Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
1.
Int J Mol Sci ; 23(21)2022 Oct 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2269364

ABSTRACT

The central nervous system (CNS) controls and regulates the functional activities of the organ systems and maintains the unity between the body and the external environment. The advent of co-culture systems has made it possible to elucidate the interactions between neural cells in vitro and to reproduce complex neural circuits. Here, we classified the co-culture system as a two-dimensional (2D) co-culture system, a cell-based three-dimensional (3D) co-culture system, a tissue slice-based 3D co-culture system, an organoid-based 3D co-culture system, and a microfluidic platform-based 3D co-culture system. We provide an overview of these different co-culture models and their applications in the study of neural cell interaction. The application of co-culture systems in virus-infected CNS disease models is also discussed here. Finally, the direction of the co-culture system in future research is prospected.


Subject(s)
Cell Culture Techniques , Organoids , Coculture Techniques , Cell Culture Techniques/methods , Neurons , Cell Communication
2.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(11): e29951, 2021 11 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1547131

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Secure patient portals are widely available, and patients use them to view their electronic health records, including their clinical notes. We conducted experiments asking them to cogenerate notes with their clinicians, an intervention called OurNotes. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess patient and provider experiences and attitudes after 12 months of a pilot intervention. METHODS: Before scheduled primary care visits, patients were asked to submit a word-constrained, unstructured interval history and an agenda for what they would like to discuss at the visit. Using site-specific methods, their providers were invited to incorporate the submissions into notes documenting the visits. Sites served urban, suburban, and rural patients in primary care practices in 4 academic health centers in Boston (Massachusetts), Lebanon (New Hampshire), Denver (Colorado), and Seattle (Washington). Each practice offered electronic access to visit notes (open notes) to its patients for several years. A mixed methods evaluation used tracking data and electronic survey responses from patients and clinicians. Participants were 174 providers and 1962 patients who submitted at least 1 previsit form. We asked providers about the usefulness of the submissions, effects on workflow, and ideas for the future. We asked patients about difficulties and benefits of providing the requested information and ideas for future improvements. RESULTS: Forms were submitted before 9.15% (5365/58,652) eligible visits, and 43.7% (76/174) providers and 26.76% (525/1962) patients responded to the postintervention evaluation surveys; 74 providers and 321 patients remembered receiving and completing the forms and answered the survey questions. Most clinicians thought interim patient histories (69/74, 93%) and patient agendas (72/74, 97%) as good ideas, 70% (52/74) usually or always incorporated them into visit notes, 54% (40/74) reported no change in visit length, and 35% (26/74) thought they saved time. Their most common suggestions related to improving notifications when patient forms were received, making it easier to find the form and insert it into the note, and educating patients about how best to prepare their submissions. Patient respondents were generally well educated, most found the history (259/321, 80.7%) and agenda (286/321, 89.1%) questions not difficult to answer; more than 92.2% (296/321) thought sending answers before the visit a good idea; 68.8% (221/321) thought the questions helped them prepare for the visit. Common suggestions by patients included learning to write better answers and wanting to know that their submissions were read by their clinicians. At the end of the pilot, all participating providers chose to continue the OurNotes previsit form, and sites considered expanding the intervention to more clinicians and adapting it for telemedicine visits. CONCLUSIONS: OurNotes interests patients, and providers experience it as a positive intervention. Participation by patients, care partners, clinicians, and electronic health record experts will facilitate further development.


Subject(s)
Patient Portals , Telemedicine , Electronic Health Records , Humans , Primary Health Care , Surveys and Questionnaires
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL