Improving antibiotics targeting using PCR point-of-care testing for group A streptococci in patients with uncomplicated acute sore throat

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Evidence supports some beneficial effects of antibiotics prescribed to patients with a sore throat and proven presence of group A streptococci (GAS).

METHOD

A total of 283 patients were included from North and North-West Queensland, Australia, at their first presentation for uncomplicated acute sore throat. Patterns of antibiotic prescribing were explored before and after testing for GAS using a rapid point-of-care polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test.

RESULTS

The results of the study showed the Australian Therapeutic Guidelines were often not adhered to. The PCR test reduced the proportion of patients prescribed antibiotics from 46% to 40%. The decision to prescribe antibiotics was changed in 30% of patients (P <0.001): before testing only 40% of patients prescribed antibiotics had a positive GAS PCR while this increased to 97% after testing.

DISCUSSION

An easy-to-use point-of-care test to detect GAS allows better targeting of antibiotic prescribing in patients with an uncomplicated acute sore throat.

'The ethics approval took 20 months on a trial which was meant to help terminally ill cancer patients. In the end we had to send the funding back': a survey of views on human research ethics reviews

BACKGROUND

We conducted a survey to identify what types of health/medical research could be exempt from research ethics reviews in Australia.

METHODS

We surveyed Australian health/medical researchers and Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) members. The survey asked whether respondents had previously changed or abandoned a project anticipating difficulties obtaining ethics approval, and presented eight research scenarios, asking whether these scenarios should or should not be exempt from ethics review, and to provide (optional) comments. Qualitative data were analysed thematically; quantitative data in R.

RESULTS

We received 514 responses. Forty-three per cent of respondents to whom the question applied, reported changing projects in anticipation of obstacles from the ethics review process; 25% reported abandoning projects for this reason. Research scenarios asking professional staff to provide views in their area of expertise were most commonly exempted from ethics review (to prioritise systematic review topics 84%, on software strengths/weaknesses 85%); scenarios involving surplus samples (82%) and N-of-1 (single case) studies (76%) were most commonly required to undergo ethics review. HREC members were 26% more likely than researchers to require ethics review. Need for independent oversight, and low risk, were most frequently cited in support of decisions to require or exempt from ethics review, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Considerable differences exist between researchers and HREC members, about when to exempt from review the research that ultimately serves the interests of patients and the public. It is widely accepted that evaluative research should be used to reduce clinical uncertainties-the same principle should apply to ethics reviews.

Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knowing the prevalence of true asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is critical for designing mitigation measures against the pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on asymptomatic cases and transmission rates.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for primary studies on asymptomatic prevalence in which (1) the sample frame includes at-risk populations and (2) follow-up was sufficient to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed-effects and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies.

RESULTS

We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%; 95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%; 95% CI 13% to 20%). The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our one-in-six estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates is lower than those of many highly publicized studies but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in subpopulations such as children, to better understand how asymptomatic cases contribute to the pandemic.

Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Knowing the prevalence of true asymptomatic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases is critical for designing mitigation measures against the pandemic. We aimed to synthesize all available research on asymptomatic cases and transmission rates.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 trials, and Europe PMC for primary studies on asymptomatic prevalence in which (1) the sample frame includes at-risk populations and (2) follow-up was sufficient to identify pre-symptomatic cases. Meta-analysis used fixed-effects and random-effects models. We assessed risk of bias by combination of questions adapted from risk of bias tools for prevalence and diagnostic accuracy studies.

RESULTS

We screened 2,454 articles and included 13 low risk-of-bias studies from seven countries that tested 21,708 at-risk people, of which 663 were positive and 111 asymptomatic. Diagnosis in all studies was confirmed using a real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction test. The asymptomatic proportion ranged from 4% to 41%. Meta-analysis (fixed effects) found that the proportion of asymptomatic cases was 17% (95% CI 14% to 20%) overall and higher in aged care (20%; 95% CI 14% to 27%) than in non-aged care (16%; 95% CI 13% to 20%). The relative risk (RR) of asymptomatic transmission was 42% lower than that for symptomatic transmission (combined RR 0.58; 95% CI 0.34 to 0.99, p = 0.047).

CONCLUSIONS

Our one-in-six estimate of the prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 cases and asymptomatic transmission rates is lower than those of many highly publicized studies but still sufficient to warrant policy attention. Further robust epidemiological evidence is urgently needed, including in subpopulations such as children, to better understand how asymptomatic cases contribute to the pandemic.

Concerns and Misconceptions About the Australian Government's COVIDSafe App: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Timely and effective contact tracing is an essential public health measure for curbing the transmission of COVID-19. App-based contact tracing has the potential to optimize the resources of overstretched public health departments. However, its efficiency is dependent on widespread adoption.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the uptake of the Australian Government's COVIDSafe app among Australians and examine the reasons why some Australians have not downloaded the app.

METHODS

An online national survey, with representative quotas for age and gender, was conducted between May 8 and May 11, 2020. Participants were excluded if they were a health care professional or had been tested for COVID-19.

RESULTS

Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 (16.0%) were excluded prior to completing the survey, 13 (0.7%) declined, and 1500 (83.2%) participated in the survey. Of the 1500 survey participants, 37.3% (n=560) had downloaded the COVIDSafe app, 18.7% (n=280) intended to do so, 27.7% (n=416) refused to do so, and 16.3% (n=244) were undecided. Equally proportioned reasons for not downloading the app included privacy (165/660, 25.0%) and technical concerns (159/660, 24.1%). Other reasons included the belief that social distancing was sufficient and the app was unnecessary (111/660, 16.8%), distrust in the government (73/660, 11.1%), and other miscellaneous responses (eg, apathy and following the decisions of others) (73/660, 11.1%). In addition, knowledge about COVIDSafe varied among participants, as some were confused about its purpose and capabilities.

CONCLUSIONS

For the COVIDSafe app to be accepted by the public and used correctly, public health messages need to address the concerns of citizens, specifically privacy, data storage, and technical capabilities. Understanding the specific barriers preventing the uptake of contact tracing apps provides the opportunity to design targeted communication strategies aimed at strengthening public health initiatives, such as downloading and correctly using contact tracing apps.

Consequences of health condition labelling: protocol for a systematic scoping review

INTRODUCTION

When health conditions are labelled it is often to classify and communicate a set of symptoms. While diagnostic labelling can provide explanation for an individual's symptoms, it can also impact how individuals and others view those symptoms. Despite existing research regarding the effects of labelling health conditions, a synthesis of these effects has not occurred. We will conduct a systematic scoping review to synthesise the reported consequences and impact of being given a label for a health condition from an individual, societal and health practitioner perspective and explore in what context labelling of health conditions is considered important.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The review will adhere to the Joanna Briggs Methodology for Scoping Reviews. Searches will be conducted in five electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane, CINAHL). Reference lists of included studies will be screened and forward and backward citation searching of included articles will be conducted. We will include reviews and original studies which describe the consequences for individuals labelled with a non-cancer health condition. We will exclude hypothetical research designs and studies focused on the consequences of labelling cancer conditions, intellectual disabilities and/or social attributes. We will conduct thematic analyses for qualitative data and descriptive or meta-analyses for quantitative data where appropriate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval is not required for a scoping review. Results will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations and lay-person summaries on various online platforms. Findings from this systematic scoping review will identify gaps in current understanding of how, when, why and for whom a diagnostic label is important and inform future research.

Choice of Statistical Tools for Outlier Removal Causes Substantial Changes in Analyte Reference Intervals in Healthy Populations

BACKGROUND

Reference intervals are an important aid in medical practice as they provide clinicians a guide as to whether a patient is healthy or diseased.Outlier results in population studies are removed by any of a variety of statistical measures. We have compared several methods of outlier removal and applied them to a large body of analytes from a large population of healthy persons.

METHODS

We used the outlier exclusion criteria of Reed-Dixon and Tukey and calculated reference intervals using nonparametric and Harrell-Davis statistical methods and applied them to a total of 36 different analytes.

RESULTS

Nine of 36 analytes had a greater than 20% difference in the upper reference limit, and for some the difference was 100% or more.

CONCLUSIONS

For some analytes, great importance is attached to the reference interval. We have shown that different statistical methods for outlier removal can cause large changes to reported reference intervals. So that population studies can be readily compared, common statistical methods should be used for outlier removal.

Development and internal validation of prognostic models to predict negative health outcomes in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practice

BACKGROUND

Polypharmacy interventions are resource-intensive and should be targeted to those at risk of negative health outcomes. Our aim was to develop and internally validate prognostic models to predict health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs, in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practices.

METHODS

Design: two independent data sets, one comprising health insurance claims data (n=592 456), the other data from the PRIoritising MUltimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) cluster randomised controlled trial (n=502). Population: ≥60 years, ≥5 drugs, ≥3 chronic diseases, excluding dementia. Outcomes: combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs (after 6, 9 and 24 months) (claims data); and HRQoL (after 6 and 9 months) (trial data). Predictor variables in both data sets: age, sex, morbidity-related variables (disease count), medication-related variables (European Union-Potentially Inappropriate Medication list (EU-PIM list)) and health service utilisation. Predictor variables exclusively in trial data: additional socio-demographics, morbidity-related variables (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, depression), Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), lifestyle, functional status and HRQoL (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L). Analysis: mixed regression models, combined with stepwise variable selection, 10-fold cross validation and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Most important predictors of EQ-5D-3L at 6 months in best model (Nagelkerke's R² 0.507) were depressive symptoms (-2.73 (95% CI: -3.56 to -1.91)), MAI (-0.39 (95% CI: -0.7 to -0.08)), baseline EQ-5D-3L (0.55 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.64)). Models based on claims data and those predicting long-term outcomes based on both data sets produced low R² values. In claims data-based model with highest explanatory power (R²=0.16), previous falls/fall-related injuries, previous hospitalisations, age, number of involved physicians and disease count were most important predictor variables.

CONCLUSIONS

Best trial data-based model predicted HRQoL after 6 months well and included parameters of well-being not found in claims. Performance of claims data-based models and models predicting long-term outcomes was relatively weak. For generalisability, future studies should refit models by considering parameters representing well-being and functional status.

Barriers to and Facilitators of the Prescription of mHealth Apps in Australian General Practice: Qualitative Study

Background

The ubiquity of smartphones and health apps make them a potential self-management tool for patients that could be prescribed by medical professionals. However, little is known about how Australian general practitioners and their patients view the possibility of prescribing mobile health (mHealth) apps as a nondrug intervention.

Objective

This study aimed to determine barriers and facilitators to prescribing mHealth apps in Australian general practice from the perspective of general practitioners and their patients.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews in Australian general practice settings with purposively sampled general practitioners and patients. The audio-recorded interviews were transcribed, coded, and thematically analyzed by two researchers.

Results

Interview participants included 20 general practitioners and 15 adult patients. General practitioners’ perceived barriers to prescribing apps included a generational difference in the digital propensity for providers and patients; lack of knowledge of prescribable apps and trustworthy sources to access them; the time commitment required of providers and patients to learn and use the apps; and concerns about privacy, safety, and trustworthiness of health apps. General practitioners perceived facilitators as trustworthy sources to access prescribable apps and information, and younger generation and widespread smartphone ownership. For patients, the main barriers were older age and usability of mHealth apps. Patients were not concerned about privacy and data safety issues regarding health app use. Facilitators for patients included the ubiquity of smartphones and apps, especially for the younger generation and recommendation of apps by doctors. We identified evidence of effectiveness as an independent theme from both the provider and patient perspectives.

Conclusions

mHealth app prescription appears to be feasible in general practice. The barriers and facilitators identified by the providers and patients overlapped, though privacy was of less concern to patients. The involvement of health professionals and patients is vital for the successful integration of effective, evidence-based mHealth apps with clinical practice.

Delayed prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections by GP registrars: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Antibiotic prescribing for acute self-limiting respiratory tract infections (ARTIs) in Australia is higher than international benchmarks. Antibiotics have little or no efficacy in these conditions, and unnecessary use contributes to antibiotic resistance. Delayed prescribing has been shown to reduce antibiotic use. GP registrars are at a career-stage when long-term prescribing patterns are being established.

AIM

To explore experiences, perceptions and attitudes of GP registrars and supervisors to delayed antibiotic prescribing for ARTIs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study of Australian GP registrars and supervisors using a thematic analysis approach.

METHOD

GP registrars and supervisors were recruited across three Australian states/territories, using maximum variation sampling. Telephone interviews explored participants' experience and perceptions of delayed prescribing of antibiotics in ARTIs. Data collection and analysis were concurrent and iterative.

RESULTS

A total of 12 registrars and 10 supervisors were interviewed. Key themes included the use of delayed prescribing as a safety-net in cases of diagnostic uncertainty or when clinical review was logistically difficult. Delayed prescribing was viewed as a method of educating and empowering patients, and building trust and the doctor-patient relationship. Conversely, it was also seen as a loss of control over management decisions. Supervisors, more so than registrars, appreciated the psychosocial complexity of ARTI consultations and the importance of delayed antibiotic prescribing in this context.

CONCLUSION

Better awareness and understanding by GP registrars of the evidence for delayed antibiotic prescription may be a means of reducing antibiotic prescribing. Understanding both registrar and supervisor usage, uncertainties and attitudes should inform educational approaches on this topic.

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity

For knowledge to benefit research and society, it must be trustworthy. Trustworthy research is robust, rigorous, and transparent at all stages of design, execution, and reporting. Assessment of researchers still rarely includes considerations related to trustworthiness, rigor, and transparency. We have developed the Hong Kong Principles (HKPs) as part of the 6th World Conference on Research Integrity with a specific focus on the need to drive research improvement through ensuring that researchers are explicitly recognized and rewarded for behaviors that strengthen research integrity. We present five principles: responsible research practices; transparent reporting; open science (open research); valuing a diversity of types of research; and recognizing all contributions to research and scholarly activity. For each principle, we provide a rationale for its inclusion and provide examples where these principles are already being adopted.

mHealth App Prescription in Australian General Practice: Pre-Post Study

Background

Evidence of effectiveness of mobile health (mHealth) apps as well as their usability as non-drug interventions in primary care are emerging around the globe.

Objective

This study aimed to explore the feasibility of mHealth app prescription by general practitioners (GPs) and to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to increase app prescription.

Methods

A single-group, before-and-after study was conducted in Australian general practice. GPs were given prescription pads for 6 mHealth apps and reported the number of prescriptions dispensed for 4 months. After the reporting of month 2, a 2-minute video of one of the apps was randomly selected and sent to each GP. Data were collected through a prestudy questionnaire, monthly electronic reporting, and end-of-study interviews. The primary outcome was the number of app prescriptions (total, monthly, per GP, and per GP per fortnight). Secondary outcomes included confidence in prescribing apps (0-5 scale), the impact of the intervention video on subsequent prescription numbers, and acceptability of the interventions.

Results

Of 40 GPs recruited, 39 commenced, and 36 completed the study. In total, 1324 app prescriptions were dispensed over 4 months. The median number of apps prescribed per GP was 30 (range 6-111 apps). The median number of apps prescribed per GP per fortnight increased from the pre-study level of 1.7 to 4.1. Confidence about prescribing apps doubled from a mean of 2 (not so confident) to 4 (very confident). App videos did not affect subsequent prescription rates substantially. Post-study interviews revealed that the intervention was highly acceptable.

Conclusions

mHealth app prescription in general practice is feasible, and our implementation intervention was effective in increasing app prescription. GPs need more tailored education and training on the value of mHealth apps and knowledge of prescribable apps to be able to successfully change their prescribing habits to include apps. The future of sustainable and scalable app prescription requires a trustworthy electronic app repository of prescribable mHealth apps for GPs.

A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR)

The fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 5-6 November 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. In 2018, the major themes discussed were the transferability of automation tools (i.e., tools developed for other purposes that might be used by systematic reviewers), the automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines and applications, and approaches for the evaluation of automation tools.

The three numbers you need to know about healthcare: the 60-30-10 Challenge

BACKGROUND

Healthcare represents a paradox. While change is everywhere, performance has flatlined: 60% of care on average is in line with evidence- or consensus-based guidelines, 30% is some form of waste or of low value, and 10% is harm. The 60-30-10 Challenge has persisted for three decades.

MAIN BODY

Current top-down or chain-logic strategies to address this problem, based essentially on linear models of change and relying on policies, hierarchies, and standardisation, have proven insufficient. Instead, we need to marry ideas drawn from complexity science and continuous improvement with proposals for creating a deep learning health system. This dynamic learning model has the potential to assemble relevant information including patients' histories, and clinical, patient, laboratory, and cost data for improved decision-making in real time, or close to real time. If we get it right, the learning health system will contribute to care being more evidence-based and less wasteful and harmful. It will need a purpose-designed digital backbone and infrastructure, apply artificial intelligence to support diagnosis and treatment options, harness genomic and other new data types, and create informed discussions of options between patients, families, and clinicians. While there will be many variants of the model, learning health systems will need to spread, and be encouraged to do so, principally through diffusion of innovation models and local adaptations.

CONCLUSION

Deep learning systems can enable us to better exploit expanding health datasets including traditional and newer forms of big and smaller-scale data, e.g. genomics and cost information, and incorporate patient preferences into decision-making. As we envisage it, a deep learning system will support healthcare's desire to continually improve, and make gains on the 60-30-10 dimensions. All modern health systems are awash with data, but it is only recently that we have been able to bring this together, operationalised, and turned into useful information by which to make more intelligent, timely decisions than in the past.

Development of a contemporary evidence-based practice workshop for health professionals with a focus on pre-appraised evidence and shared decision-making: a before-after pilot study

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as a key skill to assist clinicians in applying evidence-based practice (EBP). We aimed to develop and pilot a new approach to teaching EBP, which focuses on teaching knowledge and skills about SDM and pre-appraised evidence. We designed a half-day workshop, informed by an international consensus on EBP core competencies and invited practicing clinicians to participate. Skills in SDM and communicating evidence were assessed by audio-recording consultations between clinicians and standardised patients (immediately pre-workshop and post-workshop). These were rated by two independent assessors using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement, 0 to 100 points) and ACEPP (Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences, 0 to 5 points) tools. Participants also completed a feedback questionnaire (9 Likert scale and four open-ended questions). Fourteen clinicians participated. Skills in SDM and communicating research evidence improved from pre-workshop to post-workshop (mean increase in OPTION score=5.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 9.9; increase in ACEPP score=0.5, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.06). Participant feedback was positive, with most indicating 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the questions. A contemporary approach to teaching clinicians EBP, with a focus on SDM and pre-appraised evidence, was feasible, perceived as useful, and showed modest improvements in skills. Results should be interpreted cautiously because of the small study size and pre-post design.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.

How do trainee doctors learn about research? Content analysis of Australian specialist colleges' intended research curricula

OBJECTIVES

Patients do better in research-intense environments. The importance of research is reflected in the accreditation requirements of Australian clinical specialist colleges. The nature of college-mandated research training has not been systematically explored. We examined the intended research curricula of Australian trainee doctors described by specialist colleges, their constructive alignment and the nature of scholarly project requirements.

DESIGN

We undertook content analysis of publicly available documents to characterise college research training curricula.

SETTING

We reviewed all publicly accessible information from the websites of Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions. We retrieved curricula, handbooks and assessment-related documents.

PARTICIPANTS

Fifty-eight Australian specialist colleges and their subspecialty divisions.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Two reviewers extracted and coded research-related activities as learning outcomes, activities or assessments, by research stage (using, participating in or leading research) and competency based on Bloom's taxonomy (remembering, understanding, applying, analysing, evaluating, creating). We coded learning and assessment activities by type (eg, formal research training, publication) and whether it was linked to a scholarly project. Requirements related to project supervisors' research experience were noted.

RESULTS

Fifty-five of 58 Australian college subspecialty divisions had a scholarly project requirement. Only 11 required formal research training; two required an experienced research supervisor. Colleges emphasised a role for trainees in leading research in their learning outcomes and assessments, but not learning activities. Less emphasis was placed on using research, and almost no emphasis on participation. Most learning activities and assessments mapped to the 'creating' domain of Bloom's taxonomy, whereas most learning outcomes mapped to the 'evaluating' domain. Overall, most research learning and assessment activities were related to leading a scholarly project.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian specialist college research curricula appear to emphasise a role for trainees in leading research and producing research deliverables, but do not mandate formal research training and supervision by experienced researchers.

Exploring women's priorities for the potential consequences of a gestational diabetes diagnosis: A pilot community jury

BACKGROUND

There is no international diagnostic agreement for gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). In 2014, Australia adopted a new definition and testing procedure. Since then, significantly more women have been diagnosed with GDM but with little difference in health outcomes. We explored the priorities and preferences of women potentially impacted by a GDM diagnosis.

METHOD

We recruited 15 women from the Gold Coast, Australia, to participate in a pilot community jury (CJ). Over two days, the women deliberated on the following: (a) which important consequences of a diagnosis of GDM should be considered when defining GDM?; (b) what should Australian health practitioners call the condition known as GDM?

RESULTS

Eight women attended the pilot CJ, and their recommendations were a consensus. Women were surprised that the level of risk for physical harms was low but emotional harms were high. The final ranking of important consequences (high to low) was as follows: women's negative emotions; management burden of GDM; overmedicalized pregnancy; minimizing infant risks; improving lifestyle; and macrosomia. To describe the four different clinical states of GDM, the women chose three different labels. One was GDM.

CONCLUSIONS

The women from this pilot CJ prioritized the consequences of a diagnosis of GDM differently from clinicians. The current glucose threshold for GDM in Australia is set at a cut-point for adverse risks including macrosomia and neonatal hyperinsulinaemia. Definitions and guideline panels often fail to ask the affected public about their values and preferences. Community voices impacted by health policies should be embedded in the decision-making process.

GRADE guidelines: 21 part 1. Study design, risk of bias, and indirectness in rating the certainty across a body of evidence for test accuracy

OBJECTIVES

This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overview of the domains, and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically.

RESULTS

Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies.

CONCLUSION

Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests.