How we perceive the width of grasped objects: Insights into the central processes that govern proprioceptive judgements.

Low-level proprioceptive judgements involve a single frame of reference, whereas high-level proprioceptive judgements are made across different frames of reference. The present study systematically compared low-level (grasp → $\rightarrow$ grasp) and high-level (vision → $\rightarrow$ grasp, grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision) proprioceptive tasks, and quantified the consistency of grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision and possible reciprocal nature of related high-level proprioceptive tasks. Experiment 1 (n = 30) compared performance across vision → $\rightarrow$ grasp, a grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision and a grasp → $\rightarrow$ grasp tasks. Experiment 2 (n = 30) compared performance on the grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision task between hands and over time. Participants were accurate (mean absolute error 0.27 cm [0.20 to 0.34]; mean [95% CI]) and precise ( R 2 $R^2$ = 0.95 [0.93 to 0.96]) for grasp → $\rightarrow$ grasp judgements, with a strong correlation between outcomes (r = -0.85 [-0.93 to -0.70]). Accuracy and precision decreased in the two high-level tasks ( R 2 $R^2$ = 0.86 and 0.89; mean absolute error = 1.34 and 1.41 cm), with most participants overestimating perceived width for the vision → $\rightarrow$ grasp task and underestimating it for grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision task. There was minimal correlation between accuracy and precision for these two tasks. Converging evidence indicated performance was largely reciprocal (inverse) between the vision → $\rightarrow$ grasp and grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision tasks. Performance on the grasp → $\rightarrow$ vision task was consistent between dominant and non-dominant hands, and across repeated sessions a day or week apart. Overall, there are fundamental differences between low- and high-level proprioceptive judgements that reflect fundamental differences in the cortical processes that underpin these perceptions. Moreover, the central transformations that govern high-level proprioceptive judgements of grasp are personalised, stable and reciprocal for reciprocal tasks. KEY POINTS: Low-level proprioceptive judgements involve a single frame of reference (e.g. indicating the width of a grasped object by selecting from a series of objects of different width), whereas high-level proprioceptive judgements are made across different frames of reference (e.g. indicating the width of a grasped object by selecting from a series of visible lines of different length). We highlight fundamental differences in the precision and accuracy of low- and high-level proprioceptive judgements. We provide converging evidence that the neural transformations between frames of reference that govern high-level proprioceptive judgements of grasp are personalised, stable and reciprocal for reciprocal tasks. This stability is likely key to precise judgements and accurate predictions in high-level proprioception.

Integrating training in evidence-based medicine and shared decision-making: a qualitative study of junior doctors and consultants.

BACKGROUND: In the past, evidence-based medicine (EBM) and shared decision-making (SDM) have been taught separately in health sciences and medical education. However, recognition is increasing of the importance of EBM training that includes SDM, whereby practitioners incorporate all steps of EBM, including person-centered decision-making using SDM. However, there are few empirical investigations into the benefits of training that integrates EBM and SDM (EBM-SDM) for junior doctors, and their influencing factors. This study aimed to explore how integrated EBM-SDM training can influence junior doctors' attitudes to and practice of EBM and SDM; to identify the barriers and facilitators associated with junior doctors' EBM-SDM learning and practice; and to examine how supervising consultants' attitudes and authority impact on junior doctors' opportunities for EBM-SDM learning and practice. METHODS: We developed and ran a series of EBM-SDM courses for junior doctors within a private healthcare setting with protected time for educational activities. Using an emergent qualitative design, we first conducted pre- and post-course semi-structured interviews with 12 junior doctors and thematically analysed the influence of an EBM-SDM course on their attitudes and practice of both EBM and SDM, and the barriers and facilitators to the integrated learning and practice of EBM and SDM. Based on the responses of junior doctors, we then conducted interviews with ten of their supervising consultants and used a second thematic analysis to understand the influence of consultants on junior doctors' EBM-SDM learning and practice. RESULTS: Junior doctors appreciated EBM-SDM training that involved patient participation. After the training course, they intended to improve their skills in person-centered decision-making including SDM. However, junior doctors identified medical hierarchy, time factors, and lack of prior training as barriers to the learning and practice of EBM-SDM, whilst the private healthcare setting with protected learning time and supportive consultants were considered facilitators. Consultants had mixed attitudes towards EBM and SDM and varied perceptions of the role of junior doctors in either practice, both of which influenced the practice of junior doctors. CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggested that future medical education and research should include training that integrates EBM and SDM that acknowledges the complex environment in which this training must be put into practice, and considers strategies to overcome barriers to the implementation of EBM-SDM learning in practice.

Progress with the Learning Health System 2.0: a rapid review of Learning Health Systems' responses to pandemics and climate change.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics and climate change each challenge health systems through increasing numbers and new types of patients. To adapt to these challenges, leading health systems have embraced a Learning Health System (LHS) approach, aiming to increase the efficiency with which data is translated into actionable knowledge. This rapid review sought to determine how these health systems have used LHS frameworks to both address the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change, and to prepare for future disturbances, and thus transition towards the LHS2.0. METHODS: Three databases (Embase, Scopus, and PubMed) were searched for peer-reviewed literature published in English in the five years to March 2023. Publications were included if they described a real-world LHS's response to one or more of the following: the COVID-19 pandemic, future pandemics, current climate events, future climate change events. Data were extracted and thematically analyzed using the five dimensions of the Institute of Medicine/Zurynski-Braithwaite's LHS framework: Science and Informatics, Patient-Clinician Partnerships, Continuous Learning Culture, Incentives, and Structure and Governance. RESULTS: The search yielded 182 unique publications, four of which reported on LHSs and climate change. Backward citation tracking yielded 13 additional pandemic-related publications. None of the climate change-related papers met the inclusion criteria. Thirty-two publications were included after full-text review. Most were case studies (n = 12, 38%), narrative descriptions (n = 9, 28%) or empirical studies (n = 9, 28%). Science and Informatics (n = 31, 97%), Continuous Learning Culture (n = 26, 81%), Structure and Governance (n = 23, 72%) were the most frequently discussed LHS dimensions. Incentives (n = 21, 66%) and Patient-Clinician Partnerships (n = 18, 56%) received less attention. Twenty-nine papers (91%) discussed benefits or opportunities created by pandemics to furthering the development of an LHS, compared to 22 papers (69%) that discussed challenges. CONCLUSIONS: An LHS 2.0 approach appears well-suited to responding to the rapidly changing and uncertain conditions of a pandemic, and, by extension, to preparing health systems for the effects of climate change. LHSs that embrace a continuous learning culture can inform patient care, public policy, and public messaging, and those that wisely use IT systems for decision-making can more readily enact surveillance systems for future pandemics and climate change-related events. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO pre-registration: CRD42023408896.

Bolstering health systems to cope with the impacts of climate change events: A review of the evidence on workforce planning, upskilling, and capacity building.

BACKGROUND: As global CO2 emissions continue to rise and the 'era of global boiling' takes hold, the health workforce must cope with the challenge of providing care to increasing numbers of patients affected by climate change-related events (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires, floods). In this review, we describe the impacts of these events on the health workforce, and strategies responding to these challenges. METHODS: This rapid systematic review was guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses and a registered protocol (PROSPERO CRD42023433610). Eight databases were searched in May 2022 and again in June 2023. Empirical studies discussing climate change and workforce policy, planning, preparedness, and capacity were included. Inductive thematic analysis of extracted data was conducted. RESULTS: From the 60 included studies, two categories emerged: the impacts of climate events on the health workforce (n = 39), and workforce responses to and preparations for climate events (n = 58). Thirty-seven studies reported on both categories. Four impact themes were identified: absenteeism, psychological impacts, system breakdown, and unsafe working conditions; and six responses and preparations themes: training/skill development, workforce capacity planning, interdisciplinary collaboration, role flexibility, role incentivisation, and psychological support. CONCLUSION: This review provides an overview of some of the deleterious impacts of climate events on the health workforce, as well as potential strategies for the health workforce to prepare or respond to climate events. Future studies should assess the implementation and effectiveness of these strategies to ensure a continuously improving healthcare system, and a well-supported health workforce.

Spatial Neglect: An Exploration of Clinical Assessment Behaviour in Stroke Rehabilitation.

OBJECTIVE: There is a large gap between evidence-based recommendations for spatial neglect assessment and clinical practice in stroke rehabilitation. We aimed to describe factors that may contribute to this gap, clinician perceptions of an ideal assessment tool, and potential implementation strategies to change clinical practice in this area. DESIGN: Qualitative focus group investigation. Focus group questions were mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework and asked participants to describe their experiences and perceptions of spatial neglect assessment. SETTING: Online stroke rehabilitation educational bootcamp. PARTICIPANTS: A sample of 23 occupational therapists, three physiotherapists, and one orthoptist that attended the bootcamp. INTERVENTION: Prior to their focus group, participants watched an hour-long educational session about spatial neglect. MAIN MEASURES: A deductive analysis with the Theoretical Domains Framework was used to describe perceived determinants of clinical spatial neglect assessment. An inductive thematic analysis was used to describe perceptions of an ideal assessment tool and practice-change strategies in this area. RESULTS: Participants reported that their choice of spatial neglect assessment was influenced by a belief that it would positively impact the function of people with stroke. However, a lack of knowledge about spatial neglect assessment appeared to drive low clinical use of standardised functional assessments. Participants recommended open-source online education involving a multidisciplinary team, with live-skill practice for the implementation of spatial neglect assessment tools. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that clinicians prefer functional assessments of spatial neglect, but multiple factors such as knowledge, training, and policy change are required to enable their translation to clinical practice.

Beyond the aspirational: creating the future of health care in Australia.

The context of health care in Australia is shifting very rapidly; more chronic diseases, budgetary stress and the constant threat of the next pandemic and climate change mean that patterns of disease and care are changing, and the workforce is under pressure. Health systems have learned to respond as best they can, but there are many challenges and opportunities for the Australian health care system to plan and implement an evidence-based and sustainable approach to health care delivery in the next decade. To support this approach, many peak bodies and authoritative agencies, such as the Australian government in their 2022 Strengthening Medicare Taskforce Report, have described laudable visions for health care, but no one has laid out a tangible blueprint for whole-of-system change. Here, we outline nine strategies that span principles of integrated, value-based care, with a focus on prevention and quality, the development of a skilled workforce and health-literate population and the use of emerging technologies such as genomics and artificial intelligence. These strategies form a potential path for the Australian health care system to meet the changing requirements of the current decade and take the aspirational visions of the future of health care into an improved, patient-based health system that delivers care in line with best practices.

Poor statistical reporting, inadequate data presentation and spin persist despite Journal awareness and updated Information for Authors.

Sound reporting of research results is fundamental to good science. Unfortunately, poor reporting is common and does not improve with editorial educational strategies. We investigated whether publicly highlighting poor reporting at a journal can lead to improved reporting practices. We also investigated whether reporting practices that are required or strongly encouraged in journal Information for Authors are enforced by journal editors and staff. A 2016 audit highlighted poor reporting practices in the Journal of Neurophysiology. In August 2016 and 2018, the American Physiological Society updated the Information for Authors, which included the introduction of several required or strongly encouraged reporting practices. We audited Journal of Neurophysiology papers published in 2019 and 2020 (downloaded through the library of the University of New South Wales) on reporting items selected from the 2016 audit, the newly introduced reporting practices, and items from previous audits. Summary statistics (means, counts) were used to summarize audit results. In total, 580 papers were audited. Compared to results from the 2016 audit, several reporting practices remained unchanged or worsened. For example, 60% of papers erroneously reported standard errors of the mean, 23% of papers included undefined measures of variability, 40% of papers failed to define a statistical threshold for their tests, and when present, 64% of papers with p-values between 0.05 and 0.1 misinterpreted them as statistical trends. As for the newly introduced reporting practices, required practices were consistently adhered to by 34 to 37% of papers, while strongly encouraged practices were consistently adhered to by 9 to 26% of papers. Adherence to the other audited reporting practices was comparable to our previous audits. Publicly highlighting poor reporting practices did little to improve research reporting. Similarly, requiring or strongly encouraging reporting practices was only partly effective. Although the present audit focused on a single journal, this is likely not an isolated case. Stronger, more strategic measures are required to improve poor research reporting.

Proprioception: a new look at an old concept.

Proprioception, which can be defined as the awareness of the mechanical and spatial state of the body and its musculoskeletal parts, is critical to motor actions and contributes to our sense of body ownership. To date, clinical proprioceptive tests have focused on a person's ability to detect, discriminate, or match limb positions or movements, and reveal that the strength of the relationship between deficits in proprioception and physical function varies widely. Unfortunately, these tests fail to assess higher-level proprioceptive abilities. In this Perspective, we propose that to understand fully the link between proprioception and function, we need to look beyond traditional clinical tests of proprioception. Specifically, we present a novel framework for human proprioception assessment that is divided into two categories: low-level and high-level proprioceptive judgments. Low-level judgments are those made in a single frame of reference and are the types of judgments made in traditional proprioceptive tests (i.e., detect, discriminate or match). High-level proprioceptive abilities involve proprioceptive judgments made in a different frame of reference. For example, when a person indicates where their hand is located in space. This framework acknowledges that proprioception is complex and multifaceted and that tests of proprioception should not be viewed as interchangeable, but rather as complimentary. Crucially, it provides structure to the way researchers and clinicians can approach proprioception and its assessment. We hope this Perspective serves as the catalyst for discussion and new lines of investigation.

Changing patterns in Australian and New Zealand: vascular surgery during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Early government-mandated restrictions in Australia and New Zealand contributed to a successful public health outcome during the COVID-19 pandemic, including an unprecedented temporary cancellation of all non-urgent elective surgical procedures. This study describes the change in vascular surgery services across Australia and New Zealand before and during the COVID-19 restrictions. METHODS: De-identified data from the Australia and New Zealand Society for Vascular Surgery Australasian Vascular Audit from January 2015 to September 2020 was obtained. Vascular surgery procedure numbers from January to September of 2020 (study period) was compared to the corresponding months between 2015 and 2019 (pre-study period). The volume of procedures, both elective and emergency, were compared. Subgroup analyses included procedures categorized by operation type and location. RESULTS: There was a 11% decrease in total vascular procedures, 22% decrease in elective procedures, and a 14% increase in emergency procedures, comparing the study and pre-study periods. There was a large increase in all revascularization procedures for critical limb ischemia and no change in acute limb ischemia interventions, without a concomitant rise in major or minor all-cause amputation. There was a decrease in interventions for abdominal aortic aneurysm and carotid artery disease, driven by a fall in elective procedures, while volume for dialysis access remained the same. Change in procedural volume varied by state with the largest decrease noted in NSW and Victoria. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic reduced vascular surgery procedures across Australia and New Zealand with a decrease in elective operations and an increase in emergency operations.

Proprioceptive impairment in unilateral neglect after stroke: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Unilateral neglect is a debilitating condition that can occur after stroke and can affect a variety of domains and modalities, including proprioception. Proprioception is a sensorimotor process essential to motor function and is thus important to consider in unilateral neglect. To date, there has not been a comprehensive review of studies examining the various aspects of proprioceptive impairment in unilateral neglect after stroke. This review aimed to determine if people with unilateral neglect have more severe proprioceptive impairments than those without unilateral neglect after stroke. METHODS: The MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched from inception to September 2019 using an a priori search strategy. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts, and extracted data from the included full texts. A third reviewer resolved disagreements at each step. Risk of bias was assessed using the AXIS Quality Assessment tool. RESULTS: A total of 191 abstracts were identified, with 56 eligible for full-text screening. A total of 18 studies were included in the review and provided evidence that people with unilateral neglect have more severe proprioceptive impairment than people without unilateral neglect. This impairment is present in multiple subtypes of unilateral neglect and aspects of proprioception. Most studies had a moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSION: People with unilateral neglect after stroke are more likely to have impaired processing of multiple types of proprioceptive information than those without unilateral neglect. However, the available evidence is limited by the large heterogeneity of assessment tools used to identify unilateral neglect and proprioception. Unilateral neglect and proprioception were rarely assessed comprehensively.PROSPERO Registration: CRD42018086070.