METHODS: Several methods were implemented. Firstly, a modified Delphi process for the contextualisation of learning outcomes was implemented with a purposefully sampled expert group of Malaysian Family Medicine Specialists. Secondly a small group review for supporting materials was undertaken. Finally, qualitative data in relation to the family medicine specialists' experiences of the processes was collected via online questionnaire and analysed via template analysis. Descriptive statistics were used.
RESULTS: Learning outcomes were reviewed over three rounds; 95.9% (1691/1763) of the learning outcomes were accepted without modification, with the remainder requiring additions, modifications, or deletions. Supporting materials were extensively altered by the expert group. Template analysis showed that Family Medicine Specialists related positively to their involvement in the process, commenting on the amount of similarity in the medical curriculum whilst recognising differences in disease profiles and cultural approaches.
CONCLUSIONS: Learning outcomes and associated material were transferable between "home" and "host" institution. Where differences were discovered this novel approach places "host" practitioners' experiences and knowledge central to the adaptation process, thereby rendering a fit for purpose curriculum. Host satisfaction with the outcome of the processes, as well as ancillary benefits were clearly identified.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of psychological interventions on psychological morbidities and quality of life among women with non-metastatic breast cancer. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov up to 16 March 2021. We also scanned the reference lists of relevant articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently appraised, extracted data from eligible trials, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Any disagreement was resolved by discussion. Extracted data included information about participants, methods, the intervention and outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 60 randomised controlled trials comprising 7998 participants. The most frequent reasons for exclusion were non-randomised trials and the inclusion of women with metastatic disease. The updated review included 7998 randomised women; the original review included 3940 women. A wide range of interventions was evaluated. Most interventions were cognitive- or mindfulness-based, supportive-expressive, and educational. The interventions were mainly delivered face-to-face (56 studies) and in groups (50 studies) rather than individually (10 studies). Most intervention sessions were delivered on a weekly basis with an average duration of 14 hours. Follow-up time ranged from two weeks to 24 months. Pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) from baseline indicated that the intervention may reduce depression (SMD -0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.52 to -0.02; P = 0.04; 27 studies, 3321 participants, I2 = 91%, low-certainty evidence); anxiety (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.17; P = 0.0009; 22 studies, 2702 participants, I2 = 89%, low-certainty evidence); mood disturbance in the intervention group (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.04; P = 0.009; 13 studies, 2276 participants, I2 = 56%, low-certainty evidence); and stress (SMD -0.34, 95% (CI) -0.55 to -0.12; P = 0.002; 8 studies, 564 participants, I2 = 31%, low-certainty evidence). The intervention is likely to improve quality of life in the intervention group (SMD 0.78, 95% (CI) 0.32 to 1.24; P = 0.0008; 20 studies, 1747 participants, I2 = 95%, low-certainty evidence). Adverse events were not reported in any of the included studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the available evidence, psychological intervention may have produced favourable effects on psychological outcomes, in particular depression, anxiety, mood disturbance and stress. There was also an improvement in quality of life in the psychological intervention group compared to control group. Overall, there was substantial variation across the studies in the range of psychological interventions used, control conditions, measures of the same outcome and timing of follow-up.
METHODS: This study will use a multicentre, open-label non-inferiority trial design comparing cefiderocol and standard of care antibiotics. Eligible participants will be adult inpatients who are diagnosed with a bloodstream infection with a Gram-negative organism on the basis of a positive blood culture result where the acquisition meets the definition for healthcare-associated or hospital-acquired. It will compare cefiderocol with the current standard of care (SOC) antibiotic regimen according to the patient's treating clinician. Eligible participants will be randomised 1:1 to cefiderocol or SOC and receive 5-14 days of antibiotic therapy. Trial recruitment will occur in at least 20 sites in ten countries (Australia, Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey and Greece). The sample size has been derived from an estimated 14 day, all-cause mortality rate of 10% in the control group, and a non-inferiority margin of 10% difference in the two groups. A minimum of 284 patients are required in total to achieve 80% power with a two-sided alpha level of 0.05. Data describing demographic information, risk factors, concomitant antibiotics, illness scores, microbiology, multidrug-resistant organism screening, discharge and mortality will be collected.
DISCUSSION: With increasing antimicrobial resistance, there is a need for the development of new antibiotics with broad activity against Gram-negative pathogens such as cefiderocol. By selecting a population at risk for multi-drug-resistant pathogens and commencing study treatment early in the clinical illness (within 48 h of index blood culture) the trial hopes to provide guidance to clinicians of the efficacy of this novel agent.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The GAME CHANGER trial is registered under the US National Institute of Health ClinicalTrials.gov register, reference number NCT03869437 . Registered on March 11, 2019.