Functional gastrointestinal disorders among healthcare professionals at a tertiary Australian hospital.

Background and Aim: The aim of this study was to determine the frequency, characteristics, and associations of functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGIDs) among healthcare professionals. Methods: A qualitative survey was conducted among the staff at a tertiary Australian hospital between January 2017 and June 2018. Rome III criteria (excluding endoscopic) were used to define FGID. Multivariable logistic regression was used to explore associations. Results: Of the 274 respondents (17% doctors, 66% nurses, 17% others; 77% female), 54% had experienced GI symptoms ≥3 times per week and 23% were diagnosed with FGIDs (2% IBS, 19% FD, 2% both). GI symptoms were more common in females (58% vs. 38%), Caucasians versus Asians (59% vs. 35%), respondents who were easily (67% vs. 40%) or often stressed (58% vs. 37%), and had irregular working hours (62% vs. 46%, each P < 0.05). Independent predictors of GI symptoms included being easily stressed (OR 2.7) and female sex (OR 2.4), while Asian ethnicity was protective (OR 0.42, each P < 0.05). FGIDs were more prevalent in respondents who often felt stressed (27% vs. 10%), felt easily stressed (29% vs. 17%), and in nurses compared to others (27% vs. 16%; each P < 0.05). The only independent predictor of FGID was being often stressed (OR 4.1, P = 0.011). Conclusions: FGIDs and GI symptoms are prevalent among hospital workers. Stress, female sex, irregular working hours, and non-Asian ethnicity appeared to be associated with GI symptoms and FGIDs.

Evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: A comprehensive scoring system versus testing for statistical significance.

BACKGROUND: Medical practice relies on reliable research observations. Whether such observations are true is traditionally tested by hypotheses and expressed with P-values. A strict P-value driven interpretation could potentially deny benefits of treatment. OBJECTIVE: A strict P-value driven interpretation was compared to a context driven causality interpretation using the Bradford Hill Criteria to determine the clinical benefit of an intervention. METHODS: We searched all randomised controlled trials in Women's Health, published in five leading medical journals since January 2014. These were then scored using the 10 Bradford Hill Criteria for causation. Each component of the Bradford Hill Criteria was given a score from zero to three, resulting in a total score between zero and 30 for each article, converted into a decimal value. These scores were then compared to conclusions based on the p-value and conclusions drawn by the authors. For results discordant between Bradford Hill Criteria and P-values, we compared results with meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found 68 articles for extraction of data. Of these, 49 (72%) showed concordance between Bradford Hill criteria and p-value driven interpretation, 25 (37%) of the articles reporting effectiveness (true positive), and 24 (35%) reporting no effectiveness (true negative). In eight (12%) articles, Bradford Hill criteria scores suggested effetiveness while p-values driven interpretation did not. Seven of those eight articles had p-values between 0.05 and 0.10. Out of these eight articles, six had a subsequent meta-analysis' published on the intervention being studied. All six meta-analysis demonstrated effetiveness of the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: In the interpretation of clinical trials, a context driven interpretation of causality may be more clinically informative than a strict P-value driven approach.

Family presence during adult resuscitation from cardiac arrest: A systematic review.

AIM: Objective: To conduct a systematic review of the published evidence related to family presence during adult resuscitation from cardiac arrest. METHODS: This review, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021242384) and reported according to PRISMA guidelines, included studies of adult cardiac arrest with family presence during resuscitation that reported one or more patient, family or provider outcomes. Three databases (Medline, CINAHL and EMBASE) were searched from inception to 10/05/2022. Two investigators screened the studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The synthesis approach was guided by Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) reporting guidelines and a narrative synthesis method. RESULTS: The search retrieved 9,459 citations of which 31 were included: 18 quantitative studies (including two RCTs), 12 qualitative studies, and one mixed methods study. The evidence was of very low or low certainty. There were four major findings. High-certainty evidence regarding the effect of family presence during resuscitation on patient outcomes is lacking. Family members had mixed outcomes in terms of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms, and experience of witnessing resuscitation. Provider experience was variable and resuscitation setting, provider education, and provider experience were major influences on family presence during resuscitation. Finally, providers reported that a family support person and organisational guidelines were important for facilitating family presence during resuscitation. CONCLUSION: The effect of family presence during resuscitation varies between individuals. There was variability in the effect of family presence during resuscitation on patient outcomes, family and provider outcomes and perceptions.