Motivational interviewing for maternal Immunizations: Intervention development

Background and ObjectiveVaccine uptake during pregnancy remains low. Our objectives were to describe 1) development and adaptation of a clinician communication training intervention for maternal immunizations and 2) obstetrics and gynecology (ob-gyn) clinician and staff perspectives on the intervention and fit for the prenatal care context.MethodsDesign of the Motivational Interviewing for Maternal Immunizations (MI4MI) intervention was based on similar communication training interventions for pediatric settings and included presumptive initiation of vaccine recommendations (“You’re due for two vaccines today”) combined with motivational interviewing (MI) for hesitant patients. Interviews and focus group discussions were conducted with ob-gyn clinicians and staff in five Colorado clinics including settings with obstetric physicians, certified nurse midwives (CNMs), and clinician-trainees. Participants were asked about adapting training to the ob-gyn setting and their implementation experiences. Feedback was incorporated through iterative changes to training components.ResultsInterview and focus group discussion results from participants before (n = 3), during (n = 11) and after (n = 25) implementation guided intervention development and adaptation. Three virtual, asynchronous training components were created: a video and two interactive modules. This virtual format was favored due to challenges attending group meetings; however, participants noted opportunities to practice skills through role-play were lacking. Training modules were adapted to include common challenging vaccine conversations and live-action videos. Participants liked interactive training components and use of adult learning strategies. Some participants initially resisted the presumptive approach but later found it useful after applying it in their practices. Overall, participants reported that MI4MI training fit well with the prenatal context and recommended more inclusion of non-clinician staff.ConclusionsMI4MI training was viewed as relevant and useful for ob-gyn clinicians and staff. Suggestions included making training more interactive, and including more complex scenarios and non-clinician staff.     

中低度近视FS-LASIK、SMILE及ICL植入术的效果比较

目的比较飞秒激光制瓣准分子激光原位角膜磨镶术(FS-LASIK)、全飞秒激光小切口角膜基质透镜取出术(SMILE)和有晶状体眼后房型人工晶状体(ICL V4c)植入术三者矫正中低度近视的效果。方法采用回顾性研究。以惠州爱尔眼科医院2019年6月至2020年4月矫正中低度近视120例(120眼)作为研究对象,受术者分为FS-LASIK组、SMILE组及ICL组,每组40例(40眼),各组分别接受相应的手术,术后随访3个月比较其矫正效果。结果术后1个月及3个月,3组间视力及有效性指数对比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);ICL组安全性指数高于SMILE组及FS-LASIK组(P<0.05)。术后3个月FS-LASIK组的三叶草像差、彗差和球差出现明显变化,而SMILE组的变化较小,ICL组变化最小(P<0.05)。结论对中低度近视FS-LASK、SMILE及ICL植入术三者均有确切疗效,而ICL V4c植入术的安全性最高,患者的视觉质量最好。     

Survival analysis of crown margin repair: A retrospective study in a dental school setting

BackgroundRepairing crowns with defective margins is minimally invasive and cost-effective compared with replacement. The authors’ objectives were to examine the survival trajectory of crown margin repairs and to determine the factors associated with survival.MethodsRecords of adult patients from January 2008 through August 2019 were reviewed for crown margin repairs completed at University of Iowa College of Dentistry. A total of 1,002 crown margin repairs were found. Each repair was followed through the end of study in 2019 or until an event (for example, additional repair, endodontic treatment, crown replacement, or extraction). A Cox proportional hazards model was used to study the relationship between selected covariates and time to event.ResultsDuring the follow-up period, 32.8% of the repairs needed reintervention. In the final model, repair material was the only significant covariate. No difference was found between the survival of repairs done with resin-modified glass ionomer and amalgam. However, the repairs done with resin-based composite and conventional glass ionomer were more likely (1.5 times: 95% CI, 1.02 to 2.10 times; and 2 times: 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.73 times, respectively) to need reintervention than were those done with amalgam.ConclusionsMedian survival time of crown margin repairs was 5.1 years (95% CI, 4.48 to 5.72 years). Median survival times for amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer, resin-based composite, and glass ionomer repair materials were 5.7 years (95% CI, 4.80 to 6.25 years), 5.3 years (95% CI, 4.73 to 6.34 years), 3.2 years (95% CI, 2.51 to 6.19 years), and 3.0 years (95% CI, 2.53 to 3.62 years), respectively.Practical ImplicationsWhen considering crown margin repairs, resin-modified glass ionomer or amalgam is preferable to resin-based composite or glass ionomer.     

Process evaluation of implementation strategies to reduce potentially inappropriate medication prescribing in older population: A scoping review

ObjectivesSeveral implementation strategies can reduce potentially inappropriate medication (PIM) prescribing. Although use of PIMs has declined in recent years, it remains prevalent. Various strategies exist to improve the appropriateness of medication use. However, little is known about the processes of these different implementation strategies. This scoping review aims to investigate how the process evaluation of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in the older population has been studied.MethodsWe searched for process evaluations of implementation strategies for reducing PIM prescribing in PUBMED, SCOPUS and Web of Science published between January 2000 and November 2019 in English. We applied the following inclusion criteria: patients aged ≥65 years, validated PIM criteria, and implementation process evaluated. The review focuses on decision support for health care professionals. We described the findings of the process evaluations, and compared the authors’ concepts of process evaluation of the included publications to those of Proctor et al.( 2010).ResultOf 9131 publications screened, 29 met our inclusion criteria. Different process evaluation conceptualizations were identified. Most process evaluations took place in the initial stages of the process (acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, and feasibility) and sustainability and implementation costs were seldom evaluated. None of the included publications evaluated fidelity.Multifaceted interventions were the most studied implementation strategies. Medication review was more common in acceptability evaluations, multidisciplinary interventions in adoption evaluations, and computerized systems and educational interventions in feasibility evaluations. Process evaluations were studied from the health care professionals’ viewpoint in most of the included publications, but the management viewpoint was missing.DiscussionThe conceptualization of process evaluation in the field of PIM prescribing is indeterminate. There is also a current gap in the knowledge of sustainability and implementation costs. Clarifying the conceptualization of implementation process evaluation is essential in order to effectively translate research knowledge into practice.