RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women's Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women's Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women's Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend. RESULTS: The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.
Asunto(s)
Investigación Biomédica , Cirujanos , Estados Unidos , Niño , Humanos , Femenino , Masculino , Estudios de Cohortes , Salud Reproductiva , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (U.S.)RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: HIV testing services (HTS) are the first steps in reaching the UNAIDS 95-95-95 goals to achieve and maintain low HIV incidence. Evaluating the effectiveness of different demand creation interventions to increase uptake of efficient and effective HTS is useful to prioritize limited programmatic resources. This review was undertaken to inform World Health Organization (WHO) 2019 HIV testing guidelines and assessed the research question, "Which demand creation strategies are effective for enhancing uptake of HTS?" focused on populations globally. METHODS AND FINDINGS: The following electronic databases were searched through September 28, 2021: PubMed, PsycInfo, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL Complete, Web of Science Core Collection, EMBASE, and Global Health Database; we searched IAS and AIDS conferences. We systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any demand creation intervention (incentives, mobilization, counseling, tailoring, and digital interventions) to either a control or other demand creation intervention and reported HTS uptake. We pooled trials to evaluate categories of demand creation interventions using random-effects models for meta-analysis and assessed study quality with Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. This study was funded by the WHO and registered in Prospero with ID CRD42022296947. We screened 10,583 records and 507 conference abstracts, reviewed 952 full texts, and included 124 RCTs for data extraction. The majority of studies were from the African (N = 53) and Americas (N = 54) regions. We found that mobilization (relative risk [RR]: 2.01, 95% confidence interval [CI]: [1.30, 3.09], p < 0.05; risk difference [RD]: 0.29, 95% CI [0.16, 0.43], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), couple-oriented counseling (RR: 1.98, 95% CI [1.02, 3.86], p < 0.05; RD: 0.12, 95% CI [0.03, 0.21], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), peer-led interventions (RR: 1.57, 95% CI [1.15, 2.15], p < 0.05; RD: 0.18, 95% CI [0.06, 0.31], p < 0.05, N = 10 RCTs), motivation-oriented counseling (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.07, 2.20], p < 0.05; RD: 0.17, 95% CI [0.00, 0.34], p < 0.05, N = 4 RCTs), short message service (SMS) (RR: 1.53, 95% CI [1.09, 2.16], p < 0.05; RD: 0.11, 95% CI [0.03, 0.19], p < 0.05, N = 5 RCTs), and conditional fixed value incentives (RR: 1.52, 95% CI [1.21, 1.91], p < 0.05; RD: 0.15, 95% CI [0.07, 0.22], p < 0.05, N = 11 RCTs) all significantly and importantly (≥50% relative increase) increased HTS uptake and had medium risk of bias. Lottery-based incentives and audio-based interventions less importantly (25% to 49% increase) but not significantly increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Personal invitation letters and personalized message content significantly but not importantly (<25% increase) increased HTS uptake (medium risk of bias). Reduced duration counseling had comparable performance to standard duration counseling (low risk of bias) and video-based interventions were comparable or better than in-person counseling (medium risk of bias). Heterogeneity of effect among pooled studies was high. This study was limited in that we restricted to randomized trials, which may be systematically less readily available for key populations; additionally, we compare only pooled estimates for interventions with multiple studies rather than single study estimates, and there was evidence of publication bias for several interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Mobilization, couple- and motivation-oriented counseling, peer-led interventions, conditional fixed value incentives, and SMS are high-impact demand creation interventions and should be prioritized for programmatic consideration. Reduced duration counseling and video-based interventions are an efficient and effective alternative to address staffing shortages. Investment in demand creation activities should prioritize those with undiagnosed HIV or ongoing HIV exposure. Selection of demand creation interventions must consider risks and benefits, context-specific factors, feasibility and sustainability, country ownership, and universal health coverage across disease areas.
Asunto(s)
Infecciones por VIH , Humanos , Américas , Infecciones por VIH/diagnóstico , Infecciones por VIH/epidemiología , Prueba de VIHRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: There is significant variability in the performance and outcomes of invasive medical procedures such as percutaneous coronary intervention, endoscopy, and bronchoscopy. Peer evaluation is a common mechanism for assessment of clinician performance and care quality, and may be ideally suited for the evaluation of medical procedures. We therefore sought to perform a systematic review to identify and characterize peer evaluation tools for practicing clinicians, assess evidence supporting the validity of peer evaluation, and describe best practices of peer evaluation programs across multiple invasive medical procedures. METHODS: A systematic search of Medline and Embase (through September 7, 2021) was conducted to identify studies of peer evaluation and feedback relating to procedures in the field of internal medicine and related subspecialties. The methodological quality of the studies was assessed. Data were extracted on peer evaluation methods, feedback structures, and the validity and reproducibility of peer evaluations, including inter-observer agreement and associations with other quality measures when available. RESULTS: Of 2,135 retrieved references, 32 studies met inclusion criteria. Of these, 21 were from the field of gastroenterology, 5 from cardiology, 3 from pulmonology, and 3 from interventional radiology. Overall, 22 studies described the development or testing of peer scoring systems and 18 reported inter-observer agreement, which was good or excellent in all but 2 studies. Only 4 studies, all from gastroenterology, tested the association of scoring systems with other quality measures, and no studies tested the impact of peer evaluation on patient outcomes. Best practices included standardized scoring systems, prospective criteria for case selection, and collaborative and non-judgmental review. CONCLUSIONS: Peer evaluation of invasive medical procedures is feasible and generally demonstrates good or excellent inter-observer agreement when performed with structured tools. Our review identifies common elements of successful interventions across specialties. However, there is limited evidence that peer-evaluated performance is linked to other quality measures or that feedback to clinicians improves patient care or outcomes. Additional research is needed to develop and test peer evaluation and feedback interventions.
Asunto(s)
Retroalimentación , Revisión por Expertos de la Atención de Salud/normas , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Operativos/normas , Broncoscopía/normas , Endoscopía/normas , Humanos , Intervención Coronaria Percutánea/normas , Estudios Prospectivos , Reproducibilidad de los ResultadosRESUMEN
Over the past 20 years, numerous treatments addressing comorbid Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Substance Use Disorder (SUD) have been developed and tested. The current meta-analysis examined the efficacy and acceptability of the two central treatment types- trauma-focused and non-trauma-focused - compared with all comparators and with cognitive-behavioral manualized SUD treatments immediately post-treatment and at longest follow-up. Twenty-eight randomized clinical trials (N = 3247) were included. There were small to large within-group effects for all forms of active treatment (gs = 0.30-1.11). Trauma-focused but not non-trauma-focused treatments outperformed all comparators on PTSD outcomes at post-treatment. Neither trauma-focused nor non-trauma-focused treatment outperformed all comparators on SUD outcomes at post-treatment. Neither trauma- nor non-trauma-focused treatment outperformed manualized SUD treatments on PTSD outcomes at either time point. Manualized SUD treatments outperformed trauma-focused treatments on SUD outcomes at post-treatment and non-trauma-focused treatments on PTSD outcomes at follow-up. Regarding treatment retention, neither trauma-focused nor non-trauma-focused treatments significantly differed from all comparators or from manualized SUD treatments. Between-group results were largely unchanged in trim-and-fill analyses, but were not robust to fail-safe N. Few moderators were detected. Taken together, results suggest that trauma-focused, non-trauma-focused, and manualized SUD interventions are sound options for individuals with comorbid PTSD/SUD.
Asunto(s)
Terapia Cognitivo-Conductual , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias , Comorbilidad , Humanos , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/epidemiología , Trastornos por Estrés Postraumático/terapia , Trastornos Relacionados con Sustancias/epidemiologíaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Practice effects (PEs) are improvements in performance after repeated exposure to test materials, and typically viewed as a source of bias in repeated cognitive assessments. We aimed to determine whether characterizing PEs could also provide a useful marker of early cognitive decline. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature, searching PsycInfo (Ebsco) and PubMed databases for articles studying PEs in aging and dementia populations. Articles published between 1920 and 2019 were included. RESULT: We identified 259 articles, of which 27 studied PEs as markers of cognitive performance. These studies consistently showed that smaller, less-robust PEs were associated with current diagnostic status and/or future cognitive decline. In addition, lower PEs were associated with Alzheimer's disease risk factors and neurodegeneration biomarkers. CONCLUSION: PEs provide a potentially useful marker of cognitive decline, and could prove valuable as part of a cost-effective strategy to select individuals who are at-risk for dementia for future interventions.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the promotion of water intake could reduce sugar-sweetened beverage (SSB) consumption or purchases independent of interventions that target SSBs. METHODS: Seven databases were systematically searched. Included studies used water promotion as the primary intervention; used a controlled trial, single group pre-post, or prospective cohort study design; included a measure of SSB consumption or purchase; enrolled human participants of any age who lived in high-income or middle-income countries; contained original data; and appeared in a peer-reviewed English-language article published from 1 January 2000 to January 4, 2019. The search yielded 7068 publications, from which 108 were chosen for full-text review. Seventeen were included in this review. RESULTS: Nine of the 17 studies were randomized controlled trials, six were nonrandomized controlled trials, and 2 were single-group pre-post studies. Participants were primarily children and adolescents. Interventions included water provision, education or promotion activities. Ten of 17 studies were at low or some/moderate risk of bias. Seven studies showed a statistically significant decrease in SSB consumption of which only 2 were at low or some/moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: This review found limited evidence that interventions aimed solely at increasing water consumption reduce SSB intake. Further research is needed to investigate whether interventions that combine water promotion and SSB reduction strategies could be synergistic for reducing SSB intake.
RESUMEN
This article was originally published under standard licence, but has now been made available under a [CC BY 4.0] license. The PDF and HTML versions of the paper have been modified accordingly.
RESUMEN
Categorizing people with late-onset Alzheimer's disease into biologically coherent subgroups is important for personalized medicine. We evaluated data from five studies (total n = 4050, of whom 2431 had genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) data). We assigned people to cognitively defined subgroups on the basis of relative performance in memory, executive functioning, visuospatial functioning, and language at the time of Alzheimer's disease diagnosis. We compared genotype frequencies for each subgroup to those from cognitively normal elderly controls. We focused on APOE and on SNPs with p < 10-5 and odds ratios more extreme than those previously reported for Alzheimer's disease (<0.77 or >1.30). There was substantial variation across studies in the proportions of people in each subgroup. In each study, higher proportions of people with isolated substantial relative memory impairment had ≥1 APOE ε4 allele than any other subgroup (overall p = 1.5 × 10-27). Across subgroups, there were 33 novel suggestive loci across the genome with p < 10-5 and an extreme OR compared to controls, of which none had statistical evidence of heterogeneity and 30 had ORs in the same direction across all datasets. These data support the biological coherence of cognitively defined subgroups and nominate novel genetic loci.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedad de Alzheimer/genética , Enfermedad de Alzheimer/psicología , Cognición , Anciano , Anciano de 80 o más Años , Enfermedad de Alzheimer/clasificación , Apolipoproteínas E/genética , Función Ejecutiva , Femenino , Genotipo , Humanos , Lenguaje , Masculino , Memoria , Polimorfismo de Nucleótido Simple/genética , Navegación EspacialRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: How the productivity and careers of KL2 scholars compare with scholars receiving individual K-awards is unknown. METHODS: The productivity of KL2 scholars (n=21) at our institution was compared with that of K08 (n=34) and K23 (n=26) scholars. RESULTS: KL2 and K23 scholars had greater productivity than K08 scholars (p=0.01). Professional advancement was similar among groups. CONCLUSION: At our institution, scholarly productivity and professional advancement did not differ by type of K-award.