Awareness and use of intertrochanteric osteotomies in current clinical practice. An international survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haverkamp D
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2219926 | biostudies-other | 2008 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background:Because conventional echocardiographic parameters have several limitations, strain echocardiography has often been introduced in clinical practice. However, there are also obstacles in using it in clinical practice. Therefore, we wanted to find the current status of awareness on using strain echocardiography in Korea. Methods:We conducted a nationwide survey to evaluate current use and awareness of strain echocardiography from the members of the Korean Society of Echocardiography. Results:We gathered total 321 questionnaires from 25 cardiology centers in Korea. All participants were able to perform or interpret echocardiographic examinations. All participating institutions performed strain echocardiography. Most of our study participants (97%) were aware of speckle tracking echocardiography and 185 (58%) performed it for clinical and research purposes. Two-dimensional strain echocardiography was the most commonly used modality and left ventricle (LV) was the most commonly used cardiac chamber (99%) for clinical purposes. Most of the participants (89%) did not think LV strain can replace LV ejection fraction (LVEF) in their clinical practice. The common reasons for not performing routine use of strain echocardiography was diversity of strain measurements and lack of normal reference value. Many participants had a favorable view of the future of strain echocardiography. Conclusion:Most of our study participants were aware of strain echocardiography, and all institutions performed strain echocardiography for clinical and research purposes. However, they did not think the LV strain values could replace LVEF. The diversity of strain measurements and lack of normal reference values were common reasons for not using strain echocardiography in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5658294 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have become increasingly popular, and the methodology to develop guidelines has evolved enormously. However, little attention has been given to the updating process, in contrast to the appraisal of the available literature. We conducted an international survey to identify current practices in CPG updating and explored the need to standardize and improve the methods.MethodsWe developed a questionnaire (28 items) based on a review of the existing literature about guideline updating and expert comments. We carried out the survey between March and July 2009, and it was sent by email to 106 institutions: 69 members of the Guidelines International Network who declared that they developed CPGs; 30 institutions included in the U.S. National Guideline Clearinghouse database that published more than 20 CPGs; and 7 institutions selected by an expert committee.ResultsForty-four institutions answered the questionnaire (42% response rate). In the final analysis, 39 completed questionnaires were included. Thirty-six institutions (92%) reported that they update their guidelines. Thirty-one institutions (86%) have a formal procedure for updating their guidelines, and 19 (53%) have a formal procedure for deciding when a guideline becomes out of date. Institutions describe the process as moderately rigorous (36%) or acknowledge that it could certainly be more rigorous (36%). Twenty-two institutions (61%) alert guideline users on their website when a guideline is older than three to five years or when there is a risk of being outdated. Twenty-five institutions (64%) support the concept of "living guidelines," which are continuously monitored and updated. Eighteen institutions (46%) have plans to design a protocol to improve their guideline-updating process, and 21 (54%) are willing to share resources with other organizations.ConclusionsOur study is the first to describe the process of updating CPGs among prominent guideline institutions across the world, providing a comprehensive picture of guideline updating. There is an urgent need to develop rigorous international standards for this process and to minimize duplication of effort internationally.
| S-EPMC3191352 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsEight years ago, a paper-based survey was administered during the World Pharma 2010 meeting, asking about the challenges of implementing pharmacogenetics (PGx) in clinical practice. The data collected at the time gave an idea about the progress of this implementation and what still needs to be done. Since then, although there have been major initiatives to push PGx forward, PGx clinical implementation may still be facing different challenges in different parts of the world. Our aim was therefore to distribute a follow-up international survey in electronic format to elucidate an overview on the current stage of implementation, acceptance and challenges of PGx in academic institutions around the world.MethodsThis is an online anonymous LimeSurvey-based study launched on 11 November 2018. Survey questions were adapted from the initially published manuscript in 2010. An extensive web search for worldwide scientists potentially involved in PGx research resulted in a total of 1973 names. Countries were grouped based on the Human Development Index.ResultsThere were 204 respondents from 43 countries. Despite the wide availability of PGx tests, the consistently positive attitude towards their applications and advances in the field, progress of the clinical implementation of PGx still faces many challenges all around the globe.ConclusionsClinical implementation of PGx started over a decade ago but there is a gap in progress around the globe and discrepancies between the challenges reported by different countries, despite some challenges being universal. Further studies on ways to overcome these challenges are warranted.
| S-EPMC6710530 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLarge international humanitarian actors support and directly deliver health services for millions of people in crises annually, and wield considerable power to decide which health services to provide, how and to whom, across a vast spectrum of health areas. Despite decades of reform aiming to improve accountability in the sector, public health practice among humanitarian actors is not heavily scrutinized in either the countries where they are headquartered or those where they provide healthcare. We surveyed current healthcare governance practice among large international humanitarian actors to better understand what organisations are doing to ensure oversight and accountability for health services in humanitarian responses.MethodsThe term 'healthcare governance' was defined and categorised into seven domains: implementation of health management information systems (HMIS) and use of resulting data; professional development of health sector staff; audits of health service performance; management of clinical incidents; evidence-based practice; pharmaceutical supply; and beneficiary engagement. Senior health professionals at 32 leading international actors providing humanitarian health services were contacted between July and August 2019 to complete a 109-question online survey about their organisation's practice in these domains.ResultsRespondents from 13 organisations completed the questionnaire. Healthcare governance practices were undertaken to varying degrees by all organisations but were often driven by donor requirements and external factors rather than improvement of programme performance. Common strengths were the inclusion of governance in organisational policies, high availability of technical guidelines, and close monitoring of pharmaceutical services. Recurring weaknesses were poor beneficiary engagement, inconsistent use of health information for decision making, unsystematic implementation of healthcare audits, inconsistent management of clinical incidents, and lack of training and professional development opportunities.ConclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to describe healthcare governance practice among humanitarian actors. Leading international humanitarian healthcare providers are already implementing many healthcare governance activities; however, these are inconsistently applied and generally not reflective of systematic policies or earmarked organisational resources. There is a need for sector-wide consensus on how the humanitarian sector defines healthcare governance, the domains that constitute it, which actors in the humanitarian system are implicated, and how malpractice should be systematically addressed.
| S-EPMC8035763 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe extent to which biomedical authors have received training in publication ethics, and their attitudes and opinions about the ethical aspects of specific behaviours, have been understudied. We sought to characterise the knowledge and attitudes of biomedical authors about common issues in publication ethics.DesignCross-sectional online survey.Setting and participantsCorresponding authors of research submissions to 20 journals.Main outcome measuresPerceived level of unethical behaviour (rated 0 to 10) presented in five vignettes containing key variables that were experimentally manipulated on entry to the survey and perceived level of knowledge of seven ethical topics related to publishing (prior publication, author omission, self-plagiarism, honorary authorship, conflicts of interest, image manipulation and plagiarism).Results4043/10 582 (38%) researchers responded. Respondents worked in 100 countries and reported varying levels of publishing experience. 67% (n=2700) had received some publication ethics training from a mentor, 41% (n=1677) a partial course, 28% (n=1130) a full course and 55% (n=2206) an online course; only a small proportion rated training received as excellent. There was a full range (0 to 10 points) in ratings of the extent of unethical behaviour within each vignette, illustrating a broad range of opinion about the ethical acceptability of the behaviours evaluated, but these opinions were little altered by the context in which it occurred. Participants reported substantial variability in their perceived knowledge of seven publication ethics topics; one-third perceived their knowledge to be less than 'some knowledge' for the sum of the seven ethical topics and only 9% perceived 'substantial knowledge' of all topics.ConclusionsWe found a large degree of variability in espoused training and perceived knowledge, and variability in views about how ethical or unethical scenarios were. Ethical standards need to be better articulated and taught to improve consistency of training across institutions and countries.
| S-EPMC6254423 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objectives. Level 1 evidence supports the use of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) to improve overall survival in muscle invasive bladder cancer; however utilization rates remain low. The aims of our study were to determine factors associated with NAC use, to more clearly define reasons for low utilization, and to determine the current rate of NAC use among urologic oncologists. Materials and Methods. Active members of the Society for Urologic Oncology were provided a 20-question survey. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted for each question and univariate analysis was performed. Results. We achieved a response rate of 21%. Clinical T3/T4 disease was the most often selected reason for recommending NAC (87%). Concerns with recommending NAC were age and comorbidities (54%) followed by delay in surgery (35%). An association was identified between urologic oncologists who discussed NAC with >90% of their patients and medical oncologists "always" recommending NAC (P = 0.0009). NAC utilization rate was between 30 and 57%. Conclusions. Amongst this highly specialized group of respondents, clinical T3-T4 disease was the most common reason for implementation of NAC. Respondents who frequently discussed NAC were more likely to report their medical oncologist always recommending NAC. Reported NAC use was higher in this surveyed group (30-57%) compared with recently published rates.
| S-EPMC4058463 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPsychiatrists were surveyed to obtain an overview of how they currently use technology in clinical practice, with a focus on psychiatrists who treat patients with bipolar disorder.MethodsData were obtained using an online-only survey containing 46 questions, completed by a convenience sample of 209 psychiatrists in 19 countries. Descriptive statistics, and analyses of linear associations and to remove country heterogeneity were calculated.ResultsVirtually all psychiatrists seek information online with many benefits, but some experience information overload. 75.2% of psychiatrists use an EMR/EHR at work, and 64.6% communicate with patients using a new technology, primarily email (48.8%). 66.0% do not ask patients if they use the Internet in relation to bipolar disorder. 67.3% of psychiatrists feel it is too early to tell if patient online information seeking about bipolar disorder is improving the quality of care. 66.3% of psychiatrists think technology-based treatments will improve the quality of care for some or many patients. However, 60.0% of psychiatrists do not recommend technology-based treatments to patients, and those who recommend select a variety of treatments. Psychiatrists use technology more frequently when the patients live in urban rather than rural or suburban areas. Only 23.9% of psychiatrists have any formal training in technology.ConclusionsDigital technology is routinely used by psychiatrists in clinical practice. There is near unanimous agreement about the benefits of psychiatrist online information-seeking, but research on information overload is needed. There is less agreement about the appropriate use of other clinical technologies, especially those involving patients. It is too early to tell if technology-based treatments or patient Internet activities will improve the quality of care. The digital divide remains between use of technology for psychiatrists with patients living in urban and rural or suburban areas. Psychiatrists need more formal training in technology to understand risks, benefits and limitations of clinical products.
| S-EPMC7532734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraumatic brain injury (TBI) and stroke have devastating consequences and are major global public health issues. For patients that require a cerebral decompression after suffering a TBI or stroke, a decompressive craniectomy (DC) is the most commonly performed operation. However, retrospective non-randomized studies suggest that a decompressive craniotomy (DCO; also known as hinge or floating craniotomy), where a bone flap is replaced but not rigidly fixed, has comparable outcomes to DC. The primary aim of this project was to understand the current extent of usage of DC and DCO for TBI and stroke worldwide.MethodA questionnaire was designed and disseminated globally via emailing lists and social media to practicing neurosurgeons between June and November 2019.ResultsWe received 208 responses from 60 countries [40 low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)]. DC is used more frequently than DCO, however, about one-quarter of respondents are using a DCO in more than 25% of their patients. The three top indications for a DCO were an acute subdural hematoma (ASDH) and a GCS of 9-12, ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 3-8, and ASDH with contusions and a GCS of 9-12. There were 8 DCO techniques used with the majority (60/125) loosely tying sutures to the bone flap. The majority (82%) stated that they were interested in collaborating on a randomized trial of DCO vs. DC.ConclusionOur results show that DCO is a procedure carried out for TBI and stroke, especially in LMICs, and most commonly for an ASDH. The majority of the respondents were interested in collaborating on a is a future randomized trial.
| S-EPMC8053664 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOff-label drug use is widespread in pediatric drug treatment, and the implementation of guidelines on this topic remains challenging. The objective of this study was to evaluate current practice and awareness of healthcare professionals towards pediatric off-label drug use, as well as the barriers to guideline implementation among pediatric healthcare professionals in Shanghai, China.MethodsA validated questionnaire was issued to representatives of pediatricians, pharmacists, nurses and administrators from hospitals with pediatric qualification in Shanghai.ResultsA total of 679 completed questionnaires from 69 hospitals were included in the analysis. Nearly half (47.9%) of the pediatricians acknowledged that they had prescribed off-label drugs. Most (88.4%) of the pharmacists acknowledged that they had dispensed off-label medicines. The main reason for off-label prescribing was the lack of pediatric dosage information. The most common category of off-label prescribing in children was dosage. Nearly half (42.0%) of the participating hospitals had developed internal protocols for off-label drug use. However, approximately half of the respondents reported that they did not adhere to the guidance and that it had barriers to implementation. Most respondents (84.5%) declared that they were familiar with the term "off-label drug use". However, the awareness rate of the Chinese Expert Consensus of Pediatric Off-Label Drug Use was low (45.7%). More than half (55.4%) of the respondents declared that they did not adhere to the process proposed in the consensus and that barriers existed for its utilization.ConclusionsPediatric off-label drug use is widespread in Shanghai, China, and barriers exist to the implementation of the guideline. A legally recognized national guideline with a broad scope of application for off-label drug use is urgently needed; at the same time, more education and training on off-label drug use should be provided to targeted healthcare professionals.
| S-EPMC6691537 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the risk perception and the uptake of measures preventing environment-related risks in the operating room (OR) during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) and pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC).MethodsA multicentric, international survey among OR teams in high-volume HIPEC and PIPAC centers: Surgeons (Surg), Scrub nurses (ScrubN), Anesthesiologists (Anest), Anesthesiology nurses (AnesthN), and OR Cleaning staff (CleanS). Scores extended from 0-10 (maximum).ResultsTen centers in six countries participated in the study (response rate 100%). Two hundred and eleven responses from 68 Surg (32%), 49 ScrubN (23%), 45 Anest (21%), 31 AnesthN (15%), and 18 CleanS (9%) were gathered. Individual uptake of protection measures was 51.4%, similar among professions and between HIPEC and PIPAC. Perceived levels of protection were 7.57 vs. 7.17 for PIPAC and HIPEC, respectively (p<0.05), with Anesth scoring the lowest (6.81). Perceived contamination risk was 4.19 for HIPEC vs. 3.5 for PIPAC (p<0.01). Information level was lower for CleanS and Anesth for HIPEC and PIPAC procedures compared to all other responders (6.48 vs. 4.86, and 6.48 vs. 5.67, p<0.01). Willingness to obtain more information was 86%, the highest among CleanS (94%).ConclusionsExperience with the current practice of safety protocols was similar during HIPEC and PIPAC. The individual uptake of protection measures was rather low. The safety perception was better for PIPAC, but the perceived level of protection remained relatively low. The willingness to obtain more information was high. Intensified, standardized training of all OR team members involved in HIPEC and PIPAC is meaningful.
| S-EPMC8223803 | biostudies-literature