Conectar
To investigate associations between shift work patterns and sleep disturbance, and to assess if the association is modified by demographic factors, socioeconomic factors, anthropometric and lifestyle factors, health conditions or sleep traits.
Analysis of cross-sectional data obtained from the UK Biobank baseline assessment.
UK Biobank, a large-scale prospective cohort study which recruited half a million participants aged 40–69 years between 2006 and 2010 from across the UK.
A total of 285 175 employed or self-employed participants at baseline (2006–2010), including 148 296 (52.0%) females and 136 879 (48.0%) males. The sample comprised 94.0% White, 0.7% Mixed race, 0.36% East Asian, 2.0% South Asian, 1.8% Black and 0.89% from other ethnic backgrounds.
Sleep disturbance was defined as the presence of both insomnia and excessive sleepiness symptoms.
A total of 42 181 (14.8%) participants had sleep disturbance defined based on insomnia and excessive sleepiness. 236 200 (82.8%) were non-shift workers, while 48 975 (17.2%) were shift workers, which included 24 062 (49.1%) working day shifts only, 17 940 (36.6%) working night shifts sometimes or usually, and 6973 (14.2%) working night shifts always. Compared with non-shift workers, all shift workers had higher multivariable-adjusted odds of sleep disturbance: (non-night shifts: OR in model 3 (OR) 1.21 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.27); sometimes/usually night shifts: OR 1.37 (95% CI 1.30 to 1.44) and always night shifts: OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.38 to 1.63)). The association between shift work pattern and sleep disturbance was modified by age (pinteractioninteraction=0.0005) and smoking status (pinteraction=0.04).
Shift work is associated with a higher odds of sleep disturbance compared with non-shift work in all participants, with greatest odds observed among those always working night shifts. The association was stronger among individuals who were younger than 55 years old, from an ethnic minority background and never smokers. Future large-scale longitudinal studies are needed to further investigate these associations.
To explore the optimal timing of patient-reported outcome assessment, defined as the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes at clinically meaningful points such as before or during encounters, treatment initiation and follow-up, and to identify the facilitators and barriers to timely use.
A qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals across diverse US health systems.
Thematic analysis was used to identify key themes related to the timing and implementation of patient-reported outcomes assessments. Interviews were analysed iteratively to develop a coding framework and synthesise overarching themes.
Fourteen healthcare professionals, including nurse practitioners, cardiologists and health informatics experts across seven U.S. health systems from academic and community hospitals, were interviewed in February 2024. Three major themes emerged: (1) value proposition of timely patient-reported outcome data collection (2) key facilitators for timely implementation and (3) multilevel barriers. The value proposition focused on the use of patient-reported outcomes for prevention and active disease management. Critical facilitators for the timely implementation of patient-reported outcomes included the involvement of research and clinical coordinators, strategies for pre-visit and on-site patient-reported outcome collection, the use of standardised templates within EHRs and the alignment of patient-reported outcome collection with patients' long-term treatment goals. Finally, multilevel barriers included time constraints, patient-level challenges (e.g., fatigue, literacy, language) and systemic issues (e.g., technical limitations, lack of reimbursement and unclear guidelines).
Timely collection and use of patient-reported outcomes is critical for improving symptom monitoring and supporting patient-centered clinical decision-making. However, multilevel barriers hinder consistent implementation across health care settings.
Integrating patient-reported outcomes into clinical workflows can improve the patient-centeredness of patient-healthcare professional interactions, and provide a more holistic picture of a patient's health status. Addressing barriers to patient-reported outcome implementation, including lack of time, poor health literacy and workflow integration barriers, is crucial for improving clinical outcomes.
This study adhered to the COREQ (Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research) checklist, in accordance with EQUATOR Network guidelines.
No patient or public involvement: This study did not include patient or public involvement in its design, conduct or reporting.
Taking multiple medicines can be appropriate but has the potential to be problematic. The Implementing Stimulating Innovation in the Management of Polypharmacy and Adherence THrough the Years (iSIMPATHY) project used the 7-Steps person-centred approach for medication reviews, supporting patients and clinicians to define and achieve realistic goals for drug treatment, and helping enable patients to lead healthy and active lives.
To assess the impact of pharmacist-led comprehensive person-centred medication reviews using the 7-Steps methodology.
iSIMPATHY sought to transform the approach to optimisation of medicinces through the delivery of person-centred medication reviews for people taking multiple medicines in primary care, hospital and outpatient clinics. The reviews were conducted by embedding a single approach for polypharmacy management, building on key recommendations from SIMPATHY.
Interventions made were graded, with 82% being classified as clinically significant and 4% potentially preventing major organ failure, adverse drug reactions or incidents of similar clinical importance. The average number of medications reduced from 12 to 11, with 92% of the reviews resulting in more appropriate medication use, thereby decreasing the likelihood of medication-related harm. Inappropriate medicines were stopped, reduced or altered to improve appropriateness. There were significant healthcare resource utilisation benefits as indicated by a positive return on investment for both medication and healthcare costs with a quality-adjusted life year gain of 7.4 per 100 patients.
Pharmacist-led, person-centred medication review using the 7-Steps approach was delivered across jurisdictions and healthcare settings, with positive impacts on the number and appropriateness of medicines, clinical interventions and cost savings outweighing expenditure on the service. The approach is scalable by means of the tools and resources developed over the duration of the project.
As care and rehabilitation poststroke are increasingly moving into persons’ home environment, the importance of support from social networks in self-management and rehabilitation has emerged as an important topic for research and practice. While there are instruments used to assess social support and collective efficacy, a clearer scope of the availability and quality of these instruments is needed. This clarification will enable the development of interventions integrating social network perspectives in poststroke rehabilitation.
To assess the availability and quality of instruments assessing social support and collective efficacy, a scoping review will be conducted and reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines (PRISMA-ScR). Literature searches conducted between 14 November 2024 and 15 November 2024 in the CINAHL and PubMed/Medline databases resulted in 4631 articles potentially eligible. After removing duplicates, 4121 articles’ titles and abstracts were initially screened. Full-text screening, searches of reference lists and data extraction started in June 2025. Starting August 2025, two reviewers will assess the full texts against the inclusion criteria in Covidence using a coding template. Identified instruments will be appraised following the COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments guidelines) and analysed using a narrative descriptive method. Results will be reported in February 2026 according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines.
Ethical approval is not required for this scoping review, as it does not involve primary data. However, this review follows established ethical guidelines and best practices, and included studies will be reviewed to ensure that they received ethical approval and included informed consent. Results from the review will be disseminated through an article in a scientific journal, at relevant conferences and surmised to stroke organisations. A policy brief will be developed for health and social care professionals and policy makers.
FreshRSS 