Conectar
There are estimated to be 3.4 million patients in the UK living after a diagnosis of cancer. We know very little about their quality of life or healthcare usage. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools which help to translate a patient’s quality of life into measurable categories, but how to do this at scale remains underexplored. The study employs a randomised design to assess different engagement strategies for optimising participation, data linkage and questionnaire completion in Northwest London and then nationally, with appropriate research approvals.
We have designed and implemented an online, patient-completed, randomised observational trial. We will pilot it in Northwest London before national roll-out, using initially the General Practice (GP) record of a cancer diagnosis and then exploring the use of social media. The primary objective is to explore the feasibility of recruiting participants via self-identification or contact from the primary care research network and obtaining consent to link participants’ PROMs responses to their cancer registry records. Data collection occurs through a secure platform, with participants directly responsible for data entry. There is no formal target sample size because this is a feasibility study, and we want to explore how many patients we can recruit. Analyses will be conducted using descriptive statistics, repeated measures multilevel modelling and machine learning techniques. If a substantial difference in responses between randomisation arms is detected, ineffective strategies will be removed. If no clear difference is observed, recruitment will continue with periodic reviews based on response rates and data completeness.
The Study Coordination Centre has obtained approval from the London—Surrey Research Ethics Committee and Health Research Authority. We will publish and disseminate the results in local, national and international meetings, in peer-reviewed journals, on social media and on websites.
It has been registered under ‘Investigating Digital Outcomes for Cancer Survivors in the Community’ (NCT06095024).
NCT06095024: Investigating Digital Outcomes for Cancer Survivors in the Community.
To present the pooled estimated prevalence of adverse events in pronated intubated adult COVID-19 patients.
A systematic review and meta-analysis.
This study used the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS, Livivo, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases as data sources.
The studies were meta-analysed using JAMOVI 1.6.15 software. A random-effects model was used to identify the global prevalence of adverse events, confidence intervals and the heterogeneity data. Risk of bias was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, and the certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach.
Of the 7904 studies identified, 169 were included for full reading, and 10 were included in the review. The most prevalent adverse events were pressure injuries (59%), haemodynamic instability (23%), death (17%) and device loss or traction (9%).
The most prevalent adverse events in mechanically ventilated pronated patients with COVID-19 are pressure injuries, presence of haemodynamic instability, death and device loss or traction.
The evidence identified in this review can help improve the quality and safety of patient care by helping to design care protocols to avoid the development of adverse events that can cause permanent sequelae in these patients.
This systematic review addressed the adverse events related to prone position in intubated adult COVID-19 patients. We identified that the most prevalent adverse events in these patients were pressure injuries, haemodynamic instability, device loss or traction and death. The results of this review may influence the clinical practice of nurses who work in intensive care units and, consequently, the nursing care provided not only to COVID-19 patients but for all intubated patients due to other reasons in intensive care units.
This systematic review adhered to the PRISMA reporting guideline.
As this is a systematic review, we analysed data from primary studies conducted by many researchers. Thus, there was no patient or public contribution in this review.
FreshRSS 