BackgroundIn Quebec, the influenza A (H1N1) pandemic was managed using a top-down style that left many involved players with critical views and frustrations. We aimed to describe physicians' perceptions - infectious diseases specialists/medical microbiologists (IDMM) and public health/preventive medicine specialists (PHPMS) - in regards to issues encountered with the pandemics management at the physician level and highlight suggested improvements for future healthcare emergencies.MethodsIn April 2010, Quebec IDMM and PHPMS physicians were invited to anonymously complete a web-based learning needs assessment. The survey included both open-ended and multiple-choice questions. Descriptive statistics were used to report on the frequency distribution of multiple choice responses whereas thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data generated from the survey and help understand respondents' experience and perceptions with the pandemics.ResultsOf the 102 respondents, 85.3% reported difficulties or frustrations in their practice during the pandemic. The thematic analysis revealed two core themes describing the problems experienced in the pandemic management: coordination and resource-related difficulties. Coordination issues included communication, clinical practice guidelines, decision-making, roles and responsibilities, epidemiological investigation, and public health expert advisory committees. Resources issues included laboratory resources, patient management, and vaccination process.ConclusionTogether, the quantitative and qualitative data suggest a need for improved coordination, a better definition of roles and responsibilities, increased use of information technologies, merged communications, and transparency in the decisional process. Increased flexibility and less contradiction in clinical practice guidelines from different sources and increased laboratory/clinical capacity were felt critical to the proper management of infectious disease emergencies.
Introduction: The use of pharmacological and behavioural therapies has been shown to help smokers quit. However, the efficacy of combining smoking cessation therapies remains poorly understood. We conducteda systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with factorial designs to assess the efficacy of combination smoking cessation therapies.Methods: We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and PubMed databases for RCTs of combination therapies for smoking cessation. We included RCTs with factorial designs,reporting biochemically validated point prevalence or continuous abstinence outcomes at 6 or 12 months.Combination therapies were either two pharmacotherapies or apharmacotherapy with behavioural therapy.Pharmacotherapies included nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs), bupropion, and varenicline. Behavioural therapies included counselling and minimal intervention.Results: A total of 11 RCTs met our inclusion criteria: 4 combinations of pharmacotherapies and 7 combinations of a pharmacotherapy with behavioural intervention. Combinations were two NRTs (2 RCTs), bupropion with NRT (3 RCTs), bupropion with behavioural intervention (4 RCTs), and NRT with behavioural intervention (3 RCTs). No identified trials combined varenicline with other included pharmacotherapies. Combining pharmacotherapies did not increase smoking abstinence at 6 or 12 months, compared with pharmacologicalmonotherapies. Evidence suggests a modest yet inconsistent benefit from combining pharmacotherapy withbehavioural therapy.Conclusion: Evidence from RCTs with factorial designs does not conclusively show combination smoking cessation therapies to be superior to monotherapies. Pharmacotherapies could be prescribed without behavioural therapy, with minimal loss of treatment efficacy.Key words: Smoking cessation, combination therapy, systematic review
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.