Suchergebnisse

Summary: Individuals with low socio-economic status (SES) have a higher risk of dying following hip fracture compared with individuals with high SES. Evidence on social inequalities in non-hip fractures is lacking as well as evidence on the impact of SES on health-related quality of life post fracture. Introduction: Fragility fractures, especially of the hip, cause substantial excess mortality and impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between socio-economic status (SES) and post-fracture mortality and HRQoL. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to the last week of November 2018 for studies reporting an association between SES and post-fracture mortality and/or HRQoL among people aged ≥ 50 years. Risk ratios (RRs) were meta-analyzed using a standard inverse-variance-weighted random effects model. Studies using individual-level and area-based SES measures were analyzed separately. Results: A total of 24 studies from 15 different countries and involving more than one million patients with hip fractures were included. The overall risk of mortality within 1-year post-hip fracture in individuals with low SES was 24% higher than in individuals with high SES (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.29) for individual-level SES measures, and 14% (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19) for area-based SES measures. The quality of the evidence for the outcome mortality was moderate. Using individual SES measures, we estimated the excess HRQoL loss to be 5% (95% CI − 1 to 10%) among hip fracture patients with low SES compared with high SES. Conclusions: We found a consistently increased risk of post-hip fracture mortality with low SES across SES measures and across countries with different political structures and different health and social care infrastructures. The impact of SES on post-fracture HRQoL remains uncertain due to sparse and low-quality evidence.

SUMMARY: Individuals with low socio-economic status (SES) have a higher risk of dying following hip fracture compared with individuals with high SES. Evidence on social inequalities in non-hip fractures is lacking as well as evidence on the impact of SES on health-related quality of life post fracture. INTRODUCTION: Fragility fractures, especially of the hip, cause substantial excess mortality and impairment in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to investigate the association between socio-economic status (SES) and post-fracture mortality and HRQoL. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE and CINAHL databases were searched from inception to the last week of November 2018 for studies reporting an association between SES and post-fracture mortality and/or HRQoL among people aged ≥ 50 years. Risk ratios (RRs) were meta-analyzed using a standard inverse-variance-weighted random effects model. Studies using individual-level and area-based SES measures were analyzed separately. RESULTS: A total of 24 studies from 15 different countries and involving more than one million patients with hip fractures were included. The overall risk of mortality within 1-year post-hip fracture in individuals with low SES was 24% higher than in individuals with high SES (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.29) for individual-level SES measures, and 14% (RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.19) for area-based SES measures. The quality of the evidence for the outcome mortality was moderate. Using individual SES measures, we estimated the excess HRQoL loss to be 5% (95% CI - 1 to 10%) among hip fracture patients with low SES compared with high SES. CONCLUSIONS: We found a consistently increased risk of post-hip fracture mortality with low SES across SES measures and across countries with different political structures and different health and social care infrastructures. The impact of SES on post-fracture HRQoL remains uncertain due to sparse and low-quality evidence.

<i>Background:</i> As newborn screening (NBS) expands to meet a broader definition of benefit, the scope of parental consent warrants reconsideration. <i>Methods:</i> We conducted a mixed methods study of health care provider attitudes toward consent for NBS, including a survey (n = 1,615) and semi-structured interviews (n = 36). <i>Results:</i> Consent practices and attitudes varied by provider but the majority supported mandatory screening (63.4%) and only 36.6% supported some form of parental discretion. Few health care providers (18.6%) supported seeking explicit consent for screening condition-by-condition, but a larger minority (39.6%) supported seeking consent for the disclosure of incidentally generated sickle cell carrier results. Qualitative findings illuminate these preferences: respondents who favored consent emphasized its ease while dissenters saw consent as highly complex. <i>Conclusion:</i> Few providers supported explicit consent for NBS. Further, those who supported consent viewed it as a simple process. Arguably, these attitudes reflect the public health emergency NBS once was, rather than the public health service it has become. The complexity of NBS panels may have to be aligned with providers' capacity to implement screening appropriately, or providers will need sufficient resources to engage in a more nuanced approach to consent for expanded NBS.

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available. In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice. The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the ...