cross-sectional survey

横断面测量
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    导言鉴于大多数专业中女医生的代表性不足,以及在住院医师申请中进行全面审查的目的,以改善美国(US)研究生医学培训计划中入读住院医师的多样性,我们研究了美国研究生培训项目中整体评价与女性居民代表之间的关联.方法我们对美国研究生培训计划进行了横断面调查,以询问其在居民申请中使用整体审查的情况(独立变量)。主要结果是每个计划中女性居民的百分比,这是在2023年4月从奖学金和居留电子交互式数据库访问(FREIDA)目录中获得的其他程序级特征。我们将分析限于2022年培训地点最多的10个专业,包括麻醉学,急诊医学,家庭医学,内科,神经学,妇产科,骨科手术,儿科,精神病学,和手术(一般)。我们还使用模型比较和简单的斜率分析研究了整体评论与专业之间的相互作用以及女性教师的百分比。结果在10个专业调查的3364个项目中,222(6.6%)作出回应。响应者和非响应者具有相似的程序级别特征,包括程序类型(例如,大学,社区),专业,并报告了最低的董事会考试成绩。在222名响应者中,179(80.6%)报告进行了整体审查。无整体审查组女性居民比例为49.0%(四分位距37.5~66.7),整体审查组女性居民比例为47.8%(35.4~65.0)(中位数差异0.9%,95%置信区间-6.7至8.3)。此外,没有证据表明整体审查与专业或女性教师百分比之间存在相互作用,这取决于女性居民百分比的结果。结论在美国研究生培训计划的有限样本中,对居住申请的整体审查与女性居民的百分比无关。整体审查在解决医疗保健队伍中男女医生不平衡方面的作用,特别是在专业之间,仍然未知。
    Introduction Given the underrepresentation of female physicians in most specialties and the aim of holistic review in residency applications to improve the diversity of matriculating resident physicians in the United States (US) postgraduate medical training programs, we examined the association between holistic review and female resident representation among US postgraduate training programs. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional survey of US postgraduate training programs to inquire about their use of holistic review for resident applications (independent variable). The primary outcome was the percentage of female residents in each program, which was obtained along with other program-level characteristics from the Fellowship and Residency Electronic Interactive Database Access (FREIDA) catalog in April 2023. We limited the analysis to the 10 specialties with the most training spots in 2022, including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and surgery (general). We also examined the interactions between holistic review and specialty and the percentage of female faculty using model comparison and simple slopes analyses.  Results Of the 3,364 total programs surveyed from the 10 specialties, 222 (6.6%) responded. Responders and nonresponders had similar program-level characteristics, including program type (e.g., university, community), specialty, and reported minimum board examination scores. Of the 222 responders, 179 (80.6%) reported performing holistic review. The percentage of female residents was 49.0% (interquartile range 37.5 to 66.7) in the no holistic review group and 47.8% (35.4 to 65.0) in the holistic review group (median difference 0.9%, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 8.3). Furthermore, there was no evidence of interaction between holistic review and either the specialty or the percentage of female faculty on the outcome of the percentage of female residents. Conclusions Holistic review of residency applications in this limited sample of US postgraduate training programs was not associated with the percentage of female residents. The role of holistic review in addressing the imbalance of male and female physicians in the healthcare workforce, particularly between specialties, remains unknown.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    伯氏疏螺旋体(Bb)感染,最常见的蜱传疾病,分布在世界各地。这项研究旨在描述人群中Bb的全球血清阳性率和社会人口统计学特征。
    我们搜索了PubMed,Embase,到2021年12月30日,所有研究设计的相关研究的WebofScience和其他来源,关键词如下:\'伯氏疏螺旋体“和”感染率\';如果报告了人类Bb抗体血清阳性率调查的结果,则包括观察性研究,实验室血清学检测方法报道并发表在同行评审的期刊上。我们筛选了标题/摘要和论文全文,并使用Cochrane合作认可的纽卡斯尔-渥太华质量评估量表评估了偏倚的风险。数据是叙事合成的,按不同类型的结果分层。我们还进行了随机效应荟萃分析,其中至少有两项研究报告了95%CI。该研究方案已在PROSPERO(CRD42021261362)注册。
    在4196项研究中,137人符合全文筛选条件,89人(158287人)纳入荟萃分析.报告的全球Bb血清阳性率估计为14.5%(95%CI为12.8%至16.3%),Bb血清阳性率排名前三的地区是中欧(20.7%,95%CI13.8%至28.6%),东亚(15.9%,95%CI6.6%至28.3%)和西欧(13.5%,95%CI9.5%至18.0%)。Meta回归分析表明,在消除混杂危险因素后,与使用WB确证的方法相比,这些方法缺乏蛋白质印迹(WB)确证,并且Bb抗体检测假阳性的风险增加(OR1.9,95%CI1.6~2.2).与Bb血清阳性相关的其他因素包括年龄≥50岁(12.6%,95%CI8.0%至18.1%),男性(7.8%,95%CI4.6%至11.9%),农村地区的居住地(8.4%,95%CI5.0%至12.6%)和遭受蜱叮咬(18.8%,95%CI10.1%至29.4%)。
    报告估计的全球Bb血清阳性相对较高,前三大地区是中欧,西欧和东亚。使用WB确认Bb血清学结果可以显着提高准确性。需要更多的研究来提高全球莱姆病负担估计的准确性。
    CRD42021261362。
    Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato (Bb) infection, the most frequent tick-transmitted disease, is distributed worldwide. This study aimed to describe the global seroprevalence and sociodemographic characteristics of Bb in human populations.
    We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and other sources for relevant studies of all study designs through 30 December 2021 with the following keywords: \'Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato\' AND \'infection rate\'; and observational studies were included if the results of human Bb antibody seroprevalence surveys were reported, the laboratory serological detection method reported and be published in a peer-reviewed journal. We screened titles/abstracts and full texts of papers and appraised the risk of bias using the Cochrane Collaboration-endorsed Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Data were synthesised narratively, stratified by different types of outcomes. We also conducted random effects meta-analysis where we had a minimum of two studies with 95% CIs reported. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021261362).
    Of 4196 studies, 137 were eligible for full-text screening, and 89 (158 287 individuals) were included in meta-analyses. The reported estimated global Bb seroprevalence was 14.5% (95% CI 12.8% to 16.3%), and the top three regions of Bb seroprevalence were Central Europe (20.7%, 95% CI 13.8% to 28.6%), Eastern Asia (15.9%, 95% CI 6.6% to 28.3%) and Western Europe (13.5%, 95% CI 9.5% to 18.0%). Meta-regression analysis showed that after eliminating confounding risk factors, the methods lacked western blotting (WB) confirmation and increased the risk of false-positive Bb antibody detection compared with the methods using WB confirmation (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.6 to 2.2). Other factors associated with Bb seropositivity include age ≥50 years (12.6%, 95% CI 8.0% to 18.1%), men (7.8%, 95% CI 4.6% to 11.9%), residence of rural area (8.4%, 95% CI 5.0% to 12.6%) and suffering tick bites (18.8%, 95% CI 10.1% to 29.4%).
    The reported estimated global Bb seropositivity is relatively high, with the top three regions as Central Europe, Western Europe and Eastern Asia. Using the WB to confirm Bb serological results could significantly improve the accuracy. More studies are needed to improve the accuracy of global Lyme borreliosis burden estimates.
    CRD42021261362.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    Crisis resolution teams (CRTs) provide treatment at home to people experiencing mental health crises, as an alternative to hospital admission. Previous UK research, based on self-report surveys, suggests that a loosely specified model has resulted in wide variations in CRTs\' service delivery, organization and outcomes. A fidelity scale (developed through evidence review and stakeholder consensus) provided a means of objectively measuring adherence to a model of good practice for CRTs, via one-day fidelity reviews of UK crisis teams. Reviews included interviews with service users, carers, staff and managers, and examination of data, policies, protocols and anonymized case notes. Of the 75 teams reviewed, 49 (65%) were assessed as being moderate fidelity and the rest as low fidelity, with no team achieving high fidelity. The median score was 122 (range: 73-151; inter-quartile range: 111-132). Teams achieved higher scores on items about structure and organization, for example ease of referral, medication and safety systems, but scored poorly on items about the content of care and interventions. Despite a national mandate to implement the CRT model, there are wide variations in implementation in the UK and no teams in our sample achieved overall high fidelity. This suggests that a mandatory national policy is not in itself sufficient to achieve good quality implementation of a service model. The CRT Fidelity Scale provides a feasible and acceptable means to objectively assess model fidelity in CRTs. There is a need for development and testing of interventions to enhance model fidelity and facilitate improvements to these services.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究的目的是确定相关的结果和措施,以告知系统评价(SR)老年儿科医生主导的护理模式的比较有效性。
    在修改后的Delphi中选择包含在SR中的结果,来自安大略省的知识用户(KU),艾伯塔省,萨斯喀彻温省使用李克特量表评估结果重要性。然后,老年病学家完成了一项调查,以确定选定结果的最佳措施。使用频率分析结果,means,和标准偏差(SDs)。
    三十三个KU(患者,看护者,政策制定者和老年医生)在修改后的德尔菲第1轮中对27项结果进行了评级。评分最高的结果包括功能(平均6.85±SD0.36),认知(6.47±SD0.72),和生活质量(6.38±SD0.91)。23个KU参加了第2轮,并对24个结果进行了评分。第2轮中排名最高的结果是功能(6.87±SD0.34),生活质量(6.45±SD1.10),和认知(6.43±SD0.73)。这项调查由22名老年病学家完成,排名最高的衡量标准是日常生活活动(功能),简易精神状态检查(认知),和医学结果研究SF-36(生活质量)。
    我们确定了患者最相关的结果和措施,看护者,政策制定者,和老年病学家,允许我们根据KU的需求量身定制SR。
    The objective of this study was to identify relevant outcomes and measures to inform a systematic review (SR) on the comparative effectiveness of geriatrician-led care models.
    In the modified Delphi to select outcomes for inclusion in the SR, knowledge users (KUs) from Ontario, Alberta, and Saskatchewan rated outcome importance using a Likert scale. A survey was then completed by geriatricians to determine optimal measures for selected outcomes. Findings were analyzed using frequencies, means, and standard deviations (SDs).
    Thirty-three KUs (patients, caregivers, policymakers and geriatricians) rated 27 outcomes in round 1 of the modified Delphi. Top-rated outcomes included function (mean 6.85 ± SD 0.36), cognition (6.47 ± SD 0.72), and quality of life (6.38 ± SD 0.91). Twenty-three KUs participated in round 2 and rated 24 outcomes. Top-rated outcomes in round 2 were function (6.87 ± SD 0.34), quality of life (6.45 ± SD 1.10), and cognition (6.43 ± SD 0.73). The survey was completed by 22 geriatricians and the highest ranked measures were Activities of Daily Living (function), Mini-Mental State Examination (cognition), and the Medical Outcomes Study SF-36 (quality of life).
    We identified the most relevant outcomes and measures for patients, caregivers, policymakers, and geriatricians, allowing us to tailor the SR to KU needs.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Sci-hub)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    横断面盲症患病率调查的结果存在一些偏差的风险,这些偏差导致研究估计与“真实”人群患病率不同。例如,当参与的人(“应答者”)与不参与的人(“非应答者”)在影响患病率估计的方式上有所不同时,就会出现应答偏差。这项研究旨在评估在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)的盲症患病率调查中考虑和发生反应偏差的程度。
    我们搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE和WebofScience在LMIC中进行的横断面失明患病率调查,并于2009-2017年发布。从纳入的研究中,我们记录并描述性分析了有关枚举过程的详细信息,回应,和无反应,包括不响应对结果的影响。
    92项纳入研究中的大多数(95%)报告了缓解率(中位数91.7%,四分位数间距85.9-95.6%)。大约一半清楚地描述了枚举过程(49%),并报告了至少一种增加应答率的策略(53%);四分之一(23%)在统计学上比较了应答者和非应答者。当评估差异反应时,男性比女性更有可能成为无应答者.三分之二(65%)的时间在响应者和非响应者之间发现了社会人口统计学差异,还发现了失明患病率的差异。只有13项研究(14%)评论了无反应对患病率估计的影响。
    反应率通常来自失明患病率调查,而且往往很高。高反应率降低但不能消除反应偏差的风险。盲症患病率调查中潜在反应偏倚的评估和报告可以大大改善。
    Findings from cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys are at risk of several biases that cause the study estimate to differ from the \'true\' population prevalence. For example, response bias occurs when people who participate (\'responders\') differ from those who do not (\'non-responders\') in ways that affect prevalence estimates. This study aimed to assess the extent to which response bias is considered and occurs in blindness prevalence surveys in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
    We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and Web of Science for cross-sectional blindness prevalence surveys undertaken in LMICs and published 2009-2017. From included studies, we recorded and descriptively analysed details regarding enumeration processes, response, and non-response, including the impact of non-response on results.
    Most (95%) of the 92 included studies reported a response rate (median 91.7%, inter-quartile range 85.9-95.6%). Approximately half clearly described enumeration processes (49%), and reported at least one strategy to increase the response rate (53%); a quarter (23%) statistically compared responders and non-responders. When differential response was assessed, men were more likely to be non-responders than women. Two-thirds (65%) of the time a sociodemographic difference was found between responders and non-responders, a difference in blindness prevalence was also found. Only 13 studies (14%) commented on implications of non-response on prevalence estimates.
    Response rates are commonly reported from blindness prevalence surveys, and tend to be high. High response rates reduce-but do not eliminate-the risk of response bias. Assessment and reporting of potential response bias in blindness prevalence surveys could be greatly improved.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号