Search

Introduction: The skin is the largest and most visible organ of the human body. As such, skin infections can have a significant impact on overall health, social wellbeing and self‐image. In 2019, we published a systematic review of the treatment, prevention and public health control of skin infections including impetigo, scabies, crusted scabies and tinea in resource‐limited settings where skin infections are endemic. This current review serves as an update to assess the evidence for treatment of these conditions as well as atopic dermatitis, molluscum contagiosum and head lice in endemic settings. The data from this systematic review have supported an update to the Australian National Healthy Skin guidelines. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using two separate searches in MEDLINE, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane and Web of Science. The first search was an update of the 2018 systematic review using the same search strategy for the same skin conditions to identify emerging literature from 2018 to 2022. The second search strategy used the same key terms but with the addition of atopic dermatitis, head lice and molluscum contagiosum from 1960 to 2022. Eligible studies included Indigenous peoples and populations in resource‐limited settings with a diagnosis of impetigo, scabies, crusted scabies, tinea capitis, atopic dermatitis, molluscum contagiosum or who presented with head lice. Studies conducted in high‐income countries were excluded. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by one author with a second group of reviewers independently double screening. Data extraction and an in‐depth quality assessment conducted by one author and checked by two others. Results: Of 1466 original articles identified, 68 studies were included and key findings outlined for impetigo, scabies, crusted scabies, atopic dermatitis, head lice and molluscum contagiosum. Recommendations for each condition based on the available evidence are provided. Conclusion: The importance of assessing literature relevant to the populations with heavy burden of skin infections is outlined in this systematic review. We have summarised updates to this literature, which may benefit in developing guidelines for skin infection management similar to the National Healthy Skin Guidelines for Australia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Delirium is a serious and distressing neurocognitive condition common in people with advanced illness. The understanding of delirium pathophysiology is limited and largely hypothetical. To accelerate empirical understanding of delirium pathophysiology, robust scientific methods for conducting and reporting delirium biomarker studies are urgently needed. The aim of this study was to develop international consensus on the core elements of high-quality delirium biomarker studies.Methods: A three-round modified Delphi survey was conducted from February to August 2019. Participants were international researchers experienced in conducting delirium studies from a range of settings (hospital, university, research centres). Round one commenced with open-ended questions developed from results from a prior systematic review and the REMARK (REporting recommendations for tumour MARKer prognostic studies) checklist. Responses were qualitatively analysed, and closed statements were developed. Participants then ranked the importance of these statements using a 5-point Likert scale in rounds 2 and 3. A priori consensus was defined as ≥70% participant agreement. Descriptive statistics for each item were computed including the mean Likert scores, SD and median participant scores.Results: Twenty-eight participants completed survey round one, 16 completed round two and 19 completed the final round. Consensus was achieved for a total of 60 items.Conclusion: The Delphi survey identified items that expert researchers agreed were important in the conduct of delirium biomarker studies. These reporting items provide a strong platform for improved methodological quality and opportunities to synthesise future delirium biomarker studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives Human research ethics statements support the equitable inclusion of diverse groups. Yet older people are underrepresented in clinical research, especially those with impaired decision-making capacity. The aim of this study was to identify the perspectives and experiences of older persons and their caregivers of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity. Research Design and Methods Scoping review of the literature and online sources in January–February 2019 (updated June 2020) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology and PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews. English-language peer-reviewed research articles and Australian online narratives were included. Data were tabulated and narratively synthesized. Results From 4,171 database records and 93 online resources, 22 articles (2000–2019, 82% United States, 16 first authors) and one YouTube webinar (2018) were initially included; updated searches yielded an additional article (2020) and YouTube webinar (2020). Studies were heterogeneous in terminology, methods, and foci, with hypothetical scenarios, quantitative analyses, and examination of proxy consent predominating. Participants (N = 7,331) were older persons (71%), caregivers of older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (23%), and older persons with dementia/cognitive impairment (6%). Synthesis identified 2 themes: willingness to participate and decision-making approaches. Discussion and Implications Research participation by older persons with dementia may be optimized through reducing risks and burdens and increasing benefits for participants, greater consumer input into study development, and shared and supported decision-making. Older persons' and caregivers' perspectives and experiences of research participation with impaired decision-making capacity require investigation in a greater range of countries and conditions other than dementia, and dissemination through more varied media. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Objectives: Older people with cognitive impairment are unrepresented in clinical research. Our objective was to review evidence for strategies to support their research inclusion and participation., Research Design and Methods: Systematic review of published reports of inclusion and participation strategies for older people with cognitive impairment in clinical research (PROSPERO CRD42020212092). Five databases were searched September 2020, March 2023 and April 2024. Screening, full text review and data extraction were independently performed. Risk of bias was assessed using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network Methodology Checklists. Outcomes were participant characteristics, recruitment and consent processes, retention, experience, involvement of others, adverse events, and other reported outcomes., Results: Of 4564 identified sources, 12 studies were included. Nine compared recruitment strategies; three examined consent processes. Of 4,208 participants (mean age 78.3 years), 61% were female. Median (interquartile range) monthly recruitment rate was 10.3 (5.6-14.8). Participants had mild cognitive impairment, dementia and/or delirium and two-thirds of studies involved proxies or study partners. Community outreach or population screening had higher recruitment compared to primary care referral and/or screening. Formal capacity and consent methods achieved lower rates of consent compared to informal. A memory and organisational aid increased participants' ability to provide informed consent compared to standard assessment. Few studies reported participants' or recruiters' subjective experience, and no studies reported participant retention or adverse events., Discussion and Implications: Targeted, tailored and multi-pronged recruitment and consent strategies to support inclusion of older people with cognitive impairment appear promising. Higher quality studies are needed to confirm this finding., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Gerontological Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)