Therapy with oral oseltamivir and inhaled zanamivir may provide a net benefit over no treatment of influenza. However, as with the randomized trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision making is low to very low. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCES: World Health Organization and McMaster University.

BackgroundCancer is the leading cause of death in the developed world, and yet healthcare practitioners infrequently discuss goals of care (GoC) with hospitalized cancer patients. We sought to identify barriers to GoC discussions from the perspectives of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and oncology nurses.MethodsThis was a single center survey of staff oncologists, oncology residents, and inpatient oncology nurses. Barriers to GoC discussions were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = extremely unimportant; 7 = extremely important).ResultsBetween July 2013 and May 2014, of 185 eligible oncology clinicians, 30 staff oncologists, 10 oncology residents, and 28 oncology nurses returned surveys (response rate of 37%). The most important barriers to GoC discussions were patient and family factors. They included family members’ difficulty accepting poor prognoses (mean score 5.9, 95% CI [5.7, 6.2]), lack of family agreement in the goals of care (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.5, 6.1]), difficulty understanding the limitations of life-sustaining treatments (mean score 5.8, 95% CI [5.6, 6.1]), lack of patients’ capacity to make goals of care decisions (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.5, 6.0]), and language barriers (mean score 5.7, 95% CI [5.4, 5.9]). Participants viewed system factors and healthcare provider factors as less important barriers.ConclusionsOncology practitioners perceive patient and family factors as the most limiting barriers to GoC discussions. Our findings underscore the need for oncology clinicians to be equipped with strong communication skills to help patients and families navigate GoC discussions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12885-019-5333-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Observational practice that includes errors improves the global performance aspects of clinical skill learning as long as learners are given confirmation that what they are observing is errorful. These findings provide a refined perspective on the optimal organisation of skill education programmes that combine physical and observational practice activities.

Despite the use of antivirals to treat patients with severe influenza, questions remain with respect to effects and safety. Although a recent systematic review has provided some indication of benefit, the analysis is limited by the quality of the available evidence from randomized controlled trials. To supplement the existing information, the authors conducted a systematic review of observational studies of antiviral treatment for influenza. This report summarises the findings of that review. Similar to the randomised trials, the confidence in the estimates of the effects for decision‐making is low to very low primarily due to the risk of selection and publication bias in the observational studies. From these observational studies, the summary estimates suggest that oseltamivir may reduce mortality, hospitalisation and duration of symptoms compared with no treatment. Inhaled zanamivir may also reduce symptom duration and hospitalisations, but patients may experience more complications compared with no treatment. Earlier treatment with antivirals is generally associated with better outcomes than later treatment. Further high‐quality evidence is needed to inform treatment guidelines because of the overall low to very low quality of evidence.

BackgroundInvestigators often face challenges when recruiting participants into randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Some data suggest that telephone reminders may lead to greater participant enrollment.MethodsPatients aged 50 to 70 years from family practice rosters were initially mailed invitations to participate in an RCT of colorectal cancer screening. Patients who did not respond were randomly allocated to follow-up invitations by either telephone or mail four weeks after the initial invitation. The primary outcome was attendance for eligibility screening with the study nurse.ResultsAfter mailing invitations to 1,348 patients, 104 patients were initially enrolled in the RCT of colon cancer screening. Of 952 patients who did not respond to the initial mailed invitation, we randomly allocated 480 to follow-up invitation by telephone and 472 to follow-up invitation by mail. Attendance for eligibility screening with the study nurse was more frequent when non-responders were followed-up by telephone (84/480, 17.5%) than by mail (43/472, 9.1%) (relative risk (RR) 1.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.71, P < 0.001). Enrollment into the RCT was also greater among patients followed-up by telephone (59/480, 12.3%) compared to those followed-up by mail (35/472, 7.4%) (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.47, P=0.01).ConclusionsTelephone-based follow-up results in greater enrollment compared to a mail-based method. Our findings should be of interest to investigators conducting RCTs, particularly trials of screening interventions involving asymptomatic participants for which volunteer participation may be challenging.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00865527