Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 4 de 4
Filtrar
1.
BMC Health Serv Res ; 19(1): 152, 2019 Mar 08.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30849986

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prisons represent a unique opportunity to diagnose blood-borne viruses. Opt-out testing is receiving increasing interest, as a result of mounting evidence to suggest that the manner in which a test offer is delivered, affects test uptake. Although the effectiveness of opt-out testing within the prison setting has been established, robust explanations are required for the variation in outcomes reported. METHODS: Rapid-realist review methodology was used to synthesise the literature on prison-based opt-out testing. The review was carried out in three phases. Phase one: An expert panel provided literature relevant to the implementation of opt-out testing within the English prison estate. Unstructured searches were also conducted to identify other social programmes where "opt-out" had been used to increase uptake. Phase two: a systematic search of six peer-review and five grey literature databases was carried out to identify empirical data on opt-out testing within the prison setting. Phase three: Additional non-exhaustive searches were carried out to identify literature that reinforced emergent concepts. The development of programme theory took place with each iteration and was validated in consultation with stakeholders. RESULTS: Programme theory was constructed for two outcomes: the proportion of intake offered a test and the proportion offered that accepted testing. The proportion of intake offered testing was influenced by the timing of the test offer, which was often delayed due to barriers to prisoner access. The decision to accept testing was influenced by concerns about confidentiality, fear of a positive diagnosis, a prisoner's personal interpretation of risk, discomfort with invasive procedures, trust in healthcare, and the fidelity of the opt-out offer. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified important implementation considerations that moderate the effectiveness of opt-out testing programmes. It also highlighted a lack of appreciation for the theoretical underpinnings of opt-out programmes and tension around how to implement testing in a manner that adheres to both default theory and informed consent. It is anticipated that results will be used to inform the design and implementation of subsequent versions of these programmes, as well as catalyse further in-depth analysis into their operation within the unique context of prison. REVIEW REGISTRATION: CRD42017068342 .


Asunto(s)
Patógenos Transmitidos por la Sangre/aislamiento & purificación , Pruebas Diagnósticas de Rutina/estadística & datos numéricos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Prisiones/organización & administración , Negativa a Participar/estadística & datos numéricos , Conocimientos, Actitudes y Práctica en Salud , Encuestas Epidemiológicas , Humanos , Consentimiento Informado , Tamizaje Masivo/organización & administración , Prisioneros
2.
Trials ; 25(1): 414, 2024 Jun 27.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38926770

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Improving outcomes after surgery is a major public health research priority for patients, clinicians and the NHS. The greatest burden of perioperative complications, mortality and healthcare costs lies amongst the population of patients aged over 50 years who undergo major non-cardiac surgery. The Volatile vs Total Intravenous Anaesthesia for major non-cardiac surgery (VITAL) trial specifically examines the effect of anaesthetic technique on key patient outcomes: quality of recovery after surgery (quality of recovery after anaesthesia, patient satisfaction and major post-operative complications), survival and patient safety. METHODS: A multi-centre pragmatic efficient randomised trial with health economic evaluation comparing total intravenous anaesthesia with volatile-based anaesthesia in adults (aged 50 and over) undergoing elective major non-cardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. DISCUSSION: Given the very large number of patients exposed to general anaesthesia every year, even small differences in outcome between the two techniques could result in substantial excess harm. Results from the VITAL trial will ensure patients can benefit from the very safest anaesthesia care, promoting an early return home, reducing healthcare costs and maximising the health benefits of surgical treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN62903453. September 09, 2021.


Asunto(s)
Anestesia Intravenosa , Satisfacción del Paciente , Complicaciones Posoperatorias , Anciano , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Periodo de Recuperación de la Anestesia , Anestesia General/efectos adversos , Anestesia General/economía , Anestesia General/métodos , Anestesia por Inhalación/efectos adversos , Anestesia por Inhalación/métodos , Anestesia por Inhalación/economía , Anestesia Intravenosa/efectos adversos , Anestesia Intravenosa/economía , Anestesia Intravenosa/métodos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Electivos , Costos de la Atención en Salud , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/etiología , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/prevención & control , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/economía , Resultado del Tratamiento
SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA