Perceptions of diabetes distress during pregnancy in women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes: a qualitative interpretive description study.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes distress is commonly seen in adults with pre-existing diabetes and is associated with worsened glycemic management and self-management practices. While a majority of women report increased stress during pregnancy, it is unknown how women with type 1 or type 2 diabetes experience diabetes distress during this unique and transitional time. PURPOSE: This study aimed to understand the experiences and perceptions of diabetes distress in women with pre-existing diabetes during pregnancy. METHODS: A qualitative study using an interpretive description approach was conducted. In-depth, one to one interviewing was used to capture rich descriptions of the pregnancy experience. Nested, stratified, and theoretical sampling was used to recruit 18 participants with type 1 and type 2 diabetes from the quantitative strand of this mixed methods study. Constant comparative analysis was used to inductively analyze the data and develop themes. FINDINGS: Four themes, each with several subthemes, emerged under the main finding of "Diabetes Distress": 1) Worry for Baby's Health - "What's this going to do to the baby?"' 2) Feeling Overwhelmed with Diabetes Management-"It just seemed unattainable"; 3) Living with Diabetes - "There's no way out" and 4) Cycle of Diabetes Distress. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study identify the sources and experiences of diabetes distress during pregnancy in women with pre-existing diabetes. Diabetes distress often presents as cyclical and multifaceted during pregnancy, with elements of fear for the unborn baby, difficulties with diabetes management, and having negative lived experiences of diabetes. Further work is needed to develop appropriate screening tools for pregnancy and interventions to mitigate diabetes distress. Diabetes educators are well-positioned provide emotional support and person-centred self-management education to individuals with diabetes.

Newer Pharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Type 2 Diabetes: A Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The American College of Physicians (ACP) developed this clinical guideline to update recommendations on newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes. This clinical guideline is based on the best available evidence for effectiveness, comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patients' values and preferences, and costs. METHODS: This clinical guideline is based on a systematic review of the effectiveness and harms of newer pharmacologic treatments of type 2 diabetes, including glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonists, a GLP-1 agonist and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide agonist, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, and long-acting insulins, used either as monotherapy or in combination with other medications. The Clinical Guidelines Committee prioritized the following outcomes, which were evaluated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach: all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for congestive heart failure, progression of chronic kidney disease, serious adverse events, and severe hypoglycemia. Weight loss, as measured by percentage of participants who achieved at least 10% total body weight loss, was a prioritized outcome, but data were insufficient for network meta-analysis and were not rated with GRADE. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this clinical guideline is physicians and other clinicians. The population is nonpregnant adults with type 2 diabetes. RECOMMENDATION 1: ACP recommends adding a sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitor or glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) agonist to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence). • Use an SGLT-2 inhibitor to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, progression of chronic kidney disease, and hospitalization due to congestive heart failure. • Use a GLP-1 agonist to reduce the risk for all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events, and stroke. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP recommends against adding a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor to metformin and lifestyle modifications in adults with type 2 diabetes and inadequate glycemic control to reduce morbidity and all-cause mortality (strong recommendation; high-certainty evidence).

Healthcare providers' perceived barriers and facilitators to screening for intimate partner violence in pregnant women attending prenatal clinics.

AIM: To examine healthcare providers' extent of and perceived barriers and facilitators to screening for intimate partner violence in pregnant women attending prenatal clinics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional descriptive design was used to collect data from 130 healthcare providers. METHODS: Seventeen healthcare providers from 17 prenatal clinics in Kanungu district, Uganda, were recruited via convenience sampling to participate in an online survey implementing a modified Normalization Measure Development instrument. Data were collected between February 2023 and March 2023 (02/8/2023 to 03/12/2023) and analysed using descriptive and Mann-Whitney U test and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Slightly more than half (56%) of healthcare providers report screening pregnant women for intimate partner violence. There was a statistically significant relationship between healthcare providers screening for intimate partner violence and having previous training on intimate partner violence screening. The only barrier to screening identified was a lack of understanding of how intimate partner violence screening affects the nature of participant's own work. There were numerous potential facilitators identified for healthcare providers' intimate partner violence screening. CONCLUSION: Although higher-than-expected number of healthcare providers reported screening of pregnant women for intimate partner violence, the extent of screening is still suboptimal. The barrier to screening identified needs to be addressed and facilitators promoted. Receiving training among healthcare providers on intimate partner violence screening was associated with higher levels of screening; thus, this needs to be enhanced to optimize screening rates. Future studies should assess screening practices objectively and implement interventions to improve healthcare providers' intimate partner violence screening rates. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Screening for intimate partner violence should be part of standard care provided by healthcare providers to all pregnant women during prenatal clinic visits. The study supports the need for more training for healthcare providers in aspects related to intimate partner violence screening in order to ensure prompt diagnosis and treatment of those affected, identify those at risk and increase awareness. There is a need to enhance healthcare providers' capacity for intimate partner violence screening through education by integrating intimate partner violence screening pre- and post-registration courses and preparation programs or curriculum. IMPACT: Intimate partner violence (IPV) in pregnancy is a global health problem. Screening for IPV by healthcare providers is suboptimal. This study found that only 56% of healthcare providers were routinely screening for IPV in Ugandan prenatal clinics. This study identified the main facilitators and one barrier to IPV screening. REPORTING METHOD: This study has adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines for quantitative studies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient was involved in this study.

The Examination and Exploration of Diabetes Distress in Pre-existing Diabetes in Pregnancy: A Mixed-methods Study.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes distress (DD) has been understudied in the pregnancy population. Pregnancy is known to be a complex, highly stressful time for women with diabetes because of medical risks and the high burden of diabetes management. Our aim in this study was to explain and understand DD in women with pre-existing diabetes in pregnancy. METHODS: An explanatory, sequential mixed-methods study was undertaken. The first strand consisted of a cross-sectional study of 76 women with type 1 and type 2 diabetes. A nested sampling approach was used to re-recruit 18 women back into the second strand for qualitative interviews using an interpretive description approach. RESULTS: DD was measured by the validated Problem Area in Diabetes (PAID) scale. A PAID score of ≥40 was positive for distress. DD prevalence was 22.4% in the cross-sectional cohort and the average PAID score was 27.75 (standard deviation 16.08). In the qualitative strand, women with a range of PAID scores (10.0 to 60.0) were sampled for interviews. The majority of these participants described themes of DD in their interviews. Of the 15 women who described DD thematically, only 6 had positive PAID scores. CONCLUSIONS: Integration of the mixed-methods data underscores important meta-inferences about DD in pregnancy, namely that DD was present to a greater degree than the PAID tool is sensitive to. DD was present qualitatively in most of the qualitative sample, despite interviewing women with a range of PAID scores. Future research on a pregnancy-specific DD scale is needed.

Predictors of the inability to achieve full oral feeding in postoperative infants with CHD.

OBJECTIVES: Poor oral feeding is a known contributor to growth challenges in neonates with complex CHD who require early surgery. Almost 60% of these infants do not achieve full oral feeding by hospital discharge. This study's objective was to identify predictors of the inability to achieve full oral feeding by discharge in neonates with complex CHD following surgical intervention with cardiopulmonary bypass. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of a prospective study of 192 full-term neonates with complex CHD was performed. A stepwise selection logistic regression model was developed to predict oral feeding status at hospital discharge. Univariate subgroup analysis was performed with groups determined based on a CHD classification system. RESULTS: 58% of neonates (112/192) failed to achieve full oral feeding by hospital discharge. A logistic regression model identified duration of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and reintubation as predictors of the inability to achieve full oral feeding. Among neonates who achieved full oral feeding by discharge (42%), only 7.5% did so after postoperative day 10. Brain maturation, brain injury, and preoperative oral feeding were not predictors of full postoperative oral feeding. CONCLUSIONS: Many infants with CHD fail to achieve full oral feeding by time of hospital discharge. Longer duration of deep hypothermic circulatory arrest and increased number of intubations were predictive of poor feeding after surgery. Prolonging hospitalisation solely to achieve full oral feeding after postoperative day ten is of limited utility; earlier discharge should be promoted to avoid negative impacts on neonatal neurodevelopment as unintended consequences of lengthy hospitalisations.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: Evidence for the use of outpatient treatments in adults with confirmed COVID-19 continues to evolve with new data. This is version 2 of the American College of Physicians (ACP) living, rapid practice points focusing on 22 outpatient treatments for COVID-19, specifically addressing the dominant SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant. METHODS: The Population Health and Medical Science Committee (formerly the Scientific Medical Policy Committee) developed this version of the living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). This topic will be maintained as living and rapid by continually monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. PRACTICE POINT 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat symptomatic patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at a high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 3: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 4: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Ranking Research Methodology by Risk - a cross-sectional study to determine the opinion of research ethics committee members.

BACKGROUND: When reviewing a protocol, research ethics committees (RECs, equivalent to institutional review boards - IRBs) have the responsibility to consider whether the proposed research is justified. If research is not justified, it can waste participants' time, researchers' time and resources. As RECs are not constituted to cover all areas of scientific or academic expertise, it can be difficult for RECs to decide whether research is scientifically or methodologically justified especially in the absence of authoritative (often in the form of systematic) reviews. Where such reviews are absent, some have argued that RECs should insist on a new review of existing evidence as a condition of the REC favourable opinion. However, as RECs review a wide range of research, such requests must be proportionate to the type, and extent, of proposed projects. Risk is one factor that may influence the extent of evidence need for a REC to determine that the new project is justified, but not the only factor. The aim of the work described here was to determine whether REC members and researchers specifically link risk to the type of research methodology, and if so, whether this link could be used to help guide the need for systematic, or other, types of reviews. METHOD: We conducted a cross-sectional study, gathering data between November 2020 and January 2021, to examine whether proposed research methodologies impact how RECs perceive risk to participants. We presented 31 research methodologies to REC members and researchers in the form of an international survey. RESULTS: We collected 283 responses that included both qualitative and quantitative data as to how research methodology impacts perceptions of risk to participants. We used the data to conclude that RECs did see a link between risk and type of research. We therefore constructed a hierarchy of risk with Phase 1 and 2 clinical trials, and clinical psychology/psychiatry intervention studies, at the top (i.e. viewed as most risky). CONCLUSIONS: We discuss whether this hierarchy is useful for guiding RECs as to the level of scientific justification that they should seek when reviewing proposed research protocols, and present a one-page guidance sheet to help RECs during their reviews.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults: A Guidance Statement From the American College of Physicians (Version 2).

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this updated guidance statement is to guide clinicians on screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic average-risk adults. The intended audience is all clinicians. The population is asymptomatic adults at average risk for CRC. METHODS: This updated guidance statement was developed using recently published and critically appraised clinical guidelines from national guideline developers since the publication of the American College of Physicians' 2019 guidance statement, "Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Asymptomatic Average-Risk Adults." The authors searched for national guidelines from the United States and other countries published in English using PubMed and the Guidelines International Network library from 1 January 2018 to 24 April 2023. The authors also searched for updates of guidelines included in the first version of our guidance statement. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument was used to assess the quality of eligible guidelines. Two guidelines were selected for adoption and adaptation by raters on the basis of the highest average overall AGREE II quality scores. The evidence reviews and modeling studies for these 2 guidelines were also used to synthesize the evidence of diagnostic test accuracy, effectiveness, and harms of CRC screening interventions and to develop our guidance statements. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 1: Clinicians should start screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults at age 50 years. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 2: Clinicians should consider not screening asymptomatic average-risk adults between the ages of 45 to 49 years. Clinicians should discuss the uncertainty around benefits and harms of screening in this population. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 3: Clinicians should stop screening for colorectal cancer in asymptomatic average-risk adults older than 75 years or in asymptomatic average-risk adults with a life expectancy of 10 years or less. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4A: Clinicians should select a screening test for colorectal cancer in consultation with their patient based on a discussion of benefits, harms, costs, availability, frequency, and patient values and preferences. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4B: Clinicians should select among a fecal immunochemical or high-sensitivity guaiac fecal occult blood test every 2 years, colonoscopy every 10 years, or flexible sigmoidoscopy every 10 years plus a fecal immunochemical test every 2 years as a screening test for colorectal cancer. GUIDANCE STATEMENT 4C: Clinicians should not use stool DNA, computed tomography colonography, capsule endoscopy, urine, or serum screening tests for colorectal cancer.

A thematic analysis of shared experiences of essential health and support personnel in the COVID-19 pandemic.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: Studies have shown that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken a toll on individuals who interact with patients with SARS-CoV-2 but focused largely on clinicians in acute care settings. This qualitative descriptive study aimed to understand the experiences and well-being of essential workers across settings during the pandemic. BACKGROUND: Multiple studies of the well-being of individuals who have cared for patients during the pandemic have included interviews of clinicians from acute care settings and revealed high levels of stress. However, other essential workers have not been included in most of those studies, yet they may also experience stress. METHODS: Individuals who participated in an online study of anxiety, depression, traumatic distress, and insomnia, were invited to provide a free-text comment if they had anything to add. A total of 2,762 essential workers (e.g., nurses, physicians, chaplains, respiratory therapists, emergency medical technicians, housekeeping, and food service staff, etc.) participated in the study with 1,079 (39%) providing text responses. Thematic analysis was used to analyze those responses. RESULTS: Four themes with eight sub-themes were: Facing hopelessness, yet looking for hope; Witnessing frequent death; Experiencing disillusionment and disruption within the healthcare system, and Escalating emotional and physical health problems. CONCLUSIONS: The study revealed major psychological and physical stress among essential workers. Understanding highly stressful experiences during the pandemic is essential to identify strategies that ameliorate stress and prevent its negative consequences. This study adds to the research on the psychological and physical impact of the pandemic on workers, including non-clinical support personnel often overlooked as experiencing major negative effects. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: The magnitude of stress among all levels of essential workers suggests the need to develop strategies to prevent or alleviate stress across disciplines and all categories of workers.

Trends of Randomized Clinical Trials Citing Prior Systematic Reviews, 2007-2021.

Importance: Systematic reviews can help to justify a new randomized clinical trial (RCT), inform its design, and interpret its results in the context of prior evidence. Objective: To assess trends and factors associated with citing (a marker of the use of) prior systematic reviews in RCT reports. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study investigated 737 Cochrane reviews assessing health interventions to identify 4003 eligible RCTs, defined as those included in an updated version but not in the first version of a Cochrane review and published 2 years after the first version of the Cochrane review was published. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the citation of prior systematic reviews, Cochrane or others, as determined by screening references of eligible RCTs. Factors that may be associated with the citation of prior systematic reviews were also examined. Results: Among 4003 eligible RCTs, 1241 studies (31.0%) cited Cochrane reviews, 1698 studies (42.4%) cited prior non-Cochrane reviews, and 2265 studies (56.6%) cited either type of systematic review or both; 1738 RCTs (43.4%) cited no systematic reviews. The percentage of RCTs citing prior Cochrane reviews, non-Cochrane reviews, and either or both types of review increased from 28 studies (15.3%), 46 studies (25.1%), and 65 studies (35.5%) of 183 RCTs before 2008 to 42 studies (40.8%), 65 studies (64.1%), and 73 studies (71.8%) of 102 RCTs since 2020, respectively; the annual increases were 1.9% (95% CI, 1.4%-2.3%), 3.3% (95% CI, 2.9%-3.7%), and 3.0% (95% CI, 2.5%-3.5%), respectively. The proportion of RCTs citating prior systematic reviews varied considerably across clinical specialties, ranging from 28 of 106 RCTs (26.4%) in ophthalmology to 386 of 553 RCTs (69.8%) in psychiatry (P < .001). RCTs with 100 participants or more (risk ratio [RR], 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.30), nonindustry funding (RR, 1.43; 95% CI, 1.27-1.61), and authors from high-income countries (RR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03-1.17) were more likely to cite systematic reviews than those with fewer than 100 participants, industry funding, and authors from low- and middle-income countries, respectively. A journal requirement to cite systematic reviews was not associated with the likelihood of citing a systematic review. Conclusions and Relevance: This study found that the citation of prior systematic reviews in RCT reports improved over time, but approximately 40% of RCTs failed to do so. These findings suggest that reference to prior evidence for initiating, designing, and reporting RCTs should be further emphasized to assure clinical relevance, improve methodological quality, and facilitate interpretation of new results.

Nonpharmacologic and Pharmacologic Treatments of Adults in the Acute Phase of Major Depressive Disorder: A Living Clinical Guideline From the American College of Physicians.

DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this guideline from the American College of Physicians (ACP) is to present updated clinical recommendations on nonpharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions as initial and second-line treatments during the acute phase of a major depressive disorder (MDD) episode, based on the best available evidence on the comparative benefits and harms, consideration of patient values and preferences, and cost. METHODS: The ACP Clinical Guidelines Committee based these recommendations on an updated systematic review of the evidence. AUDIENCE AND PATIENT POPULATION: The audience for this guideline includes clinicians caring for adult patients in the acute phase of MDD in ambulatory care. The patient population includes adults in the acute phase of MDD. RECOMMENDATION 1A: ACP recommends monotherapy with either cognitive behavioral therapy or a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (strong recommendation; moderate-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 1B: ACP suggests combination therapy with cognitive behavioral therapy and a second-generation antidepressant as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). The informed decision on the options of monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy versus second-generation antidepressants or combination therapy should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences. RECOMMENDATION 2: ACP suggests monotherapy with cognitive behavioral therapy as initial treatment in patients in the acute phase of mild major depressive disorder (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: ACP suggests one of the following options for patients in the acute phase of moderate to severe major depressive disorder who did not respond to initial treatment with an adequate dose of a second-generation antidepressant: • Switching to or augmenting with cognitive behavioral therapy (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) • Switching to a different second-generation antidepressant or augmenting with a second pharmacologic treatment (see Clinical Considerations) (conditional recommendation; low-certainty evidence) The informed decision on the options should be personalized and based on discussion of potential treatment benefits, harms, adverse effect profiles, cost, feasibility, patients' specific symptoms (such as insomnia, hypersomnia, or fluctuation in appetite), comorbidities, concomitant medication use, and patient preferences.

Patient Smoking Status and Postoperative Outcomes: An Integrative Literature Review of Studies Using the ACS NSQIP Data Set.

Tobacco use is associated with poor surgical outcomes and is the leading cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in the United States. Because of the risk for postoperative complications, researchers continue to examine the association between surgical patients' smoking status and adverse outcomes. This quantitative integrative review synthesizes evidence on the relationship between smoking status and postoperative outcomes according to information in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program data set. The included studies involved 10 procedures and the evaluated outcomes comprise surgical complications (eg, surgical site infection), medical complications (eg, sepsis), and transitions in care (eg, discharge destination). The review results are mixed and are not generalizable because only two studies specified smoking status as a primary variable of interest. To develop policies for perioperative patient smoking cessation, perioperative nurses require additional research results on the relationships between smoking status and standardized variables.

Outpatient Treatment of Confirmed COVID-19: Living, Rapid Practice Points From the American College of Physicians (Version 1).

DESCRIPTION: Strategies to manage COVID-19 in the outpatient setting continue to evolve as new data emerge on SARS-CoV-2 variants and the availability of newer treatments. The Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) developed these living, rapid practice points to summarize the best available evidence on the treatment of adults with confirmed COVID-19 in an outpatient setting. These practice points do not evaluate COVID-19 treatments in the inpatient setting or adjunctive COVID-19 treatments in the outpatient setting. METHODS: The SMPC developed these living, rapid practice points on the basis of a living, rapid review done by the ACP Center for Evidence Reviews at Cochrane Austria at the University for Continuing Education Krems (Danube University Krems). The SMPC will maintain these practice points as living by monitoring and assessing the impact of new evidence. PRACTICE POINT 1: Consider molnupiravir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 2: Consider nirmatrelvir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 5 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 3: Consider remdesivir to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting who are within 7 days of the onset of symptoms and at high risk for progressing to severe disease. PRACTICE POINT 4: Do not use azithromycin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 5: Do not use chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 6: Do not use ivermectin to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 7: Do not use nitazoxanide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 8: Do not use lopinavir-ritonavir combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 9: Do not use casirivimab-imdevimab combination therapy to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 10: Do not use regdanvimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 11: Do not use sotrovimab to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting unless it is considered effective against a SARS-CoV-2 variant or subvariant locally in circulation. PRACTICE POINT 12: Do not use convalescent plasma to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 13: Do not use ciclesonide to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting. PRACTICE POINT 14: Do not use fluvoxamine to treat patients with confirmed mild to moderate COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.

Oral feeding dysfunction in post-operative infants with CHDs: a scoping review.

Post-operative oral feeding difficulties in neonates and infants with CHD is common. While pre-operative oral feeding may be normal, oral feeding challenges manifest in the post-operative period without a clearly defined aetiology. The objective of this scoping review was to examine post-operative oral feeding in full-term neonates and infants with a CHD. Electronic databases query (1 January 1975-31 May 2021), hand-search of the reference lists of included studies, contact with experts, and review of relevant conferences were performed to identify quantitative studies evaluating post-operative oral feeding in full-term neonates and infants with a CHD. Associations with additional quantitative variables in these studies were also examined. Twenty-five studies met inclusion criteria. Eighty per cent were cohort studies that utilised retrospective chart review from a single institution. The primary variable of interest in all studies was oral feeding status upon discharge from neonatal hospitalisation. The most common risk factors evaluated with poor feeding at time of discharge were birth weight (36% of included studies), gestational age (44%), duration of post-operative intubation (48%), cardiac diagnosis (40%), and presence of genetic syndrome or chromosomal anomaly (36%). The most common health-related outcomes evaluated were length of hospital stay (40%) and length of ICU stay (16%). Only the health-related outcomes of length of hospital stay and length of ICU stay were consistently significantly associated with poor post-operative oral feeding across studies in this review. A clear aetiology of poor post-operative oral feeding remains unknown.

Meta-research evaluating redundancy and use of systematic reviews when planning new studies in health research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Several studies have documented the production of wasteful research, defined as research of no scientific importance and/or not meeting societal needs. We argue that this redundancy in research may to a large degree be due to the lack of a systematic evaluation of the best available evidence and/or of studies assessing societal needs. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this scoping review is to (A) identify meta-research studies evaluating if redundancy is present within biomedical research, and if so, assessing the prevalence of such redundancy, and (B) to identify meta-research studies evaluating if researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Meta-research studies (empirical studies) were eligible if they evaluated whether redundancy was present and to what degree; whether health researchers referred to all earlier similar studies when justifying and designing a new study and/or when placing new results in the context of earlier similar trials; and whether health researchers systematically and transparently considered end users' perspectives when justifying and designing a new study. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: The initial overall search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase via Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts & Humanities Citation Index, and the Cochrane Methodology Register from inception to June 2015. A 2nd search included MEDLINE and Embase via Ovid and covered January 2015 to 26 May 2021. No publication date or language restrictions were applied. CHARTING METHODS: Charting methods included description of the included studies, bibliometric mapping, and presentation of possible research gaps in the identified meta-research. RESULTS: We identified 69 meta-research studies. Thirty-four (49%) of these evaluated the prevalence of redundancy and 42 (61%) studies evaluated the prevalence of a systematic and transparent use of earlier similar studies when justifying and designing new studies, and/or when placing new results in context, with seven (10%) studies addressing both aspects. Only one (1%) study assessed if the perspectives of end users had been used to inform the justification and design of a new study. Among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether redundancy was present, only two of nine health domains (medical areas) and only two of 10 research topics (different methodological types) were represented. Similarly, among the included meta-research studies evaluating whether researchers had been trying to minimise or avoid redundancy, only one of nine health domains and only one of 10 research topics were represented. CONCLUSIONS THAT RELATE TO THE REVIEW QUESTIONS AND OBJECTIVES: Even with 69 included meta-research studies, there was a lack of information for most health domains and research topics. However, as most included studies were evaluating across different domains, there is a clear indication of a high prevalence of redundancy and a low prevalence of trying to minimise or avoid redundancy. In addition, only one meta-research study evaluated whether the perspectives of end users were used to inform the justification and design of a new study. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered at Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/3rdua/ (15 June 2021).

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science-A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies.

BACKGROUND: Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study. METHODS: Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/). RESULTS: Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%). CONCLUSION: Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

Systematic reviews are rarely used to contextualise new results-a systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies.

BACKGROUND: Results of new studies should be interpreted in the context of what is already known to compare results and build the state of the science. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to identify and synthesise results from meta-research studies examining if original studies within health use systematic reviews to place their results in the context of earlier, similar studies. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies reporting the use of systematic reviews to place results of original clinical studies in the context of existing studies. The primary outcome was the percentage of original studies included in the meta-research studies using systematic reviews or meta-analyses placing new results in the context of existing studies. Two reviewers independently performed screening and data extraction. Data were synthesised using narrative synthesis and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed to estimate the mean proportion of original studies placing their results in the context of earlier studies. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. RESULTS: We included 15 meta-research studies, representing 1724 original studies. The mean percentage of original studies within these meta-research studies placing their results in the context of existing studies was 30.7% (95% CI [23.8%, 37.6%], I2=87.4%). Only one of the meta-research studies integrated results in a meta-analysis, while four integrated their results within a systematic review; the remaining cited or referred to a systematic review. The results of this systematic review are characterised by a high degree of heterogeneity and should be interpreted cautiously. CONCLUSION: Our systematic review demonstrates a low rate of and great variability in using systematic reviews to place new results in the context of existing studies. On average, one third of the original studies contextualised their results. Improvement is still needed in researchers' use of prior research systematically and transparently-also known as the use of an evidence-based research approach, to contribute to the accumulation of new evidence on which future studies should be based. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science registration number https://osf.io/8gkzu/.

Validity, reliability, and acceptability of the Evidence-Informed Decision-Making (EIDM) competence measure.

Valid, reliable, and acceptable tools for assessing self-reported competence in evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) are required to provide insight into the current status of EIDM knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours for registered nurses working in public health. The purpose of this study was to assess the validity, reliability, and acceptability of the EIDM Competence Measure. A psychometric study design was employed guided by the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing and general measurement development principles. All registered nurses working across 16 public health units in Ontario, Canada were invited to complete the newly developed EIDM Competence Measure via an online survey. The EIDM Competence Measure is a self-reported tool consisting of four EIDM subscales: 1) knowledge; 2) skills; 3) attitudes/beliefs; and 4) behaviours. Acceptability was measured by completion time and percentage of missing data of the original 40-item tool. The internal structure of the tool was first assessed through item-subscale total and item-item correlations within subscales for potential item reduction of the original 40-item tool. Following item reduction which resulted in a revised 27-item EIDM Competence Measure, a principal component analysis using an oblique rotation was performed to confirm the four subscale structure. Validity based on relationships to other variables was assessed by exploring associations between EIDM competence attributes and individual factors (e.g., years of nursing experience, education) and organizational factors (e.g., resource allocation). Internal reliability within each subscale was analyzed using Cronbach's alphas. Across 16 participating public health units, 201 nurses (mean years as a registered nurse = 18.1, predominantly female n = 197; 98%) completed the EIDM Competence Measure. Overall missing data were minimal as 93% of participants completed the entire original 40-item tool (i.e., no missing data), with 7% of participants having one or more items with missing data. Only one participant (0.5%) had >10% of missing data (i.e., more than 4 out of 40 items with data missing). Mean completion time was 7 minutes and 20 seconds for the 40-item tool. Extraction of a four-factor model based on the 27-item version of the scale showed substantial factor loadings (>0.4) that aligned with the four EIDM subscales of knowledge, skills, attitudes/beliefs, and behaviours. Significant relationships between EIDM competence subscale scores and education, EIDM training, EIDM project involvement, and supportive organizational culture were observed. Cronbach's alphas exceeded minimum standards for all subscales: knowledge (α = 0.96); skills (α = 0.93); attitudes/beliefs (α = 0.80); and behaviours (α = 0.94).

Vulnerability, loss, and coping experiences of health care workers and first responders during the covid-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

INTRODUCTION: The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic substantially affects health care workers from multiple disciplines, including nurses, physicians, therapists, and first responders. The aims of this study were to 1) explore and describe the experiences of health care workers and first responders working with individuals with COVID-19 infection, and 2) identify the support and strategies that were helpful during their experience. METHODS: A qualitative descriptive study was conducted via online video interviews of 29 health care workers and first responders who agreed to be contacted for an interview. Thematic analysis resulted in three themes and corresponding subthemes. RESULTS: The three overriding themes were 1) experiencing vulnerability, 2) suffering loss and grief, and 3) coping with vulnerability. A sense of vulnerability and high levels of stress were described and affected participants during their professional work as health care workers and first responders as well as their roles in their homes and communities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The findings indicate the need for effective measures to assist health care workers and first responders to minimize the negative consequences of persistent and severe stress and vulnerability as they care for individuals with COVID-19 and their families.