Analysis 1.3. Comparison 1 Celecoxib versus placebo, Outcome 3 Number withdrawn due to adverse events.. .. Analysis 1.4. Comparison 1 Celecoxib versus placebo, Outcome 4 Number experiencing any serious adverse events.. Analysis 1.5. Comparison 1 Celecoxib versus placebo, Outcome 5 Number experiencing gastro-intestinal events

BackgroundOne form of self-medication is sharing of medications, defined as borrowing or lending medications in situations where the receiver of these drugs is not the individual to whom the medications were allocated.ObjectiveTo explore experiences and opinions of patients about sharing prescription analgesics, reasons for sharing prescription analgesics, the way in which patients choose to share those medications, their awareness of risk regarding sharing prescription analgesics, and how they estimated the potential risk.MethodsThis qualitative study was conducted by focus group discussions with 40 participants led by a moderator trained in focus group methodology using a semi-structured moderator guide. Adults aged ≥18 years who had received a prescription for an analgesic at least once in a lifetime were included. Six separate focus groups were conducted to discuss participants’ perception of risks associated with sharing of prescription analgesics among patients. Additionally, participants filled out two questionnaires on demographic data, their own behavior regarding sharing analgesics, and their attitudes about risks associated with sharing prescription analgesics.ResultsIn a questionnaire, 55% of the participants indicated that they personally shared prescription analgesics, while subsequently in the focus group discussions, 76% confessed to such behavior. Participants recognized certain risks related to sharing of prescription analgesics, mentioned a number of reasons for engaging in such behavior, and indicated certain positive aspects of such behavior. Forty-five percent of the participants indicated that sharing prescription analgesics is riskier than sharing nonprescription analgesics.ConclusionThere is a prevalent attitude among participants that sharing prescription analgesics is a positive behavior, where potential benefits outweigh risks.

Background: Cochrane systematic review Plain language Summaries (CSR PLSs should serve as a tool for the evidence translation to non-medical population. However, the evidence of optimal type of numerical presentation in CSR PLSs is still scarce. The aim of this study was to investigate readers' comprehension and preferences for different presentation of findings, including framing and numerical data, in Cochrane systematic review Plain Language Summaries (CSR PLSs). Methods: We conducted a parallel randomized trial and a crossover randomized trial at the School of Medicine and family practice offices in Split, Croatia. The participants were students and consumers. We assessed possible differences in comprehension, measured by four questions on PLS content, of CSR PLSs depending on the positive or negative framing of results (n = 91) (Trial 1) or using percentages or frequencies for the presentation of results (n = 245) (Trial 2). The outcome measures were comprehension of PLS content, perceived effectiveness of the treatment and readiness to use the treatment (all on 1-10 scales). Results: In Trial 1 we found no difference in readers' perception of the effectiveness of the described treatment, desire that the treatment be offered by their family doctor, readiness to use the treatment, or comprehension when CSR PLS results were presented positively or negatively. In Trial 2 we found no difference in CSR PLS comprehension when results were presented as natural frequencies or percentages (BF 10 = 0.62, Bayesian t-test for independent samples). Conclusions: Numerical presentation and framing direction of results appear to have no significant impact on understanding of messages in CSR PLSs.

Background Cochrane, an organization dedicated to the production and dissemination of high-quality evidence on health, endeavors to reach consumers by developing appropriate summary formats of its systematic reviews. However, the optimal type of presentation of evidence to consumers is still unknown. Objective The aim of this study was to investigate consumer preferences for different summary formats of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs), using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Methods Initially, we conducted three focus groups with medical students (n = 7), doctors (n = 4), and patients (n = 9) in 2017 to explore their health information search habits and preferences for CSR summary formats. Based on those findings, we conducted a randomized trial with medical students at the University of Split School of Medicine, Croatia, and with patients from three Dalmatian family practices to determine whether they prefer CSR blogshots (n = 115) or CSR plain language summaries (PLSs; n = 123). Results Participants in the focus groups favored brief and explicit CSR summary formats with fewer numbers. Although we found no difference in participants’ preferences for a specific summary format in the overall sample, subgroup analysis showed that patients preferred blogshots over PLSs in comparison to medical students (P = 0.003, eta squared effect size η2 = 0.04). Conclusion CSR summaries should be produced in a format that meets the expectations and needs of consumers. Use of blogshots as a summary format could enhance the dissemination of CSRs among patients. Trial registration The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03542201. Registered on May 31st 2018.

AimTo compare the distribution of cardiovascular disease (CVD) factors between continental and Mediterranean areas and urban and rural areas of Croatia, as well as to investigate the differences in achieving treatment goals by the general practitioners (GP) in different settings.MethodsA multicenter prospective study was performed on 2467 participants of both sexes ≥40 years old, who visited for any reason 59 general practices covering the whole area of Croatia (May-July 2008). The study was a part of the Cardiovascular Risk and Intervention Study in Croatia-family medicine (CRISIC-fm) study. Patients were interviewed using a 140-item questionnaire on socio-demographics and CVD risk factors. We measured body mass index (BMI) and waist circumference and determined biochemical variables including blood pressure, total, high-density lipoprotein-, and low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol, triglycerides, glycemia, and uric acid.ResultsParticipants from continental rural areas had significantly higher systolic and diastolic blood pressure (P < 0.001), obesity (P = 0.001), increased waist circumference (P < 0.001), and more intense physical activity (P = 0.020). Participants from coastal rural areas had higher HDL-cholesterol, participants from continental rural and coastal urban areas had higher LDL-cholesterol, and participants from rural continental had significantly higher BMI and waist circumference.ConclusionPrevalence of CVD risk factors in Croatian population is high. Greater burden of risk factors in continental region and rural areas may be partly explained by lifestyle differences.