Mentoring as an intervention to promote gender equality in academic medicine: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Mentoring is frequently suggested as an intervention to address gender inequalities in the workplace. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review evidence published since a definitive review in 2006 on the effectiveness of mentoring interventions aimed at achieving gender equality in academic medicine. DESIGN: Systematic Review, using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication as a template for data extraction and synthesis. SAMPLE: Studies were included if they described a specific mentoring intervention in a medical school or analogous academic healthcare organisation and included results from an evaluation of the intervention. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Mentoring was defined as (1) a formally organised intervention entailing a supportive relationship between a mentor, defined as a more senior/experienced person and a mentee defined as a more junior/inexperienced person; (2) mentoring intervention involved academic career support (3) the mentoring relationship was outside line management or supervision of performance and was defined by contact over an extended period of time. OUTCOMES: The impact of mentoring was usually reported at the level of individual participants, for example, satisfaction and well-being or self-reported career progression. We sought evidence of impact on gender equality via reports of organisation-level effectiveness, of promotion or retention, pay and academic performance of female staff. RESULTS: We identified 32 publications: 8 review articles, 20 primary observational studies and 4 randomised controlled trials. A further 19 discussed mentoring in relation to gender but did not meet our eligibility criteria. The terminology used, and the structures and processes reported as constituting mentoring, varied greatly. We identified that mentoring is popular with many who receive it; however, we found no robust evidence of effectiveness in reducing gender inequalities. Primary research used weak evaluation designs. CONCLUSIONS: Mentoring is a complex intervention. Future evaluations should adopt standardised approaches used in applied health research to the design and evaluation of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.

Patient and Prescriber Views of Penicillin Allergy Testing and Subsequent Antibiotic Use: A Rapid Review.

About 10% of U.K. patients believe that they are allergic to penicillin and have a "penicillin allergy label" in their primary care health record. However, around 90% of these patients may be mislabelled. Removing incorrect penicillin allergy labels can help to reduce unnecessary broad-spectrum antibiotic use. A rapid review was undertaken of papers exploring patient and/or clinician views and experiences of penicillin allergy testing (PAT) services and the influences on antibiotic prescribing behaviour in the context of penicillin allergy. We reviewed English-language publications published up to November 2017. Limited evidence on patients' experiences of PAT highlighted advantages to testing as well as a number of concerns. Clinicians reported uncertainty about referral criteria for PAT. Following PAT and a negative result, a number of clinicians and patients remained reluctant to prescribe and consume penicillins. This appeared to reflect a lack of confidence in the test result and fear of subsequent reactions to penicillins. The findings suggest lack of awareness and knowledge of PAT services by both clinicians and patients. In order to ensure correct penicillin allergy diagnosis, clinicians and patients need to be supported to use PAT services and equipped with the skills to use penicillins appropriately following a negative allergy test result.

What is the added value of ultrasound joint examination for monitoring synovitis in rheumatoid arthritis and can it be used to guide treatment decisions? A systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Synovitis (inflamed joint synovial lining) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) can be assessed by clinical examination (CE) or ultrasound (US). OBJECTIVE: To investigate the added value of US, compared with CE alone, in RA synovitis in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane databases were searched from inception to October 2015. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review sought RA studies that compared additional US with CE. Heterogeneity of the studies with regard to interventions, comparators and outcomes precluded meta-analyses. Systematic searches for studies of cost-effectiveness and US and treatment-tapering studies (not necessarily including US) were undertaken. MATHEMATICAL MODEL: A model was constructed that estimated, for patients in whom drug tapering was considered, the reduction in costs of disease-modifying anti-rheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained of £20,000 and £30,000. Furthermore, the reduction in the costs of DMARDs at which US becomes cost neutral was also estimated. For patients in whom dose escalation was being considered, the reduction in number of patients escalating treatment and in serious infections at which the addition of US had a cost per QALY gained of £20,000 and £30,000 was estimated. The reduction in number of patients escalating treatment for US to become cost neutral was also estimated. RESULTS: Fifty-eight studies were included. Two randomised controlled trials compared adding US to a Disease Activity Score (DAS)-based treat-to-target strategy for early RA patients. The addition of power Doppler ultrasound (PDUS) to a Disease Activity Score 28 joints-based treat-to-target strategy in the Targeting Synovitis in Early Rheumatoid Arthritis (TaSER) trial resulted in no significant between-group difference for change in Disease Activity Score 44 joints (DAS44). This study found that significantly more patients in the PDUS group attained DAS44 remission (p = 0.03). The Aiming for Remission in Rheumatoid Arthritis (ARCTIC) trial found that the addition of PDUS and grey-scale ultrasound (GSUS) to a DAS-based strategy did not produce a significant between-group difference in the primary end point: composite DAS of < 1.6, no swollen joints and no progression in van der Heijde-modified total Sharp score (vdHSS). The ARCTIC trial did find that the erosion score of the vdHS had a significant advantage for the US group (p = 0.04). In the TaSER trial there was no significant group difference for erosion. Other studies suggested that PDUS was significantly associated with radiographic progression and that US had added value for wrist and hand joints rather than foot and ankle joints. Heterogeneity between trials made conclusions uncertain. No studies were identified that reported the cost-effectiveness of US in monitoring synovitis. The model estimated that an average reduction of 2.5% in the costs of biological DMARDs would be sufficient to offset the costs of 3-monthly US. The money could not be recouped if oral methotrexate was the only drug used. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity of the trials precluded meta-analysis. Therefore, no summary estimates of effect were available. Additional costs and health-related quality of life decrements, relating to a flare following tapering or disease progression, have not been included. The feasibility of increased US monitoring has not been assessed. CONCLUSION: Limited evidence suggests that US monitoring of synovitis could provide a cost-effective approach to selecting RA patients for treatment tapering or escalation avoidance. Considerable uncertainty exists for all conclusions. Future research priorities include evaluating US monitoring of RA synovitis in longitudinal clinical studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017216. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

A Systematic Review of Discrete-Choice Experiments and Conjoint Analysis Studies in People with Multiple Sclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disabling, inflammatory, and degenerative disease of the central nervous system that, in most cases, requires long-term disease-modifying treatment (DMT). The drugs used vary in efficacy and adverse effect profiles. Several studies have used attribute-based stated-preference methods, primarily to investigate patient preferences for initiating or escalating DMT. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of attribute-based stated-preference studies in people with MS to identify common methods employed and to assess study quality, with reference to the specific challenges of this disease area. METHODS: We conducted a systematic search for studies related to attribute-based stated-preference and MS in multiple databases, including Cochrane and MEDLINE. Studies were included if they were published in a peer-reviewed journal, were on the topic of MS, and used a survey methodology that measured stated preferences for attributes of a whole. Analysis was conducted using narrative synthesis and summary statistics. Study quality was judged against the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) conjoint analysis checklist. RESULTS: We identified 16 relevant articles reporting 17 separate studies, all but one focusing on DMTs. Most studies were discrete-choice experiments. Study quality was generally high, but we recommend the following: (1) that consideration of sample sizes be improved, (2) that survey design choices be justified and documented, (3) that qualitative approaches for attribute and level selection be incorporated to better involve patients, and (4) that reporting of experimental practice be improved. The effects of DMTs on reproduction and the impact of how risk and uncertainty are presented were identified as neglected research topics. The ISPOR conjoint analysis checklist was found to be unsuitable for the assessment of study quality. CONCLUSION: Attribute-based stated preference is a useful method with which to examine the preferences of people with MS in their choice of DMT. However, further research embracing the methodological recommendations identified, particularly greater use of qualitative methods in attribute development, is needed.

The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treat-to-target strategies in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treat to target (TTT) is a broad concept for treating patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA). It involves setting a treatment target, usually remission or low disease activity (LDA). This is often combined with frequent patient assessment and intensive and rapidly adjusted drug treatment, sometimes based on a formal protocol. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of TTT compared with routine care. DATA SOURCES: Databases including EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched from 2008 to August 2016. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review of clinical effectiveness was conducted. Studies were grouped according to comparisons made: (1) TTT compared with usual care, (2) different targets and (3) different treatment protocols. Trials were subgrouped by early or established disease populations. Study heterogeneity precluded meta-analyses. Narrative synthesis was undertaken for the first two comparisons, but was not feasible for the third. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness was also undertaken. No model was constructed as a result of the heterogeneity among studies identified in the clinical effectiveness review. Instead, conclusions were drawn on the cost-effectiveness of TTT from papers relating to these studies. RESULTS: Sixteen clinical effectiveness studies were included. They differed in terms of treatment target, treatment protocol (where one existed) and patient visit frequency. For several outcomes, mixed results or evidence of no difference between TTT and conventional care was found. In early disease, two studies found that TTT resulted in favourable remission rates, although the findings of one study were not statistically significant. In established disease, two studies showed that TTT may be beneficial in terms of LDA at 6 months, although, again, in one case the finding was not statistically significant. The TICORA (TIght COntrol for RA) trial found evidence of lower remission rates for TTT in a mixed population. Two studies reported cost-effectiveness: in one, TTT dominated usual care; in the other, step-up combination treatments were shown to be cost-effective. In 5 of the 16 studies included the clinical effectiveness review, no cost-effectiveness conclusion could be reached, and in one study no conclusion could be drawn in the case of patients denoted low risk. In the remaining 10 studies, and among patients denoted high risk in one study, cost-effectiveness was inferred. In most cases TTT is likely to be cost-effective, except where biological treatment in early disease is used initially. No conclusions could be drawn for established disease. LIMITATIONS: TTT refers not to a single concept, but to a range of broad approaches. Evidence reflects this. Studies exhibit substantial heterogeneity, which hinders evidence synthesis. Many included studies are at risk of bias. FUTURE WORK: Future studies comparing TTT with usual care must link to existing evidence. A consistent definition of remission in studies is required. There may be value in studies to establish the importance of different elements of TTT (the setting of a target, the intensive use of drug treatments and protocols pertaining to those drugs and the frequent assessment of patients). CONCLUSION: In early RA and studies of mixed early and established RA populations, evidence suggests that TTT improves remission rates. In established disease, TTT may lead to improved rates of LDA. It remains unclear which element(s) of TTT (the target, treatment protocols or increased frequency of patient visits) drive these outcomes. Future trials comparing TTT with usual care and/or different TTT targets should use outcomes comparable with existing literature. Remission, defined in a consistent manner, should be the target of choice of future studies. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015017336. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.