Search

Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology is used to assess and report certainty of evidence and strength of recommendations. This GRADE concept article is not GRADE guidance but introduces certainty of net benefit, defined as the certainty that the balance between desirable and undesirable health effects is favourable. Determining certainty of net benefit requires considering certainty of effect estimates, the expected importance of outcomes and variability in importance, and the interaction of these concepts. Certainty of net harm is the certainty that the net effect is unfavourable. Guideline panels using or testing this approach might limit strong recommendations to actions with a high certainty of net benefit or against actions with a moderate or high certainty of net harm. Recommendations may differ in direction or strength from that suggested by the certainty of net benefit or harm when influenced by cost, equity, acceptability or feasibility.

The rudiments of the government's current strategy for the NHS are set out in the white paper Delivering the NHS Plan. 1 This contains a commitment to maintaining a general tax based system, universally available and free at the point of use, and also sets out an ambitious agenda for supply side reform. A central component of this agenda is the creation of a whole raft of new institutions designed to set, monitor, and ensure national service standards—for example, the newly created Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. At the same time, selected local organisations are to be given greater freedom and devolution of decision making power. This is referred to as a process of earned autonomy. The concept of earned autonomy represents an attempt to combine some of the advantages believed to flow from devolved decision making (including flexibility, innovation, and local responsiveness) with the retention of a commitment to NHS principles and national standards. One of the first vehicles for developing this approach …

Objectives: To investigate why some women prefer caesarean sections and how decisions to medicalise birthing are influenced by patients, doctors, and the sociomedical environment. Design: Population based birth cohort study, using ethnographic and epidemiological methods. Setting: Epidemiological study: women living in the urban area of Pelotas, Brazil who gave birth in hospital during the study. Ethnographic study: subsample of 80 women selected at random from the birth cohort. Nineteen medical staff were interviewed. Participants: 5304 women who gave birth in any of the city9s hospitals in 1993. Main outcome measures: Birth by caesarean section or vaginal delivery. Results: In both samples women from families with higher incomes and higher levels of education had caesarean sections more often than other women. Many lower to middle class women sought caesarean sections to avoid what they considered poor quality care and medical neglect, resulting from social prejudice. These women used medicalised prenatal and birthing health care to increase their chance of acquiring a caesarean section, particularly if they had social power in the home. Both social power and women9s behaviour towards seeking medicalised health care remained significantly associated with type of birth after controlling for family income and maternal education. Conclusions: Fear of substandard care is behind many poor women9s preferences for a caesarean section. Variables pertaining to women9s role in the process of redefining and negotiating medical risks were much stronger correlates of caesarean section rates than income or education. The unequal distribution of medical technology has altered concepts of good and normal birthing. Arguments supporting interventionist birthing for all on the basis of equal access to health care must be reviewed. What is already known on this topic Women9s preferences for caesarean sections are understood to result from lack of knowledge and psychological aptitude to handle vaginal delivery and its consequences Efforts to reduce the demand for caesarean sections have focused on providing consumers with correct information on the relative risks associated with vaginal and operative deliveries What this study adds In Brazil, many women prefer caesarean sections because they consider it good quality care Rich women are more likely to have caesarean sections, supporting the notion that medical intervention represents superior care Poor women may implement a series of medicalised practices that justifies the need for greater medical intervention during birth Interventions for reducing caesarean sections by educating physicians and patients about risk factors associated with birthing procedures are not sufficient

ObjectiveTo assess the level of equivocation among level 1 evidence in ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease and determine whether any predisposing factors are present.MethodMEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane were searched from 2006 to 2017. Papers were scored using AMSTAR and categorised into surgical (S), medical (M) or medical and surgical (MS) groups. The ability of each paper to make a recommendation and conclusiveness in doing so was recorded.Results278 papers were assessed. 82% (n=227) could make a recommendation, 18% (n=51) could not. There was a significant difference in ability to provide a recommendation between S and M (P=0.003) but not MS and M (P=0.022) nor S and MS (P=0.79). Where a recommendation was made, S papers were more likely to be tempered than M papers (P=0.014) but not MS papers (P=0.987).ConclusionsSurgical meta-evidence within the inflammatory bowel disease domain is more than twice as likely as medical meta-evidence to be unable to provide a recommendation for clinical practice. Where a recommendation was made, surgical reviews were twice as likely to temper their conclusion.

IntroductionDespite the observed and theoretical advantages of shared decision-making in a range of clinical contexts, including contraceptive care, there remains a paucity of evidence on how to facilitate its adoption. This paper describes the protocol for a study to assess the comparative effectiveness of patient-targeted and provider-targeted interventions for facilitating shared decision-making about contraceptive methods.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a 2×2 factorial cluster randomised controlled trial with four arms: (1) video+prompt card, (2) decision aids+training, (3) video+prompt cardanddecision aids+training and (4) usual care. The clusters will be clinics in USA that deliver contraceptive care. The participants will be people who have completed a healthcare visit at a participating clinic, were assigned female sex at birth, are aged 15–49 years, are able to read and write English or Spanish and have not previously participated in the study. The primary outcome will be shared decision-making about contraceptive methods. Secondary outcomes will be the occurrence of a conversation about contraception in the healthcare visit, satisfaction with the conversation about contraception, intended contraceptive method(s), intention to use a highly effective method, values concordance of the intended method(s), decision regret, contraceptive method(s) used, use of a highly effective method, use of the intended method(s), adherence, satisfaction with the method(s) used, unintended pregnancy and unwelcome pregnancy. We will collect study data via longitudinal patient surveys administered immediately after the healthcare visit, four weeks later and six months later.Ethics and disseminationWe will disseminate results via presentations at scientific and professional conferences, papers published in peer-reviewed, open-access journals and scientific and lay reports. We will also make an anonymised copy of the final participant-level dataset available to others for research purposes.Trial registration numberClinicalTrials.gov Identifier:NCT02759939.

Objectives: Hospital board members are asked to consider large amounts of quality and safety data with a duty to act on signals of poor performance. However, in order to do so it is necessary to distinguish signals from noise (chance). This article investigates whether data in English National Health Service (NHS) acute care hospital board papers are presented in a way that helps board members consider the role of chance in their decisions. Methods: Thirty English NHS trusts were selected at random and their board papers retrieved. Charts depicting quality and safety were identified. Categorical discriminations were then performed to document the methods used to present quality and safety data in board papers, with particular attention given to whether and how the charts depicted the role of chance, that is, by including control lines or error bars. Results: Thirty board papers, containing a total of 1488 charts, were sampled. Only 88 (6%) of these charts depicted the role of chance, and only 17 of the 30 board papers included any charts depicting the role of chance. Of the 88 charts that attempted to represent the role of chance, 16 included error bars and 72 included control lines. Only 6 (8%) of the 72 control charts indicated where the control lines had been set (eg, 2 vs 3 SDs). Conclusions: Hospital board members are expected to consider large amounts of information. Control charts can help board members distinguish signals from noise, but often boards are not using them. We discuss demand-side and supply-side barriers that could be overcome to increase use of control charts in Q1 healthcare.

ObjectiveTo systematically identify and describe studies that have evaluated the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. A secondary objective was to use this evidence to build evidence-based logic models to guide health strategy decision making about gardens and gardening as a non-medical, social prescription.DesignScoping review of the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. Gardens include private spaces and those open to the public or part of hospitals, care homes, hospices or third sector organisations.Data sourcesA range of biomedical and health management journals was searched including Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs, Greenfile, Environment Complete and a number of indicative websites were searched to locate context-specific data and grey literature. We searched from 1990 to November 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included research studies (including systematic reviews) that assessed the effect, value or impact of any garden that met the gardening definition.Data extraction and synthesisThree reviewers jointly screened 50 records by titles and abstracts to ensure calibration. Each record title was screened independently by 2 out of 3 members of the project team and each abstract was screened by 1 member of a team of 3. Random checks on abstract and full-text screening were conducted by a fourth member of the team and any discrepancies were resolved through double-checking and discussion.ResultsFrom the 8896 papers located, a total of 77* studies was included. Over 35 validated health, well-being and functional biometric outcome measures were reported. Interventions ranged from viewing gardens, taking part in gardening or undertaking therapeutic activities. The findings demonstrated links between gardens and improved mental well-being, increased physical activity and a reduction in social isolation enabling the development of 2 logic models.ConclusionsGardens and gardening can improve the health and well-being for people with a range of health and social needs. The benefits of gardens and gardening could be used as a ‘social prescription’ globally, for people with long-term conditions (LTCs). Our logic models provide an evidence-based illustration that can guide health strategy decision making about the referral of people with LTCs to socially prescribed, non-medical interventions involving gardens and gardening.

This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) article expands on the 26 items in the Standards for UNiversal reporting of Decision Aid Evaluations (SUNDAE) guidelines. The E&E provides a rationale for each item and includes examples for how each item has been reported in published papers evaluating patient decision aids. The Explanation and Elaboration focuses on items key to reporting studies evaluating patient decision aids and is intended to be illustrative rather than restrictive. Authors and reviewers may wish to use the Explanation and Elaboration broadly to inform structuring of patient decision aid evaluation reports, or use it as a reference to obtain details about how to report individual Checklist items.

Numerous studies have shown that diagnostic failure depends upon a variety of factors. Psychological factors are fundamental in influencing the cognitive performance of the decision maker. In this first of two papers, we discuss the basics of reasoning and the Dual Process Theory (DPT) of decision making. The general properties of the DPT model, as it applies to diagnostic reasoning, are reviewed. A variety of cognitive and affective biases are known to compromise the decision-making process. They mostly appear to originate in the fast intuitive processes of Type 1 that dominate (or drive) decision making. Type 1 processes work well most of the time but they may open the door for biases. Removing or at least mitigating these biases would appear to be an important goal. We will also review the origins of biases. The consensus is that there are two major sources: innate, hard-wired biases that developed in our evolutionary past, and acquired biases established in the course of development and within our working environments. Both are associated with abbreviated decision making in the form of heuristics. Other work suggests that ambient and contextual factors may create high risk situations that dispose decision makers to particular biases. Fatigue, sleep deprivation and cognitive overload appear to be important determinants. The theoretical basis of several approaches towards debiasing is then discussed. All share a common feature that involves a deliberate decoupling from Type 1 intuitive processing and moving to Type 2 analytical processing so that eventually unexamined intuitive judgments can be submitted to verification. This decoupling step appears to be the critical feature of cognitive and affective debiasing.