Prenatal Substance Use and Perceptions of Parent and Partner Use Using the 4P’s Plus Screener

Maternal and Child Health Journal - Background Prenatal substance use screening is recommended. The 4 P’s Plus screener includes questions on perceived problematic substance use in parents...     

Action research methodology in clinical pharmacy: how to involve and change

Introduction The focus in clinical pharmacy practice is and has for the last 30–35 years been on changing the role of pharmacy staff into service orientation and patient counselling. One way of doing this is by involving staff in change process and as a researcher to take part in the change process by establishing partnerships with staff. On the background of the authors’ widespread action research (AR)-based experiences, recommendations and comments for how to conduct an AR-study is described, and one of their AR-based studies illustrate the methodology and the research methods used. Methodology AR is defined as an approach to research which is based on a problem-solving relationship between researchers and clients, which aims at both solving a problem and at collaboratively generating new knowledge. Research questions relevant in AR-studies are: what was the working process in this change oriented study? What learning and/or changes took place? What challenges/pitfalls had to be overcome? What were the influence/consequences for the involved parts? When to use If you want to implement new services and want to involve staff and others in the process, an AR methodology is very suitable. The basic advantages of doing AR-based studies are grounded in their participatory and democratic basis and their starting point in problems experienced in practice. Limitations Some of the limitations in AR-studies are that neither of the participants in a project steering group are the only ones to decide. Furthermore, the collective process makes the decision-making procedures relatively complex.

     

Liver Fibrosis in HIV Patients Receiving a Modern cART: Which Factors Play a Role?

Liver-related death in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals is about 10 times higher compared with the general population, and the prevalence of significant liver fibrosis in those with HIV approaches 15%. The present study aimed to assess risk factors for development of hepatic fibrosis in HIV patients receiving a modern combination anti-retroviral therapy (cART).This cross-sectional prospective study included 432 HIV patients, of which 68 (16%) patients were anti-hepatitis C virus (HCV) positive and 23 (5%) were HBsAg positive.Health trajectory including clinical characteristics and liver fibrosis stage assessed by transient elastography were collected at inclusion. Liver stiffness values >7.1 kPa were considered as significant fibrosis, while values >12.5 kPa were defined as severe fibrosis. Logistic regression and Cox regression uni- and multivariate analyses were performed to identify independent factors associated with liver fibrosis.Significant liver fibrosis was detected in 10% of HIV mono-infected, in 37% of HCV co-infected patients, and in 18% of hepatitis B virus co-infected patients. The presence of diabetes mellitus (odds ratio [OR] = 4.6) and FIB4 score (OR = 2.4) were independently associated with presence of significant fibrosis in the whole cohort. Similarly, diabetes mellitus (OR = 5.4), adiposity (OR = 4.6), and the FIB4 score (OR = 3.3) were independently associated with significant fibrosis in HIV mono-infected patients. Importantly, cumulative cART duration protected, whereas persistent HIV viral replication promoted the development of significant liver fibrosis along the duration of HIV infection.Our findings strongly indicate that besides known risk factors like metabolic disorders, HIV may also have a direct effect on fibrogenesis. Successful cART leading to complete suppression of HIV replication might protect from development of liver fibrosis.     

Prevalence and Predictors of Quality of Recovery at Home After Day Surgery

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL).The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day.Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery.A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models.The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.