Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 211
Filtrar
1.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e046175, 2021 08 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34408031

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.


Assuntos
Higiene das Mãos , Influenza Humana , Infecções Respiratórias , Viroses , Humanos , Influenza Humana/prevenção & controle , Infecções Respiratórias/prevenção & controle , Sabões
2.
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak ; 21(1): 249, 2021 08 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34433455

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Understanding prognostic information can help patients know what may happen to their health over time and make informed decisions. However, communicating prognostic information well can be challenging. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review to identify and synthesize research that has evaluated visual presentations that communicate quantitative prognostic information to patients or the public. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (from inception to December 2020), and forward and backward citation search. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently screened search results and assessed eligibility. To be eligible, studies required a quantitative design and comparison of at least one visual presentation with another presentation of quantitative prognostic information. The primary outcome was comprehension of the presented information. Secondary outcomes were preferences for or satisfaction with the presentations viewed, and behavioral intentions. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently assessed risk of bias and extracted data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Eleven studies (all randomized trials) were identified. We grouped studies according to the presentation type evaluated. Bar graph versus pictograph (3 studies): no difference in comprehension between the groups. Survival vs mortality curves (2 studies): no difference in one study; higher comprehension in survival curve group in another study. Tabular format versus pictograph (4 studies): 2 studies reported similar comprehension between groups; 2 found higher comprehension in pictograph groups. Tabular versus free text (3 studies): 2 studies found no difference between groups; 1 found higher comprehension in a tabular group. LIMITATIONS: Heterogeneity in the visual presentations and outcome measures, precluding meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No visual presentation appears to be consistently superior to communicate quantitative prognostic information.


Assuntos
Compreensão , Envio de Mensagens de Texto , Humanos , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Prognóstico
3.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e054032, 2021 08 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34462283

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To develop and user test a patient decision aid for people with subacromial pain syndrome that presents evidence-based information on the benefits and harms of subacromial decompression surgery and rotator cuff repair surgery. DESIGN: Mixed-methods study outlining the development of a patient decision aid. SETTING: We assembled a multidisciplinary steering group, and used existing decision aids and decision science to draft the decision aid. Participants were recruited through social media (not restricted by country nor setting), local hospitals and the authors' collaboration network. PARTICIPANTS: People with shoulder pain and health professionals who manage people with shoulder pain. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: We interviewed participants to gather feedback on the decision aid, assessed useability and acceptability (using qualitative and quantitative methods) and performed iterative cycles of redrafting the decision aid and reinterviewing participants as necessary. Interview data were analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative data were summarised descriptively. RESULTS: We interviewed 26 health professionals (11 physiotherapists, 7 orthopaedic surgeons, 4 general practitioners, 3 chiropractors and 1 osteopath) and 14 people with shoulder pain. Most health professionals and people with shoulder pain rated all aspects of decision aid acceptability as adequate-to-excellent (eg, length, presentation, comprehensibility). Interviews highlighted agreement among health professionals and people with shoulder pain on most aspects of the decision aid (eg, treatment options, summary of benefits, harms and practical issues, questions to ask a health professional, graphics, formatting). However, some aspects of the decision aid elicited divergent views among health professionals (eg, causes and symptoms of shoulder pain, evidence on benefits and harms). CONCLUSION: This decision aid could be an acceptable and valuable tool for helping people with subacromial pain syndrome make informed treatment choices. A randomised controlled trial evaluating whether this decision aid reduces people's intentions to undergo shoulder surgery and facilitates informed treatment choices is underway.Trial registration number ACTRN12621000992808.


Assuntos
Manguito Rotador , Dor de Ombro , Técnicas de Apoio para a Decisão , Descompressão Cirúrgica , Humanos , Dor de Ombro/cirurgia , Resultado do Tratamento
4.
BMC Med Ethics ; 22(1): 106, 2021 07 28.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34320970

RESUMO

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to "unlearn" what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than 'pre-print', such as 'Unrefereed manuscript', "Manuscript awaiting peer review" or ''Non-reviewed manuscript"; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating 'Caution-Not Peer Reviewed'; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Mídias Sociais , Humanos , Revisão da Pesquisa por Pares , SARS-CoV-2
5.
Med Decis Making ; 41(7): 780-800, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34196241

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs). METHODS: A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation. RESULTS: Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information." CONCLUSIONS: Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.

6.
Health Expect ; 24(4): 1178-1186, 2021 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33991160

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patient decision aids (PDAs) should provide evidence-based information so patients can make informed decisions. Yet, PDA developers do not have an agreed-upon process to select, synthesize and present evidence in PDAs. OBJECTIVE: To reach the consensus on an evidence summarization process for PDAs. DESIGN: A two-round modified Delphi survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A group of international experts in PDA development invited developers, scientific networks, patient groups and listservs to complete Delphi surveys. DATA COLLECTION: We emailed participants the study description and a link to the online survey. Participants were asked to rate each potential criterion (omit, possible, desirable, essential) and provide qualitative feedback. ANALYSIS: Criteria in each round were retained if rated by >80% of participants as desirable or essential. If two or more participants suggested rewording, reordering or merging, the steering group considered the suggestion. RESULTS: Following two Delphi survey rounds, the evidence summarization process included defining the decision, reporting the processes and policies of the evidence summarization process, assembling the editorial team and managing (collect, manage, report) their conflicts of interest, conducting a systematic search, selecting and appraising the evidence, presenting the harms and benefits in plain language, and describing the method of seeking external review and the plan for updating the evidence (search, selection and appraisal of new evidence). CONCLUSION: A multidisciplinary stakeholder group reached consensus on an evidence summarization process to guide the creation of high-quality PDAs. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION: A patient partner was part of the steering group and involved in the development of the Delphi survey.

7.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0251347, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34014934

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To assess Australian physiotherapists' knowledge about, attitudes towards, and self-reported use of shared decision making, as well as perceived barriers to its implementation in practice. METHODS: Physiotherapists registered for a national Australian physiotherapy conference were invited via email and the conference app to complete a self-administered online questionnaire about shared decision making, including: a) knowledge, b) attitude to and reported approach in practice, c) behaviours used, d) barriers, e) previous training and future training interest. Responses were analysed descriptively and open-ended questions synthesised narratively. RESULTS: 372 physiotherapists (71% female, mean age 45 years, mean experience 23 years) completed the survey. Respondents had a good level of knowledge on most questions, with correct responses ranging from 39.5% to 98.5% of participants, and a generally positive attitude towards shared decision making, believing it useful to most practice areas. Sixty percent indicated they make decisions with their patients and there was general agreement between how decisions should be made and how they are actually made. The behaviour with the lowest reported occurrence was explaining the relevant research evidence about the benefits and harms of the options. The main perceived barriers were patient knowledge and confidence, consequent fewer physiotherapy sessions, and time constraints. Most (79%) were keen to learn more about shared decision making. CONCLUSIONS: Shared decision making is of growing importance to all health professions and rarely studied in physical therapy. This sample of Australian physiotherapists had a generally positive attitude to shared decision making and learning more about it. Opportunities for providing such skills training at the undergraduate level and in continuing professional development should be explored. This training should ensure that the communicating evidence component of shared decision making is addressed as well as debunking myths about perceived barriers to its implementation.

8.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 134: 178-189, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33789819

RESUMO

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.


Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/normas
9.
Int J Surg ; 88: 105906, 2021 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33789826

RESUMO

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.


Assuntos
Guias como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Lista de Checagem , Humanos , Editoração
15.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 135: 176-181, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33662512

RESUMO

'Blinding' involves concealing knowledge of which trial participants received the interventions from participants themselves and other trial personnel throughout the trial. Blinding reduces bias arising from the beliefs and expectations of these groups. It is agreed that where possible, blinding should be attempted, for example by ensuring that experimental and control treatments look the same. However, there is a debate about if we should measure whether blinding has been successful, this manuscript will discuss this controversy, including the benefits and risks of measuring blinding within the randomised controlled trial.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Efeito Placebo , Projetos de Pesquisa , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Placebos , Método Simples-Cego
16.
Med Decis Making ; 41(7): 755-767, 2021 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33660539

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of "basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence"; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain's definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids (N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid's evidence characteristics. RESULTS: Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

18.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e043421, 2021 02 23.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33622946

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Public cooperation to practise preventive health behaviours is essential to manage the transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 diagnosis, transmission and prevention that have the potential to impact the uptake of recommended public health strategies. DESIGN: An online cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: A national sample of 1500 Australian adults with representative quotas for age and gender provided by an online panel provider. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Proportion of participants with correct/incorrect knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours and reasons for misconceptions. RESULTS: Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 did not qualify, 13 declined and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Most participants correctly identified 'washing your hands regularly with soap and water' (92%) and 'staying at least 1.5 m away from others' (90%) could help prevent COVID-19. Over 40% (incorrectly) considered wearing gloves outside of the home would prevent them from contracting COVID-19. Views about face masks were divided. Only 66% of participants correctly identified that 'regular use of antibiotics' would not prevent COVID-19.Most participants (90%) identified 'fever, fatigue and cough' as indicators of COVID-19. However, 42% of participants thought that being unable to 'hold your breath for 10 s without coughing' was an indicator of having the virus. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-19 information were commercial television channels (56%), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (43%) and the Australian Government COVID-19 information app (31%). CONCLUSIONS: Public messaging about hand hygiene and physical distancing to prevent transmission appears to have been effective. However, there are clear, identified barriers for many individuals that have the potential to impede uptake or maintenance of these behaviours in the long term. We need to develop public health messages that harness these barriers to improve future cooperation. Ensuring adherence to these interventions is critical.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Austrália , Teste para COVID-19 , Estudos Transversais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , SARS-CoV-2 , Adulto Jovem
19.
Br J Gen Pract ; 71(704): e237-e242, 2021.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33558328

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Non-bullous impetigo is typically treated with antibiotics. However, the duration of symptoms without their use has not been established, which hampers informed decision making about antibiotic use. AIM: To determine the natural history of non-bullous impetigo. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. METHOD: The authors searched PubMed up to January 2020, as well as reference lists of articles identified in the search. Eligible studies involved participants with impetigo in either the placebo group of randomised trials, or in single-group prognostic studies that did not use antibiotics and measured time to resolution or improvement. A modified version of a risk of bias assessment for prognostic studies was used. Outcomes were percentage of participants who had either symptom resolution, symptom improvement, or failed to improve at any timepoint. Adverse event data were also extracted. RESULTS: Seven randomised trials (557 placebo group participants) were identified. At about 7 days, the percentage of participants classified as resolved ranged from 13% to 74% across the studies, whereas the percentage classified as 'failure to improve' ranged from 16% to 41%. The rate of adverse effects was low. Incomplete reporting of some details limited assessment of risk of bias. CONCLUSION: Although some uncertainty around the natural history of non-bullous impetigo remains, symptoms resolve in some patients by about 7 days without using antibiotics, with about one-quarter of patients not improving. Immediate antibiotic use may not be mandatory, and discussions with patients should include the expected course of untreated impetigo and careful consideration of the benefits and harms of antibiotic use.


Assuntos
Impetigo , Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Impetigo/diagnóstico , Impetigo/tratamento farmacológico
20.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 134: 103-112, 2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33577987

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, summarize decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and describe and justify changes made to the guideline. METHODS: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers. RESULTS: The review of 60 documents revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified. Of the 110 survey respondents, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the original checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of them using wording suggested by us. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.


Assuntos
Guias como Assunto/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Consenso , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...