Exploring practice and perspectives on shared decision-making about osteoporosis medicines in Fracture Liaison Services: the iFraP development qualitative study.

Interviews and focus groups with patients, FLS clinicians, and GPs identified challenges relating to clinical and shared decision-making about bone health and osteoporosis medicines. Findings will inform the development of the multicomponent iFraP intervention to address identified training needs and barriers to implementation to facilitate SDM about osteoporosis medicines. PURPOSE: The iFraP (improving uptake of Fracture Prevention treatments) study aimed to develop a multicomponent intervention, including an osteoporosis decision support tool (DST), to support shared decision-making (SDM) about osteoporosis medicines. To inform iFraP intervention development, this qualitative study explored current practice in relation to communication about bone health and osteoporosis medicines, anticipated barriers to, and facilitators of, an osteoporosis DST, and perceived training needs. METHODS: Patients attending an FLS consultation (n = 8), FLS clinicians (n = 9), and general practitioners (GPs; n = 7) were purposively sampled to participate in a focus group and/or telephone interview. Data were transcribed, inductively coded, and then mapped to the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) as a deductive framework to systematically identify possible barriers to, and facilitators of, implementing a DST. RESULTS: Inductive codes were deductively mapped to 12 TDF domains. FLS clinicians were perceived to have specialist expertise (knowledge). However, clinicians described aspects of clinical decision-making and risk communication as difficult (cognitive skills). Patients reflected on decisional uncertainty about medicines (decision processes). Discussions about current practice and the proposed DST indicated opportunities to facilitate SDM, if identified training needs are met. Potential individual and system-level barriers to implementation were identified, such as differences in FLS configuration and a move to remote consulting (environmental context and resources). CONCLUSIONS: Understanding of current practice revealed unmet training needs, indicating that using a DST in isolation would be unlikely to produce a sustained shift to SDM. Findings will shape iFraP intervention development to address unmet needs.

The relationship between pain and depression and anxiety in patients with inflammatory arthritis: a systematic review protocol.

Pain is a major challenge for patients with inflammatory arthritis (IA). Depression and anxiety are common comorbidities in IA, associating with worse outcomes. How they relate to pain is uncertain, with existing systematic reviews (a) mainly considering cross-sectional studies, (b) focusing on the relationship between pain and mental health in the context of disease activity/quality of life, and (c) not specifically considering the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain. This PROSPERO-registered (CRD42023411823) systematic review will address this knowledge-gap by synthesizing evidence to summarise the associations (and potential mediators) between pain and depression/anxiety and evaluate the impact of treating co-morbid depression/anxiety on pain in IA. Relevant databases will be searched, articles screened and their quality appraised (using Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools) by two reviewers. Eligible studies will include adults with rheumatoid arthritis or spondyloarthritis, be a clinical trial or observational study, and either (a) report the relationship between pain and depression/anxiety (observational studies/baseline trials), or (b) randomise participants to a pharmacological or psychological treatment to manage depression/anxiety with a pain outcome as an endpoint (trials). To synthesise data on the association between pain and depression/anxiety, where available adjusted coefficients from regression models will be pooled in a random-effects meta-analysis. A synthesis without meta-analysis will summarise mediators. To evaluate the impact of treating depression/anxiety on pain, endpoint mean differences between treatment arms will be combined in a random-effects meta-analysis. Through understanding how depression/anxiety contribute to pain in IA, our review has the potential to help optimise approaches to IA pain.

Experiences of living with hip osteoarthritis and of receiving advice, education and ultrasound-guided intra-articular hip injection in the hip injection trial. A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: The Hip Injection Trial (HIT) compared the effectiveness of adding a single ultrasound-guided intra-articular injection of either corticosteroid and local anaesthetic or local anaesthetic alone to advice and education among people with hip osteoarthritis (OA). This nested qualitative study explored participants' experiences of living with hip OA and of the trial treatment they received. METHOD: Semi-structured telephone interviews were undertaken with a purposeful sample of trial participants after a 2-month trial follow-up. Interviewers were blinded to which injection participants had received. Thematic analysis using constant comparison was undertaken prior to knowing the trial results. RESULTS: 34 trial participants were interviewed across all arms. OA causes pain, physical limitations, difficulties at work, lowered mood, and disrupted sleep. Those who received advice and education alone felt that they had not received 'treatment' and described little/no benefit. Participants in both injection groups described marked improvements in pain, physical function, and other aspects of life (e.g., sleep, confidence). The perceived magnitude of benefit appeared greater among those who received the corticosteroid injection; however, the length of benefit varied in both injection groups. There was uncertainty about the longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections. CONCLUSION: Hip OA is highly burdensome. Participants perceived little/no benefit from advice and education alone but reported marked improvements when combined with either injection. However, the magnitude of benefit was greater among those who received corticosteroid. The varying duration of response to injection and uncertainty regarding longer-term benefits of injection and repeated injections suggests that these areas are important for future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2014-003412-37; ISRCTN50550256.

Incorporating FRAX into a nurse-delivered integrated care review: a multi-method qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People with inflammatory rheumatological conditions (IRCs) are at increased risk of common comorbidities including osteoporosis. AIM: To explore the barriers to and facilitators of implementing nurse-delivered fracture risk assessments in primary care, in the context of multimorbidity reviews for people with IRCs. DESIGN & SETTING: A multi-method qualitative study in primary care. METHOD: As part of a process evaluation in a pilot trial, semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 patients, two nurses, and three GPs. Twenty-four patient-nurse INCLUDE review consultations were audiorecorded and transcribed. A framework analysis was conducted using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). RESULTS: Nurses reported positive views about the value of the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) and they felt confident to deliver the assessments following training. Barriers to implementation, as identified by TDF, particularly related to the domains of knowledge, skills, professional roles, and environmental context. GPs reported difficulty keeping up to date with osteoporosis guidelines and voiced differing opinions about whether fracture risk assessment was the role of primary or secondary care. Lack of integration of FRAX into IT systems was a barrier to use. GPs and nurses had differing views about the nurse role in communicating risk and acting on FRAX findings; for example, explanations of the FRAX result and action needed were limited. Patients reported limited understanding of FRAX outcomes. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that, with appropriate training including risk communication, practice nurses are likely to be confident to play a key role in conducting fracture risk assessments, but further work is needed to address the barriers identified.

Public priorities for osteoporosis and fracture research: results from a focus group study.

Four focus groups were conducted with members of the public to identify important areas for future osteoporosis research. Participants identified priorities to increase public awareness of osteoporosis, reduce delays in diagnosis, improve communication between healthcare providers and to improve follow-up and information provision about causes of osteoporosis, medication harms and prognosis. PURPOSE: Patients and the public must be involved in setting research agendas to ensure relevant and impactful questions are prioritised. This study aimed to understand what people living with osteoporosis and fragility fractures felt was important to research, to inform the content of a national survey on research priorities in this area. METHODS: Focus groups were conducted with members of the public with experience of osteoporosis or fragility fractures. The topic guide was co-developed with a patient and public involvement research user group, and explored participants' experiences of osteoporosis including diagnosis, management and effect upon their lives, what aspects of their ongoing care was most important to them and what about their care or condition could be improved. Focus groups were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically. RESULTS: A total of twenty-three participants were recruited to four focus groups. Analysis identified two main themes: challenges in living with osteoporosis and healthcare services for osteoporosis. Information needs was a further cross-cutting theme. Participants called for increased public awareness of osteoporosis and wanted healthcare services to address conflicting messages about diet, exercise and medication. Participants described long delays in diagnosis, poor communication between primary and secondary care and the need for structured follow-up as important areas for future research to address. CONCLUSION: The findings from this study provide an understanding of research priorities from the perspective of patients and the public, have informed the content of a national survey and have implications for patient education, health services research and policy.

Developing a video-based method to compare and adjust examiner effects in fully nested OSCEs.

BACKGROUND: Although averaging across multiple examiners' judgements reduces unwanted overall score variability in objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE), designs involving several parallel circuits of the OSCE require that different examiner cohorts collectively judge performances to the same standard in order to avoid bias. Prior research suggests the potential for important examiner-cohort effects in distributed or national examinations that could compromise fairness or patient safety, but despite their importance, these effects are rarely investigated because fully nested assessment designs make them very difficult to study. We describe initial use of a new method to measure and adjust for examiner-cohort effects on students' scores. METHODS: We developed video-based examiner score comparison and adjustment (VESCA): volunteer students were filmed 'live' on 10 out of 12 OSCE stations. Following the examination, examiners additionally scored station-specific common-comparator videos, producing partial crossing between examiner cohorts. Many-facet Rasch modelling and linear mixed modelling were used to estimate and adjust for examiner-cohort effects on students' scores. RESULTS: After accounting for students' ability, examiner cohorts differed substantially in their stringency or leniency (maximal global score difference of 0.47 out of 7.0 [Cohen's d = 0.96]; maximal total percentage score difference of 5.7% [Cohen's d = 1.06] for the same student ability by different examiner cohorts). Corresponding adjustment of students' global and total percentage scores altered the theoretical classification of 6.0% of students for both measures (either pass to fail or fail to pass), whereas 8.6-9.5% students' scores were altered by at least 0.5 standard deviations of student ability. CONCLUSIONS: Despite typical reliability, the examiner cohort that students encountered had a potentially important influence on their score, emphasising the need for adequate sampling and examiner training. Development and validation of VESCA may offer a means to measure and adjust for potential systematic differences in scoring patterns that could exist between locations in distributed or national OSCE examinations, thereby ensuring equivalence and fairness.

What's in a name? A discussion of what medical students and junior doctors call their senior colleagues, and why it matters.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. How should a medical student address their clinical tutor? Sociolinguistic ideas such as politeness theory tell us that the choice of formal or informal terms of address is determined by the positions of those communicating on two axes; relative status and degree of intimacy. This positioning is influenced by the interaction of personal characteristics of the individuals involved, but there are cross-cultural variations to these rules which are also changing as the world changes. The purpose of the communication will also influence terms of address. There is evidence that reducing social distance within teams improves team-working and that the perception of hierarchy prevents medical students asking for help. Such evidence forces us to take an honest look at how we train our junior colleagues to address us. Students may discover that the etiquette of the medical school classroom differs from that of the clinical placement and find themselves uncertain about how to address their colleagues appropriately. We suggest that it may be helpful in such a quandary to 'mind the gap' rather than ignoring it or trying to close it by imposing a blanket rule on it. We conclude by calling for sociological study with healthcare professionals and their students to discover whether formal or informal forms of address help or hinder aspects of learning and clinical teamwork.

Does formal workplace based assessment add value to informal feedback?

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Feedback is a key component of learning but effective feedback is a complex process with many aspects. One aspect may be a written summary which is passed to the learner but this may not be valued by learners. We examined the role of written feedback in the feedback process to determine whether it does more than provide a simple summary of the interaction. We conducted a secondary analysis of data gathered for a study of formative workplace based assessment. Interview data from 24 interviews with students and written summaries of workplace based assessments for 23 of them were reanalysed by two researchers who were already immersed in the data and examined all references to verbal, informal feedback and written, formal feedback or the assessment tool used. We found that students valued the verbal feedback discussion highly and that they often considered the written summaries superfluous. We also found that the act of preparing written feedback augmented the feedback discussion and tutors had adopted the language of the formal instrument in the verbal feedback and free text written feedback. What this study adds to existing research is evidence that there may be a secondary faculty development effect of requiring the preparation of written feedback which has served to enhance the educational content of feedback. Although this is not proof of causality (the requirement to provide written feedback alone producing the positive effects), we consider that the likelihood is sufficiently strong to continue the practice.

Evidence regarding the utility of multiple mini-interview (MMI) for selection to undergraduate health programs: A BEME systematic review: BEME Guide No. 37.

BACKGROUND: In the 11 years since its development at McMaster University Medical School, the multiple mini-interview (MMI) has become a popular selection tool. We aimed to systematically explore, analyze and synthesize the evidence regarding MMIs for selection to undergraduate health programs. METHODS: The review protocol was peer-reviewed and prospectively registered with the Best Evidence Medical Education (BEME) collaboration. Thirteen databases were searched through 34 terms and their Boolean combinations. Seven key journals were hand-searched since 2004. The reference sections of all included studies were screened. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were coded independently by two reviewers using a modified BEME coding sheet. Extracted data were synthesized through narrative synthesis. RESULTS: A total of 4338 citations were identified and screened, resulting in 41 papers that met inclusion criteria. Thirty-two studies report data for selection to medicine, six for dentistry, three for veterinary medicine, one for pharmacy, one for nursing, one for rehabilitation, and one for health science. Five studies investigated selection to more than one profession. MMIs used for selection to undergraduate health programs appear to have reasonable feasibility, acceptability, validity, and reliability. Reliability is optimized by including 7-12 stations, each with one examiner. The evidence is stronger for face validity, with more research needed to explore content validity and predictive validity. In published studies, MMIs do not appear biased against applicants on the basis of age, gender, or socio-economic status. However, applicants of certain ethnic and social backgrounds did less well in a very small number of published studies. Performance on MMIs does not correlate strongly with other measures of noncognitive attributes, such as personality inventories and measures of emotional intelligence. DISCUSSION: MMI does not automatically mean a more reliable selection process but it can do, if carefully designed. Effective MMIs require careful identification of the noncognitive attributes sought by the program and institution. Attention needs to be given to the number of stations, the blueprint and examiner training. CONCLUSION: More work is required on MMIs as they may disadvantage groups of certain ethnic or social backgrounds. There is a compelling argument for multi-institutional studies to investigate areas such as the relationship of MMI content to curriculum domains, graduate outcomes, and social missions; relationships of applicants' performance on different MMIs; bias in selecting applicants of minority groups; and the long-term outcomes appropriate for studies of predictive validity.

Grades in formative workplace-based assessment: a study of what works for whom and why.

CONTEXT: Grades are commonly used in formative workplace-based assessment (WBA) in medical education and training, but may draw attention away from feedback about the task. A dilemma arises because the self-regulatory focus of a trainee must include self-awareness relative to agreed standards, which implies grading. OBJECTIVES: In this study we aimed to understand the meaning which medical students construct from WBA feedback with and without grades, and what influences this. METHODS: Year 3 students were invited to take part in a randomised crossover study in which each student served as his or her own control. Each student undertook one WBA with and one without grades, and then chose whether or not to be given grades in a third WBA. These preferences were explored in semi-structured interviews. A realist approach to analysis was used to gain understanding of student preferences and the impact of feedback with and without grades. RESULTS: Of 83 students who were given feedback with and without grades, 65 (78%) then chose to have feedback with grades and 18 (22%) without grades in their third WBA. A total of 24 students were interviewed. Students described how grades locate their performance and calibrate their self-assessment. For some, low grades focused attention and effort. Satisfactory and high grades enhanced self-efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Grades are concrete, powerful and blunt, can be harmful and need to be explained to help students create helpful meaning from them. Low grades risk reducing self-efficacy in some and may encourage others to focus on proving their ability rather than on improvement. A metaphor of the semi-permeable membrane is introduced to elucidate how students reduced potential negative effects and enhanced the positive effects of feedback with grades by selective filtering and pumping. This study illuminates the complexity of the processing of feedback by its recipients, and informs the use of grading in the provision of more effective, tailored feedback.