OBJECTIVE: To describe primary care provider (PCP) practices for the assessment and management of females with urinary incontinence (UI), and appraise these practices relative to recommendations made in high-quality clinical guidelines.
METHODS: Studies were searched in four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science) from their respective inception dates to 6 March 2023. All studies describing UI evaluation and management practices used by PCPs for female patients were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected studies assessed their quality and extracted data. A narrative synthesis of included studies was performed to describe practices. Relevant evaluation and management practices were then compared to recommendations that were consistent across current high-quality UI guidelines. Pharmacotherapy, referrals, and follow-ups were reported descriptively only.
RESULTS: A total of 3475 articles were retrieved and, among those, 31 were included in the review. The majority reported a poor-moderate adherence to performing a pelvic examination (reported adherence range: 23-76%; based on eight studies), abdominal examination (0-87%; three studies), pelvic floor muscle assessment (9-36%; two studies), and bladder diary (0-92%; nine studies), while there was high adherence to urine analysis (40-97%; nine studies). For the conservative management of UI, studies revealed a poor-moderate adherence to recommendations for pelvic floor muscle training (5-82%; nine studies), bladder training (2-53%; eight studies) and lifestyle interventions (1-71%; six studies). Regarding pharmacotherapy, PCPs predominantly prescribed antimuscarinics (2-46%; nine studies) and oestrogen (2-77%; seven studies). Lastly, PCPs referred those reporting UI to medical specialists (5-37%; 14 studies). Referrals were generally made <30 days after diagnosis with urologists being the most sought out professional to assess and treat UI.
CONCLUSIONS: This review revealed poor-moderate adherence to clinical practice guideline recommendations. While these findings reflect high variability in reporting, the key message is that most aspects of patient care for female UI provided by PCPs needs to improve.

OBJECTIVE: To explore pharmacy users\' perceptions of current and future provision of community pharmacy services in England.
METHODS: Qualitative, reconvened focus groups were conducted with community pharmacy users. An initial focus group explored preliminary views. Participants were then given an evidence brief describing community pharmacy before a reconvened focus group two weeks later. Transcripts were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Eleven individuals participated across two reconvened focus groups. Participants valued community pharmacies and staff, but lacked awareness of their services and roles: \'… I don\'t think the general public is aware of all of this … it gives you a very different perspective\'. Urgent care and long-term conditions management were identified as suitable for future development, facilitated by training, closer collaboration with general practices, shared access to health records, and premises with more space and confidentiality: \'I still think of it as a retail space more than as a health service\'. Concerns were expressed about working conditions in community pharmacy and unplanned closures: \'doesn\'t sound like a great place to work\'. Participants anticipated greater use of technology but did not want this to replace face-to-face contact with pharmacy staff: \'I am not saying it\'s inaccurate, it is so remote and impersonal\'.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmacy users would value a greater role for community pharmacy in addressing the challenges currently faced by the health service in England, provided that their concerns on a range of issues are addressed.

In this narrative review, we describe historical and contemporary influences that prevent patients with fibroids from getting appropriate medical care. Using patient stories as examples, we highlight how misogyny on all levels hurts patients and prevents medical teams from doing their best. Importantly, inequity and disparities result in massive gaps in care delivery. We suggest that we, as gynecologists and surgeons, must join public discourse on this topic to highlight the inadequacies of care delivery and the reasons behind it, suggest potential solutions, and join patients and communities in formulating and implementing remedies.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the adoption and perception of mobile health (mHealth) applications among community pharmacists in Malaysia.
METHODS: A cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire was conducted with 300 community pharmacists in the Klang Valley, Malaysia using a stratified sampling approach. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions with three sections: demographic data, adoption of mHealth applications and perception towards mHealth applications. Descriptive and inferential tests as well as exploratory factor analysis were used to analyse the data.
RESULTS: Adoption of mHealth applications by community pharmacists for both professional and personal use was relatively high at 79.7%. Utilised mHealth applications were primarily from the medical references category, while applications for patient monitoring, personal care and fitness were used to a lesser degree. Among mHealth application users, only 65.7% recommended them to their patients. Overall perception towards mHealth applications was positive, but perception towards the benefits and favour of mHealth applications for their patients was lower. This was corroborated by the factor analysis, which identified four main factors explaining 59.9% of variance in the dataset. These factors were perception towards use in their own professional practice, perception on benefits and use in their patients, perception on specific features of mHealth applications, and reliability of mHealth applications.
CONCLUSIONS: Adoption of mHealth applications among community pharmacists in Malaysia is high. Community pharmacists are more likely to use mHealth applications professionally and personally but less likely to recommend them to patients due to less favourable perceptions on how patients will benefit from mHealth applications.

Neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) are highly prevalent in Alzheimer\'s disease (AD) and are associated with negative outcomes. However, NPS are currently underrecognized at the memory clinic and non-pharmacological interventions are scarcely implemented.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Describe, Investigate, Create, Evaluate (DICE) method™ to improve the care for NPS in AD at the memory clinic.
We enrolled sixty community-dwelling people with mild cognitive impairment or AD dementia and NPS across six Dutch memory clinics with their caregivers. The first wave underwent care as usual (n = 36) and the second wave underwent the DICE method (n = 24). Outcomes were quality of life (QoL), caregiver burden, NPS severity, NPS-related distress, competence managing NPS, and psychotropic drug use. Reliable change index was calculated to identify responders to the intervention. A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed and semi-structured interviews with a subsample of the intervention group (n = 12).
The DICE method did not improve any outcomes over time compared to care as usual. Half of the participants of the intervention group (52%) were identified as responders and showed more NPS and NPS-related distress at baseline compared to non-responders. Interviews revealed substantial heterogeneity among participants regarding NPS-related distress, caregiver burden, and availability of social support. The intervention did not lead to significant gains in quality-adjusted life years and well-being years nor clear savings in health care and societal costs.
The DICE method showed no benefits at group-level, but individuals with high levels of NPS and NPS-related distress may benefit from this intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to use qualitative methodology to better understand patient experiences after cubital tunnel surgery, with the goal of identifying areas of improvement in delivery of care.
METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery (in situ decompression or anterior transposition) for cubital tunnel syndrome within the last 12 months, which was performed by one of three fellowship-trained hand surgeons, were identified. Participants were invited to an interview regarding \"their experiences with ulnar nerve surgery.\" An interview guide with semistructured, open-ended questions regarding the decision for surgery, treatment goals, and the recovery process was used. Interim data analyses were conducted to assess emerging themes, and interviews were continued until thematic saturation was achieved.
RESULTS: Seventeen participants completed interviews; the mean age of study participants was 57 years, and 71% were women. The mean time between surgery and the interview was 6 months. Participants identified the following two key areas that could improve their surgical experience: (1) the need for detailed preoperative education about the surgery and recovery process, (2) and the importance of discussing treatment goals and expectations. Participants suggested providing both written and online resources to patients, including specific details about incision size and recovery process in education materials, and setting expectations for symptom resolution.
CONCLUSIONS: Although the overall patient experience after cubital tunnel surgery was positive, participants noted that there is a need for providing improved educational resources and counseling before surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Addressing education and counseling needs before cubital tunnel surgery will help surgeons to improve delivery of care.

Adolescent young adult (AYA) cancer survivors continue to have substantive unmet needs. Literature and insights from a task force of survivors, caregivers, and survivor advocates convened by Servier Pharmaceuticals indicate desires for peer created and provided support. This secondary data analysis of information from the task force identified unmet needs in five domains and solutions explored for four prioritized needs. Ultimately, four actionable solution concepts were selected by the task force for further development. Through their work, many key insights about including survivors in creating solutions and the many approaches for best serving AYAs with cancer were revealed.

In response to breast cancer diagnostic regional wait times exceeding both national and provincial standards and to symptomatic patient referrals for diagnostic mammography taking longer than abnormal screening mammography referrals, the Rae Fawcett Breast Health Clinic (RFBHC) was opened in 2017 in a mid-sized Canadian hospital serving both urban and rural-remote communities. We investigated whether the RFBHC improved wait times to breast cancer diagnosis, improved compliance with national and provincial breast cancer standards, and decreased the wait time disparity associated with referral source. Statistical analyses of wait time differences were conducted between patients who were diagnosed with breast cancer prior to and after the RFBHC establishment. Study group compliance with national and provincial standards and wait time differences by referral source were also analysed. A survey was administered to assess overall patient experience with the RFBHC and clinic wait times. RFBHC patients had a shorter mean wait to breast cancer diagnosis (24.4 vs. 45.7 days, p ≤ 0.001) and a shorter mean wait to initial breast cancer treatment (49.1 vs. 78.9 days, p ≤ 0.001) than pre-RFBHC patients. After the RFBHC establishment, patients who attended the RFBHC had a shorter mean wait time to breast cancer diagnosis (24.4 vs. 36.9 days, p = 0.005) and to initial treatment (49.1 vs. 73.1 days, p ≤ 0.001) than patients who did not attend the clinic. Compliance with national and provincial breast cancer standards improved after the RFBHC establishment and the wait time disparity between screening mammography referrals and symptomatic patient referrals decreased. Survey results indicate that the RFBHC is meeting patient expectations. We concluded that the establishment of a breast health clinic in a Canadian center serving urban and rural-remote communities improved breast diagnostic services.

UNASSIGNED: The specialty of palliative care has evolved over time to provide symptom management, psychosocial support, and care planning for patients with cancer throughout the disease continuum and in multiple care settings. This review examines the delivery and impact of palliative care in the outpatient, inpatient, and community-based settings. The article will discuss how these 3 palliative care settings can work together to optimize patient outcomes under a unifying model of palliative care \"anywhere, anytime\" and how to prioritize palliative care services when resources are limited. Many patients with advanced cancer receive care from each of the 3 branches of palliative care-outpatient, inpatient, and community-based settings-at some point along their disease trajectory. Early on, outpatient clinics provide longitudinal supportive care concurrent with active disease-modifying treatments. Telemedicine appointments can serve patients remotely to minimize their need to travel. When patients experience functional decline, community-based palliative care services can provide support and monitoring for patients at home. When patients develop acute symptomatic complications requiring admission, inpatient care consultation teams are essential for symptom management and goals-of-care discussions. For patients in severe distress, receiving care in a palliative care unit that provides intensive symptom control and facilitates complex discharge planning is ideal. Under a unifying model of palliative care designed to offer care \"anywhere, anytime,\" the 3 branches of palliative care could work in unison to support each other, minimize gaps in care, and optimize patient outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Norway has prioritized health services according to the principle of \"severity of conditions\", where waiting time reflects patients\' medical urgency. We aim to investigate if the \"severity-of-condition\" principle performs well in the priority setting of waiting time, between and within groups of patients using community mental health services. We also aim to investigate the association between patients\' diagnoses and symptom severity at the start of treatment and the corresponding waiting time.
METHODS: The study analyzed routine data from Lovisenberg electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement (LOVePROM) at Lovisenberg Diaconal Hospital in Norway. We estimated patient-reported severity by using Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation - Outcome Measure (CORE-OM), together with patients\' diagnoses to identify patients\' needs in general. To assess the performance of current prioritization, we compared waiting times for patients with major depressive disorder and their maximum recommended waiting time. Multivariate regression models were used to assess the association between patient-reported severity, their diagnosis, and waiting times.
RESULTS: Of the 6108 mental health disorder patients, patients with moderate to severe conditions waited seven weeks, while patients with mild conditions or below clinical cutoff waited 8 weeks. Included in the sample, 1583 were diagnosed with depression. Results indicated that patients with moderate and severe depression had a slightly shorter wait-time than patients with mild depression. However, 32.4% patients with moderate depression and 83.3% patients with severe depression, waited longer than their maximum recommended waiting time. CORE-OM identified depressive patients with risk-to-self harm, who had a 0.84 weeks shorter wait-time. These results were also applied to patients with other common mental health disorders.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients waited in accordance with the \"severity of condition\" principle, but the trend was not strong. Therefore, we advocate that there is substantial room for quality improvements in priority setting on waiting time. We suggest further research should investigate if routine collection of PROM and assessment of referral letters, can better inform specialists when deciding on waiting time.