Maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with multiple sclerosis disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Little is known regarding the impact of multiple sclerosis (MS) on maternal and neonatal outcomes. Consequently, this systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study the impacts of MS on maternal and neonatal outcomes in pregnant women with a history of MS. METHODS: This review was designed in line with the PRISMA guidelines. Two researchers conducted independent reviews of the literature without time restrictions until January 2023 using international databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL Plus, Embase, Scopus, Science Direct, and Google Scholar. A random-effect meta-analysis, using the db metan command in Stata 17.2, was used to calculate the pooled measure of association. RESULTS: The meta-analysis identified 15 studies involving 33,174,541 pregnant women (32,191 with MS and 33,142,350 as controls). The findings indicate that women with a history of MS are at an increased risk of cesarean delivery (OR=1.28, 95% Confidence Intervals [CI]: 1.14-1.45, p-value: 0.042). Also, these women are at higher risk of neonatal outcomes, such as preterm birth (OR= 1.39, 95% CI: 1.08-1.78, p-value: 0.02), congenital malformations (OR=1.32, 95%CI: 1.16-1.50, p-value: 0.031), Apgar score <7 (OR=2.13, 95% CI: 1.19-3.79, p-value: 0.03), and small for gestational age (OR=1.27, 95% CI: 1.08-1.51, p-value: 0.040). CONCLUSION: Pregnant women with MS have a greater chance of adverse pregnancy results than pregnant women without MS. Consequently, pregnant women with MS should create detailed before and after pregnancy plans, in consultation with their doctors, spouses, families, and friends, regarding the necessary care and supplements. Future studies applying a prospective cohort design that control for potential confounders are needed to further validate the findings.

Gold standard research and evidence applied: The Inspire Nursing Leadership Program.

Billions of dollars are invested annually in leadership development globally; however, few programs are evidence-based, risking adverse outcomes, and wasted time and money. This article describes the novel Inspire Nursing Leadership Program (INLP) and the outcomes-based process of incorporating gold standard evidence into its design, delivery, and evaluation. The INLP design was informed by a needs analysis, research evidence, and by nursing, Indigenous, and equity, diversity, and inclusion experts. The program's goals include enabling participants to develop leadership capabilities, cultivate strategic community partnerships, lead innovation projects, and connect with colleagues. Design features include an outcomes-based approach, the LEADS framework, and alignment with the principles of adult learning. Components include leadership impact projects, 360-assessments, blended interactive sessions, coaching, mentoring, and application and reflection exercises. The evaluation framework and subsequent proposed research design align to top-quality standards. Healthcare leadership programs must be evidence-based to support leaders in improving and transforming health systems.

Health risk communication and infodemic management in Iran: development and validation of a conceptual framework.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic exposed significant gaps in Iran's and other health systems' risk communication. The accompanying infodemic undermined policy responses, amplified distrust in government and reduced adherence to public health recommendations among the Iranian population. This study aimed to develop a conceptual framework for health risk communication and infodemic management (RCIM) during epidemics and health emergencies in Iran that could have potential applications in other contexts. DESIGN: This study was designed in two phases. Phase 1 involved semistructured qualitative interviews with key informants to explore effective RCIM strategies across public health settings in Iran and to develop a conceptual framework. Phase 2 involved revising the framework based on feedback from an online expert panel regarding its comprehensiveness and validity. SETTING: Provincial/national public health settings in Iran. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty key informants from provincial and national public health authorities who contributed to COVID-19 response programmes participated in interviews. Nine experts from diverse academic disciplines, provincial and national settings, and geographical locations participated in an online expert panel. RESULTS: The conceptual model was created based on qualitative interviews and expert panel discussions and was structured according to six pillars of the WHO health system framework: leadership and governance, information, health workforce and financial resources, along with media and community. Leadership and governance, including trustworthy leaders, were recommended as the foundation for developing RCIM in Iran. Developing an official strategy with information infrastructures, including high-quality surveillance systems, identified personnel and training for specialists among the health workforce, financial resources, communication channels and community engagement were recognised as other dimensions for developing health risk communication in Iran. CONCLUSION: The proposed framework represents a step toward establishing a national RCIM strategy in Iran. Further validation of the conceptual framework and experiments on how it could potentially influence policy and practice is recommended. This model has the potential to be applied in other contexts in its current form or as the foundation for customised local versions.

Guidance for Health Care Leaders During the Recovery Stage of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Consensus Statement.

Importance: The COVID-19 pandemic is the greatest global test of health leadership of our generation. There is an urgent need to provide guidance for leaders at all levels during the unprecedented preresolution recovery stage. Objective: To create an evidence- and expertise-informed framework of leadership imperatives to serve as a resource to guide health and public health leaders during the postemergency stage of the pandemic. Evidence Review: A literature search in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase revealed 10 910 articles published between 2000 and 2021 that included the terms leadership and variations of emergency, crisis, disaster, pandemic, COVID-19, or public health. Using the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence reporting guideline for consensus statement development, this assessment adopted a 6-round modified Delphi approach involving 32 expert coauthors from 17 countries who participated in creating and validating a framework outlining essential leadership imperatives. Findings: The 10 imperatives in the framework are: (1) acknowledge staff and celebrate successes; (2) provide support for staff well-being; (3) develop a clear understanding of the current local and global context, along with informed projections; (4) prepare for future emergencies (personnel, resources, protocols, contingency plans, coalitions, and training); (5) reassess priorities explicitly and regularly and provide purpose, meaning, and direction; (6) maximize team, organizational, and system performance and discuss enhancements; (7) manage the backlog of paused services and consider improvements while avoiding burnout and moral distress; (8) sustain learning, innovations, and collaborations, and imagine future possibilities; (9) provide regular communication and engender trust; and (10) in consultation with public health and fellow leaders, provide safety information and recommendations to government, other organizations, staff, and the community to improve equitable and integrated care and emergency preparedness systemwide. Conclusions and Relevance: Leaders who most effectively implement these imperatives are ideally positioned to address urgent needs and inequalities in health systems and to cocreate with their organizations a future that best serves stakeholders and communities.

Evidence-based medical leadership development: a systematic review.

Health systems invest significant resources in leadership development for physicians and other health professionals. Competent leadership is considered vital for maintaining and improving quality and patient safety. We carried out this systematic review to synthesise new empirical evidence regarding medical leadership development programme factors which are associated with outcomes at the clinical and organisational levels. Using Ovid MEDLINE, we conducted a database search using both free text and Medical Subject Headings. We then conducted an extensive hand-search of references and of citations in known healthcare leadership development reviews. We applied the Medical Education Research Study Quality Indicator (MERSQI) and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Tool to determine study reliability, and synthesised results using a meta-aggregation approach. 117 studies were included in this systematic review. 28 studies met criteria for higher reliability studies. The median critical appraisal score according to the MERSQI was 8.5/18 and the median critical appraisal score according to the JBI was 3/10. There were recurring causes of low study quality scores related to study design, data analysis and reporting. There was considerable heterogeneity in intervention design and evaluation design. Programmes with internal or mixed faculty were significantly more likely to report organisational outcomes than programmes with external faculty only (p=0.049). Project work and mentoring increased the likelihood of organisational outcomes. No leadership development content area was particularly associated with organisational outcomes. In leadership development programmes in healthcare, external faculty should be used to supplement in-house faculty and not be a replacement for in-house expertise. To facilitate organisational outcomes, interventions should include project work and mentoring. Educational methods appear to be more important for organisational outcomes than specific curriculum content. Improving evaluation design will allow educators and evaluators to more effectively understand factors which are reliably associated with organisational outcomes of leadership development.

Evidence-based leadership development for physicians: A systematic literature review.

Interest in leadership development in healthcare is substantial. Yet it remains unclear which interventions are most reliably associated with positive outcomes. We focus on the important area of physician leadership development in a systematic literature review of the latest research from 2007 to 2016. The paper applies a validated instrument used for medical education, MERSQI, to the included studies. Ours is the first review in this research area to create a tiered rating system to assess the best available evidence. We concentrate on findings from papers in the highly-rated categories. First, our review concludes that improvements in individual-level outcomes can be achieved (e.g. knowledge, motivation, skills, and behaviour change). Second, development programs can substantially improve organizational and benefit to patients outcomes. Third, some of the most effective interventions include: interactive workshops, videotaped simulations followed by peer and expert feedback, Multisource Feedback (MSF), coaching, action learning, and mentoring. Fourth, the evidence suggests that objective outcome data should be collected at baseline, end of program, and retrospectively. An outcomes-based approach appears to be the most effective design of programs. We also make recommendations for future research and practice.