A systematic review of variations in circadian rhythm genes and type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is a chronic disease that has severe individual and societal consequences, which is forecast to worsen in the future. A new field of investigation is variations in circadian rhythm genes, in conjunction with diet and sleep variables, associations with, and effects on, type 2 diabetes development. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to analyse all current literature regarding circadian rhythm gene variations and type 2 diabetes, and explore their interplay with diet and sleep variables on type 2 diabetes outcomes. This review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021259682). METHODOLOGY: Embase and Pubmed were searched on 6/8/2021/11/8/2021 for studies of all designs, including participants from both sexes, all ethnicities, ages, and geographic locations. Participants with risk alleles/genotypes were compared with the wildtype regarding type 2 diabetes outcomes. Studies risk of bias were scored according to the risk of bias in non-randomised studies - interventions/exposures criteria. RESULTS: In total, 31 studies were found (association n = 29/intervention n = 2) including >600,000 participants from various ethnicities, sexes, and ages. Variations in the melatonin receptor 1B, brain and muscle arnt-like 1 and period circadian regulator (PER) genes were consistently associated with type 2 diabetes outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with variations in melatonin receptor 1B, brain and muscle arnt-like 1 and PER may be at higher risk of type 2 diabetes. Further research is needed regarding other circadian rhythm genes. More longitudinal studies and randomised trials are required before clinical recommendations can be made.

The effect of pre-course e-learning prior to advanced life support training: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of e-learning in contemporary healthcare education is quickly developing. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the use of an e-learning simulation programme (Microsim, Laerdal, UK) prior to attending an Advanced Life Support (ALS) course and the subsequent relationship to candidate performance. METHODS: An open label, multi-centre randomised controlled study was conducted. The control group received a course manual and pre-course MCQ four weeks prior to the face to face course. The intervention group in addition received the Microsim programme on a CD. The primary outcome was performance during a simulated cardiac arrest at the end of the course. Secondary outcomes were performance during multiple choice exams, resuscitation skills assessments and feedback to Microsim programme. RESULTS: 572 participants were randomised (287 Microsim, 285 control). There were no significant differences in the primary outcome (performance during a standard cardiac arrest simulation) or secondary outcomes. User evaluations were favorable. 79% would recommend it to colleagues. 9% stated Microsim could replace the entire ALS course, 25% parts. Over 70% of participants' perceived that Microsim improved their understanding of the key learning domains of the ALS course. CONCLUSION: Distributing Microsim to healthcare providers prior to attending an ALS courses did not improve either cognitive or psychomotor skills performance during cardiac arrest simulation testing. The challenge that lies ahead is to identify the optimal way to use e-learning as part of a blended approach to learning for this type of training programme.

Validation for a scoring system of the ALS cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest).

AIM: The cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest) assesses resuscitation knowledge and skills during a simulated cardiac arrest. The aim of this study is to validate an alternative scoring system for measuring individual candidate performance during research involving the CASTest. METHODS: The performance of 537 participants was measured using the new scoring system. Evidence of internal structure was sought by comparing the score with global rating of performance and pass/fail decision; identification of participants with instructor potential, skill tests and MCQ scores. Relationships between CASTest score, profession and seniority were also examined. RESULTS: Global assessment of performance identified 413 passes (76.9%) and 124 fails (23.1%). CASTest score was significantly higher in those that passed than in those that failed (median 77 vs 62.5, P<0.0001). There were no differences between professions. Senior staff performed slightly better than junior staff (median 74 and 72 respectively, P=0.01). Excellent participants (identified as having instructor potential) scored significantly higher than the other participants (median 94 and 72 respectively, P<0.0001). A strong correlation was demonstrated between domains in the CASTest (rho 0.72-0.82, P<0.01). Other assessment outcomes for the ALS course correlated poorly with CASTest scores (rho 0.27-0.37, P<0.01). CONCLUSION: This new simple scoring system can be used to better characterise performance on the ALS course CASTest than the current binary pass-fail outcome.

Advanced life support cardiac arrest scenario test evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The cardiac arrest scenario test (CASTest) is a central component of the assessment strategy on the Advanced Life Support Course. The aim of this study was to establish equivalence between the four different CASTest scenarios and investigate the impact of profession, candidate order and course centre on the pass rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cluster randomised study. CASTest scenarios were randomly allocated to candidates stratified by course centre. Candidate demographics and performance were recorded on the criterion referenced check list along with the final assessment outcome (pass/fail). Differences in pass rates according scenario; profession, course centre and candidate order were examined by Chi-squared and multiple logistic regression. RESULTS: Two thousand, four hundred and forty-nine assessments from 65 course centres were evaluated. There was no difference in pass rate between scenarios (average pass rate 74.4%). Pass rates according to course centre varied widely (40-93%, P<0.0001) as did professional group (42-100%, P<0.0001). The order that candidates took the test did not influence the pass rate. CONCLUSION: The CASTest assessment scenarios used during ALS testing appear equivalent in terms of difficulty. In contrast, the professional background of the candidate and centre at which the assessment is performed do significantly influence the likelihood of passing the assessment. Further evaluation of the reasons for differences between course centres is required.