Can a cup a day keep cancer away? A systematic review exploring the potential of coffee constituents in preventing oral squamous cell carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Coffee is one of the most consumed beverages in the world. Containing an abundance of bioactive molecules including polyphenols and flavonoids, the constituents of this beverage may exert antiproliferative, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to summarise the available evidence on the anticancer effects of coffee constituents and their potential therapeutic use for oral squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC). Studies were identified through a comprehensive search of OVID MEDLINE, OVID EMBASE and Web of Science, including articles from any year up to 15 May 2023. RESULTS: Of the 60 reviewed papers, 45 were in vitro, 1 was in silico and 8 were in vivo exclusively. The remaining studies combined elements of more than one study type. A total of 55 studies demonstrated anti-proliferative effects, whilst 12 studies also investigated migration and invasion of neoplastic cells. The constituents studied most frequently were quercetin and epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG), demonstrating various cytotoxic effects whilst also influencing apoptotic mechanisms in cancer cell lines. Dose-dependent responses were consistently found amongst the studied constituents. CONCLUSION: Whilst there was heterogeneity of study models and methods, consistent use of specific models such as SCC25 for in vitro studies and golden hamsters for in vivo studies enabled relative comparability. The constituents of coffee have gained significant interest over the last 30 years, particularly in the last decade, and present an area of interest with significant public health implications. Currently, there is a paucity of literature on utilization of active coffee constituents for the therapeutic treatment of oral cancers.

A framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for the management of COPD: a collective case study.

BACKGROUND: In Canada, there is widespread agreement about the need for integrated models of team-based care. However, there is less agreement on how to support the scale-up and spread of successful models, and there is limited empirical evidence to support this process in chronic disease management. We studied the supporting and mitigating factors required to successfully implement and scale-up an integrated model of team-based care in primary care. METHODS: We conducted a collective case study using multiple methods of data collection including interviews, document analysis, living documents, and a focus group. Our study explored a team-based model of care for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) known as Best Care COPD (BCC) that has been implemented in primary care settings across Southwestern Ontario. BCC is a quality improvement initiative that was developed to enhance the quality of care for patients with COPD. Participants included healthcare providers involved in the delivery of the BCC program. RESULTS: We identified several mechanisms influencing the scale-up and spread of BCC and categorized them as Foundational (e.g., evidence-based program, readiness to implement, peer-led implementation team), Transformative (adaptive process, empowerment and collaboration, embedded evaluation), and Enabling Mechanisms (provider training, administrative support, role clarity, patient outcomes). Based on these results, we developed a framework to inform the progressive implementation of integrated, team-based care for chronic disease management. Our framework builds off our empirical work and is framed by local contextual factors. CONCLUSIONS: This study explores the implementation and spread of integrated team-based care in a primary care setting. Despite the study's focus on COPD, we believe the findings can be applied in other chronic disease contexts. We provide a framework to support the progressive implementation of integrated team-based care for chronic disease management.

Gender disparity between authors in leading medical journals during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional review.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluate gender differences in authorship of COVID-19 articles in high-impact medical journals compared with other topics. DESIGN: Cross-sectional review. DATA SOURCES: Medline database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Articles published from 1 January to 31 December 2020 in the seven leading general medical journals by impact factor. Article types included primary research, reviews, editorials and commentaries. DATA EXTRACTION: Key data elements were whether the study topic was related to COVID-19 and names of the principal and the senior authors. A hierarchical approach was used to determine the likely gender of authors. Logistic regression assessed the association of study characteristics, including COVID-19 status, with authors' likely gender; this was quantified using adjusted ORs (aORs). RESULTS: We included 2252 articles, of which 748 (33.2%) were COVID-19-related and 1504 (66.8%) covered other topics. A likely gender was determined for 2138 (94.9%) principal authors and 1890 (83.9%) senior authors. Men were significantly more likely to be both principal (1364 men; 63.8%) and senior (1332 men; 70.5%) authors. COVID-19-related articles were not associated with the odds of men being principal (aOR 0.99; 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; p=0.89) or senior authors (aOR 0.96; 95% CI 0.78 to 1.19; p=0.71) relative to other topics. Articles with men as senior authors were more likely to have men as principal authors (aOR 1.49; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.83; p<0.001). Men were more likely to author articles reporting original research and those with corresponding authors based outside the USA and Europe. CONCLUSIONS: Women were substantially under-represented as authors among articles in leading medical journals; this was not significantly different for COVID-19-related articles. Study limitations include potential for misclassification bias due to the name-based analysis. Results suggest that barriers to women's authorship in high-impact journals during COVID-19 are not significantly larger than barriers that preceded the pandemic and that are likely to continue beyond it. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020186702.

An Opportunity for Quality: The Need for Better Evaluation of Family Health Teams in Ontario.

In the past decade, primary care has undergone significant changes toward system improvement, which has improved patient outcomes and reduced costs. Family health teams (FHTs) were introduced in Ontario as part of primary care renewal. FHTs address a lack of capacity and integration among providers and service inaccessibility experienced by the population. We explore, the potential for positive impact of FHTs and the lack of built-in evaluation strategies to assess performance. We provide four suggestions to better support rigorous evaluation of FHTs. This commentary considers Ontario's efforts to improve capacity, quality and evaluation in primary care through FHTs.