METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, Virtual Health Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct, and Embase. Article screening was independently performed by two reviewers. Studies assessing pharmacy students' knowledge of HIV prophylaxis were included. Data were extracted and organized into two categories: study characteristics (author, year, country, objectives, design, sample size, duration, and outcomes) and instrument characteristics (authors, year, country, instrument name, objective, description, type of assessment, mode of assessment, validation processes, and experimental phase).
RESULTS: Eight studies were identified, including one from Malaysia and seven from the United States, involving 1,797 students. All studies employed cross-sectional designs, and only one assessed knowledge retention through an intervention. Eight assessment instruments were identified: six focused on PrEP, one on PEP, and one on both. Some studies demonstrated substantial knowledge and confidence in PrEP, but significant gaps were found in PEP awareness, access to prophylaxis, and familiarity with prescribing guidelines.
CONCLUSIONS: There is a notable shortage of assessment tools for PEP. Further research is needed to develop validated instruments that measure knowledge and address educational gaps. Longitudinal studies with pre- and post-tests are crucial to evaluate educational interventions and enhance pharmacy students' preparedness for HIV prophylaxis.
METHODS: This prospective study utilized the direct observation technique where the preparation and administration of 222 intravenous medications were observed in the EDs of two hospitals in Malaysia. Information on medication preparation, administration, and other procedures was recorded. Error rates were calculated, and multivariable logistic regression was conducted to identify factors contributing to intravenous MAEs.
RESULTS: MAEs were detected in 83.3% (185/222) of the observed medications affecting 86.7% (124/143) patients. Among these, a total of 240 MAEs were identified, with the most common being wrong rate of administration (55.8%), wrong preparation technique (20.8%), and omission error (11.7%). Alimentary tract and metabolism medications accounted for the highest proportion of MAEs (52.0%), followed by anti-infective medications (21.7%) and nervous system medications (15.4%). Excluding wrong time errors reduced the error rate to 80.2% (178/222). Nonverbal orders and inadequate or absence of labelling were significantly associated with MAEs, while factors such as the complexity of preparations, working shift, experience, and high-alert medications showed no significant associations.
CONCLUSION: The study highlighted a high prevalence of intravenous MAEs in EDs. Nonverbal orders and inadequacy in labelling of medications were significant contributing factors to MAEs in the ED. Implementing an admixture labelling policy, comprehensive training programmes, strict enforcement of existing guidelines and protocols through regular audits, establishing nonpunitive error reporting system, and technological solutions where financially feasible are crucial for mitigating these errors to promote patient safety.
OBJECTIVE: To identify how to improve surveillance of movement behaviours, from the perspective of experts.
METHODS: This Delphi Study involved 62 experts from the SUNRISE International Study of Movement Behaviours in the Early Years and Active Healthy Kids Global Alliance (AHKGA). Two survey rounds were used, with items categorised under: (1) funding, (2) capacity building, (3) methods, and (4) other issues (e.g., policymaker awareness of relevant WHO Guidelines and Strategies). Expert participants ranked 40 items on a five-point Likert scale from 'extremely' to 'not at all' important. Consensus was defined as > 70% rating of 'extremely' or 'very' important.
RESULTS: We received 62 responses to round 1 of the survey and 59 to round 2. There was consensus for most items. The two highest rated round 2 items in each category were the following; for funding (1) it was greater funding for surveillance and public funding of surveillance; for capacity building (2) it was increased human capacity for surveillance (e.g. knowledge, skills) and regional or global partnerships to support national surveillance; for methods (3) it was standard protocols for surveillance measures and improved measurement method for screen time; and for other issues (4) it was greater awareness of physical activity guidelines and strategies from WHO and greater awareness of the importance of surveillance for NCD prevention. We generally found no significant differences in priorities between low-middle-income (n = 29) and high-income countries (n = 30) or between SUNRISE (n = 20), AHKGA (n = 26) or both (n = 13) initiatives. There was a lack of agreement on using private funding for surveillance or surveillance research.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a prioritised and international consensus list of actions required to improve surveillance of movement behaviours in children and adolescents globally.
METHODS: An international multidisciplinary Steering Committee with expertise in sepsis management and including a Delphi methodologist was convened by the Asia Pacific Sepsis Alliance (APSA). The committee selected an international panel of clinicians and researchers with expertise in sepsis management. A Delphi process based on an iterative approach was used to obtain the final consensus statements.
RESULTS: A stable consensus was achieved for 30 (94%) of the statements by 41 experts after four survey rounds. These include consensus on managing patients with sepsis outside a designated critical care area, triggers for escalating clinical management and criteria for safe transfer to another facility. The experts agreed on the following: in the absence of serum lactate, clinical parameters such as altered mental status, capillary refill time and urine output may be used to guide resuscitation; special considerations regarding the volume of fluid used for resuscitation, especially in tropical infections, including the use of simple tests to assess fluid responsiveness when facilities for advanced hemodynamic monitoring are limited; use of Ringer's lactate or Hartmann's solution as balanced salt solutions; epinephrine when norepinephrine or vasopressin are unavailable; and the administration of vasopressors via a peripheral vein if central venous access is unavailable or not feasible. Similarly, where facilities for investigation are unavailable, there was consensus for empirical antimicrobial administration without delay when sepsis was strongly suspected, as was the empirical use of antiparasitic agents in patients with suspicion of parasitic infections.
CONCLUSION: Using a Delphi method, international experts reached consensus to generate expert clinical practice statements providing guidance to clinicians worldwide on the management of sepsis in resource-limited settings. These statements complement existing guidelines where evidence is lacking and add relevant aspects of sepsis management that are not addressed by current international guidelines. Future studies are needed to assess the effects of these practice statements and address remaining uncertainties.
METHODS: With representation from Europe (43%; n = 133), North America (17%; n = 53), South America (16%; n = 49), Asia (13%; n = 40), Australasia (5%; n = 16), the Middle East (4%; n = 12), and Africa (2%; n = 6), the combined experience of treating bone sarcomas among attendees totalled approximately 30,000 cases annually, equivalent to 66 years of experience in the UK alone. The meeting's process began with the formation of a local organizing committee, regional leads, and a scientific committee comprising representatives from 150 specialist units across 47 countries. Supported by major orthopaedic oncology organizations, the meeting used a modified Delphi process to develop consensus statements through online questionnaires, thematic groupings, narrative reviews, and anonymous pre-meeting polling.
RESULTS: Strong (> 80%) consensus was achieved on 19 out of 21 statements, reflecting agreement among delegates. Key areas of consensus included the role of radiology in diagnosis and surveillance, the management of locally recurrent disease, and the treatment of dedifferentiated chondrosarcoma. Notably, there was agreement that routine chemotherapy has no role in chondrosarcoma treatment, and radiological surveillance is safe for intraosseous chondrosarcomas. Despite the overall consensus, areas of controversy remain, particularly regarding the treatment of atypical cartilage tumours and surgical margins. These unresolved issues underscore the need for further research and collaboration within the orthopaedic oncology community.
CONCLUSION: BOOM represents the largest global consensus meeting in orthopaedic oncology, providing valuable guidance for clinicians managing chondrosarcoma worldwide. The consensus statements offer a reference for clinical practice, highlight key research priorities, and aim to improve patient outcomes on a global scale.
METHODS: This cross-sectional, online survey-based study involved 15,302 employees from Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, and Vietnam who completed the Depression, Anxiety, Stress Scales (DASS-21), Thriving from Work Questionnaire (TfWQ), and sociodemographic measures. Employee productivity and turnover intention was also measured as a secondary outcome. Hierarchical regression models were conducted to determine the influence of EAP access on employee wellbeing. Subgroup analyses were conducted on employees with access to EAPs to explore how different forms of EAP services contribute to employee wellbeing.
RESULTS: Only 29.04% of employees in the region reported being aware of having access to any forms of EAP services provided by their employers. After controlling for sociodemographic variables, access to EAP was significantly associated with improved mental health, thriving, and productivity, and reduced turnover intention (p
METHODS: The development and validation of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit involved several key steps. First, a thorough review of the literature was conducted to identify the essential criteria for authentic assessment. Next, an analysis of medical students' reflection papers was undertaken to gain insights into their experiences using AI-powered tools for writing feedback. Based on these initial steps, a preliminary version of the self-assessment toolkit was devised. An expert focus group discussion was then convened to refine the questions and content of the toolkit. To assess content validity, the toolkit was evaluated by a panel of 22 medical student participants. They were asked to review each item and provide feedback on the relevance and comprehensiveness of the toolkit for evaluating academic writing skills. Face validity was also examined, with the students assessing the clarity, wording, and appropriateness of the toolkit items.
RESULTS: The content validity evaluation revealed that 95% of the toolkit items were rated as highly relevant, and 88% were deemed comprehensive in assessing key aspects of academic writing. Minor wording changes were suggested by the students to enhance clarity and interpretability. The face validity assessment found that 92% of the items were rated as unambiguous, with 90% considered appropriate and relevant for self-assessment. Feedback from the students led to the refinement of a few items to improve their clarity in the context of the Persian language. The robust reliability testing demonstrated the consistency and stability of the academic writing self-assessment toolkit in measuring students' writing skills over time.
CONCLUSION: The comprehensive evaluation process has established the academic writing self-assessment toolkit as a robust and credible instrument for supporting students' writing improvement. The toolkit's strong psychometric properties and user-centered design make it a valuable resource for enhancing academic writing skills in higher education.