Self-reported preferences and barriers to continued professional development in primary care physicians: a cross-sectional web-based survey in Qatar.

INTRODUCTION: High quality and effective primary healthcare is a national priority in Qatar. Continuing professional development (CPD) for physicians is a cornerstone of this objective, yet little is known about physicians' preferences or barriers to CPD participation. METHOD: A needs assessment was conducted using a cross-sectional web-based survey of primary care physicians registered with the Department of Healthcare Practitioners (DHP) between March and June 2017. RESULTS: Two-hundred-and-eighty-one complete surveys were submitted representing physicians in both public (N = 129) and private sectors (N = 152). Physicians completed medical degrees and postgraduate training across multiple countries, and most had been practicing in Qatar for 5 years or less. 'Activities during working hours', 'cost' and 'work commitments' were the most common barriers. There was little consensus regarding the optimal timing of CPD activities, although public sector physicians were more likely to indicate weekend activities as a barrier to participation (30% vs. 9%). Over 90% of participants preferred traditional lectures, workshops, case-based sessions, small group and online self-paced learning as formats for CPD delivery, however alternative modes of delivery were also deemed acceptable (> 80% agreement). CONCLUSION: Understanding primary care physicians' barriers and preferences is an essential component of a larger necessitated needs assessment of CPD in primary care practitioners in Qatar. Further research is warranted to understand the underlying beliefs driving physicians' choices and the apparent variation between those working in the public and private sectors. CPD developers should consider approaches to mitigate perceived barriers and understand preferences to maximize the quality of participation.

Key issues for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guidelines.

Established in 2015, the Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium is an international network of over 120 individuals interested in stakeholder engagement in research and guidelines. The MuSE group is developing guidance for stakeholder engagement in the development of health and healthcare guideline development. The development of this guidance has included multiple meetings with stakeholders, including patients, payers/purchasers of health services, peer review editors, policymakers, program managers, providers, principal investigators, product makers, the public, and purchasers of health services and has identified a number of key issues. These include: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. In this paper, we discuss these issues and our plan to develop guidance to facilitate stakeholder engagement in all stages of the development of health and healthcare guideline development.

A group of international researchers, patient partners, and other stakeholders are working together to create a checklist for when and how to involve stakeholders in health guideline development. Health guidelines include clinical practice guidelines, which your healthcare provider uses to determine treatments for health conditions. While working on this checklist, the team identified key issues to work on, including: (1) Definitions, roles, and settings (2) Stakeholder identification and selection (3) Levels of engagement, (4) Evaluation of engagement, (5) Documentation and transparency, and (6) Conflict of interest management. This paper describes each issue and how the team plans to produce guidance papers to address them.

A Framework for the Development of Living Practice Guidelines in Health Care.

BACKGROUND: Living practice guidelines are increasingly being used to ensure that recommendations are responsive to rapidly emerging evidence. OBJECTIVE: To develop a framework that characterizes the processes of development of living practice guidelines in health care. DESIGN: First, 3 background reviews were conducted: a scoping review of methods papers, a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and an analytic review of selected living practice guidelines. Second, the core team drafted the first version of the framework. Finally, the core team refined the framework through an online survey and online discussions with a multidisciplinary international group of stakeholders. SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: Multidisciplinary group of 51 persons who have experience with guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Not applicable. RESULTS: A major principle of the framework is that the unit of update in a living guideline is the individual recommendation. In addition to providing definitions, the framework addresses several processes. The planning process should address the organization's adoption of the living methodology as well as each specific guideline project. The production process consists of initiation, maintenance, and retirement phases. The reporting should cover the evidence surveillance time stamp, the outcome of reassessment of the body of evidence (when applicable), and the outcome of revisiting a recommendation (when applicable). The dissemination process may necessitate the use of different venues, including one for formal publication. LIMITATION: This study does not provide detailed or practical guidance for how the described concepts would be best implemented. CONCLUSION: The framework will help guideline developers in planning, producing, reporting, and disseminating living guideline projects. It will also help research methodologists study the processes of living guidelines. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Factors to Consider During Identification and Invitation of Individuals in a Multi-stakeholder Research Partnership.

BACKGROUND: Health research teams increasingly partner with stakeholders to produce research that is relevant, accessible, and widely used. Previous work has covered stakeholder group identification. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop factors for health research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership, with the aim of forming equitable and informed teams. DESIGN: Consensus development. PARTICIPANTS: We involved 16 stakeholders from the international Multi-Stakeholder Engagement (MuSE) Consortium, including patients and the public, providers, payers of health services/purchasers, policy makers, programme managers, peer review editors, and principal investigators. APPROACH: We engaged stakeholders in factor development and as co-authors of this manuscript. Using a modified Delphi approach, we gathered stakeholder views concerning a preliminary list of 18 factors. Over two feedback rounds, using qualitative and quantitative analysis, we concentrated these into ten factors. KEY RESULTS: We present seven highly desirable factors: 'expertise or experience', 'ability and willingness to represent the stakeholder group', 'inclusivity (equity, diversity and intersectionality)', 'communication skills', 'commitment and time capacity', 'financial and non-financial relationships and activities, and conflict of interest', 'training support and funding needs'. Additionally, three factors are desirable: 'influence', 'research relevant values', 'previous stakeholder engagement'. CONCLUSIONS: We present factors for research teams to consider during identification and invitation of individual representatives in a multi-stakeholder research partnership. Policy makers and guideline developers may benefit from considering the factors in stakeholder identification and invitation. Research funders may consider stipulating consideration of the factors in funding applications. We outline how these factors can be implemented and exemplify how their use has the potential to improve the quality and relevancy of health research.

Relationship Between Inflammation and Metabolism in Patients With Newly Presenting Rheumatoid Arthritis.

Background: Systemic inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is associated with metabolic changes. We used nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy-based metabolomics to assess the relationship between an objective measure of systemic inflammation [C-reactive protein (CRP)] and both the serum and urinary metabolome in patients with newly presenting RA. Methods: Serum (n=126) and urine (n=83) samples were collected at initial presentation from disease modifying anti-rheumatic drug naïve RA patients for metabolomic profile assessment using 1-dimensional 1H-NMR spectroscopy. Metabolomics data were analysed using partial least square regression (PLS-R) and orthogonal projections to latent structure discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) with cross validation. Results: Using PLS-R analysis, a relationship between the level of inflammation, as assessed by CRP, and the serum (p=0.001) and urinary (p<0.001) metabolome was detectable. Likewise, following categorisation of CRP into tertiles, patients in the lowest CRP tertile and the highest CRP tertile were statistically discriminated using OPLS-DA analysis of both serum (p=0.033) and urinary (p<0.001) metabolome. The most highly weighted metabolites for these models included glucose, amino acids, lactate, and citrate. These findings suggest increased glycolysis, perturbation in the citrate cycle, oxidative stress, protein catabolism and increased urea cycle activity are key characteristics of newly presenting RA patients with elevated CRP. Conclusions: This study consolidates our understanding of a previously identified relationship between serum metabolite profile and inflammation and provides novel evidence that there is a relationship between urinary metabolite profile and inflammation as measured by CRP. Identification of these metabolic perturbations provides insights into the pathogenesis of RA and may help in the identification of therapeutic targets.

Development of an Educational Video for Self-Assessment of Patients with RA: Steps, Challenges, and Responses.

OBJECTIVES: The primary objective was to develop an educational video to teach patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) self-assessment of their disease activity. Secondary objectives were to validate the video, identify the challenges in producing it, and the responses to these challenges. METHODS: Rheumatologists from 7 Middle Eastern Arab countries (MEAC) discussed unmet needs in the education of patients with RA. They reviewed pre-existing educational audiovisual material and drafted the script for a new video in Arabic. The video was produced in collaboration with a technical team, then validated by patients using a standardized interview. At each step of production, challenges were identified. RESULTS: Twenty-three rheumatologists from MEAC identified unmet needs in patients' education. A video was produced, explaining the concepts of treat-to-target and showing a patient performing self-assessment using DAS-28. Sixty-two patients were interviewed for validation and found the video to be useful and easy to understand, albeit not replacing the physician's visit. Most common challenges encountered included acceptance of patient empowerment, agreement on DAS-28 as composite measure, production of a comprehensible written Arabic text, and addressing the population cultural mix. CONCLUSION: Despite challenges, the video was well accepted among patients and can be used for clinical and research purposes. It is particularly useful in pandemic periods where social distancing is recommended.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

2021 American College of Rheumatology Guideline for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To develop updated guidelines for the pharmacologic management of rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS: We developed clinically relevant population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes (PICO) questions. After conducting a systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to rate the certainty of evidence. A voting panel comprising clinicians and patients achieved consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations. RESULTS: The guideline addresses treatment with disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs), including conventional synthetic DMARDs, biologic DMARDs, and targeted synthetic DMARDs, use of glucocorticoids, and use of DMARDs in certain high-risk populations (i.e., those with liver disease, heart failure, lymphoproliferative disorders, previous serious infections, and nontuberculous mycobacterial lung disease). The guideline includes 44 recommendations (7 strong and 37 conditional). CONCLUSION: This clinical practice guideline is intended to serve as a tool to support clinician and patient decision-making. Recommendations are not prescriptive, and individual treatment decisions should be made through a shared decision-making process based on patients' values, goals, preferences, and comorbidities.

Review of the Medical Student Performance Evaluation: analysis of the end-users' perspective across the specialties.

The Medical Student Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important tool of communication used by program directors to make decisions in the residency application process. To understand the perspective and usage of the MSPE across multiple medical specialties now and in anticipation of the planned changes in USMLE Step 1 score-reporting. A survey instrument including quantitative and qualitative measures was developed and piloted. The final survey was distributed to residency programs across 28 specialties in 2020 via the main contact on the ACGME listserv. Of the 28 specialties surveyed, at least one response was received from 26 (93%). Eight percent of all programs (364/4675) responded to the survey, with most respondents being program directors. Usage of the MSPE varied among specialties. Approximately 1/3 of end-users stated that the MSPE is very or extremely influential in their initial screening process. Slightly less than half agreed or strongly agreed that they trust the information to be an accurate representation of applicants, though slightly more than half agree that the MSPE will become more influential once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. Professionalism was rated as the most important component and noteworthy characteristics among the least important in the decision-making process. Performance in the internal medicine clerkship was rated as the most influential while neurology and psychiatry performances were rated as less influential. Overwhelmingly, respondents suggested that including comparative performance and/or class rank would make the MSPE more useful once USMLE Step 1 becomes pass/fail. MSPE end-users across a variety of specialties utilize this complex document in different ways and value it differentially in their decision-making processes. Despite this, continued mistrust of the MSPE persists. A better understanding of end-users' perceptions of the MSPE offers the UME community an opportunity to transform the MSPE into a highly valued, trusted document of communication.

Perceptions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis about self-assessment of disease activity after watching an educational video: a qualitative pilot study from the AUTO-DAS in Middle Eastern Arab countries project.

To evaluate the perceptions of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) about self-assessment of their disease activity after watching an educational video. Consecutive patients with RA consulting their rheumatologist in six Middle Eastern Countries were invited to watch an educational video developed to teach self-assessment using Disease Activity Score (DAS-28). Then, a rheumatology nurse conducted a semi-structured interview and collected the patients' perception about the understanding of the video, feasibility, capability and confidence in performing self-assessment using Likert-type items. The degree of confidence with self-assessment was correlated to the patients' socio-demographic characteristics. Sixty-two patients were included and had an overall positive reaction to the video. It was easy to understand in 96% and helped facilitate self-assessment in 92% of cases. Self-assessment was considered totally feasible in 74%, and 66% of patients were capable of always doing it, with a confidence of 60% (always) to 34% (sometimes). Confidence was associated with a higher educational level. Nevertheless, 77% of patients felt that the self-assessment would not fully replace the physician's visit. Open-ended questions identified five themes: better understanding of the disease, easier communication with the rheumatologist, less consultation time, difficulty with the scoring part and importance of practice. Patients with RA felt that self-assessment was feasible and helpful in understanding RA, improving communication with the rheumatologist and shortening the visit time.

Development of a Remote Online Collaborative Medical School Pathology Curriculum with Clinical Correlations, across Several International Sites, through the Covid-19 Pandemic.

INTRODUCTION: Due to the Covid-19 social distancing restrictions, in March 2020, Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar decided to replace students' clinical instruction with novel online electives. Hence, we implemented an innovative online and remote pathology curriculum, anchored on virtual microscopy and Zoom videoconferencing: ideal tools to support online teaching. OBJECTIVE: To assess a new curriculum implementation at Weill Cornell Medicine-Qatar. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This for-credit, 2-week elective included 6 synchronous Zoom sessions where complex clinicopathological cases were discussed in small groups. We used open access digital microscopy slides from the University of Leeds' Virtual Pathology Library (http://www.virtualpathology.leeds.ac.uk/slides/library/). Students independently prepared for these sessions by reviewing cases, slides, readings, and questions in advance (asynchronous self-directed learning anchored on a flipped classroom model), and wrote a final review of a case. An assessment and feedback were given to each student. RESULTS: Four elective iterations were offered to a total of 29 students, with learners and faculty spread over 4 countries. During the Zoom sessions, students controlled the digital slides and offered their own diagnoses, followed by group discussions to strengthen autonomy and confidence. We surveyed learners about the elective's performance (program evaluation). Students conveyed high levels of satisfaction about the elective's overall quality, their pathology learning and online interactions, with minimal challenges related to the remote nature of the course. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Technological innovations mitigate sudden disruptions in medical education. A remote curriculum allows instruction at any distance, at any time, from anywhere, enhancing educational exchanges, flexibility and globalization in medical education.

Best Practices in Resident Research- A National Survey of High Functioning Internal Medicine Residency Programs in Resident Research in USA.

PURPOSE: Meaningful participation in research for both faculty and residents is generally viewed to be an essential component of residency training. To better understand best practices in residency research, the authors conducted a survey among Internal Medicine (IM) Residency Programs with experience in research. METHODS: Phone interviews were conducted with a convenience sample of Residency Program Directors (PDs). Survey responses were analyzed across the following domains: size and makeup of the residency and research programs, resources for research, role of the PD/research director (RD), profile of trainees doing research, curriculum description, scope of research, role of mentors, career choices and determinants of success. RESULTS: Fifteen programs were included in the study. Across these programs, approximately two-thirds of residents were involved in research during their training . Eighty percent of the programs required an application for residents to engage in research. Ninety-two percent of the programs had a RD but only 58% had a formal research curriculum. Clinical research projects were the most common types of research. On average, two-thirds of residents involved in research submitted abstracts to regional and/or national meetings. The factor most frequently associated with resident research success was an effective faculty research mentor. CONCLUSIONS: Research success during residency is multifactorial. The authors propose that having a robust structure for research that is led by a residency RD, and the presence of effective mentors and strong administrative support are critical for success.

Remediation of learners struggling with communication skills: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Communication skills is a core area of competency for healthcare practitioners. However, trainees deficient in those skills are not identified early enough to address the deficiency. Furthermore, faculty often struggle to identify effective remediation strategies for those who fail to meet expectations. We undertook a systematic review to determine which assessment methods are appropriate to identify learners that struggle with communication skills and the strategies used to remediate them. METHODS: The literature was searched from January 1998 through to May 2019 using academic databases and grey literature. Trainees were defined as healthcare practitioners in undergraduate, graduate and continuing education. Characteristics of studies, assessment and intervention strategies and outcomes were synthesized qualitatively and summarized in tables. RESULTS: From an initial 1636 records, 16 (1%) studies met the review criteria. Majority of the learners were medical students. A few studies (44%) included students from other disciplines, residents and physicians in practice. The remediation programs, in the studies, ranged from 1 week to 1 year. Around half of the studies focused solely on learners struggling with communication skills. The majority of studies used a format of a clinical OSCE to identify struggling learners. None of the studies had a single intervention strategy with the majority including an experiential component with feedback. CONCLUSIONS: A few studies collectively described the diagnosis, remediation intervention and the assessment of the outcomes of remediation of communication skills. For a remediation strategy to be successful it is important to ensure: (i) early identification and diagnosis, (ii) the development of an individualized plan and (iii) providing reassessment with feedback to the learner.

Dimensionality reduction reveals fine-scale structure in the Japanese population with consequences for polygenic risk prediction.

The diversity in our genome is crucial to understanding the demographic history of worldwide populations. However, we have yet to know whether subtle genetic differences within a population can be disentangled, or whether they have an impact on complex traits. Here we apply dimensionality reduction methods (PCA, t-SNE, PCA-t-SNE, UMAP, and PCA-UMAP) to biobank-derived genomic data of a Japanese population (n = 169,719). Dimensionality reduction reveals fine-scale population structure, conspicuously differentiating adjacent insular subpopulations. We further enluciate the demographic landscape of these Japanese subpopulations using population genetics analyses. Finally, we perform phenome-wide polygenic risk score (PRS) analyses on 67 complex traits. Differences in PRS between the deconvoluted subpopulations are not always concordant with those in the observed phenotypes, suggesting that the PRS differences might reflect biases from the uncorrected structure, in a trait-dependent manner. This study suggests that such an uncorrected structure can be a potential pitfall in the clinical application of PRS.

Extending the RIGHT statement for reporting adapted practice guidelines in healthcare: the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The adaptation of guidelines is an increasingly used methodology for the efficient development of contextualised recommendations. Nevertheless, there is no specific reporting guidance. The essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement could be useful for reporting adapted guidelines, but it does not address all the important aspects of the adaptation process. The objective of our project is to develop an extension of the RIGHT statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: To develop the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist, we will use a multistep process that includes: (1) establishment of a Working Group; (2) generation of an initial checklist based on the RIGHT statement; (3) optimisation of the checklist (an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review by guideline developers and users and a final assessment of adapted guidelines); and (4) approval of the final checklist. At each step of the process, we will calculate absolute frequencies and proportions, use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions, discuss the results, draft a report and refine the checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain). We will disseminate the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist by publishing into a peer-reviewed journal, presenting to relevant stakeholders and translating into different languages. We will continuously seek feedback from stakeholders, surveil new relevant evidence and, if necessary, update the checklist.

The Revised Medical School Performance Evaluation: Does It Meet the Needs of Its Readers?

BACKGROUND: The Medical School Performance Evaluation (MSPE) is an important factor for application to residency programs. Many medical schools are incorporating recent recommendations from the Association of American Medical Colleges MSPE Task Force into their letters. To date, there has been no feedback from the graduate medical education community on the impact of this effort. OBJECTIVE: We surveyed individuals involved in residency candidate selection for internal medicine programs to understand their perceptions on the new MSPE format. METHODS: A survey was distributed in March and April 2018 using the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine listserv, which comprises 4220 individuals from 439 residency programs. Responses were analyzed, and themes were extracted from open-ended questions. RESULTS: A total of 140 individuals, predominantly program directors and associate program directors, from across the United States completed the survey. Most were aware of the existence of the MSPE Task Force. Respondents read a median of 200 to 299 letters each recruitment season. The majority reported observing evidence of adoption of the new format in more than one quarter of all medical schools. Among respondents, nearly half reported the new format made the MSPE more important in decision-making about a candidate. Within the MSPE, respondents recognized the following areas as most influential: academic progress, summary paragraph, graphic representation of class performance, academic history, and overall adjective of performance indicator (rank). CONCLUSIONS: The internal medicine graduate medical education community finds value in many components of the new MSPE format, while recognizing there are further opportunities for improvement.