Remote care through telehealth for people with inflammatory bowel disease.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) require intensive follow-up with frequent consultations after diagnosis. IBD telehealth management includes consulting by phone, instant messenger, video, text message, or web-based services. Telehealth can be beneficial for people with IBD, but may have its own set of challenges. It is important to systematically review the evidence on the types of remote or telehealth approaches that can be deployed in IBD. This is particularly relevant following the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, which led to increased self- and remote-management. OBJECTIVES: To identify the communication technologies used to achieve remote healthcare for people with inflammatory bowel disease and to assess their effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 January 2022, we searched CENTRAL, Embase, MEDLINE, three other databases, and three trials registries with no limitations on language, date, document type, or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published, unpublished, and ongoing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated telehealth interventions targeted at people with IBD versus any other type of intervention or no intervention. We did not include studies based on digital patient information resources or education resources, unless they formed part of a wider package including an element of telehealth. We excluded studies where remote monitoring of blood or faecal tests was the only form of monitoring. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed their risk of bias. We analysed studies on adult and paediatric populations separately. We expressed the effects of dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and the effects of continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), each with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs with a total of 3489 randomised participants, aged eight to 95 years. Three studies examined only people with ulcerative colitis (UC), two studies examined only people with Crohn's disease (CD), and the remaining studies examined a mix of IBD patients. Studies considered a range of disease activity states. The length of the interventions ranged from six months to two years. The telehealth interventions were web-based and telephone-based. Web-based monitoring versus usual care Twelve studies compared web-based disease monitoring to usual care. Three studies, all in adults, provided data on disease activity. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 254) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 174) in reducing disease activity in people with IBD (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.29). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Five studies on adults provided dichotomous data that we could use for a meta-analysis on flare-ups. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 207/496) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 150/372) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with IBD (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.27). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided continuous data. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 465) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 444) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in adults with CD (MD 0.00 events, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.06). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. One study provided dichotomous data on flare-ups in a paediatric population. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 28/84) may be equivalent to usual care (n = 29/86) for the occurrence of flare-ups or relapses in children with IBD (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.51). The certainty of the evidence is low. Four studies, all in adults, provided data on quality of life. Web-based disease monitoring (n = 594) is probably equivalent to usual care (n = 505) for quality of life in adults with IBD (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.20). The certainty of the evidence is moderate. Based on continuous data from one study in adults, we found that web-based disease monitoring probably leads to slightly higher medication adherence compared to usual care (MD 0.24 points, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.47). The results are of moderate certainty. Based on continuous data from one paediatric study, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.63), although the evidence is very uncertain. When we meta-analysed dichotomous data from two studies on adults, we found no difference between web-based disease monitoring and usual care in terms of their effect on medication adherence (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.21), although the evidence is very uncertain. We were unable to draw any conclusions on the effects of web-based disease monitoring compared to usual care on healthcare access, participant engagement, attendance rate, interactions with healthcare professionals, and cost- or time-effectiveness. The certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence in this review suggests that web-based disease monitoring is probably no different to standard care in adults when considering disease activity, occurrence of flare-ups or relapse, and quality of life. There may be no difference in these outcomes in children, but the evidence is limited. Web-based monitoring probably increases medication adherence slightly compared to usual care. We are uncertain about the effects of web-based monitoring versus usual care on our other secondary outcomes, and about the effects of the other telehealth interventions included in our review, because the evidence is limited. Further studies comparing web-based disease monitoring to standard care for the clinical outcomes reported in adults are unlikely to change our conclusions, unless they have longer follow-up or investigate under-reported outcomes or populations. Studies with a clearer definition of web-based monitoring would enhance applicability, enable practical dissemination and replication, and enable alignment with areas identified as important by stakeholders and people affected by IBD.

Virtual interviewing for graduate medical education recruitment and selection: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 80.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic caused graduate medical education (GME) programs to pivot to virtual interviews (VIs) for recruitment and selection. This systematic review synthesizes the rapidly expanding evidence base on VIs, providing insights into preferred formats, strengths, and weaknesses. METHODS: PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, ERIC, PsycINFO, MedEdPublish, and Google Scholar were searched from 1 January 2012 to 21 February 2022. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts, full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias using the Medical Education Research Quality Instrument. Findings were reported according to Best Evidence in Medical Education guidance. RESULTS: One hundred ten studies were included. The majority (97%) were from North America. Fourteen were conducted before COVID-19 and 96 during the pandemic. Studies involved both medical students applying to residencies (61%) and residents applying to fellowships (39%). Surgical specialties were more represented than other specialties. Applicants preferred VI days that lasted 4-6 h, with three to five individual interviews (15-20 min each), with virtual tours and opportunities to connect with current faculty and trainees. Satisfaction with VIs was high, though both applicants and programs found VIs inferior to in-person interviews for assessing 'fit.' Confidence in ranking applicants and programs was decreased. Stakeholders universally noted significant cost and time savings with VIs, as well as equity gains and reduced carbon footprint due to eliminating travel. CONCLUSIONS: The use of VIs for GME recruitment and selection has accelerated rapidly. The findings of this review offer early insights that can guide future practice, policy, and research.

Remote learning developments in postgraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic - A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 71.

BACKGROUND: Prior reviews investigated medical education developments in response to COVID-19, identifying the pivot to remote learning as a key area for future investigation. This review synthesized online learning developments aimed at replacing previously face-to-face 'classroom' activities for postgraduate learners. METHODS: Four online databases (CINAHL, Embase, PsychINFO, and PubMed) and MedEdPublish were searched through 21 December 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction, and assessed risk of bias. The PICRAT technology integration framework was applied to examine how teachers integrated and learners engaged with technology. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. A thematic analysis explored limitations and lessons learned. RESULTS: Fifty-one publications were included. Fifteen collaborations were featured, including international partnerships and national networks of program directors. Thirty-nine developments described pivots of existing educational offerings online and twelve described new developments. Most interventions included synchronous activities (n Fif5). Virtual engagement was promoted through chat, virtual whiteboards, polling, and breakouts. Teacher's use of technology largely replaced traditional practice. Student engagement was largely interactive. Underpinning theories were uncommon. Quality assessments revealed moderate to high risk of bias in study reporting and methodology. Forty-five developments assessed reaction; twenty-five attitudes, knowledge or skills; and two behavior. Outcomes were markedly positive. Eighteen publications reported social media or other outcomes, including reach, engagement, and participation. Limitations included loss of social interactions, lack of hands-on experiences, challenges with technology and issues with study design. Lessons learned highlighted the flexibility of online learning, as well as practical advice to optimize the online environment. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers guidance to educators attempting to optimize learning in a post-pandemic world. Future developments would benefit from leveraging collaborations, considering technology integration frameworks, underpinning developments with theory, exploring additional outcomes, and designing and reporting developments in a manner that supports replication.

Online learning developments in undergraduate medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 69.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic spurred an abrupt transition away from in-person educational activities. This systematic review investigated the pivot to online learning for nonclinical undergraduate medical education (UGME) activities and explored descriptions of educational offerings deployed, their impact, and lessons learned. METHODS: The authors systematically searched four online databases and conducted a manual electronic search of MedEdPublish up to December 21, 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias. A third author resolved discrepancies. Findings were reported in accordance with the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting in healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement and BEME guidance. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles were included. The majority (n = 41) described the rapid transition of existing offerings to online formats, whereas fewer (n = 15) described novel activities. The majority (n = 27) included a combination of synchronous and asynchronous components. Didactics (n = 40) and small groups (n = 26) were the most common instructional methods. Teachers largely integrated technology to replace and amplify rather than transform learning, though learner engagement was often interactive. Thematic analysis revealed unique challenges of online learning, as well as exemplary practices. The quality of study designs and reporting was modest, with underpinning theory at highest risk of bias. Virtually all studies (n = 54) assessed reaction/satisfaction, fewer than half (n = 23) assessed changes in attitudes, knowledge or skills, and none assessed behavioral, organizational or patient outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: UGME educators successfully transitioned face-to-face instructional methods online and implemented novel solutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. Although technology's potential to transform teaching is not yet fully realized, the use of synchronous and asynchronous formats encouraged virtual engagement, while offering flexible, self-directed learning. As we transition from emergency remote learning to a post-pandemic world, educators must underpin new developments with theory, report additional outcomes and provide details that support replication.

Pivot to online learning for adapting or continuing workplace-based clinical learning in medical education following the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 70.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease was declared a pandemic in March 2020, which necessitated adaptations to medical education. This systematic review synthesises published reports of medical educational developments and innovations that pivot to online learning from workplace-based clinical learning in response to the pandemic. The objectives were to synthesise what adaptations/innovation were implemented (description), their impact (justification), and 'how' and 'why' these were selected (explanation and rationale). METHODS: The authors systematically searched four online databases up to December 21, 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-texts, performed data extraction, and assessed the risk of bias. Our findings are reported in alignment with the STORIES (STructured apprOach to the Reporting in healthcare education of Evidence Synthesis) statement and BEME guidance. RESULTS: Fifty-five articles were included. Most were from North America (n = 40), and nearly 70% focused on undergraduate medical education (UGME). Key developments were rapid shifts from workplace-based learning to virtual spaces, including online electives, telesimulation, telehealth, radiology, and pathology image repositories, live-streaming or pre-recorded videos of surgical procedures, stepping up of medical students to support clinical services, remote adaptations for clinical visits, multidisciplinary team meetings and ward rounds. Challenges included lack of personal interactions, lack of standardised telemedicine curricula and need for faculty time, technical resources, and devices. Assessment of risk of bias revealed poor reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the response of medical educators in deploying adaptations and innovations. Whilst few are new, the complexity, concomitant use of multiple methods and the specific pragmatic choices of educators offers useful insight to clinical teachers who wish to deploy such methods within their own practice. Future works that offer more specific details to allow replication and understanding of conceptual underpinnings are likely to justify an update to this review.

Fostering intrinsic motivation in remote undergraduate histopathology education.

AIMS: The levels of abstraction, vast vocabulary and high cognitive load present significant challenges in undergraduate histopathology education. Self-determination theory describes three psychological needs which promote intrinsic motivation. This paper describes, evaluates and justifies a remotely conducted, post-COVID-19 histopathology placement designed to foster intrinsic motivation. METHODS: 90 fourth-year medical students took part in combined synchronous and asynchronous remote placements integrating virtual microscopy into complete patient narratives through Google Classroom, culminating in remote, simulated multidisciplinary team meeting sessions allowing participants to vote on 'red flag' signs and symptoms, investigations, histological diagnoses, staging and management of simulated virtual patients. The placement was designed to foster autonomy, competence and relatedness, generating authenticity, transdisciplinary integration and clinical relevance. A postpositivistic evaluation was undertaken with a validated preplacement and postplacement questionnaire capturing quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: There was a significant (p<0.001) improvement in interest, confidence and competence in histopathology. Clinical integration and relevance, access to interactive resources and collaborative learning promoted engagement and sustainability post-COVID-19. Barriers to online engagement included participant lack of confidence and self-awareness in front of peers. CONCLUSIONS: Fostering autonomy, competence and relatedness in post-COVID-19, remote educational designs can promote intrinsic motivation and authentic educational experiences. Ensuring transdisciplinary clinical integration, the appropriate use of novel technology and a focus on patient narratives can underpin the relevance of undergraduate histopathology education. The presentation of normal and diseased tissue in this way can serve as an important mode for the acquisition and application of clinically relevant knowledge expected of graduates.

Gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To summarise the published evidence on the gastrointestinal manifestations of COVID-19 in children and to determine the prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and the WHO's database of publications on novel coronavirus. We included English language studies that had described original demographic and clinical characteristics of children diagnosed with COVID-19 and reported on the presence or absence of gastrointestinal symptoms. Meta-analysis was conducted using the random-effects model. The pooled prevalence of gastrointestinal symptoms was expressed as proportion and 95% CI. RESULTS: The search identified 269 citations. Thirteen studies (nine case series and four case reports) comprising data for 284 patients were included. Overall, we rated four studies as having a low risk of bias, eight studies as moderate and one study as high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of nine studies, comprising 280 patients, the pooled prevalence of all gastrointestinal symptoms was 22.8% (95% CI 13.1% to 35.2%; I2=54%). Diarrhoea was the most commonly reported gastrointestinal symptom followed by vomiting and abdominal pain. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly a quarter of children with COVID-19 have gastrointestinal symptoms. It is important for clinicians to be aware of the gastrointestinal manifestation of COVID-19. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020177569.

An update on developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A BEME scoping review: BEME Guide No. 64.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has fundamentally altered how education is delivered. Gordon et al. previously conducted a review of medical education developments in response to COVID-19; however, the field has rapidly evolved in the ensuing months. This scoping review aims to map the extent, range and nature of subsequent developments, summarizing the expanding evidence base and identifying areas for future research. METHODS: The authors followed the five stages of a scoping review outlined by Arskey and O'Malley. Four online databases and MedEdPublish were searched. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts. Included articles described developments in medical education deployed in response to COVID-19 and reported outcomes. Data extraction was completed by two authors and synthesized into a variety of maps and charts. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-seven articles were included: 104 were from North America, Asia and Europe; 51 were undergraduate, 41 graduate, 22 continuing medical education, and 13 mixed; 35 were implemented by universities, 75 by academic hospitals, and 17 by organizations or collaborations. The focus of developments included pivoting to online learning (n = 58), simulation (n = 24), assessment (n = 11), well-being (n = 8), telehealth (n = 5), clinical service reconfigurations (n = 4), interviews (n = 4), service provision (n = 2), faculty development (n = 2) and other (n = 9). The most common Kirkpatrick outcome reported was Level 1, however, a number of studies reported 2a or 2b. A few described Levels 3, 4a, 4b or other outcomes (e.g. quality improvement). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review mapped the available literature on developments in medical education in response to COVID-19, summarizing developments and outcomes to serve as a guide for future work. The review highlighted areas of relative strength, as well as several gaps. Numerous articles have been written about remote learning and simulation and these areas are ripe for full systematic reviews. Telehealth, interviews and faculty development were lacking and need urgent attention.

Developments in medical education in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: A rapid BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 63.

BACKGROUND: The novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic in March 2020. This rapid systematic review synthesised published reports of medical educational developments in response to the pandemic, considering descriptions of interventions, evaluation data and lessons learned. METHODS: The authors systematically searched four online databases and hand searched MedEdPublish up to 24 May 2020. Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts, performed data extraction and assessed risk of bias for included articles. Discrepancies were resolved by a third author. A descriptive synthesis and outcomes were reported. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles were included. The majority were from North America, Asia and Europe. Sixteen studies described Kirkpatrick's outcomes, with one study describing levels 1-3. A few papers were of exceptional quality, though the risk of bias framework generally revealed capricious reporting of underpinning theory, resources, setting, educational methods, and content. Key developments were pivoting educational delivery from classroom-based learning to virtual spaces, replacing clinical placement based learning with alternate approaches, and supporting direct patient contact with mitigated risk. Training for treating patients with COVID-19, service reconfiguration, assessment, well-being, faculty development, and admissions were all addressed, with the latter categories receiving the least attention. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights several areas of educational response in the immediate aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic and identifies a few articles of exceptional quality that can serve as models for future developments and educational reporting. There was often a lack of practical detail to support the educational community in enactment of novel interventions, as well as limited evaluation data. However, the range of options deployed offers much guidance for the medical education community moving forward and there was an indication that outcome data and greater detail will be reported in the future.

Rapid systematic review of neonatal COVID-19 including a case of presumed vertical transmission.

OBJECTIVE: To carry out a systematic review of the available studies on COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) in neonates seen globally since the onset of the COVID-19 global pandemic in 2020. The paper also describes a premature baby with reverse transcription (RT)-PCR-positive COVID-19 seen at the Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, UK. DESIGN: We conducted a multifaceted search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Medline and PubMed from 1 December 2019 to 12 May 2020 to harvest articles from medical journals and publications reporting cases of COVID-19 in neonates from anywhere in the world. Additional searches were also done so as not to miss any important publications. Write-up was in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, the protocol for the review was registered with International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), and risk of bias was analysed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool. Additionally, the preterm neonate with COVID-19 from our hospital is also reported. RESULTS: The systematic review has revealed eight studies where neonates have been described to have confirmed COVID-19, with low risk of bias. Of the 10 reported cases elsewhere, only three are likely to be vertically transmitted, while seven occurred in the postperinatal period and are likely to have been postnatally acquired. All neonates had a mild course, recovered fully and were negative on retesting. Our case of COVID-19 in a 32-week premature baby from the UK was delivered by emergency caesarean section, with the mother wearing a face mask and the family having no contact with the neonate, suggesting vertical transmission. On day 33, the neonate was asymptomatic but was still RT-PCR-positive on nasopharyngeal airway swab. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal infection is uncommon, with only two previously reported cases likely to be of vertical transmission. The case we report is still RT-PCR-positive on day 28 and is asymptomatic. Ongoing research is needed to ascertain the epidemiology of COVID-19 in neonates.