Supporting evidence-informed policy and scrutiny: A consultation of UK research professionals.

Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK.

Pornography, Sexual Coercion and Abuse and Sexting in Young People's Intimate Relationships: A European Study.

New technology has made pornography increasingly accessible to young people, and a growing evidence base has identified a relationship between viewing pornography and violent or abusive behavior in young men. This article reports findings from a large survey of 4,564 young people aged 14 to 17 in five European countries which illuminate the relationship between regular viewing of online pornography, sexual coercion and abuse and the sending and receiving of sexual images and messages, known as "sexting." In addition to the survey, which was completed in schools, 91 interviews were undertaken with young people who had direct experience of interpersonal violence and abuse in their own relationships. Rates for regularly viewing online pornography were very much higher among boys and most had chosen to watch pornography. Boys' perpetration of sexual coercion and abuse was significantly associated with regular viewing of online pornography. Viewing online pornography was also associated with a significantly increased probability of having sent sexual images/messages for boys in nearly all countries. In addition, boys who regularly watched online pornography were significantly more likely to hold negative gender attitudes. The qualitative interviews illustrated that, although sexting is normalized and perceived positively by most young people, it has the potential to reproduce sexist features of pornography such as control and humiliation. Sex and relationships education should aim to promote a critical understanding of pornography among young people that recognizes its abusive and gendered values.

An Evaluation of Medication Reconciliation in an Outpatient Nephrology Clinic.

Background: Accreditation Canada recognizes medication reconciliation as a key required organizational practice (ROP) to enhance patient safety. Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) carry a high risk for adverse drug events due to multiple co-morbidities, using many medications, and being cared for by many practitioners. Data evaluating the benefits of ambulatory medication reconciliation (AmbMR) in patients with advanced CKD is limited. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated types and rates of medication discrepancies and their potential index for patient harm using the Cornish classification system in a cohort of consecutive non-dialysis-dependent CKD stage 5 patients who received AmbMR. Results: AmbMR was conducted 225 times on 115 patients during the study period. One hundred eighty medication discrepancies were identified. The most common discrepancy identified was incorrect drug followed by discrepant dose, discrepant frequency, and drug omission. Sixty-three percent of discrepancies were classified as unlikely to cause patient discomfort or clinical deterioration, 36% were classified as likely to cause moderate harm, and one percent was classified as potential to cause serious harm. Conclusion: Medication discrepancies are common in patients with advanced CKD. Nearly a quarter of patients may experience moderate discomfort or clinical deterioration from discrepancies. Our study showed that in patients with non-dialysis-dependent CKD stage 5, the risk of patient harm associated with medication discrepancies can be reduced by conducting AmbMR.

Ambulatory Medication Reconciliation in Dialysis Patients: Benefits and Community Practitioners' Perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Ambulatory medication reconciliation can reduce the frequency of medication discrepancies and may also reduce adverse drug events. Patients receiving dialysis are at high risk for medication discrepancies because they typically have multiple comorbid conditions, are taking many medications, and are receiving care from many practitioners. Little is known about the potential benefits of ambulatory medication reconciliation for these patients. OBJECTIVES: To determine the number, type, and potential level of harm associated with medication discrepancies identified through ambulatory medication reconciliation and to ascertain the views of community pharmacists and family physicians about this service. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study involved patients initiating hemodialysis who received ambulatory medication reconciliation in a hospital renal program over the period July 2014 to July 2016. Discrepancies identified on the medication reconciliation forms for study patients were extracted and categorized by discrepancy type and potential level of harm. The level of harm was determined independently by a pharmacist and a nurse practitioner using a defined scoring system. In the event of disagreement, a nephrologist determined the final score. Surveys were sent to 52 community pharmacists and 44 family physicians involved in the care of study patients to collect their opinions and perspectives on ambulatory medication reconciliation. RESULTS: Ambulatory medication reconciliation was conducted 296 times for a total of 147 hemodialysis patients. The mean number of discrepancies identified per patient was 1.31 (standard deviation 2.00). Overall, 30% of these discrepancies were deemed to have the potential to cause moderate to severe patient discomfort or clinical deterioration. Survey results indicated that community practitioners found ambulatory medication reconciliation valuable for providing quality care to dialysis patients. CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided evidence that ambulatory medication reconciliation can increase patient safety and potentially prevent adverse events associated with medication discrepancies.

CONTEXTE: Le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires peut réduire les divergences au chapitre des médicaments et les événements indésirables liés aux médicaments. Les divergences relatives aux médicaments représentent un risque élevé pour les patients dialysés, car ils souffrent normalement de multiples troubles comorbides, ils prennent souvent de nombreux médicaments et ils sont soignés par bon nombre de praticiens. Peu d'information existe sur les possibles avantages du bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires pour ces patients. OBJECTIFS: Déterminer le nombre et la catégorie des divergences concernant les médicaments constatées lors d'un bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires ainsi que la gravité potentielle des préjudices consécutifs. De plus, établir la position des pharmaciens communautaires et des médecins de famille sur cette modalité du bilan comparatif des médicaments. MÉTHODES: La présente étude de cohorte rétrospective a été menée auprès de patients amorçant un traitement par hémodialyse pour qui un bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires a été réalisé dans le cadre d'un programme hospitalier des maladies du rein, entre juillet 2014 et juillet 2016. Les divergences trouvées dans les formulaires de bilan comparatif des médicaments ont été classées par catégorie et selon la gravité potentielle des préjudices. Le niveau du préjudice a été déterminé de manière indépendante par un pharmacien et un membre du personnel infirmier praticien à l'aide d'un système de notation défini. En cas de désaccord, le score final était établi par un néphrologue. Des sondages ont été envoyés à 52 pharmaciens communautaires et à 44 médecins de famille prodiguant des soins aux participants afin qu'ils expriment leurs opinions et leurs points de vue sur le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires. RÉSULTATS: En tout, 296 bilans comparatifs des médicaments en soins ambulatoires ont été effectués auprès de 147 patients hémodialysés. Le nombre moyen de divergences constatées par patient était de 1,31 (écart-type de 2,00). Dans l'ensemble, 30 % de ces divergences ont été considérées comme une source potentielle d'un inconfort allant de modéré à grave ou de dégradation clinique. Selon les résultats du sondage, les praticiens communautaires ont jugé le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires utile à la prestation de soins de qualité aux patients dialysés. CONCLUSIONS: D'après les résultats de l'étude, le bilan comparatif des médicaments en soins ambulatoires augmenterait la sécurité des patients et pourrait prévenir les événements indésirables liés aux divergences relatives aux médicaments.