Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objectives To explore radiologists’ opinions regarding the shift from in-person oncologic multidisciplinary team meetings (MDTMs) to online MDTMs. To assess the perceived impact of online MDTMs, and to evaluate clinical and technical aspects of online meetings. Methods An online questionnaire including 24 questions was e-mailed to all European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) members. Questions targeted the structure and efficacy of online MDTMs, including benefits and limitations. Results A total of 204 radiologists responded to the survey. Responses were evaluated using descriptive statistical analysis. The majority (157/204; 77%) reported a shift to online MDTMs at the start of the pandemic. For the most part, this transition had a positive effect on maintaining and improving attendance. The majority of participants reported that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings, and that interdisciplinary discussion and review of imaging data were not hindered. Seventy three of 204 (35.8%) participants favour reverting to in-person MDTs, once safe to do so, while 7/204 (3.4%) prefer a continuation of online MDTMs. The majority (124/204, 60.8%) prefer a combination of physical and online MDTMs. Conclusions Online MDTMs are a viable alternative to in-person meetings enabling continued timely high-quality provision of care with maintained coordination between specialties. They were accepted by the majority of surveyed radiologists who also favoured their continuation after the pandemic, preferably in combination with in-person meetings. An awareness of communication issues particular to online meetings is important. Training, improved software, and availability of support are essential to overcome technical and IT difficulties reported by participants. Key Points • Majority of surveyed radiologists reported shift from in-person to online oncologic MDT meetings during the COVID-19 pandemic. • The shift to online MDTMs was feasible and generally accepted by the radiologists surveyed with the majority reporting that online MDTMs provide the same clinical standard as in-person meetings. • Most would favour the return to in-person MDTMs but would also accept the continued use of online MDTMs following the end of the current pandemic.

Background Concerns about ethical conflicts, moral distress, and burnout in veterinary practice are steadily increasing. Root causes of these problems have not been rigorously identified. Little research has been done to evaluate the existence of moral distress in North American veterinarians or to explore its impact on career sustainability and poor well‐being. Hypothesis/Objectives Ethical conflict and resultant moral distress are common occurrences in contemporary veterinary practice and negatively impact daily practice life, but may not be identified or labeled by veterinarians as such. Animals No animals were used in this study. Methods Mixed methods sequential explanatory design; confidential and anonymous on‐line sampling of 889 veterinarians in North America. Results A majority of respondents reported feeling conflict over what care is appropriate to provide. Over 70% of respondents felt that the obstacles they faced that prevented them from providing appropriate care caused them or their staff moderate to severe distress. Seventy‐nine percent of participants report being asked to provide care that they consider futile. More than 70% of participants reported no training in conflict resolution or self‐care. Conclusions and Clinical Importance Veterinarians report widespread ethical conflict and moral distress across many practice types and demographics. Most veterinarians have little to no training on how to decrease the impact of these problems. Ethical conflict and resulting moral distress may be an important source of stress and poor well‐being that is not widely recognized or well defined. Well‐researched and effective tools used to decrease moral distress in human healthcare could be adapted to ameliorate this problem.

Objectives Multidisciplinary tumour boards (MTBs) play an increasingly important role in managing cancer patients from diagnosis to treatment. However, many problems arise around the organisation of MTBs, both in terms of organisation-administration and time management. In this context, the European Society of Oncologic Imaging (ESOI) conducted a survey among its members, aimed at assessing the quality and amount of involvement of radiologists in MTBs, their role in it and related issues. Methods All members were invited to fill in a questionnaire consisting of 15 questions with both open and multiple-choice answers. Simple descriptive analyses and graphs were performed. Results A total of 292 ESOI members in full standing for the year 2018 joined the survey. Most respondents (89%) declared to attend MT-Bs, but only 114 respondents (43.9%) review over 70% of exams prior to MTB meetings, mainly due to lack of time due to a busy schedule for imaging and reporting (46.6%). Perceived benefits (i.e. surgical and histological feedback (86.9%), improved knowledge of cancer treatment (82.7%) and better interaction between radiologists and referring clinicians for discussing rare cases (56.9%)) and issues (i.e. attending MTB meetings during regular working hours (71.9%) and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education (CME) (85%)) are reported. Conclusions Despite the value and benefits of radiologists’ participation in MTBs, issues like improper preparation due to a busy schedule and no counterpart in CME accreditation require efforts to improve the role of radiologists for a better patient care. Key Points • Most radiologists attend multidisciplinary tumour boards, but less than half of them review images in advance, mostly due to time constraints. • Feedback about radiological diagnoses, improved knowledge of cancer treatment and interaction with referring clinicians are perceived as major benefits. • Concerns were expressed about scheduling multidisciplinary tumour boards during regular working hours and lack of accreditation with continuing medical education.

Background: Identification of MS registries and databases that are currently in use in Europe as well as a detailed knowledge of their content and structure is important in order to facilitate comprehensive analysis and comparison of data. Methods: National MS registries or databases were identified by literature search, from the results of the MS Barometer 2011 and by asking 33 national MS societies. A standardized questionnaire was developed and sent to the registries’ leaders, followed by telephone interviews with them. Results: Twenty registries were identified, with 13 completing the questionnaire and seven being interviewed by telephone. These registries differed widely for objectives, structure, collected data, and for patients and centres included. Despite this heterogeneity, common objectives of the registries were epidemiology (n=10), long-term therapy outcome (n=8), healthcare research (n=9) and support/basis for clinical trials (n=8). While physician-based outcome measures (EDSS) are used in all registries, data from patients’ perspectives were only collected in six registries. Conclusions: The detailed information on a large number of national MS registries in Europe is a prerequisite to facilitating harmonized integration of existing data from MS registries and databases, as well as comprehensive analyses and comparison across European populations.

To systematically evaluate available health-related quality of life (HRQL) instruments for use in patients with heart failure (HF). Seven HF-specific HRQL questionnaires and associated studies of their metric properties were identified by systematic review: the Chronic Heart Failure Assessment Tool, the Cardiac Health Profile congestive heart failure, the Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire (CHFQ), the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the Left Ventricular Disease Questionnaire (LVDQ), the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ), and the Quality of Life in Severe Heart Failure Questionnaire. Each instrument was assessed by four experts using a standardized tool for evaluating patient-reported outcomes ( EMPRO; scores from 0 to 100). Four questionnaires were given adequate scores (median >50) for the attribute “conceptual model.” The LVDQ had the highest rated median for “reliability” (72.8). The CHFQ, the KCCQ, and the MLHFQ all got reasonable scores for “validity” (from 54.4 to 76.4). The reviewers rated the KCCQ the highest in terms of “sensitivity to change” (median 94.4). Only the CHFQ (50.0) and the KCCQ (72.2) received adequate scores for the “interpretability” attribute. The most highly rated instruments based on the overall EMPRO score were the KCCQ (64.4) and the MLHFQ (60.7), followed by the CHFQ (59.2). Based on the first systematic and reliable expert-based evaluation of available HF-specific HRQL questionnaires, the evidence seems to support the choice of the KCCQ, the MLHFQ, and the CHFQ over the others, which require further research on metric properties.

After a mobile health (mHealth) app is created, an important step is to evaluate the usability of the app before it is released to the public. There are multiple ways of conducting a usability study, one of which is collecting target users' feedback with a usability questionnaire. Different groups have used different questionnaires for mHealth app usability evaluation: The commonly used questionnaires are the System Usability Scale (SUS) and Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ). However, the SUS and PSSUQ were not designed to evaluate the usability of mHealth apps. Self-written questionnaires are also commonly used for evaluation of mHealth app usability but they have not been validated. The goal of this project was to develop and validate a new mHealth app usability questionnaire. An mHealth app usability questionnaire (MAUQ) was designed by the research team based on a number of existing questionnaires used in previous mobile app usability studies, especially the well-validated questionnaires. MAUQ, SUS, and PSSUQ were then used to evaluate the usability of two mHealth apps: an interactive mHealth app and a standalone mHealth app. The reliability and validity of the new questionnaire were evaluated. The correlation coefficients among MAUQ, SUS, and PSSUQ were calculated. In this study, 128 study participants provided responses to the questionnaire statements. Psychometric analysis indicated that the MAUQ has three subscales and their internal consistency reliability is high. The relevant subscales correlated well with the subscales of the PSSUQ. The overall scale also strongly correlated with the PSSUQ and SUS. Four versions of the MAUQ were created in relation to the type of app (interactive or standalone) and target user of the app (patient or provider). A website has been created to make it convenient for mHealth app developers to use this new questionnaire in order to assess the usability of their mHealth apps. The newly created mHealth app usability questionnaire-MAUQ-has the reliability and validity required to assess mHealth app usability.

The purpose of this review is to provide guidance on the development, validation and use of food-frequency questionnaires (FFQs) for different study designs. It does not include any recommendations about the most appropriate method for dietary assessment (e.g. food-frequency questionnaire versus weighed record). A comprehensive search of electronic databases was carried out for publications from 1980 to 1999. Findings from the review were then commented upon and added to by a group of international experts. Recommendations have been developed to aid in the design, validation and use of FFQs. Specific details of each of these areas are discussed in the text. FFQs are being used in a variety of ways and different study designs. There is no gold standard for directly assessing the validity of FFQs. Nevertheless, the outcome of this review should help those wishing to develop or adapt an FFQ to validate it for its intended use.

•This study established the validity of the Council of Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire (CNAQ) as an index of appetite.•CNAQ is a valid appetite index in interventions in Japanese nursing home residents.•Appetite assessment via CNAQ was useful in predicting mortality rates in this group.•CNAQ in dependent elderly people could aid in improving their nutritional status.•Appetite assessment via the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire and the Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire for Japanese elderly was useful in predicting mortality rates in this group. This 1-y cohort study examined whether Council of Nutrition Appetite Questionnaire (CNAQ) scores predicted mortality in 316 elderly Japanese residents of five nursing homes (60 men, 256 women; mean age: 84.9 ± 8.3 y). The baseline survey included participant characteristics (e.g., age, sex, height, weight, and medical history), and Barthel Index (BI), Clinical Dementia Rating (CDR), Mini Nutritional Assessment-Short Form (MNA®-SF), CNAQ, Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ; simplified CNAQ), and SNAQ for the Japanese elderly (SNAQ-JE) scores. Following the baseline survey, mortality data were collected for 1 y; during this time, 62 participants (19.6%) died. The deceased group's CNAQ scores (25.1 ± 4.8) were significantly lower than those of the survival group (28 ± 3.6; P < 0.001). After adjusting for age, sex, medical history, BI, CDR, and MNA®-SF scores in Cox proportional regression, CNAQ (hazard ratio [HR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85–0.97; P = 0.004), SNAQ (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75–0.93; P = 0.001), and SNAQ-JE (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.76–0.92; P < 0.001) scores were related to mortality. This study showed that CNAQ scores were inversely associated with 1-y mortality. Furthermore, appetite assessment using the CNAQ predicted the death of Japanese nursing home residents. Similarly, the SNAQ and SNAQ-JE scores were inversely associated with 1-y mortality.