ESDE-MIE fellowship: a descriptive analysis of the first experiences.

Esophageal resection is a high-risk and technically demanding procedure, with a long proficiency-gain curve. The European Society Diseases of the Esophagus (ESDE)-Minimally Invasive Esophagectomy (MIE) training program was launched in 2018 for European surgeons willing to train and to begin a career undertaking MIE. The aim of this study was to evaluate the first experience of the ESDE-MIE fellowship and relate this to the initially predetermined core principles and objectives of the program. Between October 2021 and May 2022, the participating fellows, in collaboration with the ESDE Educational Committee, initiated a survey to assess the outcome and experience of these fellowships. Data from each individual fellowship were analysed and reported in a descriptive manner. Between 2018 and 2022, in total, five fellows have completed the ESDE-MIE fellowship program. Despite the COVID-19 outbreak just the year after its launch, predetermined clinical and research goals were achieved in all cases. Each of the fellows were able to assist in a median of 40 (IQR 27-69) MIE and/or Robot assisted (RA)MIE procedures, of a total median of 115 (IQR 83-123) attended Upper GI cases. After the fellowship, MIE has been fully adopted by the fellows who returned to their home institutions as Upper GI surgeons. The fellowship was concluded by the European Union of Medical Specialists (UEMS) Multidisciplinary Joint Committee (MJC) certification in Upper GI Surgery, which was successfully obtained by all who took part. Based on the experience of the first five fellows, the ESDE-MIE training fellowship meets with the expected needs even despite the COVID-19 outbreak in 2019. Furthermore, these fellows have returned home and integrated MIE into their independent surgical practice, affirming the ability of this program to train the next generation of MIE surgeons, even in the most challenging of circumstances.

Misinformation About the Human Gut Microbiome in YouTube Videos: Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms such as YouTube are integral tools for disseminating information about health and wellness to the public. However, anecdotal reports have cited that the human gut microbiome has been a particular focus of dubious, misleading, and, on occasion, harmful media content. Despite these claims, there have been no published studies investigating this phenomenon within popular social media platforms. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to (1) evaluate the accuracy and reliability of the content in YouTube videos related to the human gut microbiome and (2) investigate the correlation between content engagement metrics and video quality, as defined by validated criteria. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, videos about the human gut microbiome were searched for on the United Kingdom version of YouTube on September 20, 2021. The 600 most-viewed videos were extracted and screened for relevance. The contents and characteristics of the videos were extracted and independently rated using the DISCERN quality criteria by 2 researchers. RESULTS: Overall, 319 videos accounting for 62,354,628 views were included. Of the 319 videos, 73.4% (n=234) were produced in North America and 78.7% (n=251) were uploaded between 2019 and 2021. A total of 41.1% (131/319) of videos were produced by nonprofit organizations. Of the videos, 16.3% (52/319) included an advertisement for a product or promoted a health-related intervention for financial purposes. Videos by nonmedical education creators had the highest total and preferred viewership. Daily viewership was the highest for videos by internet media sources. The average DISCERN and Health on the Net Foundation Code of Conduct scores were 49.5 (SE 0.68) out of 80 and 5.05 (SE 2.52) out of 8, respectively. DISCERN scores for videos by medical professionals (mean 53.2, SE 0.17) were significantly higher than for videos by independent content creators (mean 39.1, SE 5.58; P<.001). Videos including promotional materials had significantly lower DISCERN scores than videos without any advertisements or product promotion (P<.001). There was no correlation between DISCERN scores and total viewership, daily viewership, or preferred viewership (number of likes). CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality and reliability of information about the human gut microbiome on YouTube is generally poor. Moreover, there was no correlation between the quality of a video and the level of public engagement. The significant disconnect between reliable sources of information and the public suggests that there is an immediate need for cross-sector initiatives to safeguard vulnerable viewers from the potentially harmful effects of misinformation.

A national survey assessing public readiness for digital health strategies against COVID-19 within the United Kingdom.

There is concern that digital public health initiatives used in the management of COVID-19 may marginalise certain population groups. There is an overlap between the demographics of groups at risk of digital exclusion (older, lower social grade, low educational attainment and ethnic minorities) and those who are vulnerable to poorer health outcomes from SARS-CoV-2. In this national survey study (n = 2040), we assessed how the UK population; particularly these overlapping groups, reported their preparedness for digital health strategies. We report, with respect to using digital information to make health decisions, that those over 60 are less comfortable (net comfort: 57%) than those between 18 and 39 (net comfort: 78%) and lower social grades are less comfortable (net comfort: 63%) than higher social grades (net comfort: 75%). With respect to a preference for digital over non-digital sources in seeking COVID-19 health information, those over 60 (net preference: 21%) are less inclined than those between 18 and 39 (net preference: 60%) and those of low educational attainment (net preference: 30%) are less inclined than those of high educational attainment (net preference: 52%). Lastly, with respect to distinguishing reliable digital COVID-19 information, lower social grades (net confidence: 55%) are less confident than higher social grades (net confidence: 68%) and those of low educational attainment (net confidence: 51%) are less confident than those of high educational attainment (net confidence: 71%). All reported differences are statistically significant (p < 0.01) following multivariate regression modelling. This study suggests that digital public health approaches to COVID-19 have the potential to marginalise groups who are concurrently at risk of digital exclusion and poor health outcomes from SARS-CoV-2.

Insights from a global snapshot of the change in elective colorectal practice due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to understand the impact of COVID-19 on colorectal cancer care globally and determine drivers of variation. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate COVID-19 impact on colorectal cancer services globally and identify predictors for behaviour change. DESIGN: An online survey of colorectal cancer service change globally in May and June 2020. PARTICIPANTS: Attending or consultant surgeons involved in the care of patients with colorectal cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in the delivery of diagnostics (diagnostic endoscopy), imaging for staging, therapeutics and surgical technique in the management of colorectal cancer. Predictors of change included increased hospital bed stress, critical care bed stress, mortality and world region. RESULTS: 191 responses were included from surgeons in 159 centers across 46 countries, demonstrating widespread service reduction with global variation. Diagnostic endoscopy was reduced in 93% of responses, even with low hospital stress and mortality; whilst rising critical care bed stress triggered complete cessation (p = 0.02). Availability of CT and MRI fell by 40-41%, with MRI significantly reduced with high hospital stress. Neoadjuvant therapy use in rectal cancer changed in 48% of responses, where centers which had ceased surgery increased its use (62 vs 30%, p = 0.04) as did those with extended delays to surgery (p<0.001). High hospital and critical care bed stresses were associated with surgeons forming more stomas (p<0.04), using more experienced operators (p<0.003) and decreased laparoscopy use (critical care bed stress only, p<0.001). Patients were also more actively prioritized for resection, with increased importance of co-morbidities and ICU need. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was associated with severe restrictions in the availability of colorectal cancer services on a global scale, with significant variation in behaviours which cannot be fully accounted for by hospital burden or mortality.

The influence of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on esophagogastric cancer services: an international survey of esophagogastric surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Several guidelines to guide clinical practice among esophagogastric surgeons during the COVID-19 pandemic were produced. However, none provide reflection of current service provision. This international survey aimed to clarify the changes observed in esophageal and gastric cancer management and surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An online survey covering key areas for esophagogastric cancer services, including staging investigations and oncological and surgical therapy before and during (at two separate time-points-24th March 2020 and 18th April 2020) the COVID-19 pandemic were developed. RESULTS: A total of 234 respondents from 225 centers and 49 countries spanning six continents completed the first round of the online survey, of which 79% (n = 184) completed round 2. There was variation in the availability of staging investigations ranging from 26.5% for endoscopic ultrasound to 62.8% for spiral computed tomography scan. Definitive chemoradiotherapy was offered in 14.8% (adenocarcinoma) and 47.0% (squamous cell carcinoma) of respondents and significantly increased by almost three-fold and two-fold, respectively, in both round 1 and 2. There were uncertainty and heterogeneity surrounding prioritization of patients undergoing cancer resections. Of the surgeons symptomatic with COVID-19, only 40.2% (33/82) had routine access to COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction testing for staff. Of those who had testing available (n = 33), only 12.1% (4/33) had tested positive. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight management challenges and several practice variations in caring for patients with esophagogastric cancers. Therefore, there is a need for clear consistent guidelines to be in place in the event of a further pandemic to ensure a standardized level of oncological care for patients with esophagogastric cancers.