BackgroundTo reduce inter-rater variability in evaluations and the demand on physician time, standardized patients (SP) are being used as examiners in OSCEs. There is concern that SP have insufficient training to provide valid evaluation of student competence and/or provide feedback on clinical skills. It is also unknown if SP ratings predict student competence in other areas. The objectives of this study were: to examine student attitudes towards SP examiners; to compare SP and physician evaluations of competence; and to compare predictive validity of these scores, using performance on the multiple choice questions examination (MCQE) as the outcome variable.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study of third-year medical students undergoing an OSCE during the Internal Medicine clerkship rotation. Fifty-two students rotated through 8 stations (6 physician, 2 SP examiners). Statistical tests used were Pearson's correlation coefficient, two-sample t-test, effect size calculation, and multiple linear regression.ResultsMost students reported that SP stations were less stressful, that SP were as good as physicians in giving feedback, and that SP were sufficiently trained to judge clinical skills. SP scored students higher than physicians (mean 90.4% +/- 8.9 vs. 82.2% +/- 3.7, d = 1.5, p < 0.001) and there was a weak correlation between the SP and physician scores (coefficient 0.4, p = 0.003). Physician scores were predictive of summative MCQE scores (regression coefficient = 0.88 [0.15, 1.61], P = 0.019) but there was no relationship between SP scores and summative MCQE scores (regression coefficient = -0.23, P = 0.133).ConclusionThese results suggest that SP examiners are acceptable to medical students, SP rate students higher than physicians and, unlike physician scores, SP scores are not related to other measures of competence.
Background: Small randomized trials demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature reduced the average drop in intradialytic blood pressure. Some observational studies demonstrated that a lower compared with higher dialysate temperature was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality. There is now the need for a large randomized trial that compares the effect of a low vs high dialysate temperature on major cardiovascular outcomes. Objective: The purpose of this study is to test the effect of outpatient hemodialysis centers randomized to (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol for 4 years on cardiovascular-related death and hospitalizations. Design: The design of the study is a pragmatic, registry-based, open-label, cluster randomized controlled trial. Setting: Hemodialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, were randomized on February 1, 2017, for a trial start date of April 3, 2017, and end date of March 31, 2021. Participants: In total, 84 hemodialysis centers will care for approximately 15 500 patients and provide over 4 million dialysis sessions over a 4-year follow-up. Intervention: Hemodialysis centers were randomized (1:1) to provide (1) a personalized temperature-reduced dialysate protocol or (2) a standard-temperature dialysate protocol of 36.5°C. For the personalized protocol, nurses set the dialysate temperature between 0.5°C and 0.9°C below the patient’s predialysis body temperature for each dialysis session, to a minimum dialysate temperature of 35.5°C. Primary outcome: A composite of cardiovascular-related death or major cardiovascular-related hospitalization (a hospital admission with myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or ischemic stroke) captured in Ontario health care administrative databases. Planned primary analysis: The primary analysis will follow an intent-to-treat approach. The hazard ratio of time-to-first event will be estimated from a Cox model. Within-center correlation will be considered using a robust sandwich estimator. Observation time will be censored on the trial end date or when patients die from a noncardiovascular event. Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov ; identifier: NCT02628366.
Introduction Though understudied in the context of AIDS, use of withdrawal (coitus interruptus) with or in place of other prevention methods affects exposure to both pregnancy and HIV. Aim We used mixed methods to assess use of withdrawal among 15–24 year-olds in a rural Ugandan setting with considerable HIV prevalence. Methods We measured withdrawal reporting among 1) sexually active 15–24 year-olds enrolled in a quantitative community survey (n=6722) and 2) in-depth qualitative interview participants systematically selected from the latest round of the community survey (N=60). Respondents were asked about family planning and HIV prevention practices, including a direct question about withdrawal in the in-depth interviews. Main Outcome Measures Reports of current use of withdrawal on the quantitative survey (general question about family planning methods) and reports of current or recent use withdrawal in qualitative interviews (specific question about withdrawal). Qualitative interviews also probed for factors associated with withdrawal use. Results Although less than 1% of quantitative survey participants spontaneously named withdrawal as their current family planning method, 48% of qualitative interview respondents reported current or lifetime use of withdrawal. Withdrawal was often used as a pleasurable alternative to condoms, when condoms were not available, and/or as a “placeholder” method before obtaining injectable contraception. A few respondents described using withdrawal to reduce HIV risk. Conclusion Qualitative findings revealed widespread withdrawal use among young adults in Rakai, mainly as a condom alternative. Thus, withdrawal may shape exposure to both pregnancy and HIV. Future behavioral surveys should assess withdrawal practices directly—and separately from other contraceptives and HIV prevention methods. Further clinical research should further document withdrawal’s association with HIV risk.
This pilot study demonstrates that CNI-free regimens can be safely implemented in patients receiving ECD kidneys with excellent two-yr patient and graft survival and good renal allograft function. Longer follow-up in larger randomized controlled trials are necessary to establish these findings.
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.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.