METHODOLOGY AND FINDINGS: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with 18 contraception users, 18 GPs and 9 pharmacists. The study took place in Galway, Republic of Ireland between June and September 2014. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Overall, contraception users were more familiar with the OCP, and all the women interviewed began their prescription contraception journey using this method. All participants identified episodes of poor adherence throughout the reproductive life course. The identified barriers for use of LARCs were lack of information, misconceptions, lack of access and high cost. In contrast, GPs believed that adherence to the OCP was good and stated they were more likely to prescribe the OCP than other methods, as they were most familiar with this option. Barriers to prescribing LARCSs were time, cost to practice, training and deskilling. Pharmacists also believed that adherence to the OCP was generally good and that their role was limited to dispensing medication and providing information when asked.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: There are contrasting perspectives between contraception service providers and contraceptive users. Training for healthcare providers is required to support informed contraceptive choice and adherence. It is necessary to address the practice barriers of cost and lack of time, to promote better communication around adherence issues and prescription contraception options. There is a need for more easily-accessible public health information to promote awareness on all methods of prescription contraception.
METHODS AND RESULTS: This was a population based randomized control trial. Women aged 20-65 years in the population that matched the inclusion and exclusion criteria were re-called for a repeat smear. There are four different intervention groups; letter, registered letters, short messages services (SMS) and phone calls where 250 subjects were recruited into each group. Samples were generated randomly from the same population in Klang into four different groups. The first group received a recall letter for a repeat smear similar to the one that has been given during the first invitation. The intervention groups were either be given a registered letter, an SMS or a phone call to re-call them. The socio-demographic data of the patients who came for uptake were collected for further analysis. All the groups were followed up after 8 weeks to assess their compliance to the recall.
CONCLUSIONS: The study will provide recommendations about the most effective methods for recall in a population based pap smear screening program on two outcomes: i) patients response; ii) uptake for repeat pap smear.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of antibiotic stewardship interventions on compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis practice in obstetrics and gynecology surgeries.
METHOD: A prospective pre- and post-intervention study was conducted in two tertiary hospitals between May and December 2016. The duration of the each period was 3 months. Antibiotic stewardship interventions including development of a protocol, educational meeting and audit and feedback were implemented. Data were collected using the patient records and analyzed with SPSS version 23.
RESULTS: A total of 226 and 238 surgical procedures were included in the pre- and post-intervention periods respectively. Age, length of stay and estimated blood loss were similar between the two groups. However, specialty and surgical procedures varied significantly. There was a significant increase in compliance with timing (from 14.2% to 43.3%) and duration (from 0% to 21.8%) of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis after the interventions. The interventions significantly reduced the prescription of third generation cephalosporin (-8.6%), redundant antibiotic (-19.1%), antibiotic utilization (-3.8 DDD/procedure) and cost of antibiotic prophylaxis (-$4.2/procedure). There was no significant difference in the rate of surgical site infection between the two periods. Post-intervention group (OR: 5.60; 95% CI: 3.31-9.47), elective surgery (OR: 4.62; 95% CI: 2.51-8.47) and hospital attended (OR: 9.89; 95% CI: 5.66-17.26) were significant predictors of compliance with timing while elective surgery (OR: 12.49; 95% CI: 2.85-54.71) and compliance with timing (OR: 58.55; 95% CI: 12.66-270.75) were significantly associated with compliance to duration of surgical antibiotic prophylaxis.
CONCLUSION: The interventions improve compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis and reduce antibiotic utilization and cost. However, there is opportunity for further improvement, particularly in non-elective surgical procedures.
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of oral mixed tocotrienols for patients with diabetic peripheral neuropathy.
Design, Setting, and Participants: The Vitamin E in Neuroprotection Study (VENUS) was a parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that recruited participants from January 30, 2011, to December 7, 2014, with 12 months of follow-up. This trial screened 14 289 patients with diabetes from 6 health clinics and ambulatory care units from 5 public hospitals in Malaysia. A total of 391 patients who reported neuropathic symptoms were further assessed with Total Symptom Score (TSS) and Neuropathy Impairment Score (NIS). Patients 20 years or older with a TSS of 3 or higher and an NIS of 2 or higher were recruited.
Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive 200 mg of mixed tocotrienols twice daily or matching placebo for 12 months. Patients with hyperhomocysteinemia (homocysteine level ≥2.03 mg/L) received oral folic acid, 5 mg once daily, and methylcobalamin, 500 μg thrice daily, in both groups.
Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was patient-reported neuropathy TSS (lancinating pain, burning pain, paresthesia, and asleep numbness) changes at 12 months. The secondary outcomes were NIS and sensory nerve conduction test result.
Results: Of 391 eligible patients, 300 were recruited (130 [43.3%] male; mean [SD] age, 57.6 [8.9] years; mean [SD] duration of diabetes, 11.4 [7.8] years) and 229 (76.3%) completed the trial. The TSS changes between the tocotrienols and placebo groups at 12 months (-0.30; 95% CI, -1.16 to 0.56; P = .49) were similar. No significant differences in NIS (0.60; 95% CI, -1.37 to 2.65; P = .53) and sensory nerve conduction test assessments were found between both groups. In post hoc subgroup analyses, tocotrienols reduced lancinating pain among patients with hemoglobin A1C levels greater than 8% (P = .03) and normohomocysteinemia (homocysteine level <2.03 mg/L; P = .008) at 1 year. Serious adverse events in both groups were similar, except more infections were observed in the tocotrienols group (6.7% vs 0.7%, P = .04). Results reported were of modified intention-to-treat analyses.
Conclusions and Relevance: Supplementation of oral mixed tocotrienols, 400 mg/d for 1 year, did not improve overall neuropathic symptoms. The preliminary observations on lancinating pain among subsets of patients require further exploration.
Trial Registration: National Medical Research Registry Identifier: NMRR-10-948-7327 and clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01973400.
METHODS: Patients referred to the Endoscopic Unit for colonoscopy were recruited for the study. Stool samples were collected prior to bowel preparation, and tested for occult blood with both gFOBT and FIT. Dietary restriction was not imposed. To assess the validity of either tests or in combination to detect a neoplasm or cancer in the colon, their false positive rates, their sensitivity (true positive rate) and the specificity (true negative rate) were analyzed and compared.
RESULTS: One hundred and three patients were analysed. The sensitivity for picking up any neoplasia was 53% for FIT, 40% for gFOBT and 23.3% for the combination. The sensitivities for picking up only carcinoma were 77.8% , 66.7% and 55.5%, respectively. The specificity for excluding any neoplasia was 91.7% for FIT, 74% for gFOBT and 94.5% for a combination, whereas for excluding only carcinomas they were 84%, 73.4% and 93.6%. Of the 69 with normal colonoscopic findings, FOBT was positive in 4.3%, 23.2 %and 2.9% for FIT, gFOBT, or combination of tests respectively.
CONCLUSION: FIT is the recommended method if we are to dispense with dietary restriction in our patients because of its relatively low-false positivity and better sensitivity and specificity rates.