A proposal for changes to the European Union syphilis surveillance case definition using evidence from evaluations in Ireland.

Syphilis remains a disease of public health importance, with considerable health effects if not treated. Concurrent infection with syphilis and untreated HIV facilitates HIV transmission. The incidence of syphilis in Europe has been increasing, particularly among men who have sex with men (MSM) and in MSM with HIV. However, there is heterogeneity among countries in the case definition used for syphilis and in reported syphilis notification rates. In Ireland, we have undertaken a number of refinements of the national syphilis surveillance system since 2014, including refinement of the laboratory thresholds for notification (rapid plasma reagin 1:16 and/or positive IgM). This article outlines the steps taken and some of the challenges we faced. Our current case definition now accurately reflects the epidemiology of syphilis in Ireland and our current surveillance provides timely information for action, while not reducing the sensitivity of the system too much. For countries where surveillance is driven mainly by laboratory reporting and where obtaining clinical details is challenging, these thresholds for notification may be a pragmatic solution.

Methods of milk expression for lactating women.

BACKGROUND: Breastfeeding is important, however not all infants can feed at the breast and methods of expressing milk need evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability, effectiveness, safety, effect on milk composition, contamination and costs of methods of milk expression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (21 March 2016), handsearched relevant journals and conference proceedings, and contacted experts in the field to seek additional published or unpublished studies. We also examined reference lists of all relevant retrieved papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 41 trials involving 2293 participants, with 22 trials involving 1339 participants contributing data for analysis. Twenty-six of the trials referred to mothers of infants in neonatal units (n = 1547) and 14 to mothers of healthy infants at home (n = 730), with one trial containing mothers of both neonatal and healthy older infants (n = 16). Eleven trials compared one or more types of pump versus hand expression and 14 studies compared one type of pump versus another type of pump, with three of these studies comparing both hand expression and pump types. Twenty studies compared a specific protocol or adjunct behaviour including sequential versus simultaneous pumping protocols, pumping frequency, provision of an education and support intervention, relaxation, breast massage, combining hand expression with pumping and a breast cleansing protocol.Due to heterogeneity in participants, interventions, and outcomes measured or reported, we were unable to pool findings for most of the specified outcomes. It was not possible therefore to produce a 'Summary of findings' table in this update. Most of the included results were derived from single studies. Trials took place in 14 countries under a variety of circumstances and were published from 1982 to 2015. Sixteen of the 30 trials that evaluated pumps or products had support from the manufacturers. The risk of bias of the included studies was variable. Primary outcomesOnly one of the 17 studies examining maternal satisfaction/acceptability with the method or adjunct behaviour provided data suitable for analysis. In this study, self-efficacy was assessed by asking mothers if they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: 'I don't want anyone to see me (hand expressing/pumping)'. The study found that mothers who were using the electric pump were more likely to agree with the statement compared to mothers hand expressing, (mean difference (MD) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 1.25; P = 0.01, participants = 68). Mothers who were hand expressing reported that the instructions for expression were clearer compared to the electric pump, (MD -0.40, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.05; P = 0.02, participants = 68). Descriptive reporting of satisfaction in the other studies varied in the measures used, did not indicate a clear preference for one pump type, although there was satisfaction with some relaxation and support interventions.We found no clinically significant differences between methods related to contamination of the milk that compared any type of pump to hand expression (risk ratio (RR) 1.13, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.61; P = 0.51, participants = 28), manual pump compared to hand expression, (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.58; P = 0.30, participants = 142) a large electric pump compared to hand expression (MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.49; P = 0.61, participants = 123), or a large electric pump compared to a manual pump (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.26; P = 0.59, participants = 141).The level of maternal breast or nipple pain or damage was similar in comparisons of a large electric pump to hand expression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.71; P = 0.96, participants = 68). A study comparing a manual and large electric pump, reported sore nipples in 7% for both groups and engorgement in 4% using a manual pump versus 6% using an electric pump; and in one study no nipple damage was reported in the hand-expression group, and one case of nipple damage in each of the manual pump and the large electric pump groups.One study examined adverse effects on infants, however as the infants did not all receive their mothers' expressed milk, we have not included the results. Secondary outcomesThe quantity of expressed milk obtained was increased, in some studies by a clinically significant amount, in interventions involving relaxation, music, warmth, massage, initiation of pumping, increased frequency of pumping and suitable breast shield size. Support programmes and simultaneous compared to sequential pumping did not show a difference in milk obtained. No pump consistently increased the milk volume obtained significantly.In relation to nutrient quality, hand expression or a large electric pump were found to provide higher protein than a manual pump, and hand expression provided higher sodium and lower potassium compared to a large electric pump or a manual pump. Fat content was higher with breast massage when pumping; no evidence of difference was found for energy content between methods.No consistent effect was found related to prolactin change or effect on oxytocin release with pump type or method. Economic aspects were not reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most suitable method for milk expression may depend on the time since birth, purpose of expression and the individual mother and infant. Low-cost interventions including initiation of milk expression sooner after birth when not feeding at the breast, relaxation, massage, warming the breasts, hand expression and lower cost pumps may be as effective, or more effective, than large electric pumps for some outcomes. Variation in nutrient content across methods may be relevant to some infants. Small sample sizes, large standard deviations, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings. Independently funded research is needed for more trials on hand expression, relaxation and other techniques that do not have a commercial potential.

Methods of milk expression for lactating women.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane review. Breastfeeding is important. However, not all infants can feed at the breast and methods of expressing milk need evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability, effectiveness, safety, effect on milk composition, contamination and cost implications of methods of milk expression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), conference proceedings, secondary references and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 34 studies involving 1998 participants, with 17 trials involving 961 participants providing data for analysis. Eight studies compared one or more types of pump versus hand expression and 14 studies compared one type of pump versus another type of pump, with three of these studies comparing both hand expression and multiple pump types. Fifteen studies compared a specific protocol or adjunct behaviour including sequential versus simultaneous pumping protocols (five studies), pumping > 4 times per day versus < 3 times per day (one study), provision of a milk expression education and support intervention to mothers of preterm infants versus no provision (one study), provision of audio/visual relaxation to mothers of preterm infants versus no specific relaxation (two studies), commencing pumping within one hour of delivery versus between one to six hours (one study), breast massage before or during pumping versus no massage (two studies, of which one also tested a second behaviour), therapeutic touch versus none (one study), warming breasts before pumping versus not warming breasts (one study), combining hand expression with pumping versus pumping alone (one study) and a breast cleansing protocol versus no protocol (one study).There were insufficient comparable data on outcomes to undertake meta-analysis and data reported relates to evidence from single studies.Only one of the 17 studies examining maternal satisfaction/acceptability provided data in a way that could be analysed, reporting that mothers assigned to the pumping group had more agreement with the statement 'I don't want anyone to see me pumping' than mothers in the hand expression group and the statement 'I don't want anyone to see me hand expressing' (n = 68, mean difference (MD) -0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.25 to -0.15, P = 0.01), and that mothers found instructions for hand expression were clearer than for pumping (n = 68, MD 0.40, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.75, P = 0.02). No evidence of a difference was found between methods related to adverse effects of milk contamination (one study, n = 28, risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.27, P = 0.51), (one study, n = 142 milk samples, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.18 to 0.58, P = 0.30), (one study, n = 123 milk samples, MD 0.10, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.49, P = 0.61), (one study, n = 141 milk samples, MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.46 to 0.26, P = 0.59 ); or level of maternal breast or nipple pain or damage (one study, n = 68, MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.71, P = 0.96).For the secondary outcomes, greater volume was obtained when mothers with infants in a neonatal unit were provided with a relaxation tape or music-listening interventions to use while pumping, when the breasts was warmed before pumping or massaged while pumping.Initiation of milk pumping within 60 minutes of birth of a very low birthweight infant obtained higher mean milk quantity in the first week than the group who initiated pumping later. No evidence of difference in volume was found with simultaneous or sequential pumping or between pumps studied. Differences between methods was found for sodium, potassium, protein and fat constituents; no evidence of difference was found for energy content.No consistent effect was found related to prolactin change or effect on oxytocin release with pump type or method. Economic aspects were not reported.Most studies were classified as unclear or low risk of bias. Most studies did not provide any information regarding blinding of outcome assessment. Fifteen of the 25 studies that evaluated pumps or products had support from the manufacturers. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most suitable method for milk expression may depend on the time since birth, purpose of expression and the individual mother and infant. Low-cost interventions including early initiation when not feeding at the breast, listening to relaxation music, massage and warming of the breasts, hand expression and lower cost pumps may be as effective, or more effective, than large electric pumps for some outcomes. Small sample sizes, large standard deviations, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings.

Methods of milk expression for lactating women.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a 2008 Cochrane review. Breastfeeding is important. However, not all infants can feed at the breast and methods of expressing milk need evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability, effectiveness, safety, effect on composition, contamination and cost implications of methods of milk expression. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (20 January 2011), CINAHL (1982 to January 2011), conference proceedings, secondary references and contacted researchers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised trials comparing methods at any time after birth, and crossover trials commencing at least 28 days after birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data were checked for accuracy. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 studies with 10 studies (632 mothers) providing data for analysis.Mothers provided with a relaxation tape produced more milk than mothers who were not (mean difference (MD) 34.70 ml/single expression, 95% confidence interval (CI) 9.51 to 59.89, P = 0.007). A lower milk volume over six days was reported when comparing hand expression to the electric pump (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.00 ml, 95% CI -1.64 to -0.36, P = 0.002); other studies of the same pump using different measures did not find a significant difference (12 to 36 hours postpartum SMD -0.38 cc, 95% CI -0.86 to 0.10, P = 0.12); day five postpartum SMD -0.62 ml/day, 95% CI -1.43 to 0.19, P = 0.13). No evidence of difference in volume was found with simultaneous or sequential pumping, or between manual and electric pumps studied. One study reported a higher sodium concentration in hand expressed milk compared to a manual pump (SMD 0.59 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.96, P = 0.002) and to an electric pump (SMD 0.70 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.09, P = 0.0003), and lower potassium concentration compared to a manual pump (MD -0.37 mmol/L, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.73, P = 0.05) or to an electric pump (SMD -0.32 mmol/L, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.06, P = 0.10). No evidence of difference was found for energy content, milk contamination or adverse effects. Reports of maternal views were not comparable. Economic aspects were not reported.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The most suitable method for milk expression may depend on the time since birth, purpose of expression and the individual mother and infant. Low cost interventions including early initiation when not feeding at the breast, relaxation, hand expression and lower cost pumps may be as effective, or more effective, than large electric pumps for some outcomes. Small sample sizes, large standard deviations, small number of studies reviewed, and the diversity of the interventions argue caution in applying these results beyond the specific method tested in the specific settings.

Patient satisfaction with a hepatitis B vaccination programme among persons with an intellectual disability.

This article demonstrates that a patient satisfaction survey can be carried out to evaluate the acceptability of a hepatitis B vaccination programme among persons with an intellectual disability. In this exploratory study, involving six clients, 41 care staff and three managers of intellectual disability services, core themes were identified on the acceptability of the programme. The following recommendations are made: a respectful attitude should be shown to all clients by the healthcare providers; appropriate information about the programme should be provided that is tailored to the needs and receptive capability of all recipients and their carers; the intervention should be delivered in an environment, and by healthcare personnel, familiar to clients; carers should be attentive to the possibility of adverse effects; and explicit, ethically stringent policies should be in place on the use of physical restraint. The article makes suggestions regarding future work in assessing patient satisfaction among this client group.