Cost-effectiveness of point-of-care diagnostics for AMR: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a major threat to global health. By 2050, it is forecast that AMR will cause 10 million deaths and cost 100 trillion USD annually. Point-of-care tests (POCTs) may represent a cost-effective approach to reduce AMR. OBJECTIVES: We systematically reviewed which POCTs addressing AMR have undergone economic evaluation in primary and secondary healthcare globally, how these POCTs have been economically evaluated, and which are cost-effective in reducing antimicrobial prescribing or the burden of AMR. Clinical cost-effectiveness was additionally addressed. METHODS: This systematic review, accordant with PRISMA guidelines, was pre-registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022315192). MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched from 2000 to 2023 for relevant publications. Quality assessment was performed using the Consensus of Health Economic Criteria. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 1421 studies, of which 20 met the inclusion criteria. The most common POCTs assessed were for respiratory infections (n = 10), STIs (n = 3), and febrile patients in low- and middle-income countries (n = 3). All studies assessed costs from a healthcare provider perspective; five additionally considered the societal cost of AMR.Eighteen studies identified POCT strategies that reduced antimicrobial prescribing. Of these, 10 identified POCTs that would be considered cost-effective at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) threshold of £33.80 per antibiotic prescription avoided. Most POCT strategies improved clinical outcomes (n = 14); the remainder were clinically neutral. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that some POCTs are cost-effective in reducing antimicrobial prescribing, with potential concomitant clinical benefits. Such interventions-especially CRP POCTs in both high- and low-income settings-merit further, large-scale clinical evaluation.

The power of language: how to bridge the gap between healthcare research and patients - a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: The value of patient involvement to the design, conduct, and outcomes of healthcare research is increasingly being recognized. Patient involvement also provides greater patient accessibility and contribution to research. However, the use of inaccessible and technical language when communicating with patients is a barrier to effective patient involvement. METHODS: We analyzed peer-reviewed and gray literature on how language is used in communication between healthcare researchers and patients. We used this analysis to generate a set of recommendations for healthcare researchers about using more inclusive and accessible language when involving patients in research. This scoping review adheres to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for Scoping Review (PRISMA-ScR) checklist. RESULTS: Four major themes about the use of language were developed from the literature analysis and were used to develop the set of recommendations. These recommendations include guidance on using standardized terminology and plain language when involving patients in healthcare research. They also discuss the implementation of co-development practices, patient support initiatives, and researcher training, as well as ways to improve emotional awareness and the need for greater equality, diversity, and inclusion. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The use of inclusive, empathetic, and clear language can encourage patients to be involved in research and, once they are involved, make them feel like equal, empowered, and valued partners. Working toward developing processes and guidelines for the use of language that enables an equal partnership between researchers and patients is critical.

Patient and public involvement is when patients, carers, and the public are included as partners in all stages of healthcare research. Patient involvement has been shown to have a positive impact on people and on research itself, but researchers often use language that is complicated, confusing, or unsuitable for patients. This can lead to less meaningful patient involvement in research.Our work looked at two areas: (1) how using unsuitable language can be a barrier to effective and meaningful patient involvement; and (2) what can be done to help improve communication between healthcare researchers and patients.We started by finding out what has already been researched and published in these areas. We looked in medical journal databases for articles that were relevant to the topic. We also searched Google and the websites of relevant organizations. From looking at these sources, we found four common themes. These themes are: (1) lack of standardized terminology for patients involved in research; (2) consistent overuse of technical, scientific, and medical language; (3) positive outcomes of using language to show emotional understanding; and (4) language as a powerful tool for promoting diversity, equality, and inclusion of patients involved in research.Using these themes, we then developed seven recommendations to help improve how healthcare researchers and patients communicate with each other. These recommendations are: (1) using standardized terminology; (2) using plain language; (3) co-developing patient information; (4) providing patient training, mentoring, and support; (5) introducing researcher training; (6) having emotional awareness; and (7) improving equality, diversity, and inclusion.A graphical plain language summary can be found as Supplementary material for this article.

Development and evaluation of an extra-curricular programme focussing on high impact career opportunities for medical professionals.

BACKGROUND: Many medical professionals seek to do good through their careers, which may involve pursuing non-clinical options such as research, policy, or education in addition to clinical work. Working out which paths will lead to the largest social impact is a challenging question and of interest to many doctors. However, there are few, if any, services that use an impact-oriented framework to support doctors who want to make career decisions based on impact. OBJECTIVES: To describe the development of an 8-week fellowship programme to introduce medical professionals to careers paths and focus areas which could lead to a particularly large social impact. And to evaluate the programme in terms of engagement, utility, changes in knowledge and career attitudes of participants. METHODS: The ADDIE instructional design model was used to design and evaluate this fellowship programme. An 8-week curriculum was designed by medical professionals and delivered to medical students and doctors around the world utilising a flipped learning style. Quantitative and qualitative data on the programme were collected and analysed. RESULTS: There was more demand for the programme than anticipated. We found that the fellowship was engaging and useful to medical students and doctors. It resulted in an increase in knowledge and skills on how to consider impact in one's own career and a change in participants' attitudes and behaviours, with some participants making changes to their career and charitable giving following the programme. CONCLUSIONS: We believe an impact-orientated, practical co-curricular programme is valuable to medical professionals exploring impactful career options and there is demand for further programmes in this space.

Clinical Teacher Training for health professionals: From blended to online and (maybe) back again?

BACKGROUND: The Clinical Teacher Training (CTT) programme was originally developed as an interprofessional, blended learning programme, to support health professionals working across health services within Australia, although it has also been delivered internationally. With the disruption of COVID-19, we rapidly moved to 'online only' delivery. We sought to modify the programme, ensuring that the constructivist paradigms important for our learner experience through the original blended format were maintained in the online platform. APPROACH: Consisting of 10 modules on a range of topics, the new CTT online only programme was facilitated online across 6 weeks with asynchronous and synchronous assessable activities, and provision of peer and facilitator feedback. The learning outcomes for each module were similar to the 'blended learning' format. The new programme was delivered three times throughout 2020 and completed by a total of 208 health professionals from across 10 metropolitan and rural health districts. EVALUATION: The focus of our evaluation was on the programme's final 2020 iteration, for which we had ethics approval. Participants (n = 59) were from diverse health professions, across five metropolitan and rural health districts. We prioritised the learner experience in constructing our evaluation strategy. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected by post-course questionnaire and analysed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Twenty participants (34%) responded to the post-course questionnaire. Participants valued the structure, topics, clear outcomes, timeframe, online resources, small group activities, feedback and the flexibility and accessibility afforded by online only delivery. However, participants identified a need for additional 'real-time' engagement in activities. Faculty were surprised by the time required to adequately facilitate online learning, and similarly, valued the real-time interactions. IMPLICATIONS: The online only CTT programme provided an excellent, scalable framework to ensure continued provision of a relevant and accessible training resource for clinicians working in metropolitan and regional/rural health services. Learner-reported achievement of programme learning outcomes was not negatively impacted by online only delivery. Balancing these resource advantages with learner preferences and our desire to build active teaching networks, we will continue to host the majority of the programme online, while offering short face-to-face sessions within local contexts.

Ketamine as a Prehospital Analgesic: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Analgesia in the prehospital setting is an extremely important, yet controversial topic. Ketamine, a N-methyl D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist, has been commonly used in the prehospital setting, including recommendations by the US Department of Defense and by the Royal Australian College of Pain Medicine, despite the paucity of high-level evidence. METHODS: Accordingly, a review of the literature was conducted using several electronic medical literature databases from the earliest available records to the time at which the search was conducted (October 2018). RESULTS: The search strategy yielded a total of 707 unique papers, of which 43 were short-listed for full review, and ultimately, ten papers were identified as meeting all the relevant inclusion criteria. The included studies varied significantly in the prehospital context and in the means of administering ketamine. There was only low-grade evidence that ketamine offered a safe and effective analgesia when used as the only analgesic, and only low-grade evidence that it was as effective as alternative opioid options. However, there was moderate evidence that co-administration of ketamine with morphine may improve analgesic efficacy and reduce morphine requirement. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ketamine as a prehospital analgesic may be best used in combination with opioids to reduce opioid requirement. It is suggested that future studies should use a standardized approach to measuring pain reduction. Future studies should also investigate short-term side effects and long-term complications or benefits of prehospital ketamine.

Global Distribution of Businesses Marketing Stem Cell-Based Interventions.

A structured search reveals that online marketing of stem-cell-based interventions is skewed toward developed economies including the United States, Ireland, Australia, and Germany. Websites made broad, imprecise therapeutic claims and frequently failed to detail procedures. Widespread marketing poses challenges to regulators, bioethicists, and those seeking realistic hope from therapies.