Search

Purpose This study aims to (1) describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes experienced by children born very preterm (28–31 weeks’ gestation) and extremely preterm ( Methods This investigation was based on data for 3687 children born at ™ GCS scores. A mediation analysis that applied generalised structural equation modelling explored the association between potential mediators and PedsQL™ GCS scores. Results The multi-level OLS regression (fully adjusted model) revealed that birth at ™ GCS score of 0.35, 3.71 and 5.87, respectively. The mediation analysis revealed that the indirect effects of BPD and severe non-respiratory morbidity on the total PedsQL™ GCS score translated into decrements of 1.73 and 17.56, respectively, at Conclusion The findings suggest that HRQoL is particularly impaired by extremely preterm birth and the concomitant complications of preterm birth such as BPD and severe non-respiratory morbidity.

Objectives Acceptance and mindfulness‐based interventions (A/MBIs) are recommended for people with mental health conditions. Although there is a growing evidence base supporting the effectiveness of different A/MBIs for mental health conditions, the economic case for these interventions has not been fully explored. The aim of this systematic review was to identify and appraise all available economic evidence of A/MBIs for the management of mental health conditions. Methods Eight electronic bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, MEDLINE In‐Process & Other Non‐Indexed Citations, EMBASE, Web of Science, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and EconLit) were searched for relevant economic evaluations published from each database's inception date until November 2017. Study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction were carried out according to published guidelines. Results Ten relevant economic evaluations presented in 11 papers were identified. Seven of the included studies were full economic evaluations (i.e., costs and effects assessed), and three studies were partial economic evaluations (i.e., only costs were considered in the analysis). The A/MBIs that had been subjected to economic evaluation were acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), dialectical behaviour therapy (DBT), mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy (MBCT), and mindfulness‐based stress reduction (MBSR). In terms of clinical presentations, the evaluation of cost‐effectiveness of A/MBIs has been more focused on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder with three and four economic evaluations, respectively. Three out of seven full economic evaluations observed that A/MBIs were cost‐effective for the management of mental health conditions. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity of included populations, interventions, and economic evaluation study types limits the extent to which firm conclusions can currently be made. Conclusion This first substantive review of economic evaluations of A/MBIs indicates that more research is needed before firm conclusions can be reached on the cost‐effectiveness of A/MBIs for mental health conditions. Practitioner points The findings of the review provide information that may be relevant to mental health service commissioners and decision‐makers as all economic evidence available on acceptance and mindfulness‐based interventions for mental health conditions is summarized. Evidence relating to the cost‐effectiveness and cost‐saving potential of acceptance and mindfulness‐based interventions is focused mainly on depression and emotional unstable personality disorder to date. Heterogeneity in the specific forms of acceptance and mindfulness‐based interventions may limit generalizability of the findings. The number of health economic evaluations relating to acceptance and mindfulness‐based interventions remains relatively small. Further research in this area is required.

Background\ud \ud Accurate assessment of surgical‐site infection (SSI) is crucial for surveillance and research. Self‐reporting patient measures are needed because current SSI tools are limited for assessing patients after leaving hospital. The Bluebelle Wound Healing Questionnaire (WHQ) was developed for patient or observer completion; this study tested its acceptability, scale structure, reliability and validity in patients with closed primary wounds after abdominal surgery.\ud \ud Methods\ud \ud Patients completed the WHQ (self‐assessment) within 30 days after leaving hospital and returned it by post. Healthcare professionals completed the WHQ (observer assessment) by telephone or face‐to‐face. Questionnaire response rates and patient acceptability were assessed. Factor analysis and Cronbach's α examined scale structure and internal consistency. Test–retest and self‐ versus observer reliability assessments were performed. Sensitivity and specificity for SSI discrimination against a face‐to‐face reference diagnosis (using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention criteria) were examined.\ud \ud Results\ud \ud Some 561 of 792 self‐assessments (70·8 per cent) and 597 of 791 observer assessments (75·5 per cent) were completed, with few missing data or problems reported. Data supported a single‐scale structure with strong internal consistency (α greater than 0·8). Reliability between test–retest and self‐ versus observer assessments was good (κ 0·6 or above for the majority of items). Sensitivity and specificity for SSI discrimination was high (area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve 0·91).\ud \ud Conclusion\ud \ud The Bluebelle WHQ is acceptable, reliable and valid with a single‐scale structure for postdischarge patient or observer assessment of SSI in closed primary wounds.

Association of survival estimates and reported medians and hazard ratios. (DOCX 32 kb)

Medline search strategy. (DOCX 13 kb)

Network meta-analysis estimating mean differences in restricted mean survival and overall survival (DOCX 26 kb)

Results for Progression Free Survival (PFS). (DOCX 4601 kb)

Reconstructed hazard ratios compared to published hazard ratios. (DOCX 19 kb)

PRISMA study flow chart (DOCX 28 kb)

Restricted mean survival (RMS) results (DOCX 28 kb)

Forest plots of mean difference in RMS and mean difference in total survival (Weibull models). (DOCX 43 kb)

ObjectivesTo develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience.DesignMixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs).SettingTwo university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England.ParticipantsSixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgical specialities and obstetrics (caesarean section).MethodsMeasures were developed according to standard guidelines to identify issues relevant to patients’ experiences of surgical wounds and dressings, including analysis of existing RCT outcomes and semi-structured interviews. These were written into provisional questionnaire items for a single outcome measure. Cognitive interviews with patients and healthcare professionals assessed face validity, acceptability and relevance. Findings from interviews were regularly shared with the study team who suggested amendments to modify and reword items to improve understanding before further iterative testing with patients and healthcare professionals.ResultsAnalyses of existing RCT outcomes and interviews produced a total of 69 issues. Pretesting and iterative revision established the need for two separate measures. One measure addresses healthcare professionals’ experience of wound management in two key areas: exudate and its impact, and allergic reactions to the dressing. The other measure addresses patients’ experience of wounds in seven key areas: wound comfort, dressing removal, dressings to protect the wound, impact on daily activities, ease of movement, anxiety about the wound and satisfaction with dressing. Each measure took less than five min to complete and both were understood and acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals.ConclusionThis in-depth study has developed two measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. Further work to test their validity, reliability and application to other settings is now required.Trial registration numberHTA - 12/200/04; Pre-results.

BASIL-3 SPIRIT Checklist. (DOC 122Â kb)