Social accountability in undergraduate medical education: A narrative review.

Background: Medical schools have been increasingly called upon to augment and prioritize their social accountability (SA). Approaches to increasing SA may include reorienting and focusing curricular activities on the priority health needs of the region that they serve. To inform the undergraduate medical education (UGME) curriculum renewal at our school, we examined how SA has been expressed in medical education across several countries and the impacts of SA activities on medical student experience and community-level outcomes. Methods: We conducted a narrative literature review using two electronic databases and searched for studies that reported on SA UGME activities implemented in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and the United Kingdom. Studies were screened for inclusion based on predetermined eligibility criteria. Results: We included 40 studies for descriptive analysis and categorized UGME activities into five categories: (1) distributed medical education and community-specific placements/services (32; 80%), (2) community engagement and advocacy activities (23; 58%), (3) international elective preparation and experiences (8; 20%), (4) classroom-based learning of SA-related concepts (17; 43%), and (5) student engagement in SA UGME activities (6; 15%). We categorized impact into four main outcomes: student experience (21; 53%), student competencies (11; 28%), future career choice/practice setting (15; 38%), and community feedback (7; 18%). Student experience was most frequently examined, followed by future career choice/practice setting. Discussion: SA was primarily expressed in UGME activities through placement/service activities and most frequently assessed through student experiences. Student experiences of SA UGME activities have been reported to be largely positive, with benefits also reported for student competencies and influences on future career choice/practice setting. The expression of SA through community engagement in the development of curricular activities indicates a positive shift from social responsibility to SA, but a highly socially accountable curriculum would increasingly consider measures of community impact.

Risk of Bias Assessment in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions for Premenstrual Syndrome: A Systematic Review.

Objective: Premenstrual syndrome (PMS) is a very prevalent condition that affects premenopausal women and can result in monthly debilitating emotional and physical symptoms. The objective of this systematic review was to determine which predictive factors were associated with an increased amount of bias in non-randomized studies (NRSs) of PMS. Materials and methods: A search of the EMBASE and Medline electronic databases was completed from January 1, 2010 to December 2021. The methodological quality of the included studies was independently evaluated and critically appraised using the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-1) tool. Associations of different factors with the risk of bias levels were assessed using a univariate logistic regression. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported. Results: Of the 1668 studies, 38 were determined to be eligible for inclusion. The ROBINS-1 tool identified that 12 studies were of low/moderate risk of bias (31.6%) and 26 were of serious/critical risk (68.4%). Evidence of relationships between the ROBINS-1 score and impact factor (OR=0.20; 95% CI, 0.07 to 0.57; p= 0.003) and number of authors (OR=0.65; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.99; p= 0.046) were identified, whereas no relationships were found with the number of citations, the sample size, the funding type, or the conflict-of-interest statement. Conclusion: The systematic review concludes that the methodological rigor of non-randomized studies of PMS can vary, with fewer authors and a lower impact factor showing evidence of association with a decreased quality of evidence.

Management of Frailty: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and determine the comparative effectiveness of interventions targeting frailty prevention or treatment on frailty as a primary outcome and quality of life, cognition, depression, and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DESIGN: Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). METHODS: Data sources-Relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified by a systematic search of several electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and AMED. Duplicate title and abstract and full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed. Data extraction-All RCTs examining frailty interventions aimed to decrease frailty were included. Comparators were standard care, placebo, or another intervention. Data synthesis-We performed both standard pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA. Dichotomous outcome data were pooled using the odds ratio effect size, whereas continuous outcome data were pooled using the standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size. Interventions were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) for each outcome. The quality of evidence was evaluated using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: A total of 66 RCTs were included after screening of 7090 citations and 749 full-text articles. NMA of frailty outcome (including 21 RCTs, 5262 participants, and 8 interventions) suggested that the physical activity intervention, when compared to placebo and standard care, was associated with reductions in frailty (SMD -0.92, 95% confidence interval -1.55, -0.29). According to SUCRA, physical activity intervention and physical activity plus nutritional supplementation were probably the most effective intervention (100% and 71% likelihood, respectively) to reduce frailty. Physical activity was probably the most effective or the second most effective interventions for all included outcomes. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Physical activity is one of the most effective frailty interventions. The quality of evidence of the current review is low and very low. More robust RCTs are needed to increase the confidence of our NMA results and the quality of evidence.