of the inability to achieve full oral feeding by discharge in neonates with complex CHD following surgical intervention with cardiopulmonary bypass. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospective study of 192 full-term neonates with complex CHD was performed. A stepwise selection logistic regression model was developed to predict oral feeding status at hospital discharge. Univariate subgroup analysis was performed with groups determined based on a CHD classification system. RESULTS: 58% of neonates (112/192) failed to achieve full oral feeding by hospital discharge. A logistic regression model identified duration of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and reintubation as predictors of the inability to achieve full oral feeding. Among neonates who achieved full oral feeding by discharge (42%), only 7.5% did so after postoperative day 10. Brain maturation, brain injury, and preoperative oral feeding were not predictors of full postoperative oral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Many infants with CHD fail to achieve full oral feeding by time of hospital discharge. Longer duration of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and increased number of intubations were predictive of poor feeding after surgery. Prolonging hospitalisation solely to achieve full oral feeding after postoperative day ten is of limited utility; earlier discharge should be promoted to avoid negative impacts on neonatal neurodevelopment as unintended consequences of lengthy hospitalisations.
Asunto(s)
Lesiones Encefálicas , Hospitalización , Lactante , Recién Nacido , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Alta del PacienteRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the current best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. This is version 2 of the ACP practice points, which serves to update version 1, published on 16 March 2021. These practice points do not evaluate vaccine-acquired immunity or cellular immunity. METHODS: The SMPC developed this version of the living, rapid practice points based on an updated living, rapid, systematic review conducted by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests to predict the degree or duration of natural immunity conferred by antibodies against reinfection, including natural immunity against different variants. RETIREMENT FROM LIVING STATUS: Although natural immunity remains a topic of scientific interest, this topic is being retired from living status given the availability of effective vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 and widespread recommendations for and prevalence of their use. Currently, vaccination is the best clinical recommendation for preventing infection, reinfection, and serious illness from SARS-CoV-2 and its variants.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Médicos , Anticuerpos Antivirales , Formación de Anticuerpos , Vacunas contra la COVID-19 , Humanos , Inmunidad Innata , Reinfección , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Post-operative oral feeding difficulties in neonates and infants with CHD is common. While pre-operative oral feeding may be normal, oral feeding challenges manifest in the post-operative period without a clearly defined aetiology. The objective of this scoping review was to examine post-operative oral feeding in full-term neonates and infants with a CHD. Electronic databases query (1 January 1975-31 May 2021), hand-search of the reference lists of included studies, contact with experts, and review of relevant conferences were performed to identify quantitative studies evaluating post-operative oral feeding in full-term neonates and infants with a CHD. Associations with additional quantitative variables in these studies were also examined. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Eighty per cent were cohort studies that utilised retrospective chart review from a single institution. The primary variable of interest in all studies was oral feeding status upon discharge from neonatal hospitalisation. The most common risk factors evaluated with poor feeding at time of discharge were birth weight (36% of included studies), gestational age (44%), duration of post-operative intubation (48%), cardiac diagnosis (40%), and presence of genetic syndrome or chromosomal anomaly (36%). The most common health-related outcomes evaluated were length of hospital stay (40%) and length of ICU stay (16%). Only the health-related outcomes of length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay were consistently significantly associated with poor post-operative oral feeding across studies in this review. A clear aetiology of poor post-operative oral feeding remains unknown.
Asunto(s)
Estudios Retrospectivos , Recién Nacido , Humanos , Lactante , Estudios de Cohortes , Edad Gestacional , Peso al NacerRESUMEN
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing "practice points" to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/diagnóstico , COVID-19/terapia , Medicina Basada en la Evidencia/métodos , Guías de Práctica Clínica como Asunto , Prueba de COVID-19 , Toma de Decisiones Clínicas , Conflicto de Intereses , Humanos , Pandemias , Revisiones Sistemáticas como Asunto/métodos , Estados UnidosRESUMEN
DESCRIPTION: The widespread availability of SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests raises important questions for clinicians, patients, and public health professionals related to the appropriate use and interpretation of these tests. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians developed these rapid, living practice points to summarize the current and best available evidence on the antibody response to SARS-CoV-2 infection, antibody durability after initial infection with SARS-CoV-2, and antibody protection against reinfection with SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: The SMPC developed these rapid, living practice points based on a rapid and living systematic evidence review done by the Portland VA Research Foundation and funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Ongoing literature surveillance is planned through December 2021. When new studies are identified and a full update of the evidence review is published, the SMPC will assess the new evidence and any effect on the practice points. PRACTICE POINT 1: Do not use SARS-CoV-2 antibody tests for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 2: Antibody tests can be useful for the purpose of estimating community prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. PRACTICE POINT 3: Current evidence is uncertain to predict presence, level, or durability of natural immunity conferred by SARS-CoV-2 antibodies against reinfection (after SARS-CoV-2 infection).
Asunto(s)
Anticuerpos Antivirales/inmunología , Formación de Anticuerpos , Prueba de COVID-19/normas , COVID-19/inmunología , Inmunidad Innata/inmunología , SARS-CoV-2/inmunología , HumanosRESUMEN
Studies show decreased well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic, especially for healthcare providers from Asia. Less is known about the psychological responses of working during the pandemic on hospital-based registered nurses (RNs) in the United States (US). Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to report the well-being of U.S.-based hospital RNs working during the initial acute phase of COVID-19 and compare it with well-being among healthcare workers described in two global meta-analyses. We conducted a cross-sectional survey in May-June 2020 (N = 467). Well-being was measured using the following tools: Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7, Patient Health Questionnaire-2 for depressive symptoms, Impact of Events Scale-Revised for traumatic stress, and the Insomnia Severity Index. Compared with global rates from two meta-analyses, US-based RNs reported significantly more traumatic stress (54.6% vs. 11.4% and 21.5%; p < .001) and depressive symptoms (54.6% vs. 31.8% and 21.7%; p < .001). Rates of insomnia were also higher in U.S.-based RNs than in the meta-analysis that reported insomnia (32.4% vs 27.8%; p < .033). Rates of anxiety symptoms among US-based RNs did not differ from that reported in one meta-analysis (37.3% vs. 34.4%), while it was significantly higher in the other (37.3% vs. 22.1%; p < .001). Hospital-based RNs from the US exhibited over twice the rates of trauma and nearly double the rates of depressive symptoms than shown in reports from hospital workers globally during the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The lasting effects of this distress are unknown and warrant ongoing evaluation and solutions to better support emotional well-being and prevent burnout in the workplace.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Ansiedad , Estudios Transversales , Depresión/epidemiología , Personal de Salud , Hospitales , Humanos , Personal de Hospital , SARS-CoV-2 , Estados Unidos/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
PREMISE: Sparse understory communities, in association with non-native tree species, are often attributed to allelopathy, the chemical inhibition of a plant by another. However, allelopathy is a difficult ecological phenomenon to demonstrate as many studies show conflicting results. Eucalyptus globulus, a tree native to Australia, is one of the most widely planted trees around the world. Sparse understories are common beneath E. globulus plantations and are often attributed to allelopathy, but the ecological impacts of E. globulus on native plant communities outside Austrialia are poorly understood. METHODS: To assess allelopathy as a mechanism of understory inhibition, we tested volatile- and water-soluble leaf extracts from E. globulus, Salvia apiana, and Quercus agrifolia on seed germination of California native plants. We also quantified germination rates and early seedling growth of California native plants grown in soil from E. globulus plantations versus soil from an adjacent native plant community. RESULTS: Volatile compounds from E. globulus did not significantly reduce germination for any species. Inhibition from water-soluble E. globulus compounds was comparable to that of a native tree, Quercus agrifolia (10%). Eucalyptus globulus soil supported germination and early seedling growth of native species equal to or better than coastal scrub soil, although species responses were variable. CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to previous studies, our results fail to support the hypothesis that E. globulus chemically inhibits germination of native species. California native plants germinate and grow well in soils from E. globulus plantations, which may have significant implications for management and restoration of land historically occupied by E. globulus plantations.
Asunto(s)
Eucalyptus , Alelopatía , Australia , Suelo , ÁrbolesRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Realizing patient partnership in research requires a shift from patient participation in ancillary roles to engagement as contributing members of research teams. While engaging patient partners is often discussed, impact is rarely measured. OBJECTIVE: Our primary aim was to conduct a scoping review of the impact of patient partnership on research outcomes. The secondary aim was to describe barriers and facilitators to realizing effective partnerships. SEARCH STRATEGY: A comprehensive bibliographic search was undertaken in EBSCO CINAHL, and Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO via Ovid. Reference lists of included articles were hand-searched. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Included studies were: (a) related to health care; (b) involved patients or proxies in the research process; and (c) reported results related to impact/evaluation of patient partnership on research outcomes. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted from 14 studies meeting inclusion criteria using a narrative synthesis approach. MAIN RESULTS: Patient partners were involved in a range of research activities. Results highlight critical barriers and facilitators for researchers seeking to undertake patient partnerships to be aware of, such as power imbalances between patient partners and researchers, as well as valuing of patient partner roles. DISCUSSION: Addressing power dynamics in patient partner-researcher relationships and mitigating risks to patient partners through inclusive recruitment and training strategies may contribute towards effective engagement. Further guidance is needed to address evaluation strategies for patient partnerships across the continuum of patient partner involvement in research. CONCLUSIONS: Research teams can employ preparation strategies outlined in this review to support patient partnerships in their work.
Asunto(s)
Participación del Paciente , Investigadores , Humanos , NarraciónAsunto(s)
Atención Ambulatoria , COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humanos , COVID-19/terapia , Estados Unidos , Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , PandemiasRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The current state of evidence regarding measures that assess evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) competence attributes (i.e., knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, behaviours) among nurses is unknown. This systematic review provides a narrative synthesis of the psychometric properties and general characteristics of EIDM competence attribute measures in nursing. METHODS: The search strategy included online databases, hand searches, grey literature, and content experts. To align with the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews, psychometric outcome data (i.e., acceptability, reliability, validity) were extracted in duplicate, while all remaining data (i.e., study and measure characteristics) were extracted by one team member and checked by a second member for accuracy. Acceptability data was defined as measure completion time and overall rate of missing data. The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing was used as the guiding framework to define reliability, and validity evidence, identified as a unified concept comprised of four validity sources: content, response process, internal structure and relationships to other variables. A narrative synthesis of measure and study characteristics, and psychometric outcomes is presented across measures and settings. RESULTS: A total of 5883 citations were screened with 103 studies and 35 unique measures included in the review. Measures were used or tested in acute care (n = 31 measures), public health (n = 4 measures), home health (n = 4 measures), and long-term care (n = 1 measure). Half of the measures assessed a single competence attribute (n = 19; 54.3%). Three measures (9%) assessed four competence attributes of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs and behaviours. Regarding acceptability, overall missing data ranged from 1.6-25.6% across 11 measures and completion times ranged from 5 to 25 min (n = 4 measures). Internal consistency reliability was commonly reported (21 measures), with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.45-0.98. Two measures reported four sources of validity evidence, and over half (n = 19; 54%) reported one source of validity evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights a gap in the testing and use of competence attribute measures related to evidence-informed decision making in community-based and long-term care settings. Further development of measures is needed conceptually and psychometrically, as most measures assess only a single competence attribute, and lack assessment and evidence of reliability and sources of established validity evidence. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42018088754.