Interventions to promote medical student well-being: an overview of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct an overview of systematic reviews that explore the effectiveness of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. DESIGN: Overview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL and Scopus were searched from database inception until 31 May 2023 to identify systematic reviews of interventions to enhance medical student well-being. Ancestry searching and citation chasing were also conducted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: The Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews V.2 tool was used to appraise the quality of the included reviews. A narrative synthesis was conducted, and the evidence of effectiveness for each intervention was rated. RESULTS: 13 reviews (with 94 independent studies and 17 616 students) were included. The reviews covered individual-level and curriculum-level interventions. Individual interventions included mindfulness (n=12), hypnosis (n=6), mental health programmes (n=7), yoga (n=4), cognitive and behavioural interventions (n=1), mind-sound technology (n=1), music-based interventions (n=1), omega-3 supplementation (n=1), electroacupuncture (n=1) and osteopathic manipulative treatment (n=1). The curriculum-level interventions included pass/fail grading (n=4), problem-based curriculum (n=2) and multicomponent curriculum reform (n=2). Most interventions were not supported by sufficient evidence to establish effectiveness. Eleven reviews were rated as having 'critically low' quality, and two reviews were rated as having 'low' quality. CONCLUSIONS: Individual-level interventions (mindfulness and mental health programmes) and curriculum-level interventions (pass/fail grading) can improve medical student well-being. These conclusions should be tempered by the low quality of the evidence. Further high-quality research is required to explore additional effective interventions to enhance medical student well-being and the most efficient ways to implement and combine these for maximum benefit.

How does communication affect patient safety? Protocol for a systematic review and logic model.

INTRODUCTION: One in 10 patients are harmed in healthcare, more than three million deaths occur annually worldwide due to patient safety incidents, and the economic burden of patient safety incidents accounts for 15% of hospital expenditure. Poor communication between patients and practitioners is a significant contributor to patient safety incidents. This study aims to evaluate the extent to which patient safety is affected by communication and to provide a logic model that illustrates how communication impacts patient safety. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised studies, reported in any language, that quantify the effects of practitioner and patient communication on patient safety. We will search MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsychINfo, CENTRAL, Scopus and ProQuest theses and dissertations from 2013 to 7 February 2024. We will also hand-search references of included studies. Screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be conducted by two independent reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) for non-randomised studies, and the Cochrane Risk of Bias V.2 (RoB2) for randomised controlled trials. If appropriate, results will be pooled with summary estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CIs); otherwise, we will conduct a narrative synthesis. We will organise our findings by healthcare discipline, type of communication and type of patient safety incident. We will produce a logic model to illustrate how communication impacts patient safety. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This systematic review does not require formal ethics approval. Findings will be disseminated through international conferences, news and peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42024507578.

Time on Treatment and Survival Outcomes for Patients Treated With First-line Osimertinib vs. Other Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors, for EGFR Mutation-positive Metastatic Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: Real-world Experience Data.

BACKGROUND/AIM: In this observational study, we analyzed the time on treatment (ToT) and overall survival (OS) of patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) in a 2.7-million-member public health provider in Israel. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients with mNSCLC who initiated first-line tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy between Jan 2017-Dec 2020 were identified from the National Cancer Registry and Maccabi Healthcare Services database. Outcomes were assessed at a minimum of 23 months of follow-up (cutoff: 30th November 2022). All analyses compared first-line treatment osimertinib vs. standard TKIs (erlotinib, afatanib or gefitinib). RESULTS: A total of 165 patients (59% female, median age 68 years) were identified, including 58% smokers, 95% with adenocarcinomas, 33% with brain metastases, and 62%/15%/23% with 0-1/2-4/unknown performance status (PS). Of these, 77 (47%) were treated with standard TKI drugs and 88 (53%) with osimertinib as first-line treatment. The median duration of follow-up was 33.6 months (95%CI=29.9-37.3) and 58.5 months (95%CI=52.5-64.4) for patients who received osimertinib and standard TKIs, respectively. The median ToT (in months) was significantly (p<0.0001) longer with osimertinib (17.6; 95%CI=13.71-23.9) vs. standard TKIs (9.40; 95%CI=7.17-12.1). The 24-month survival rate was 58.0% among patients who received osimertinib and 50.6% among those who received standard TKI therapy (p=0.18). From second-line treatment initiation, 43.8% of those who received second-line osimertinib and 17.7% of those that received other second-line treatment were still alive at 24 months. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard TKIs, first-line osimertinib treatment was associated with a significantly longer ToT, and a longer OS. Our cohort also included patients with PS 2-4 who would not necessarily be included in clinical trials, allowing analysis of a real-world population.

The reimbursement process in three national healthcare systems: variation in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer.

In this article, we focus on the reimbursement process, and as an example, characterize the time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab, a PD-1 immune checkpoint inhibitor for treatment of metastatic NSCLC from publicly available websites, in three different healthcare systems: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK, the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) in Australia, and the National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel, all who have publicly funded health systems which include drug coverage. Our study found that there are substantial differences in time to reimbursement of pembrolizumab for the same conditions in different countries, with NICE and The National Advisory Committee for the Basket of Health Services in Israel approving one condition at the same time, Israel approving two conditions earlier than NICE, and PBAC lagging behind for every condition. These differences could be due to the differences in health policy systems and the many factors that affect reimbursement. Comparing the reimbursement process between different countries can highlight the challenges facing their health systems in early adoption of new treatments.

What are the development priorities for management of type 2 diabetes by general practitioners in Ningbo, China: a qualitative study of patients' and practitioners' perspectives.

OBJECTIVES: To explore patients' and general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives on primary care management of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Ningbo, China. We aimed to understand the current benefits and challenges and to identify development priorities. DESIGN: Exploratory qualitative descriptive study using face-to-face interviews and analysed by thematic, inductive analysis. SETTING: 11 primary care facilities spread across the city of Ningbo, China. PARTICIPANTS: 23 patients with T2DM and 20 GPs involved in caring for patients with T2DM. RESULTS: GPs were considered the first point of contact and providers of information. However, the care varied, and many GPs lacked confidence and felt overworked. The medication was a particularly weak area. The diagnostic screening commenced late, leading to crisis presentations. Patients were variably informed about their condition, contributing to poor adherence. CONCLUSIONS: Future developments of primary care for T2DM in Ningbo should centre around improving GP confidence and workload and patient education and adherence.

Towards equity: a qualitative exploration of the implementation and impact of a digital educational intervention for pharmacy professionals in England.

BACKGROUND: Patients belonging to marginalised (medically under-served) groups experience problems with medicines (i.e. non-adherence, side effects) and poorer health outcomes largely due to inequitable access to healthcare (arising from poor governance, cultural exclusion etc.). In order to promote service equity and outcomes for patients, the focus of this paper is to explore the implementation and impact of a new co-produced digital educational intervention on one National Health Service (NHS) funded community pharmacy medicines management service. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with a total of 32 participants. This included a purposive sample of 22 community pharmacy professionals, (16 pharmacists and 6 pharmacy support staff) all who offered the medicine management service. In order to obtain a fuller picture of the barriers to learning, five professionals who were unable to complete the learning were also included. Ten patients (from a marginalised group) who had received the service (as a result of the digital educational intervention) were also interviewed. Drawing on an interpretative analysis, Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) was used as a theoretical framework. RESULTS: Three themes are explored. The first is how the digital learning intervention was implemented and applied. Despite being well received, pharmacists found it challenging completing and cascading the learning due to organisational constraints (e.g. lack of time, workload). Using the four NPT constructs (coherence, cognitive participation, collective action and reflexive monitoring) the second theme exposes the impact of the learning and the organisational process of 'normalisation'. Professional reflective accounts revealed instances where inequitable access to health services were evident. Those completing the intervention felt more aware, capable and better equipped to engage with the needs of patients who were from a marginalised group. Operationally there was minimal structural change in service delivery constraining translation of learning to practice. The impact on patients, explored in our final theme, revealed that they experience significant disadvantage and problems with their medicines. The medication review was welcomed and the discussion with the pharmacist was helpful in addressing their medicine-related concerns. CONCLUSIONS: The co-produced digital educational intervention increases pharmacy professionals' awareness and motivation to engage with marginalised groups. However structural barriers often hindered translation into practice. Patients reported significant health and medicine challenges that were going unnoticed. They welcomed the additional support the medication review offered. Policy makers and employers should better enable and facilitate ways for pharmacy professionals to better engage with marginalised groups. The impact of the educational intervention on patients' health and medicines management could be substantial if supported and promoted effectively.

Supporting the provision of pharmacy medication reviews to marginalised (medically underserved) groups: a before/after questionnaire study investigating the impact of a patient-professional co-produced digital educational intervention.

OBJECTIVES: People who are marginalised (medically underserved) experience significant health disparities and their voices are often 'seldom heard'. Interventions to improve professional awareness and engagement with these groups are urgently needed. This study uses a co-production approach to develop an online digital educational intervention in order to improve pharmacy staffs' intention to offer a community pharmacy medication review service to medically underserved groups. DESIGN: Before/after (3 months) self-completion online questionnaire. SETTING: Community pharmacies in the Nottinghamshire (England) geographical area. PARTICIPANTS: Community pharmacy staff. INTERVENTION: Online digital educational intervention. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure was 'behaviour change intention' using a validated 12-item survey measure. The secondary outcome measure was pharmacist self-reported recruitment of underserved groups to the medication review service. RESULTS: All pharmacies in the Nottinghamshire area (n=237) were approached in June 2017 and responses were received from 149 staff (from 122 pharmacies). At 3 months (after completing the baseline questionnaire), 96 participants (from 80 pharmacies) completed a follow-up questionnaire, of which two-thirds (n=62) reported completing the e-learning. A before/after comparison analysis found an improving trend in all the five constructs of behaviour change intention (intention, social influence, beliefs about capabilities, moral norms and beliefs about consequences), with a significant increase in mean score of participants' 'beliefs about capabilities' (0.44; 95% CI 0.11 to 0.76, p=0.009). In the short-term, no significant change was detected in the number of patients being offered and the patient completing a medication review. CONCLUSIONS: Although increases in the numbers of patients being offered a medication review was not detected, the intervention has the potential to significantly improve pharmacy professionals' 'beliefs about capabilities' in the short-term. Wider organisational and policy barriers to engagement with marginasied groups may need to be addressed. Future research should focus on the interplay between digital learning and practice to better identify and understand effective practice change pathways.

Being tested but not educated - a qualitative focus group study exploring patients' perceptions of diabetic dietary advice.

BACKGROUND: Diet is a key component of the management of diabetes. Several studies suggest that patients receive insufficient and inadequate information. As a first step for developing an intervention for improving dietary advice in primary care, we aimed to explore patients' experience of receiving dietary advice; their attitudes towards that advice; their perceived dietary advice needs, and any barriers faced in adopting a diet that supports the management of their diabetes. METHODS: A qualitative study with three focus groups (20 purposively sampled participants) was conducted with adult primary care patients with Type 2 diabetes in 2016. A semi-structured topic guide was developed from the literature. The focus groups were audio recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed by emergent themes analysis. Data saturation was achieved in the third focus group. RESULTS: The majority of participants were given dietary advice in the form of a generic healthy eating leaflet from a Practice Nurse. Participants had their Haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) reviewed regularly, but the results seemed not to be linked with review of dietary habits. The test was perceived as being a "pass or fail", judgmental experience. Participants felt tested but not educated. CONCLUSION: Individuals with type 2 diabetes seem not to receive dietary advice according to their expectations. Information collected as part of the study can be used to inform the development of interventions aimed at improving dietary advice in this population.

Supporting underserved patients with their medicines: a study protocol for a patient/professional coproduced education intervention for community pharmacy staff to improve the provision and delivery of Medicine Use Reviews (MURs).

INTRODUCTION: Community pharmacy increasingly features in global strategies to modernise the delivery of primary healthcare. Medicine Use Reviews (MURs) form part of the English Government's medicines management strategy to improve adherence and reduce medicine waste. MURs provide space for patient-pharmacist dialogue to discuss the well-known problems patients experience with medicine taking. However, 'underserved' communities (eg, black and minority ethnic communities, people with mental illness), who may benefit the most, may not receive this support. This study aims to develop, implement and evaluate an e-learning education intervention which is coproduced between patients from underserved communities and pharmacy teams to improve MUR provision. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This mixed-methods evaluative study will involve a 2-stage design. Stage 1 involves coproduction of an e-learning resource through mixed patient-professional development (n=2) and review (n=2) workshops, alongside informative semistructured interviews with patients (n=10) and pharmacy staff (n=10). Stage 2 involves the implementation and evaluation of the intervention with community pharmacy staff within all community pharmacies within the Nottinghamshire geographical area (n=237). Online questionnaires will be completed at baseline and postintervention (3 months) to assess changes in engagement with underserved communities and changes in self-reported attitudes and behaviour. To triangulate findings, 10 pharmacies will record at baseline and postintervention, details of actual numbers of MURs performed and the proportion that are from underserved communities. Descriptive and inferential statistics will be used to analyse the data. The evaluation will also include a thematic analysis of one-to-one interviews with pharmacy teams to explore the impact on clinical practice (n=20). Interviews with patients belonging to underserved communities, and who received an MUR, will also be conducted (n=20). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has received ethical approval from the NHS Research Ethics Committee (East Midlands-Derby) and governance clearance through the NHS Health Research Authority. Following the evaluation, the educational intervention will be freely accessible online.

Worlds apart? An exploration of prescribing and medicine-taking decisions by patients, GPs and local policy makers.

UNLABELLED: Current healthcare policy in the UK has been shaped by two major forces; increasing accountability to evidence-based standards and increasing patient involvement. Shared decision-making brings the patient into prescribing decisions, and guidelines introduce a third decision-maker, the policy maker, into the doctor-patient consultation. This study explored the decision-making processes used by patients and GPs in comparison to local policy makers. METHOD: Qualitative interviews with 8 GPs, 14 patients and 2 PCT Prescribing Advisers, followed by quantitative questionnaires completed by 305 GPs and 533 patients. RESULTS: Patients made individual medicine-taking decisions based on experience, personal financial and human cost, trust and the relational aspects of their interactions with doctors over time. In contrast local implementation of prescribing guidelines was based on consideration of financial costs, efficacy and risks, based on objective clinical evidence at a population level. GPs adopted a mid-position between these two polar views. Guidelines are written from a different perspective to the worldview of patients, and they tend to downplay the criteria most important to patients. This has the potential to have a harmful effect on patients' medicine-taking and adherence. Paradoxically, enforcing the use of guidelines could inhibit the achievement of guideline targets.

The compatibility of prescribing guidelines and the doctor-patient partnership: a primary care mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: UK policy expects health professionals to involve patients in decisions about their care (including medicines use) and, at the same time, to follow prescribing guidelines. The compatibility of these approaches is unclear. AIM: To explore the relationship between prescribing guidelines and patient-partnership by exploring the attitudes of patients, GPs and primary care trust (PCT) prescribing advisors. DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods study using qualitative, semi-structured interviews followed by a quantitative, questionnaire survey in primary care in Northern England. METHOD: Interviews were conducted with 14 patients taking a statin or a proton pump inhibitor, eight GPs and two prescribing advisors. A multi-variate sampling strategy was used. Qualitative findings were analysed using framework analysis. Questionnaires based on themes derived from the interviews were distributed to 533 patients and 305 GPs of whom 286 (54%) and 142 (43%) responded. RESULTS: Areas of tension between guidelines and patient partnership were identified, including potential damage to trust in the doctor and reduced patient choice, through the introduction of the policy maker as a third stakeholder in prescribing decisions. Other areas of tension related to applying single condition guidelines to patients with multiple illnesses, competition for doctors' time and the perception of cost containment. Many GPs coped with these tensions by adopting a flexible approach or prioritising the doctor-patient relationship over guidelines. CONCLUSION: Rigidly applied guidelines can limit patient choice and may damage the doctor-patient relationship. GPs need flexibility in order to optimise the implementation of prescribing guidelines, while responding to individuals' needs and preferences.