UNASSIGNED: The objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) is used extensively in health and medical education to assess clinical competence. While OSCEs are not primarily designed for individual feedback, they provide an opportunity to generate meaningful and constructive feedback that students can use to reflect on areas of weakness (and strength). The most timely and effective way to incorporate individual feedback following a summative OSCE continues to be explored.
UNASSIGNED: This paper describes a novel OSCE feedback model which uses readily available summative assessment data to calculate 10% index scores. This provides information about relative station difficulty and relative individual student performance.
UNASSIGNED: An individualised feedback report was provided to every student after the OSCEs. This enables identification of stronger and weaker performance areas and composite skills, which can be utilised by all students to direct future learning.
UNASSIGNED: Providing timely, individual actionable feedback to every student following a summative OSCE is possible without impacting the examination process or examiner burden.
UNASSIGNED: A study is planned to determine the utilisation of this feedback by students and it\'s impact as a qualitative self-assessment exercise.

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: The reporting of adverse events (AEs) relating to medical devices is a long-standing area of concern, with suboptimal reporting due to a range of factors including a failure to recognize the association of AEs with medical devices, lack of knowledge of how to report AEs, and a general culture of nonreporting. The introduction of artificial intelligence as a medical device (AIaMD) requires a robust safety monitoring environment that recognizes both generic risks of a medical device and some of the increasingly recognized risks of AIaMD (such as algorithmic bias). There is an urgent need to understand the limitations of current AE reporting systems and explore potential mechanisms for how AEs could be detected, attributed, and reported with a view to improving the early detection of safety signals.
OBJECTIVE: The systematic review outlined in this protocol aims to yield insights into the frequency and severity of AEs while characterizing the events using existing regulatory guidance.
METHODS: Publicly accessible AE databases will be searched to identify AE reports for AIaMD. Scoping searches have identified 3 regulatory territories for which public access to AE reports is provided: the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia. AEs will be included for analysis if an artificial intelligence (AI) medical device is involved. Software as a medical device without AI is not within the scope of this review. Data extraction will be conducted using a data extraction tool designed for this review and will be done independently by AUK and a second reviewer. Descriptive analysis will be conducted to identify the types of AEs being reported, and their frequency, for different types of AIaMD. AEs will be analyzed and characterized according to existing regulatory guidance.
RESULTS: Scoping searches are being conducted with screening to begin in April 2024. Data extraction and synthesis will commence in May 2024, with planned completion by August 2024. The review will highlight the types of AEs being reported for different types of AI medical devices and where the gaps are. It is anticipated that there will be particularly low rates of reporting for indirect harms associated with AIaMD.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this will be the first systematic review of 3 different regulatory sources reporting AEs associated with AIaMD. The review will focus on real-world evidence, which brings certain limitations, compounded by the opacity of regulatory databases generally. The review will outline the characteristics and frequency of AEs reported for AIaMD and help regulators and policy makers to continue developing robust safety monitoring processes.
UNASSIGNED: PRR1-10.2196/48156.

BACKGROUND: Amidst the escalating prevalence of glucose-related chronic diseases, the advancements, potential uses, and growing accessibility of continuous glucose monitors (CGM) have piqued the interest of healthcare providers, consumers, and health behaviour researchers. Yet, there is a paucity of literature characterising the use of CGM in behavioural intervention research. This scoping review aims to describe targeted populations, health behaviours, health-related outcomes, and CGM protocols in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that employed CGM to support health behaviour change.
METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EBSCOhost PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global from inception to January 2024 for RCTs of behavioural interventions conducted in adults that incorporated CGM-based biological feedback. Citation searching was also performed. The review protocol was registered ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA ).
RESULTS: Collectively, 5389 citations were obtained from databases and citation searching, 3995 articles were screened, and 31 were deemed eligible and included in the review. Most studies (n = 20/31, 65%) included adults with type 2 diabetes and reported HbA1c as an outcome (n = 29/31, 94%). CGM was most commonly used in interventions to target changes in diet (n = 27/31, 87%) and/or physical activity (n = 16/31, 52%). 42% (n = 13/31) of studies provided prospective CGM-based guidance on diet or activity, while 61% (n = 19/31) included retrospective CGM-based guidance. CGM data was typically unblinded (n = 24/31, 77%) and CGM-based biological feedback was most often provided through the CGM and two-way communication (n = 12/31, 39%). Communication typically occurred in-person (n = 13/31, 42%) once per CGM wear (n = 13/31; 42%).
CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review reveals a predominant focus on diabetes in CGM-based interventions, pointing out a research gap in its wider application for behaviour change. Future research should expand the evidence base to support the use of CGM as a behaviour change tool and establish best practices for its implementation.
BACKGROUND: doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/SJREA.

暂无摘要。

UNASSIGNED: Trainees and faculty in academic medicine often struggle with self-promotion. Barriers may be more formidable for women and other groups underrepresented in medicine. Experience-based stories illustrating personal strengths are preferable when engaging in self-promotion activities.
UNASSIGNED: We developed a 90- to 120-minute workshop utilizing approaches such as iterative journaling and peer discussion to teach the development of problem-action-result (PAR) stories for self-promotion efforts in interviews and written applications to new positions. Participants provided Likert-scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) and free-response evaluations, which we analyzed for workshop strengths and areas for improvement.
UNASSIGNED: We presented the workshop in person to 28 pediatric residents and subsequently to 22 residents, fellows, and faculty at an in-person national meeting. Sixty-one percent of the resident group and 100% of the national workshop group completed the evaluation. Both groups reported high satisfaction with the workshop\'s format (M = 4.7) and content (M = 4.7) and indicated intention to use the skills learned (M = 4.7). Strengths included the PAR format, interactivity, journaling, opportunity for reflection, and tips for interviewing and writing. Areas to improve included offering the workshop earlier in the academic year and providing more written examples of PAR stories.
UNASSIGNED: This workshop used strategies of personal reflection, journaling, and peer feedback to help participants understand behavior-based recruiting practices and the PAR framework as a strategy for successful self-promotion. Learners can use these strategies to develop greater confidence and efficacy and to address barriers to effective self-promotion they encounter.

UNASSIGNED: Handheld phone use while driving is a major factor in vehicle crashes. Scalable interventions are needed to encourage drivers not to use their phones.
UNASSIGNED: To test whether interventions involving social comparison feedback and/or financial incentives can reduce drivers\' handheld phone use.
UNASSIGNED: In a randomized clinical trial, interventions were administered nationwide in the US via a mobile application in the context of a usage-based insurance program (Snapshot Mobile application). Customers were eligible to be invited to participate in the study if enrolled in the usage-based insurance program for 30 to 70 days. The study was conducted from May 13 to June 30, 2019. Analysis was completed December 22, 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 6 trial arms for a 7-week intervention period: (1) control; (2) feedback, with weekly push notification about their handheld phone use compared with that of similar others; (3) standard incentive, with a maximum $50 award at the end of the intervention based on how their handheld phone use compared with similar others; (4) standard incentive plus feedback, combining interventions of arms 2 and 3; (5) reframed incentive plus feedback, with a maximum $7.15 award each week, framed as participant\'s to lose; and (6) doubled reframed incentive plus feedback, a maximum $14.29 weekly loss-framed award.
UNASSIGNED: Proportion of drive time engaged in handheld phone use in seconds per hour (s/h) of driving. Analyses were conducted with the intention-to-treat approach.
UNASSIGNED: Of 17 663 customers invited by email to participate, 2109 opted in and were randomized. A total of 2020 drivers finished the intervention period (68.0% female; median age, 30 [IQR, 25-39] years). Median baseline handheld phone use was 216 (IQR, 72-480) s/h. Relative to control, feedback and standard incentive participants did not reduce their handheld phone use. Standard incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -38 (95% CI, -69 to -8) s/h (P = .045); reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -56 (95% CI, -87 to -26) s/h (P < .001); and doubled reframed incentive plus feedback participants reduced their use by -42 s/h (95% CI, -72 to -13 s/h; P = .007). The 5 active treatment arms did not differ significantly from each other.
UNASSIGNED: In this randomized clinical trial, providing social comparison feedback plus incentives reduced handheld phone use while individuals were driving.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03833219.

This article presents a different experiment examining the impact of feedback timing on its perception. Dialog sequences, featuring a main speaker\'s utterance followed by a listener\'s feedback, were extracted from spontaneous conversations. The original feedback instances were manipulated to be produced earlier, up to 1.5 s in advance, or to be delayed, up to 2 s later. Participants evaluated the feedback acceptability and engagement level of the listener. The findings reveal that 76% of the time feedback remains acceptable regardless of the delay. However, engagement decreases after a 1-s delay while no consistent effect is observed for feedback anticipation.

UNASSIGNED: The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public\'s evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond.
UNASSIGNED: To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories.
UNASSIGNED: At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with \'superficial\' and \'deep\' evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists.
UNASSIGNED: We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.

UNASSIGNED: To investigate the effects of concurrent sensorimotor training (SMT) and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) on the anticipatory and compensatory postural adjustments (APAs and CPAs) in patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).
UNASSIGNED: The interventions included (1) SMT plus tDCS and (2) SMT plus sham tDCS. Outcome measures were the normalized integrals of electromyography activity (NIEMG) during the phases of anticipatory and compensatory, and muscle onset latency. The investigated muscles were ipsilateral and contralateral multifidus (MF), transversus abdominus/internal oblique (TrA/IO), and gluteus medius (GM).
UNASSIGNED: Between-group comparisons demonstrated that ipsilateral TrA/IO NIEMG during CPA1 (p = 0.010) and ipsilateral GM NIEMG during CPA1 (p = 0.002) and CPA2 (p = 0.025) were significantly lower in the SMT combined with tDCS than in the control group. Furthermore, this group had greater NIEMG for contralateral GM during APA1 than the control group (p = 0.032). Moreover, the onset latency of contralateral TrA/IO was significantly earlier after SMT combined with tDCS (p = 0.011).
UNASSIGNED: Both groups that received SMT showed positive effects, but anodal tDCS had an added value over sham stimulation for improving postural control strategies in patients with CLBP. Indeed, SMT combined with tDCS leads to stronger APA and less demand for CPA.
UNASSIGNED: IRCT20220228054149N1.
UNASSIGNED: 2022-04-04.
Evidence suggests that reduced excitability in the sensory and motor cortex is linked to chronic and recurring lower back pain.Increasing the excitability of these two areas using anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS), in conjunction with sensorimotor training (SMT), may improve anticipatory and compensatory postural control strategies.This study showed that the combination of SMT with tDCS targeting the sensory and motor cortex notably enhances motor preparation and refines postural control strategies in patients with chronic unilateral lumbar radiculopathy.Rehabilitation professionals are encouraged to integrate SMT with tDCS into treatment protocols to enhance the ability of individuals with back pain to handle postural disturbances in daily life, thereby potentially alleviating the persistence of their symptoms.Incorporating brain stimulation enhances the effectiveness of SMT for patients with chronic unilateral lumbar radiculopathy.