Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background The World Health Organization (WHO) International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD) is used globally by 194 WHO member nations. It is used for assigning clinical diagnoses, providing the framework for reporting public health data, and to inform the organization and reimbursement of health services. Guided by overarching principles of increasing clinical utility and global applicability, the 11th revision of the ICD proposes major changes that incorporate empirical advances since the previous revision in 1992. To test recommended changes in the Mental, Behavioral, and Neurodevelopmental Disorders chapter, multiple vignette-based case-controlled field studies have been conducted which examine clinicians’ ability to accurately and consistently use the new guidelines and assess their overall clinical utility. This manuscript reports on the results from the study of the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for feeding and eating disorders (FEDs). Method Participants were 2288 mental health professionals registered with WHO’s Global Clinical Practice Network. The study was conducted in Chinese, English, French, Japanese, and Spanish. Clinicians were randomly assigned to apply either the ICD-11 or ICD-10 diagnostic guidelines for FEDs to a pair of case vignettes designed to test specific clinical questions. Clinicians selected the diagnosis they thought was correct for each vignette, evaluated the presence of each essential feature of the selected diagnosis, and the clinical utility of the diagnostic guidelines. Results The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines significantly improved accuracy for all FEDs tested relative to ICD-10 and attained higher clinical utility ratings; similar results were obtained across all five languages. The inclusion of binge eating disorder and avoidant-restrictive food intake disorder reduced the use of residual diagnoses. Areas needing further refinement were identified. Conclusions The proposed ICD-11 diagnostic guidelines consistently outperformed ICD-10 in distinguishing cases of eating disorders and showed global applicability and appropriate clinical utility. These results suggest that the proposed ICD-11 guidelines for FEDs will help increase accuracy of public health data, improve clinical diagnosis, and enhance health service organization and provision. This is the first time in the revision of the ICD that data from large-scale, empirical research examining proposed guidelines is completed in time to inform the final diagnostic guidelines.

High-volume prescribing of antibiotics in primary care is a major driver of antibiotic resistance. Education of physicians and patients can lower prescribing levels, but it frequently relies on highly trained staff. We assessed whether internet-based training methods could alter prescribing practices in multiple health-care systems. After a baseline audit in October to December, 2010, primary-care practices in six European countries were cluster randomised to usual care, training in the use of a C-reactive protein (CRP) test at point of care, in enhanced communication skills, or in both CRP and enhanced communication. Patients were recruited from February to May, 2011. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN99871214. The baseline audit, done in 259 practices, provided data for 6771 patients with lower-respiratory-tract infections (3742 [55·3%]) and upper-respiratory-tract infections (1416 [20·9%]), of whom 5355 (79·1%) were prescribed antibiotics. After randomisation, 246 practices were included and 4264 patients were recruited. The antibiotic prescribing rate was lower with CRP training than without (33% vs 48%, adjusted risk ratio 0·54, 95% CI 0·42–0·69) and with enhanced-communication training than without (36% vs 45%, 0·69, 0·54–0·87). The combined intervention was associated with the greatest reduction in prescribing rate (CRP risk ratio 0·53, 95% CI 0·36–0·74, p<0·0001; enhanced communication 0·68, 0·50–0·89, p=0·003; combined 0·38, 0·25–0·55, p<0·0001). Internet training achieved important reductions in antibiotic prescribing for respiratory-tract infections across language and cultural boundaries. European Commission Framework Programme 6, National Institute for Health Research, Research Foundation Flanders.

In this randomized trial, C-reactive protein testing was used as a point-of-care aid in determining whether antibiotic therapy was warranted in patients with an acute exacerbation of COPD. Among 653 outpatients, there was significantly less use of antibiotics with CRP guidance, with no evidence of any worse outcome.

Background Clinicians frequently prescribe antibiotics inappropriately for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). Our objective was to test information technology-enabled behavioral interventions to reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing for ARIs in a randomized controlled pilot test trial. Methods Primary care clinicians were randomized in a 2 × 2 × 2 factorial experiment with 3 interventions: 1) Accountable Justifications; 2) Suggested Alternatives; and 3) Peer Comparison. Beforehand, participants completed an educational module. Measures included: rates of antibiotic prescribing for: non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses, acute sinusitis/pharyngitis, all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection, and all three ARI categories combined. Results We examined 3,276 visits in the pre-intervention year and 3,099 in the intervention year. The antibiotic prescribing rate fell for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARIs (24.7 % in the pre-intervention year to 5.2 % in the intervention year); sinusitis/pharyngitis (50.3 to 44.7 %); all other diagnoses/symptoms of respiratory infection (40.2 to 25.3 %); and all categories combined (38.7 to 24.2 %; all p  < 0.001). There were no significant relationships between any intervention and antibiotic prescribing for non-antibiotic-appropriate ARI diagnoses or sinusitis/pharyngitis. Suggested Alternatives was associated with reduced antibiotic prescribing for other diagnoses or symptoms of respiratory infection (odds ratio [OR], 0.62; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.44–0.89) and for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.72; 95 % CI, 0.54–0.96). Peer Comparison was associated with reduced prescribing for all ARI categories combined (OR, 0.73; 95 % CI, 0.53–0.995). Conclusions We observed large reductions in antibiotic prescribing regardless of whether or not study participants received an intervention, suggesting an overriding Hawthorne effect or possibly clinician-to-clinician contamination. Low baseline inappropriate prescribing may have led to floor effects. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01454960 .

BackgroundFinancial ties between physicians and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry are common, but little is known about how patient trust is affected by these ties.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate how viewing online public disclosure of industry payments affects patients’ trust ratings for physicians, the medical profession, and the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.DesignThis was a randomized experimental evaluation.ParticipantsThere were 278 English-speaking participants over age 18 who had seen a healthcare provider in the previous 12 months who took part in the study.InterventionsParticipants searched for physicians on an online disclosure database, viewed payments from industry to the physicians, and assigned trust ratings. Participants were randomized to view physicians who received no payment ($0), low payment ($250–300), or high payment (>$13,000) from industry, or to a control arm in which they did not view the disclosure website. They also were asked to search for and then rate trust in their own physician.Main MeasuresPrimary outcomes were trust in individual physician, medical profession, and industry. These scales measure trust as a composite of honesty, fidelity, competence, and global trust.Key ResultsCompared to physicians who received no payments, physicians who received payments over $13,000 received lower ratings for honesty [mean (SD): 3.36 (0.86) vs. 2.75 (0.95), p < 0.001] and fidelity [3.19 (0.65) vs. 2.89 (0.68), p = 0.01]. Among the 7.9% of participants who found their own physician on the website, ratings for honesty and fidelity decreased as the industry payment to the physician increased (honesty: Spearman’s ρ = −0.52, p = 0.02; fidelity: Spearman’s ρ = −0.55, p = 0.01). Viewing the disclosure website did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or industry.ConclusionsDisclosure of industry payments to physicians affected perceptions of individual physician honesty and fidelity, but not perceptions of competence. Disclosure did not affect trust ratings for the medical profession or the pharmaceutical and medical device industry.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02179632 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02179632).

Back pain remains a challenge for primary care internationally. One model that has not been tested is stratification of the management according to the patient's prognosis (low, medium, or high risk). We compared the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of stratified primary care (intervention) with non-stratified current best practice (control). 1573 adults (aged ≥18 years) with back pain (with or without radiculopathy) consultations at ten general practices in England responded to invitations to attend an assessment clinic. Eligible participants were randomly assigned by use of computer-generated stratified blocks with a 2:1 ratio to intervention or control group. Primary outcome was the effect of treatment on the Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ) score at 12 months. In the economic evaluation, we focused on estimating incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and health-care costs related to back pain. Analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN37113406. 851 patients were assigned to the intervention (n=568) and control groups (n=283). Overall, adjusted mean changes in RMDQ scores were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group at 4 months (4·7 [SD 5·9] vs 3·0 [5·9], between-group difference 1·81 [95% CI 1·06–2·57]) and at 12 months (4·3 [6·4] vs 3·3 [6·2], 1·06 [0·25–1·86]), equating to effect sizes of 0·32 (0·19–0·45) and 0·19 (0·04–0·33), respectively. At 12 months, stratified care was associated with a mean increase in generic health benefit (0·039 additional QALYs) and cost savings (£240·01 vs £274·40) compared with the control group. The results show that a stratified approach, by use of prognostic screening with matched pathways, will have important implications for the future management of back pain in primary care. Arthritis Research UK.

BackgroundEarly detection of melanoma represents an opportunity to reduce the burden of disease among people at increased risk for melanoma.ObjectiveTo develop and demonstrate the efficacy of online training.DesignRandomized educational trial.ParticipantsPrimary care providers (PCPs).InterventionMastery learning course with visual and dermoscopic assessment, diagnosis and management, and deliberate practice with feedback to reach a minimum passing standard.Main MeasuresPre-test/post-test diagnostic accuracy. Referral of concerning lesions for 3 months before and after the educational intervention.Key ResultsAmong the 89 PCPs, 89.8% were internal medicine physicians, and the remainder were physician assistants embedded in internists’ practices. There were no differences between control and intervention groups regarding gender, age, race, or percentage of full-time PCPs. The control group had more PCPs who reported less than 5 years of practice (n = 18) than the intervention group (n = 6) (χ2 [6, n = 89] = 14.34, p = 0.03). PCPs in the intervention group answered more melanoma detection questions correctly on the post-test (M = 10.05, SE = 1.24) compared to control group PCPs (M = 7.11, SE = 0.24), and had fewer false-positive and no false-negative melanoma diagnoses (intervention, M = 1.09, SE = 0. 20; control, M = 3.1, SE = 0.23; ANCOVA, F[1,378] =27.86, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.26). PCPs who underwent training referred fewer benign lesions, including nevi, seborrheic keratoses, and dermatofibromas, than control PCPs (F[1,79] = 72.89, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.489; F[1,79] = 25.82, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.246; F[1,79] = 34.25, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.302; respectively). Those receiving training referred significantly more melanomas than controls (F[1,79] = 24.38, p < 0.001; ηp2 = 0.236). Referred melanomas (0.8  ± 0.07 per month for intervention, 0.17 ± 0.06 for control) were mostly located on the head and neck.ConclusionsMastery learning improved PCPs’ ability to detect melanoma on a standardized post-test and may improve referral of patients with suspected melanoma. Further studies are needed to confirm this finding.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02385253.

Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are global public health problems. In its severe form it may cause hospital admission, morbidity and mortality. Early reporting of suspected ADRs to regulatory authorities is known to be appropriate measure toinsure health and safety of public form such adverse drug reaction of drugs. In Addis Ababa, there is limited information on ADR reporting practices among medical doctors. Hence, this study aimed to assess ADR reporting practices and associated factors among doctors in government hospitals in Addis Ababa. An institution based cross-sectional mixed-methods study design was used. Data werecollected from 407 doctors using self-administered questionnaire and five key informants using semi-structured questionnaire from October 01 to December 31, 2017. Binary logistic regression and thematic analysis methods for quantitative and qualitative data analysis were used respectively. Only 94(27.4%) of doctors had ever reported ADRs to national pharmacovigilance center. The study showed that sex (AOR = 3.51, 95% CI: 1.76-7.03), level ofeducation (AOR = 5.01, 95% CI: 2.23-11.28), work experience (AOR = 4.59, 95% CI: 1.21-17.40), existence of ADR reporting form (AOR = 3.96, 95% CI: 1.07-14.61) and reporting to respective marketing authorization holders (AOR = 21.41, 95% CI: 5.89-77.88) were significantly associated with ADR reporting practices. Poor awareness and training on risk of under-reporting, feeling that reporting is minor, absence of appropriate reporting tools, delay and/or absence of feedback on reported ADRs, overly burdened doctors, negligence, fear of legal liabilityand communication gap were cited by key informants as barriers for reporting practice. Adverse drug reaction reporting practice among doctors wasfound to be low. Sex, level of education, work experience, existence of reporting form and reporting to marketing authorization holderswere significantly associated with ADR reporting practice. In addition, there are gaps in availabilities of guidelines, reporting systems and structure, pre-service and in-service training, and awareness of doctors on impact of reporting. Hence, improving access to ADR reporting form, decentralize safety monitoring system, and conducting awareness training on ADR reporting are essential to improve the ADR reporting practice.

Background Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted simultaneously in the same Irish university teaching hospital have shown that provision of Screening Tool of Older Persons’ Prescriptions (STOPP)/Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment (START) recommendations to attending prescribers by a physician or a pharmacist can reduce in-hospital adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in older adults (≥ 65 years). The aims of this study were to compare the prescriber implementation rates of STOPP/START recommendations between the physician approach and the pharmacist approach in these two RCTs and to provide a narrative summary of the comparable clinical outcomes. Methods Data were extracted from the two RCT published papers and their associated computerised databases to calculate the percentage prescriber implementation rates for the STOPP/START recommendations. The Chi-square test was used to quantify the differences in prescriber implementation rates, with differences considered statistically significant where p  < 0.05. Results Prescriber implementation rates of the STOPP and START recommendations made by the physician were 81.2% and 87.4% respectively, significantly higher than those made by the pharmacist (39.2% and 29.5% respectively), p  < 0.0001. A greater absolute risk reduction in patients with ADRs was shown with the physician’s intervention compared to the pharmacist’s intervention (9.3% vs 6.8%). Conclusion This study shows that the methods of communication and the medium through which the STOPP/START recommendations are delivered significantly affect their implementation. Non-implementation of some pharmacist-delivered recommendations may be contributing to preventable ADRs in older adults. Thus, future research should aim to identify the factors influencing prescriber implementation of pharmacist recommendations in order to inform the design of more effective pharmacist interventions in optimising older patients’ pharmacotherapy.

BackgroundArtificial intelligence (AI) tools could assist emergency doctors interpreting chest X-rays to inform urgent care. However, the impact of AI assistance on clinical decision-making, a precursor to enhanced care and patient outcomes, remains understudied. This study evaluates the effect of AI assistance on clinical decisions of emergency doctors interpreting chest X-rays.MethodJunior and senior residents, emergency registrars and consultants working in Australian emergency departments were eligible. Doctors completed 18 clinical vignettes involving chest X-ray interpretation, representative of typical patient presentations. Vignettes were randomly selected from a bank of 49 based on the emergency medicine curriculum and contained a chest X-ray, presenting complaint, relevant symptoms and observations. Of the 18 vignettes, each doctor was randomly assigned to have half assisted by a commercial AI tool capable of detecting 124 different chest X-ray findings. Four vignettes contained X-rays known to produce incorrect AI findings. Primary outcomes were correct diagnosis and patient management. X-ray interpretation time, confidence of diagnosis, perceptions about the AI tool and the differential impact of AI assistance by seniority were also examined.Results200 doctors participated. AI assistance increased correct diagnosis by 5.9% (95% CI 2.7 to 9.2%) compared with unassisted vignettes, with the largest increase among senior residents (11.8%; 95% CI 5.2% to 18.3%). Patient management increased by 3.2% (95% CI 0.1% to 6.4%). Confidence in diagnosis increased by 5% (95% CI 3.4% to 6.6%; p<0.001) and interpretation time increased by 4.9 s (p=0.08). Incorrect AI findings decreased correct diagnosis by 1% for false-positive (p=0.9) and 9% for false-negative findings (p=0.1). Participants found the AI tool helpful for interpreting chest X-rays, highlighting missed findings, but were neutral on its accuracy.ConclusionImprovements in diagnosis and patient management without meaningful increases in interpretation time suggest AI assistance could benefit clinical decisions involving chest X-ray interpretation. Further studies are required to ascertain if such improvements translate to improved patient care.