Psoriatic arthritis (PsA) is a complex and debilitating chronic inflammatory joint disorder that is often associated with psoriasis and presents significant challenges in its early diagnosis and management. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the diagnostic intricacies of PsA in primary care settings to shed light on the prevalence, barriers, and implications of delayed diagnosis. To achieve our research objectives, we conducted a qualitative synthesis using the meta-ethnographic method, which is a robust approach for synthesizing qualitative data. We systematically searched the PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for relevant articles using predefined search terms such as \"psoriatic arthritis,\" \"diagnosis,\" and \"primary care.\" The inclusion criteria were narrative articles in English that provided insights into the diagnostic challenges of PsA in primary care. Conference presentations, original articles, and duplicate articles were excluded. Our analysis revealed four key themes that elucidated the multifaceted nature of PsA diagnosis in primary care: (1) a variety of initial and non-specific symptoms, highlighting the diverse clinical presentations that can mimic other conditions; (2) the lack of experience with PsA among primary care professionals, underscoring the importance of education and training; (3) the lack of skin lesions, which can complicate diagnosis when not present; and (4) a delay in diagnosis, with potentially severe consequences for patients\' health and quality of life. This study highlights the challenges inherent in the diagnosis of PsA in primary care settings. The multifaceted nature of the disease, coupled with limited experience among primary care providers, often results in delayed diagnosis and subsequent treatment initiation. Early recognition and intervention are pivotal for optimizing patient outcomes. Addressing these challenges necessitates a comprehensive approach involving heightened clinical suspicion, continuous medical education, interdisciplinary collaboration, and utilization of standardized diagnostic criteria. Collaboration between primary care physicians and specialists is crucial for enhancing the accuracy and timeliness of PsA diagnosis and ultimately improving patient well-being and quality of life.

A 2019 public workshop convened by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) Roundtable on Health Literacy identified a need to develop evidence-based guidance for best practices for health literacy and patient activation in clinical trials.
To identify studies of health literacy interventions within medical care or clinical trial settings that were associated with improved measures of health literacy or patient activation, to help inform best practices in the clinical trial process.
Literature searches were conducted in PubMed, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, SCOPUS, Cochrane, and Web of Science from January 2009 to June 2021.
Of 3592 records screened, 22 records investigating 27 unique health literacy interventions in randomized controlled studies were included for qualitative synthesis.
Data screening and abstraction were performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines.
Types of health literacy interventions were multimedia or technology-based (11 studies), simplification of written material (six studies) and in-person sessions (five studies). These interventions were applied at various stages in the healthcare and clinical trial process. All studies used unique outcome measures, including patient comprehension, quality of informed consent, and patient activation and engagement.
The findings of our study suggest that best practice guidelines recommend health literacy interventions during the clinical trial process, presentation of information in multiple forms, involvement of patients in information optimization, and improved standardization in health literacy outcome measures.

Conducting clinical trials in critical care is integral to improving patient care. Unique practical and ethical considerations exist in this patient population that make patient recruitment challenging, including narrow recruitment timeframes and obtaining patient consent often in time-critical situations. Units currently vary significantly in their ability to recruit according to infrastructure and level of research activity.
To identify variability in the research infrastructure of UK intensive care units and their ability to conduct research and recruit patients into clinical trials.
We evaluated factors related to intensive care patient enrolment into clinical trials in the UK. This consisted of a qualitative synthesis carried out with two datasets of in-depth interviews (distinct participants across the two datasets) conducted with 27 intensive care consultants (n=9), research nurses (n=17) and trial coordinators (n=1) from 27 units across the UK. Primary and secondary analyses of two datasets (one dataset had been analysed previously) were undertaken in the thematic analysis.
The synthesis yielded an overarching core theme of normalising research, characterised by motivations for promoting research and fostering research-active cultures within resource constraints, with six themes under this to explain the factors influencing critical care research capacity: organisational, human, study, practical resources, clinician and patient/family factors. There was a strong sense of integrating research in routine clinical practice, and recommendations are outlined.
The central and transferable tenet of normalising research advocates the importance of developing a culture where research is inclusive alongside clinical practice in routine patient care and is a requisite for all healthcare individuals from organisational to direct patient contact level.

Worldwide, most people with dementia live at home and are cared for by informal carers. During the dementia care trajectory, creating and maintaining a stable care situation is a guiding principle of informal carers and a desirable outcome of contemporary healthcare policies. However, though there is an extensive body of research focusing on the course of dementia care trajectories, it remains unclear how stability of home-based care arrangements is constituted and what are the essential factors that influence this stability. This paper outlines a protocol of a systematic review that aims to address these gaps in knowledge.
To theorise the complex phenomenon of stability of home-based care arrangements for people with dementia, we will conduct a meta-study. Meta-studies include three analytical components (meta-data analysis, meta-method and meta-theory) that are combined and finally culminate in an integrative knowledge synthesis. Originally, meta-study was designed to include qualitative studies only. To capture relevant contributions to our target phenomenon from all types of evidence, we will extend the original methodology and apply it to studies with qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods designs and to (systematic) reviews. Eligible studies will be identified by systematic database searches (PubMed, CINAHL and PsycINFO), backward/forward citation tracking, snowballing and theoretical sampling. All identified studies will be screened against predefined inclusion criteria. The main analytical approach for all analyses is thematic synthesis. The meta-study will generate a more comprehensive understanding of dementia care trajectories and will be used to identify research gaps, develop future research questions and define relevant outcomes.
The findings of the meta-study will be published in a series of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals and will be presented at national and international scientific conferences.
CRD42016041727.