Search

INTRODUCTION: Out of programme (OOP) experience from training increases the skill pool of the neurosurgical workforce and drives innovation in the specialty. OOP approval criteria are well defined but transition back to clinical work can be challenging with a paucity of data published on trainee perspectives. Our study aimed to investigate factors influencing transition from OOP back to clinical work among neurosurgical trainees in the UK. METHODS: An online survey was sent to all members of the Society of British Neurological Surgeons. Questions pertained to details of OOP and factors influencing transition back to clinical work. RESULTS: Among the 73 respondents, 7 were currently on OOP and 27 had completed OOP in the past. Research was the most common reason for OOP (28/34, 82%) and this was generally motivated by the aspiration of an academic neurosurgery career (17/34, 50%). Although the majority (27/34, 79%) continued clinical work during OOP, 37% of this group (10/27) reported a reduction in their surgical skills. Fewer than half (15/34, 44%) had a return to work plan, of which only half (8/34, 24%) were formal plans. The majority of respondents who had completed OOP in the past (22/27, 81%) felt that they were able to apply the skills gained during OOP to their clinical work on return. CONCLUSIONS: Skills learnt during OOP are relevant and transferable to the clinical environment but mainly limited to research with OOP for management and education underrepresented. Deterioration of surgical skills is a concern. However, recognition of this problem has prompted new methods and schemes to address challenges faced on return to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ethnicity data gap hinders public health research from addressing ethnic health inequity in the UK, especially for under-served young, migrant populations. We aimed to review how ethnicity was captured, reported, analysed, and theorised within policy-relevant research., Methods: For this bibliographical review, we reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers reporting UK ethnicity data in MEDLINE and Web of Science databases between Jan 1, 1946, and July 31, 2022, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed. We included cross-sectional, longitudinal cohort studies, and randomised trials using only UK populations, which were peer-reviewed, were written in English, and reported ethnicity and any health-related outcomes. We held three focus groups with ten participants aged 18-25 years, from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen, and Iran to help us shape and interpret our findings, and asked "How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded?" and "Does ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?". We consolidated feedback from our focus groups into a co-created poster with recommendations for researchers studying ethnicity and health. Written informed consent was obtained for focus group participation., Findings: Of 44 papers included in the review, 19 (43%) used self-reported ethnicity, but the number of ethnic categories provided varied. Of 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only eight (18%) explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that (1) ethnicity should not be prescribed by others (individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text, which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research) and (2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change. The lived experience of ethnicity of migrants and non-migrants is not fully interchangeable, even if they share the same ethnic category., Interpretation: Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised in their studies, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. Our study was limited by its non-systematic nature. Implementing the recommendation to capture ethnicity via free text remains challenging in administrative data systems., Funding: UCL Engagement Beacon Bursary., (Copyright © 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The ethnicity data gap pertains to 3 major challenges to address ethnic health inequality: 1) Under-representation of ethnic minorities in research; 2) Poor data quality on ethnicity; 3) Ethnicity data not being meaningfully analysed. These challenges are especially relevant for research involving under-served migrant populations in the UK. We aimed to review how ethnicity is captured, reported, analysed and theorised within policy-relevant research on ethnic health inequities., Methods: We reviewed a selection of the 1% most highly cited population health papers that reported UK data on ethnicity, and extracted how ethnicity was recorded and analysed in relation to health outcomes. We focused on how ethnicity was obtained (i.e. self reported or not), how ethnic groups were categorised, whether justification was provided for any categorisation, and how ethnicity was theorised to be related to health. We held three 1-h-long guided focus groups with 10 young people from Nigeria, Turkistan, Syria, Yemen and Iran. This engagement helped us shape and interpret our findings, and reflect on. 1) How should ethnicity be asked inclusively, and better recorded? 2) Does self-defined ethnicity change over time or context? If so, why?, Results: Of the 44 included papers, most (19; 43%) used self-reported ethnicity, categorised in a variety of ways. Of the 27 papers that aggregated ethnicity, 13 (48%) provided justification. Only 8 of 33 papers explicitly theorised how ethnicity related to health. The focus groups agreed that 1) Ethnicity should not be prescribed by others; individuals could be asked to describe their ethnicity in free-text which researchers could synthesise to extract relevant dimensions of ethnicity for their research; 2) Ethnicity changes over time and context according to personal experience, social pressure, and nationality change; 3) Migrants and non-migrants' lived experience of ethnicity is not fully inter-changeable, even if they share the same ethnic category., Conclusions: Ethnicity is a multi-dimensional construct, but this is not currently reflected in UK health research studies, where ethnicity is often aggregated and analysed without justification. Researchers should communicate clearly how ethnicity is operationalised for their study, with appropriate justification for clustering and analysis that is meaningfully theorised. We can only start to tackle ethnic health inequity by treating ethnicity as rigorously as any other variables in our research., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Surgery for lesions in eloquent brain areas remains challenging owing to the risk of permanent neurological deficits. To date, direct electrical stimulation (DES) and intraoperative neuromonitoring represent the reference standard. Recently, navigated transcranial magnetic stimulation (nTMS) has emerged as a mapping tool to optimize surgical planning. Our aim was to correlate nTMS with the intraoperative findings and assess its effects on surgical decision-making., Methods: We retrospectively reviewed our series of patients who had undergone craniotomy for removal of a brain tumor at our institution with preoperative nTMS, intraoperative neuromonitoring, and DES from February 2017 to February 2018. Demographic data, tumor entity and location, extent of resection, change in surgical approach, and neurological outcome were collected., Results: Of 35 patients, 24 (68.6%) had undergone preoperative motor mapping and 11 (31.4%) had undergone mapping for language. Histopathological examination demonstrated glioma in 88.6% (high grade, n = 24; low grade, n = 6), metastasis (n = 2), epidermoid cyst (n = 1), and cavernoma (n = 1). nTMS resulted in change in the surgical strategy in 31.5% (craniotomy size, n = 7; access pathway, n = 3; surgical indication, n = 1). The specificity of nTMS for language was 66.7%, with a negative predictive value of 74.1%. nTMS motor mapping correlated with DES in all cases, with a mean abductor pollicis brevis hotspot distance of 3.50 ± 0.66 mm (n = 9)., Conclusions: nTMS is a safe, noninvasive adjunctive tool for preoperative mapping of brain tumors in eloquent areas. Furthermore, nTMS can influence the surgical decisions in up to one third of patients in our experience., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)