Patients as teachers: a within-subjects randomized pilot experiment of patient-led online learning modules for health professionals.

PURPOSE: Many health professions education programs involve people with lived experience as expert speakers. Such presentations may help learners better understand the realities of living with chronic illness or experiencing an acute health problem. However, lectures from only one or a small number of people may not adequately illustrate the perspectives and experiences of a diverse patient cohort. Additionally, logistical constraints such as public health restrictions or travel barriers may impede in-person presentations, particularly among people who have more restrictions on their time. Health professions education programs may benefit from understanding the potential effects of online patient-led presentations with a diverse set of speakers. We aimed to explore whether patient-led online learning modules about diabetes care would influence learners' responses to clinical scenarios and to collect learners' feedback about the modules. METHOD: This within-subjects randomized experiment involved 26 third-year medical students at Université Laval in Quebec, Canada. Participation in the experiment was an optional component within a required course. Prior to the intervention, participating learners responded to three clinical scenarios randomly selected from a set of six such scenarios. Each participant responded to the other three scenarios after the intervention. The intervention consisted of patient-led online learning modules incorporating segments of narratives from 21 patient partners (11 racialized or Indigenous) describing why and how clinicians could provide patient-centered care. Working with clinical teachers and psychometric experts, we developed a scoring grid based on the biopsychosocial model and set 0.6 as a passing score. Independent evaluators, blinded to whether each response was collected before or after the intervention, then scored learners' responses to scenarios using the grid. We used Fisher's Exact test to compare proportions of passing scores before and after the intervention. RESULTS: Learners' overall percentage of passing scores prior to the intervention was 66%. Following the intervention, the percentage of passing scores was 76% (p = 0.002). Overall, learners expressed appreciation and other positive feedback regarding the patient-led online learning modules. DISCUSSION: Findings from this experiment suggest that learners can learn to provide better patient-centered care by watching patient-led online learning modules created in collaboration with a diversity of patient partners.

A Non-Canonical Role for the Glycosyltransferase Enzyme UGT2B17 as a Novel Constituent of the B Cell Receptor Signalosome.

In chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), an elevated glycosyltransferase UGT2B17 expression (UGT2B17HI) identifies a subgroup of patients with shorter survival and poor drug response. We uncovered a mechanism, possibly independent of its enzymatic function, characterized by an enhanced expression and signaling of the proximal effectors of the pro-survival B cell receptor (BCR) pathway and elevated Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) phosphorylation in B-CLL cells from UGT2B17HI patients. A prominent feature of B-CLL cells is the strong correlation of UGT2B17 expression with the adverse marker ZAP70 encoding a tyrosine kinase that promotes B-CLL cell survival. Their combined high expression levels in the treatment of naïve patients further defined a prognostic group with the highest risk of poor survival. In leukemic cells, UGT2B17 knockout and repression of ZAP70 reduced proliferation, suggesting that the function of UGT2B17 might involve ZAP70. Mechanistically, UGT2B17 interacted with several kinases of the BCR pathway, including ZAP70, SYK, and BTK, revealing a potential therapeutic vulnerability. The dual SYK and JAK/STAT6 inhibitor cerdulatinib most effectively compromised the proliferative advantage conferred by UGT2B17 compared to the selective BTK inhibitor ibrutinib. Findings point to an oncogenic role for UGT2B17 as a novel constituent of BCR signalosome also connected with microenvironmental signaling.

Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration.

BACKGROUND: The 2013 update of the evidence informing the quality dimensions behind the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) offered a model process for developers of patient decision aids. OBJECTIVE: To summarize and update the evidence used to inform the systematic development of patient decision aids from the IPDAS Collaboration. METHODS: To provide further details about design and development methods, we summarized findings from a subgroup (n = 283 patient decision aid projects) in a recent systematic review of user involvement by Vaisson et al. Using a new measure of user-centeredness (UCD-11), we then rated the degree of user-centeredness reported in 66 articles describing patient decision aid development and citing the 2013 IPDAS update on systematic development. We contacted the 66 articles' authors to request their self-reports of UCD-11 items. RESULTS: The 283 development processes varied substantially from minimal iteration cycles to more complex processes, with multiple iterations, needs assessments, and extensive involvement of end users. We summarized minimal, medium, and maximal processes from the data. Authors of 54 of 66 articles (82%) provided self-reported UCD-11 ratings. Self-reported scores were significantly higher than reviewer ratings (reviewers: mean [SD] = 6.45 [3.10]; authors: mean [SD] = 9.62 [1.16], P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Decision aid developers have embraced principles of user-centered design in the development of patient decision aids while also underreporting aspects of user involvement in publications about their tools. Templates may reduce the need for extensive development, and new approaches for rapid development of aids have been proposed when a more detailed approach is not feasible. We provide empirically derived benchmark processes and a reporting checklist to support developers in more fully describing their development processes.[Box: see text].

Health effects of climate change: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to develop a systematic synthesis of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change, by synthesising studies' characteristics, climate impacts, health outcomes and key findings. DESIGN: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews of health impacts of climate change. We registered our review in PROSPERO (CRD42019145972). No ethical approval was required since we used secondary data. Additional data are not available. DATA SOURCES: On 22 June 2019, we searched Medline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews that explored at least one health impact of climate change. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We organised systematic reviews according to their key characteristics, including geographical regions, year of publication and authors' affiliations. We mapped the climate effects and health outcomes being studied and synthesised major findings. We used a modified version of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) to assess the quality of studies. RESULTS: We included 94 systematic reviews. Most were published after 2015 and approximately one-fifth contained meta-analyses. Reviews synthesised evidence about five categories of climate impacts; the two most common were meteorological and extreme weather events. Reviews covered 10 health outcome categories; the 3 most common were (1) infectious diseases, (2) mortality and (3) respiratory, cardiovascular or neurological outcomes. Most reviews suggested a deleterious impact of climate change on multiple adverse health outcomes, although the majority also called for more research. CONCLUSIONS: Most systematic reviews suggest that climate change is associated with worse human health. This study provides a comprehensive higher order summary of research on health impacts of climate change. Study limitations include possible missed relevant reviews, no meta-meta-analyses, and no assessment of overlap. Future research could explore the potential explanations between these associations to propose adaptation and mitigation strategies and could include broader sociopsychological health impacts of climate change.