Implementing a Practical Global Health Curriculum: The Benefits and Challenges of Patient-Based Learning in the Community.

Background: A growing number of medical schools across the world have incorporated global health (GH) into their curricula. While several schools focus GH education on lecture-based courses, our premise is that global health education should embody a holistic approach to patient care and medical education in local communities. Medical students may learn global health by focusing on real patients, their families and communities as part of a practical curriculum. Aims and Objectives: A unique GH curriculum was devised to compare student learning outcomes on a practical vs. lecture-based course. The premise was that learning from patients would result in a greater breadth of coverage of the global health syllabus as compared to that from a lecture-based course. Methods: A teaching and learning program was developed over 3 years to provide medical students interaction with real patients in the community on a first-preclinical-year Introduction to Global Health and Medical Anthropology course. Learning outcomes on the practical vs. lecture-based course were compared using thematic analysis of the written assignments of both courses: global health case reports and literature reviews, respectively. All members of three cohorts of students undertaking the course in successive academic years were compared (Group A: literature review; Groups B and C: case reports; n = 87). Results: Case reports provided evidence of a greater breadth of learning outcomes when compared to the literature review (p < 0.001). The writing of the case report was enhanced by completion of a field journal and family health needs assessment tool (p < 0.001). Students demonstrated a closeness to their patients that added depth, understanding and motivation to assist patients in health activities and advocate for their needs. Discussion: Placements with patients in the community provided students with a rich learning environment and facilitated the formation of relationships with patients to better understand the social determinants of health and advocate for improvements in their living and working conditions and access to healthcare. Conclusions: Global health may be better learned experientially by following patients rather than from frontal lectures. Patient-based learning inspires a commitment to the individual and facilitates medical schools in meeting their obligations to the communities they serve.

Efficacy and safety of sequential versus quadruple therapy as second-line treatment for helicobacter pylori infection-A randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Quadruple therapy is recommended as second-line treatment for Helicobacter pylori eradication failure. However, high cost, multiple side effects, and low adherence rates are major drawbacks to its routine use. Our aim was to compare the efficacy and safety of sequential versus quadruple regimens as second line treatment for persistent Helicobacter pylori infection. METHODS: Prospective, randomized, open label trial was conducted at a large academic, tertiary care center in Israel. Patients who previously failed a standard triple treatment eradication course were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive a 10-day sequential therapy course, or a 14-day quadruple regimen. Compliance and adverse events were evaluated by telephone questionnaires. The primary endpoint for analysis was the rate of Helicobacter pylori eradication as defined by either a negative 13C-urea breath-test, or stool antigen test, 4-16 weeks after treatment assessed under the non-inferiority hypothesis. The trial was terminated prematurely due to low recruitment rates. See S1 Checklist for CONSORT checklist. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients were randomized. Per modified intention-to-treat analysis, eradication rate was 49% in the sequential versus 42.5% in the quadruple regimen group (p-value for non-inferiority 0.02). Forty-two (84.0%) versus 33 (64.7%) patients completed treatment in the sequential and quadruple groups respectively (p 0.027). Gastrointestinal side effects were more common in the quadruple regimen group. CONCLUSION: Sequential treatment when used as a second line regimen, was non-inferior to the standard of care quadruple regimen in achieving Helicobacter pylori eradication, and was associated with better compliance and fewer adverse effects. Both treatment protocols failed to show an adequate eradication rate in the population of Southern Israel. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01481844.

Effect of psychosocial stressors on patients with Crohn's disease: threatening life experiences and family relations.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Threatening life experiences and adverse family relations are major psychosocial stressors affecting mental and physical health in chronic illnesses, but their influence in Crohn's disease (CD) is unclear. We assessed whether these stressors would predict the psychological and medical condition of CD patients. METHODS: Consecutive adult CD patients completed a series of instruments including demography, Patient Harvey-Bradshaw Index (P-HBI), Short Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (SIBDQ), short-form survey instrument (SF-36), brief symptom inventory (BSI), family assessment device (FAD), and list of threatening life experiences (LTE). Associations of FAD and LTE with P-HBI, SIBDQ, SF-36, and BSI were examined by multiple linear and quantile regression analyses. RESULTS: The cohort included 391 patients, mean age 38.38±13.95 years, 59.6% women, with intermediate economic status. The median scores were as follows: P-HBI 4 (2-8), FAD 1.67 (1.3-2.1), LTE 1 (0-3), SF-36 physical health 43.75 (33.7-51.0), SF-36 mental health 42.99 (34.1-51.9), and BSI-Global Severity Index 0.81 (0.4-1.4). The SIBDQ was 47.27±13.9. LTE was associated with increased P-HBI in all quantiles and FAD in the 50% quantile. FAD and LTE were associated with reduced SIBDQ (P<0.001). Higher LTE was associated with lower SF-36 physical and mental health (P<0.001); FAD was associated with reduced mental health (P<0.001). FAD and LTE were associated positively with GSI in all quantiles; age was associated negatively. CONCLUSION: CD patients with more threatening life experiences and adverse family relations were less healthy both physically and mentally. Physicians offering patients sociopsychological therapy should relate to threatening life experiences and family relations.

Does insertion of a rectal tube after colonoscopy reduce patient discomfort and improve satisfaction?

BACKGROUND: Distention of the colon is a major contributor to patient discomfort after colonoscopy. Some physicians and nurses believe insertion of a rectal tube relieves this discomfort and improves patient satisfaction with the procedure. This prospective, randomized, controlled trial assessed rectal tube insertion for reduction or prevention of abdominal bloating and discomfort after colonoscopy. METHODS: One hundred fifty-seven patients were prospectively randomized to groups with (n = 68) and without (n = 89) rectal tube insertion after colonoscopy. Patients were evaluated for bloating, discomfort, and pain before the procedure, at its conclusion, at discharge, and 24 hours later (by telephone). Satisfaction was also assessed at discharge and 24 hours later. RESULTS: There were no differences between groups with respect to age, gender, hospitalization status, comorbidity, or socioeconomic status. In both groups the cecum was reached in 90% of patients and procedure time was similar. There were no differences between the groups in abdominal bloating (patient and nurse assessment), abdominal discomfort, or satisfaction at any time point. There were no serious complications. The subgroup of patients who experienced more severe pain and discomfort, regardless of whether a rectal tube was inserted, was characterized by more complaints of bloating, more incomplete procedures, and a higher rate of previous abdominal operations. CONCLUSIONS: Insertion of a rectal tube after colonoscopy does not affect abdominal bloating, pain, or discomfort during recovery from the procedure or over the subsequent 24 hours, nor does it affect overall patient satisfaction.