Explore the vast range of titles available.

We established a program of research to improve the development, reporting and evaluation of practice guidelines. We assessed the construct validity of the items and user's manual in the β version of the AGREE II. We designed guideline excerpts reflecting high- and low-quality guideline content for 21 of the 23 items in the tool. We designed two study packages so that one low-quality and one high-quality version of each item were randomly assigned to each package. We randomly assigned 30 participants to one of the two packages. Participants reviewed and rated the guideline content according to the instructions of the user's manual and completed a survey assessing the manual. In all cases, content designed to be of high quality was rated higher than low-quality content; in 18 of 21 cases, the differences were significant (p < 0.05). The manual was rated by participants as appropriate, easy to use, and helpful in differentiating guidelines of varying quality, with all scores above the mid-point of the seven-point scale. Considerable feedback was offered on how the items and manual of the β-AGREE II could be improved. The validity of the items was established and the user's manual was rated as highly useful by users. We used these results and those of our study presented in part 1 to modify the items and user's manual. We recommend AGREE II (available at www.agreetrust.org) as the revised standard for guideline development, reporting and evaluation.

The purpose of the AGREE II is more explicitly stated. The new version of the instrument is designed to assess the quality of practice guidelines across the spectrum of health, provide direction on guideline development, and guide what specific information ought to be reported in guidelines. The four-point response scale was replaced by a seven-point response scale, in compliance with key methodologic principles of test construction. 5 A score of 1 indicates an absence of information or that the concept is very poorly reported. A score of 7 indicates that the quality of reporting is exceptional and all of the criteria and considerations articulated in the user's manual were met. A score between 2 and 6 indicates that the reporting of the AGREE II item does not fully meet criteria or considerations. As more criteria are met and more considerations addressed, item scores increase (see user's manual below). Finally, modifications, deletions and additions were made to approximately half of the original 23 items (Table 1). From McMaster University ([Melissa C. Brouwers PhD], [Michelle E. Kho], [Steven E. Hanna PhD], [Julie Makarski]); the Program in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario (Brouwers), Hamilton, Ont.; British Columbia Cancer Agency (Browman), Victoria, BC; the Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO and IQ Healthcare (Burgers), Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, the Netherlands; St. George's University of London (Cluzeau), London, UK; the University of Bristol (Feder), Bristol, UK; Unité Cancer et Environement (Fervers), Université de Lyon - Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon 1, EA 4129, Lyon, France; the Canadian Institutes of Health Re search ([Ian D. Graham PhD]), Ottawa, Ont.; the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute ([Jeremy Grimshaw MBChB PhD]), Ottawa, Ont.; the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (Littlejohns), London, UK; and the Can adian Partnership Against Cancer ([Louise Zitzelsberger PhD]), Ottawa, Ont. Members of the AGREE Next Steps Consortium: Dr. Melissa C. Brouwers, McMaster University and Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ont.; Dr. [George P. Browman MD MSc], British Columbia Cancer Agency, Vancouver Island, BC; Dr. [Jako S. Burgers MD PhD], Dutch Institute for Healthcare Improvement CBO, and Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, IQ Healthcare, Netherlands; Dr. [Francoise Cluzeau], Chair of AGREE Research Trust, St. George's University of London, London, UK; Dr. Dave Davis, Association of American Medical Colleges, Washington, USA; Prof. Gene Feder, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; Dr. Béatrice Fervers, Unité Cancer et Environement, Université de Lyon - Centre Léon Bérard, Université Lyon 1, EA 4129, Lyon, France; Dr. Ian D. Graham, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Ottawa, Ont.; Dr. Jeremy Grimshaw, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ont.; Dr. Steven E. Hanna, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Ms. Michelle E. Kho, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Prof. Peter Littlejohns, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, London, UK; Ms. Julie Makarski, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.; Dr. Louise Zitzelsberger, Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, Ottawa, Ont.

Dutch health economic guidelines include a costing manual, which describes preferred research methodology for costing studies and reference prices to ensure high quality studies and comparability between study outcomes. This paper describes the most important revisions of the costing manual compared to the previous version. An online survey was sent out to potential users of the costing manual to identify topics for improvement. The costing manual was aligned with contemporary health economic guidelines. All methodology sections and parameter values needed for costing studies, particularly reference prices, were updated. An expert panel of health economists was consulted several times during the review process. The revised manual was reviewed by two members of the expert panel and by reviewers of the Dutch Health Care Institute. The majority of survey respondents was satisfied with content and usability of the existing costing manual. Respondents recommended updating reference prices and adding some particular commonly needed reference prices. Costs categories were adjusted to the international standard: 1) costs within the health care sector; 2) patient and family costs; and 3) costs in other sectors. Reference prices were updated to reflect 2014 values. The methodology chapter was rewritten to match the requirements of the costing manual and preferences of the users. Reference prices for nursing days of specific wards, for diagnostic procedures and nurse practitioners were added. The usability of the costing manual was increased and parameter values were updated. The costing manual became integrated in the new health economic guidelines.

Maladaptive daydreaming is a distinct syndrome in which the main symptom is excessive vivid fantasising that causes clinically significant distress and functional impairment in academic, vocational and social domains. Unlike normal daydreaming, maladaptive daydreaming is persistent, compulsive and detrimental to one’s life. It involves detachment from reality in favour of intense emotional engagement with alternative realities and often includes specific features such as psychomotor stereotypies (e.g. pacing in circles, jumping or shaking one’s hands), mouthing dialogues, facial gestures or enacting fantasy events. Comorbidity is common, but existing disorders do not account for the phenomenology of the symptoms. Whereas non-specific therapy is ineffective, targeted treatment seems promising. Thus, we propose that maladaptive daydreaming be considered a formal syndrome in psychiatric taxonomies, positioned within the dissociative disorders category. Maladaptive daydreaming satisfactorily meets criteria for conceptualisation as a psychiatric syndrome, including reliable discrimination from other disorders and solid interrater agreement. It involves significant dissociative aspects, such as disconnection from perception, behaviour and sense of self, and has some commonalities with but is not subsumed under existing dissociative disorders. Formal recognition of maladaptive daydreaming as a dissociative disorder will encourage awareness of a growing problem and spur theoretical, research and clinical developments.

New WHO guidance could expand access to lab facilities Laboratory biosafety is fundamental to controlling exposure to pathogens, protecting the laboratory workforce and the wider community against inadvertent exposures or releases. Since 1983, the World Health Organization (WHO) Laboratory Biosafety Manual ( LBM ) has encouraged countries to implement basic concepts in biological safety and to develop national codes of practice for the safe handling of pathogenic microorganisms in laboratories. But as technologies continue to evolve, and with them potential threats and benefits to laboratory safety, so too must approaches to biosafety. With revision toward the fourth edition of the LBM under way, we propose a shift in focus to a risk-based, technology-neutral, and cost-effective approach to biosafety, making sure that laboratory facilities, safety equipment, and work practices are locally relevant, proportionate, and sustainable. This will allow more flexibility in laboratory design, reduce focus on pathogen risk groups and biosafety levels as the de facto starting point of laboratory considerations, and place more emphasis on human factors and worker training. Improved sustainability of laboratory operations through lower construction and operating costs, particularly in resource-limited settings, may pave the way for equitable access to clinical and public health laboratory tests and biomedical research opportunities, without compromising safety.

Variable, and typically inadequate, delivery of skills training following manual wheelchair (MWC) provision has a detrimental impact on user mobility and participation. Traditional in-person delivery of training by rehabilitation therapists has diminished due to cost, travel time, and most recently social distancing restrictions due to COVID-19. Effective alternative training approaches include eHealth home training applications and interactive peer-led training using experienced and proficient MWC users. An innovative TEAM Wheels program integrates app-based self-training and teleconference peer-led training using a computer tablet platform. This protocol outlines implementation and evaluation of the TEAM Wheels training program in a randomized control trial using a wait-list control group. The study will be implemented in a community setting in three Canadian cities. Individuals ≥ 18 years of age within one year of transitioning to use of a MWC. Using a computer tablet, participants engage in three peer-led teleconference training sessions and 75-150 minutes of weekly practice using a video-based training application over 4 weeks. Peer trainers individualize the participants' training plans and monitor their tablet-based training activity online. Control group participants also receive the intervention following a 1-month wait-list period and data collection. Outcomes assessing participation; skill capacity and performance; self-efficacy; mobility; and quality of life will be measured at baseline and post-treatment, and at 6-month follow-up for the treatment group. We anticipate that TEAM Wheels will be successfully carried out at all sites and participants will demonstrate statistically significant improvement in the outcome measures compared with the control group.

Parents are primary “supporters” for helping their children cope with feelings of anxiety, a significant concern for many young children. The current study examined parents’ perceptions of an anxiety management manual. Parents reviewed an anxiety coping manual for elementary school-aged children. This manual explained how anxiety influences the body and emotions, as well as presenting cognitive-behavioral anxiety management strategies. The strategies included breathing, imagery (superhero to fight worries and imagine your favorite place), relaxation, talking to supportive others, and using distraction. Convenience samples of 15 parents completed virtual interviews and 6 completed in-person interviews to determine their perceptions of the manual and of worry for today’s children. Qualitative analyses were performed to determine themes in the data. Results indicated that parents would use the manual and key themes, which were (1) learning new strategies for helping their child, (2) discussing children’s worries, and (3) sharing why the worry strategies would be useful (e.g., for emotion regulation). Parents felt that today’s children are worrying more about serious things like school performance and family stressors. Future research needs to examine parent implementation of the strategies over time to determine if the use of anxiety management strategies is related to lower levels of worry for young children, if the strategies reduce anxiety-related stress, and if prevention minimizes the impact of anxiety on emotional functioning.

Here we present the guideline for the treatment of neuroendocrine tumors using Lu-177-DOTA-TATE on the basis of radiation safety aspects in Japan. This guideline was prepared by a study supported by Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare, and approved by Japanese Society of Nuclear Medicine. Lu-177-DOTA-TATE treatment in Japan should be carried out according to this guideline. Although this guideline is applied in Japan, the issues for radiation protection shown in this guideline are considered internationally useful as well. Only the original Japanese version is the formal document.