IntroductionVarious forms of videoconferenced collaborations exist in oncology care. In regional oncology networks, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are essential in coordinating care in their region. There is no recent overview of the benefits and drawbacks of videoconferenced collaborations in oncology care networks. This scoping review presents an overview of videoconferencing (VC) in oncology care and summarises its benefits and drawbacks regarding decision-making and care coordination.DesignWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL (nursing and allied health) and the Cochrane Library from inception to October 2020 for studies that included VC use in discussing treatment plans and coordinating care in oncology networks between teams at different sites. Two reviewers performed data extraction and thematic analyses.ResultsFifty studies were included. Six types of collaboration between teams using VC in oncology care were distinguished, ranging from MDTs collaborating with similar teams or with national or international experts to interactions between palliative care nurses and experts in that field. Patient benefits were less travel for diagnosis, better coordination of care, better access to scarce facilities and treatment in their own community. Benefits for healthcare professionals were optimised treatment plans through multidisciplinary discussion of complex cases, an ability to inform all healthcare professionals simultaneously, enhanced care coordination, less travel and continued medical education. VC added to the regular workload in preparing for discussions and increased administrative preparation.DiscussionBenefits and drawbacks for collaborating teams were tied to general VC use. VC enabled better use of staff time and reduced the time spent travelling. VC equipment costs and lack of reimbursement were implementation barriers.ConclusionVC is highly useful for various types of collaboration in oncology networks and improves decision-making over treatment plans and care coordination, with substantial benefits for patients and specialists. Drawbacks are additional time related to administrative preparation.
IntroductionCurrently, risk stratification is the cornerstone of determining treatment strategy for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Since the 2015 European Society of Cardiology/European Respiratory Society (ESC/ERS) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension recommended risk assessment, the number of studies reporting risk stratification has considerably increased. This systematic review aims to report and compare the variables and prognostic value of the various risk stratification models for outcome prediction in adult and pediatric PAH.MethodsA systematic search with terms related to PAH, pediatric pulmonary hypertension, and risk stratification was performed through databases PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to June 8, 2022. Observational studies and clinical trials on risk stratification in adult and pediatric PAH were included, excluding case reports/series, guidelines, and reviews. Risk of bias was assessed using the Prediction model Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool. Data on the variables used in the models and the predictive strength of the models given by c-statistic were extracted from eligible studies.ResultsA total of 74 studies were eligible for inclusion, with this review focusing on model development (n = 21), model validation (n = 13), and model enhancement (n = 9). The variables used most often in current risk stratification models were the non-invasive WHO functional class, 6-minute walk distance and BNP/NT-proBNP, and the invasive mean right atrial pressure, cardiac index and mixed venous oxygen saturation. C-statistics of current risk stratification models range from 0.56 to 0.83 in adults and from 0.69 to 0.78 in children (only two studies available). Risk stratification models focusing solely on echocardiographic parameters or biomarkers have also been reported.ConclusionStudies reporting risk stratification in pediatric PAH are scarce. This systematic review provides an overview of current data on risk stratification models and its value for guiding treatment strategies in PAH.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022316885], identifier [CRD42022316885].
The University of Groningen (UG) and the University Medical Centre Groningen (UMCG) have committed themselves to the Dutch National Open Science Plan. In addition, external research funders are increasingly demanding that research articles are published open access (e.g. through Plan S). In 2018, 50% of UG/UMCG-scientific articles were published open access. However, have we used all options for publishing open access in venues chosen by researchers, thereby maintaining the researchers’ quality standards, and reducing the costs as much as possible? The answer is "no." To maximize the open access uptake, while making the workflow as smooth as possible for researchers, the University Library and Central Medical Library have started an Open Access Services (OAS) project with the following objectives: Implementation of services for the provision of practical information and advice for researchers Establish communication channels to increase the overall visibility of open access services and to issue regular updates on changes and innovations in scholarly communication and open science; Provide information on available options, costs, copyright, licences, re-use rights and funders’ requirements, pre-funded open access deals and submission workflows; Establishment of expert networks for the provision of strategic information and advice: open access ambassadors (academic staff and/or research policy officers) within faculties to multiply and disseminate between the OAS project team and individual researchers, research committees and faculty boards; support staff (research policy officers, funding officers, financial controllers), e.g. to include open access budgeting in grant applications; open access experts to identify obstacles to publish open access, and advise to eliminate them and advocate for policy changes with regard to research evaluation practices. Establishment of an open access training programme for young researchers Create and implement a programme of regular presentations and tutorials for young researchers about publication strategies and open access; Development of optimal workflows for monitoring and registering open access uptake and expenditures Registration of open access expenditures, including cost of pre-funded deals, support for diamond OA initiatives, unnecessary paid APCs and reimbursed by funders (grant budgets). Identification of missed opportunities to publish open access using pre-funded read and publish deals and repair them retroactively whenever possible. Improvement of standards for the registration of open access publications in the university’s CRIS system. Organization of UG’s participation in the Taverne Amendment pilot project i.e. the implementation of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act. Provision of extra support for open access publishing services offered by the UG Press Professionalize and improve the publishing services offered, to support diamond open access initiatives, with special emphasis on the humanities and social sciences. We will present on the main outcomes of this project.
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.