ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: It is now widely recognised that engaging consumers in research activities can enhance the quality, equity and relevance of the research. Much of the commentary about consumer engagement in research focuses on research processes and implementation, rather than dissemination in conference settings. This article offers reflections and learnings from consumers, researchers and conference organisers on the 12th Health Services Research Conference, a biennial conference hosted by the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ). METHOD: We were awarded funds via a competitive application process by Bellberry Limited, a national not-for-profit agency with a focus on improving research quality, to incorporate consumer engagement strategies in conference processes and evaluate their impact. FINDINGS: Strategies included consumer scholarships, a buddy system, designated quiet space and consumer session co-chairs; the reflections explored in this paper were collected in the funded, independent evaluation. Our insights suggest a need for more structured consumer involvement in conference planning and design, as well as the development of specific engagement strategies. CONCLUSION: To move toward active partnership in scientific conference settings, our experience reinforces the need to engage consumers as members in designing and conducting research and in presenting research and planning conference content and processes. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Consumer engagement in research dissemination at conferences is the focus of this viewpoint article. Consumers were involved in the conception of this article and have contributed to authorship at all stages of revisions and edits.
Subject(s)
Community Participation , Congresses as Topic , Humans , Community Participation/methods , Australia , Health Services Research , New ZealandABSTRACT
There is a growing interest in the clinical application of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS). However, its effect on cortical excitability, and whether this is modulated by stimulation duration, remains unclear. We evaluated whether taVNS can modify excitability in the primary motor cortex (M1) in middle-aged and older adults and whether the stimulation duration moderates this effect. In addition, we evaluated the blinding efficacy of a commonly reported sham method. In a double-blinded randomized cross-over sham-controlled study, 23 healthy adults (mean age 59.91 ± 6.87 years) received three conditions: active taVNS for 30 and 60 min and sham for 30 min. Single and paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation was delivered over the right M1 to evaluate motor-evoked potentials. Adverse events, heart rate and blood pressure measures were evaluated. Participant blinding effectiveness was assessed via guesses about group allocation. There was an increase in short-interval intracortical inhibition (F = 7.006, p = .002) and a decrease in short-interval intracortical facilitation (F = 4.602, p = .014) after 60 min of taVNS, but not 30 min, compared to sham. taVNS was tolerable and safe. Heart rate and blood pressure were not modified by taVNS (p > .05). Overall, 96% of participants detected active stimulation and 22% detected sham stimulation. taVNS modifies cortical excitability in M1 and its effect depends on stimulation duration in middle-aged and older adults. taVNS increased GABAAergic inhibition and decreased glutamatergic activity. Sham taVNS protocol is credible but there is an imbalance in beliefs about group allocation.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is an emerging non-invasive neuromodulation therapy. This study aimed to explore the therapeutic use of taVNS, optimal stimulation parameters, effective sham protocols, and safety. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. Five databases and grey literature were searched. The data extracted included stimulation parameters, adverse events (AEs), and therapeutic effects on clinical outcomes. RESULTS: 109 studies were included. taVNS was used across 21 different clinical populations, most commonly in psychiatric, cardiac, and neurological disorders. Overall, 2,214 adults received active taVNS and 1,017 received sham taVNS. Reporting of stimulation parameters was limited and inconsistent. taVNS appeared to have a favourable therapeutic effect across a wide range of clinical populations with varied parameters. Three sham protocols were reported but their effectiveness was documented in only two of the 54 sham-controlled studies. Most reported adverse events were localised to stimulation site. CONCLUSION: There is growing evidence for taVNS therapeutic effect. taVNS appears safe and tolerable. Sham protocols need evaluation. Standardised and comprehensive reporting of both stimulation parameters and adverse events is required. Two different questionnaires have been proposed to evaluate adverse events and the effectiveness of sham methods in blinding participants.
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) showed therapeutic effect across a wide range of clinical populations including depression, epilepsy, and strokeThere is a preliminary indication that daily/weekly dose and overall duration of treatment are important to show therapeutic effectivenessWhen using taVNS as an intervention, the questionnaires proposed in this review should be used to evaluate blinding effectiveness and adverse events.
