Consensus of Official Position of IOF/ISCD FRAX Initiatives in Asia-Pacific Region.

The fracture risk assessment tool (FRAX(®)) has been developed for the identification of individuals with high risk of fracture in whom treatment to prevent fractures would be appropriate. FRAX models are not yet available for all countries or ethnicities, but surrogate models can be used within regions with similar fracture risk. The International Society for Clinical Densitometry (ISCD) and International Osteoporosis Foundation (IOF) are nonprofit multidisciplinary international professional organizations. Their visions are to advance the awareness, education, prevention, and treatment of osteoporosis. In November 2010, the IOF/ISCD FRAX initiative was held in Bucharest, bringing together international experts to review and create evidence-based official positions guiding clinicians for the practical use of FRAX. A consensus meeting of the Asia-Pacific (AP) Panel of the ISCD recently reviewed the most current Official Positions of the Joint Official Positions of ISCD and IOF on FRAX in view of the different population characteristics and health standards in the AP regions. The reviewed position statements included not only the key spectrum of positions but also unique concerns in AP regions.

Opinions and attitudes of a sample of Swiss physicians about physical activity promotion in a primary care setting

Little is known about the opinions, beliefs and behavior of Swiss physicians regarding physical activity (PA) promotion in a primary care setting. A qualitative study was performed with semi-structured interviews. We purposively recruited and interviewed 16 physicians in the French speaking part of Switzerland. Their statements and ideas regarding the promotion of PA in a primary care setting were transcribed and synthesized from the tape recorded interviews. Les opinions, les représentations et les comportements des médecins suisses en matière de promotion de l'activité physique au cabinet médical restent largement méconnus en Suisse. Une étude qualitative a été réalisée au moyen d'entretiens semi-structurés. Nous avons intentionnellement recruté et interviewé 16 médecins en Suisse romande. Leurs opinions et attitudes concernant la promotion de l'activité physique au cabinet médical ont été transcrites et synthétisées à partir de l'enregistrement de ces entretiens.

Le Q-sort, un outil pour la recherche en soins le cas des représentations chez les infirmiers en psychiatrie de l'âge avancé [Q-sort, a useful research method in care in cases of psychiatric nursing of the aged]

Q-sort is a research method which allows defining profiles of attitudes toward a set of statements, ordered in relation to each other. Pertaining to the Q Methodology, the qualitative analysis of the Q-sorts is based on quantitative techniques. This method is of particular interest for research in health professions, a field in which attitudes of patients and professionals are very important. The method is presented in this article, along with an example of application in nursing in old age psychiatry.

Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Major depressive disorders in the general hospital: how to implement guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: An implementation study that evaluated the impact of previously adopted guidelines on the clinical practice of medical residents was conducted to improve the recognition and treatment of major depressive disorders (MDDs) in hospitalized patients with somatic diseases. METHODS: Guidelines were implemented in two wards (ENT and oncology) using intranet diffusion, interactive sessions with medical residents, and support material. Discharge letters of 337 and 325 patients, before and after the intervention, respectively, were checked for statement of diagnosis or treatment of MDDs and, in a post hoc analysis, for any mention about psychiatric management. RESULTS: No difference was found in the number of diagnosed or treated MDDs before and after the intervention. However, significantly more statements about psychological status (29/309 vs. 13/327) and its management (36/309 vs. 19/327) were observed after the intervention (P<.01). CONCLUSION: The intervention was not successful in improving the management of MDDs. However, a possible effect on general psychological aspects of medical diseases was observed.

Biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation.

BACKGROUND: A possible strategy for increasing smoking cessation rates could be to provide smokers who have contact with healthcare systems with feedback on the biomedical or potential future effects of smoking, e.g. measurement of exhaled carbon monoxide (CO), lung function, or genetic susceptibility to lung cancer. We reviewed systematically data on smoking cessation rates from controlled trials that used biomedical risk assessment and feedback. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of biomedical risk assessment provided in addition to various levels of counselling, as a contributing aid to smoking cessation. SEARCH STRATEGY: We systematically searched he Cochrane Collaboration Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (1966 to 2004), and EMBASE (1980 to 2004). We combined methodological terms with terms related to smoking cessation counselling and biomedical measurements. SELECTION CRITERIA: Inclusion criteria were: a randomized controlled trial design; subjects participating in smoking cessation interventions; interventions based on a biomedical test to increase motivation to quit; control groups receiving all other components of intervention; an outcome of smoking cessation rate at least six months after the start of the intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two assessors independently conducted data extraction on each paper, with disagreements resolved by consensus. MAIN RESULTS: From 4049 retrieved references, we selected 170 for full text assessment. We retained eight trials for data extraction and analysis. One of the eight used CO alone and CO + Genetic Susceptibility as two different intervention groups, giving rise to three possible comparisons. Three of the trials isolated the effect of exhaled CO on smoking cessation rates resulting in the following odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI): 0.73 (0.38 to 1.39), 0.93 (0.62 to 1.41), and 1.18 (0.84 to 1.64). Combining CO measurement with genetic susceptibility gave an OR of 0.58 (0.29 to 1.19). Exhaled CO measurement and spirometry were used together in three trials, resulting in the following ORs (95% CI): 0.6 (0.25 to 1.46), 2.45 (0.73 to 8.25), and 3.50 (0.88 to 13.92). Spirometry results alone were used in one other trial with an OR of 1.21 (0.60 to 2.42).Two trials used other motivational feedback measures, with an OR of 0.80 (0.39 to 1.65) for genetic susceptibility to lung cancer alone, and 3.15 (1.06 to 9.31) for ultrasonography of carotid and femoral arteries performed in light smokers (average 10 to 12 cigarettes a day). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Due to the scarcity of evidence of sufficient quality, we can make no definitive statements about the effectiveness of biomedical risk assessment as an aid for smoking cessation. Current evidence of lower quality does not however support the hypothesis that biomedical risk assessment increases smoking cessation in comparison with standard treatment. Only two studies were similar enough in term of recruitment, setting, and intervention to allow pooling of data and meta-analysis.