To improve the visibility and accessibility of secure inpatients’ physical health needs by measuring staff satisfaction levels towards physical health information and monitoring.

Through purposive sampling we conducted a five-point Likert Scale on members of the multidisciplinary team (MDT) on one medium-secure forensic ward, within Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust, which provides 124 forensic inpatient beds to southeast London. We collated physical health data from across electronic patient records to create a single-point-of-access workspace on Microsoft OneNote, accessible to all members of the MDT contemporaneously, comprising past medical history, psychotropics requiring close monitoring (e.g. lithium, clozapine, valproate), vital signs, weight, bloodwork, electrocardiogram findings, hospital appointments/results and cancer screening.

We re-sampled members of the ward MDT after the workspace had been created and implemented.

Nine members of the multidisciplinary team were sampled before and after the OneNote workspace was implemented.

• • Pre-intervention, 56% disagreed that they were confident in quickly viewing recent investigation results. Post-intervention, 99% of users agreed/strongly agreed, with no negative responses.

• • Pre-intervention, 67% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were confident in knowing what physical health appointments were scheduled. Post-intervention, 100% of respondents agreed/strongly agreed.

• • Pre-intervention, 78% disagreed or strongly disagreed that they were happy with the availability of past medical history information. Post-intervention, this increased to 99% agreed/strongly agreed.

• • Pre-intervention, 89% disagreed/strongly disagreed that they knew where to see patients on psychotropics requiring close monitoring. Post-intervention, this increased to 100% strongly agreed.

• • Pre-intervention, 66% disagreed/strongly disagreed being able to see single-point, up-to-date physical health information, at baseline. This increased to 99% agreed/strongly agreed post-intervention.

Physical health information is often overlooked in secure inpatient settings. Due to the limitations of the electronic patient record, it can be difficult to find relevant physical health information quickly. This can lead to dissatisfaction and a lack of confidence in the MDT, as shown in the baseline data.

After the Microsoft OneNote dashboard was introduced, there was a marked improvement in staff confidence, happiness, and awareness of physical health requirements for each patient.

Further data needs to be collected to assess for sustainability of these improvements. We intend to expand the scope of this system across the secure inpatient units in the Trust.

This systematic review aimed to quantify the prevalence of substance use among female sex workers (FSWs) in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Design: The review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021242048). We searched Ovid, PubMed and Web of Science databases for peer-reviewed, quantitative studies from inception to 6th March 2023. Study designs included: cross-sectional, case–control, cohort study, case series analysis, or experimental studies. Study quality was assessed using the Centre for Evidence-Based Management (CEBM) Critical Appraisal Tool.

Setting: FSWs in LMICs.

Participants/Inclusion criteria: any measure of prevalence or incidence of substance use (not alcohol or tobacco) among FSWs aged 18+ years.

Measurements: A narrative synthesis was conducted across all studies meeting the inclusion criteria. Pooled prevalence estimates for ‘ever’ and ‘recent’ drug use were calculated using a random effects model.

3135 papers were identified; 161 papers reporting on 102 studies with 167,333 FSWs from 39 LMICs met the inclusion criteria. 26 studies scored high, 61 scored moderate, and 15 scored in the lower quality range. Only 4/102 studies used a validated measurement tool to assess levels of substance use dependence. The mean age of study participants was 28.9 years (SD 7.7). The pooled prevalence for recent (past month to past year) substance use among FSWs in LMICs is: illicit drug use 29% (95% CI: 14–34%), cannabis 20% (95% CI: 8–30%), cocaine 21% (95% CI: 9–32%), amphetamine type stimulants 19% (95% CI: 12–26%), opioids 8% (95% CI: 4–12%), sedatives and sleeping pills 6% (95% CI: 0–12%), inhalants 4% (95% CI: –4–12%), hallucinogens 0% (95% CI: 0–0%), and recent drug use during sex work 42% (95% CI: 15%–68%). Only 5/102 studies reported a substance use intervention. Key study limitations include the lack of a validated measurement tool by most studies (96%) meaning it was not possible to distinguish between any drug use vs. harmful drug use. The criminalisation of drug use may have led to under-reporting and an underestimate of true substance use prevalences.

FSWs in LMICs report a high prevalence of recent drug use – including during sex work – with cannabis, cocaine and amphetamine type stimulants the most commonly used. There is an urgent need for effective low-cost substance use interventions. Future studies should use validated substance-use measurement tools to assess the burden of substance use disorders.

Antipsychotic-induced weight gain (AIWG) is a substantial contributor to high obesity rates in psychiatry. Limited management guidance exists to inform clinical practice, and individuals with experience of managing AIWG have had no or minimal input into its development. A lack of empirical research outlining patient values and preferences for management also exists. Recommendations addressing weight management in psychiatry may be distinctly susceptible to ideology and sociocultural values regarding intervention appropriateness and expectations of self-management, reinforcing the need for co-produced management guidance. This study is the first to ask: how do individuals conceptualise preferred AIWG management and how can this be realised in practice?

1. Explore the management experiences of individuals with unwanted AIWG. 2. Elicit their values and preferences regarding preferred management.

Qualitative descriptive methodology informed study design. A total of 17 participants took part in semi-structured interviews. Data analysis was undertaken using reflexive thematic analysis.

Participants reported that clinicians largely overestimated AIWG manageability using dietary and lifestyle changes. They also reported difficulties accessing alternative management interventions, including a change in antipsychotic and/or pharmacological adjuncts. Participants reported current management guidance is oversimplified, lacks the specificity and scope required, and endorses a ‘one-size-fits-all’ management approach to an extensively heterogenous side-effect. Participants expressed a preference for collaborative AIWG management and guidance that prioritises early intervention using the range of evidence-based management interventions, tailored according to AIWG risk, participant ability and participant preference.

Integration of this research into guideline development will help ensure recommendations are relevant and applicable, and that individual preferences are represented.

The study examined resources needed by Infection Preventionists (IP) to address infection prevention and control (IPC) program gaps.

A 49-question survey.

Licensed Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs) in Federal Emergency Management Area (FEMA) Region VII.

IP at licensed CAHs.

The survey conducted between December 2020 and January 2021 consisted of questions focusing on four categories including IPC program infrastructure, competency-based training, audit and feedback, and identification of high-risk pathogens/serious communicable diseases (HRP/SCD). An IPC score was calculated for each facility by totaling “Yes” responses (which indicate best practices) to 49 main survey questions. Follow-up questions explored the resources needed by the CAHs to implement or further strengthen best practices and mitigate IPC practice gaps. Welch t-test was used to study differences in IPC practice scores between states.

50 of 259 (19.3%) CAHs participated in the survey with 37 (14.3%) answering all 49 questions. CAHs responding to all questions had a median IPC score of 35. There was no significant difference between IPC practice scores of CAHs in NE and IA. The top three IPC gaps were absence of drug diversion program (77%), lack of audits and feedback for insertion and maintenance of central venous catheters (76%), and missing laboratory risk assessments to identify tests that can be offered safely for patients under investigation for HRP/SCD (76%). Standardized audit tools, educational resources, and staff training materials were cited as much-needed resources.

IPC practice gaps exist in CAHs. Various resources are needed for gap mitigation.

Huntington’s disease (HD) is a neurodegenerative disease characterised by motor, psychiatric and cognitive decline. Currently, no treatments have been identified in HD for slowing down cognitive decline or improving cognitive function. We are interested in identifying potentially modifiable factors in HD that can be targeted to improve or maintain cognitive function. Sleep and circadian disruption stand out as possible modifiable targets because sleep and circadian symptoms are common in HD, and such disruptions are known to impact cognition in the general population. Despite some emerging evidence that sleep quality correlates with cognition in manifest HD, whether these same relationships exist in the premanifest period is unknown. Further, whether circadian rhythms relate to cognition in premanifest HD remains open. Therefore, we aimed to determine whether sleep and circadian parameters relate to cognitive performance in premanifest HD.

To date, we have recruited 27 premanifest HD participants to a two-week remote sleep study. During the study, participants wore an Actiwatch-2 and completed a sleep diary for 14 consecutive days to assess their sleep and rest-activity patterns. Participants also completed online sleep and mood questionnaires and a cognitive assessment using videoconference. We calculated Pearson correlations to examine whether cognitive performance relates to subjective sleep quality, objective sleep parameters and circadian rest-activity rhythms. Thus far, we have analysed data from 15 female participants with premanifest HD (Mage = 43.20, SD = 11.58).

Preliminary results indicate that measures of subjective sleep quality, insomnia severity, daytime sleepiness, and fatigue severity in premanifest HD do not correlate with cognitive performance. Increases in objectively measured sleep efficiency, however, strongly correlated with better performance on the Hopkins-Verbal Learning Test-Revised (HVLT-R) immediate (r = 0.562, p < 0.05) and delayed recall trials (r = 0.597, p < 0.05) and the Trail Making Test Part B (TMT-B; r = 0.550, p < 0.05). More time spent awake (i.e., wake after sleep onset) was strongly linked to reduced performance on the TMT-B (r = -0.542, p < 0.05) and Symbol Digit Modalities Test (r = -0.556, p < 0.05). Further, increases in total sleep time were associated with better performance on the HVLT-R immediate (r = 0.682, p < 0.05) and delayed recall trial (r = 0.616, p < 0.05). For our circadian parameters, less fragmented day-today rest-activity rhythms (i.e., higher intra-daily variability) strongly correlated with higher scores on the HVLT-R immediate (r = 0.768, p < 0.001) delayed recall trials (r = 0.7276, p < 0.05) and TMT-B (r = 0.516, p < 0.05), whereas consistent and stable day-to-day rest-activity rhythms (i.e., higher inter-daily stability) was associated with poorer performance on ERT (r = -0.587, p < 0.05).

Preliminary results suggest that fragmented sleep, sleep inefficiency, reduced total sleep time, rest-activity rhythm stability and fragmentation relate to poorer cognitive performance in people with premanifest HD. Should analysis of our whole sample confirm these preliminary findings, targeting sleep in HD (e.g., through sleep hygiene and/or psychoeducation) may be a useful strategy to improve or maintain cognition.

Epilepsy is the third most common neurological disorder among older adults, and as adults are living longer, the incidence of epilepsy is increasing (Kun Lee, 2019). The purpose of this study is to examine 1. differences in quality of life (QOL) between older and younger adults with medically intractable epilepsy and 2. the impact of seizure frequency, seizure duration, depression, sex, and marital status on QOL. Given differences in the prevalence rates of depression between men and women and importance of depression in QOL, we predicted that sex and marital status would moderate the effect of depression on total QOL (TQOL).

Hypothesis I: Compared to younger adults, older adults with epilepsy will report lower TQOL scores and lower scores on subscales measuring energy/fatigue, cognition, and medication effects. Hypothesis II: Seizure variables and depression will significantly account for TQOL scores in both groups (younger and older) above demographic variables (sex, marital status, and education). Hypothesis III: Sex will moderate the effect of depression in both groups and marital status will moderate the effect of depression only in the older adults.

Participants were 607 adults (> 18 years old) who were prospective candidates for epilepsy surgery and underwent a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation including QOL assessment using the Quality of Life in Epilepsy Scale-31 (QOLIE-31). Individuals were grouped by older (> 50 years old; N = 122) and younger adults (< 50 years old; N = 485). Hierarchical regression was used to examine the proposed associations.

Hypothesis I: In contrast to our hypothesis, a one-way ANOVA did not reveal significant differences between the older and younger groups on the QOL subscales, TQOL, or depression.

Hypothesis II: For older adults, longer seizure duration was associated with better TQOL; bivariate correlations showed no evidence of statistical suppression. Higher depression scores were associated with worse TQOL. Overall, the model accounted for 39.6% of variance among older adults. For younger adults, only depression was a significant predictor of TQOL wherein higher depression scores were associated with worse TQOL. Overall, the model accounted for 36.1% of the variance among younger adults. Hypothesis III: There was no moderation between depression and marital status in older or younger adults (b = -.009, p > .05). There was multicollinearity evidenced by VIF (variance inflation factor) greater than 10, so the associations between depression and sex could not be examined.

Overall, there were no significant differences between QOL in younger versus older adults. Greater depression symptoms were associated with lower TQOL in both groups. Longer seizure duration was a significant predictor of better TQOL in older adults only, perhaps indicating better adjustment to having a seizure disorder with longer duration of epilepsy. Lastly, marital status did not moderate the effects of depression on TQOL and the moderating effects of sex on TQOL could not be assessed due to multicollinearity. Study limitations include dichotomizing the sample into these particular age groups and the heterogeneity of seizure types.

Although some animal research suggests possible sex differences in response to THC exposure (e.g., Cooper & Craft, 2018), there are limited human studies. One study found that among individuals rarely using cannabis, when given similar amounts of oral and vaporized THC females report greater subjective intoxication compared to males (Sholler et al., 2020). However, in a study of daily users, females reported indistinguishable levels of intoxication compared to males after smoking similar amounts (Cooper & Haney, 2014), while males and females using 1–4x/week showed similar levels of intoxication, despite females having lower blood THC and metabolite concentrations (Matheson et al., 2020). It is important to elucidate sex differences in biological indicators of cannabis intoxication given potential driving/workplace implications as states increasingly legalize use. The current study examined if when closely matching males and females on cannabis use variables there are predictable sex differences in residual whole blood THC and metabolite concentrations, and THC/metabolites, subjective appraisals of intoxication, and driving performance following acute cannabis consumption.

The current study was part of a randomized clinical trial (Marcotte et al., 2022). Participants smoked ad libitum THC cigarettes and then completed driving simulations, blood draws, and subjective measures of intoxication. The main outcomes were the change in Composite Drive Score (CDS; global measure of driving performance) from baseline, whole blood THC, 11-OH-THC, and THC-COOH levels (ng/mL), and subjective ratings of how “high” participants felt (0 = not at all, 100 = extremely). For this analysis of participants receiving active THC, males were matched to females on 1) estimated THC exposure (g) in the last 6 months (24M, 24F) or 2) whole blood THC concentrations immediately post-smoking (23M, 23F).

When matched on THC exposure in the past 6 months (overall mean of 46 grams; p = .99), there were no sex differences in any cannabinoid/metabolite concentrations at baseline (all p > .83) or after cannabis administration (all p > .72). Nor were there differences in the change in CDS from pre-to-post-smoking (p = .26) or subjective “highness” ratings (p = .53). When matched on whole blood THC concentrations immediately after smoking (mean of 34 ng/mL for both sexes, p = .99), no differences were found in CDS change from pre-to-post smoking (p = .81), THC metabolite concentrations (all p > .25), or subjective “highness” ratings (p = .56). For both analyses, males and females did not differ in BMI (both p > .7).

When male/female cannabis users are well-matched on use history, we find no significant differences in cannabinoid concentrations following a mean of 5 days of abstinence, suggesting that there are no clear biological differences in carryover residual effects. We also find no significant sex differences following ad libitum smoking in driving performance, subjective ratings of “highness,” nor whole blood THC and metabolite concentrations, indicating that there are no biological differences in acute response to THC. This improves upon previous research by closely matching participants over a wider range of use intensity variables, although the small sample size precludes definitive conclusions.

Systematic reviews are important for informing decision-making and primary research, but they can be time consuming and costly. With the advent of machine learning, there is an opportunity to accelerate the review process in study screening. We aimed to understand the literature to make decisions about the use of machine learning for screening in our review workflow.

A pragmatic literature review of PubMed to obtain studies evaluating the accuracy of publicly available machine learning screening tools. A single reviewer used ‘snowballing’ searches to identify studies reporting accuracy data and extracted the sensitivity (ability to correctly identify included studies for a review) and specificity, or workload saved (ability to correctly exclude irrelevant studies).

Ten tools (AbstractR, ASReview Lab, Cochrane RCT classifier, Concept encoder, Dpedia, DistillerAI, Rayyan, Research Screener, Robot Analyst, SWIFT-active screener) were evaluated in a total of 16 studies. Fourteen studies were single arm where, although compared with a reference standard (predominantly single reviewer screening), there was no other comparator. Two studies were comparative, where tools were compared with other tools as well as a reference standard. All tools ranked records by probability of inclusion and either (i) applied a cut-point to exclude records or (ii) were used to rank and re-rank records during screening iterations, with screening continuing until most relevant records were obtained. The accuracy of tools varied widely between different studies and review projects. When used in method (ii), at 95 percent to 100 percent sensitivity, tools achieved workload savings of between 7 percent and 99 percent. It was unclear whether evaluations were conducted independent of tool developers.

Evaluations suggest the potential for tools to correctly classify studies in screening. However, conclusions are limited since (i) tool accuracy is generally not compared with dual reviewer screening and (ii) the literature lacks comparative studies and, because of between-study heterogeneity, it is not possible to robustly determine the accuracy of tools compared with each other. Independent evaluations are needed.

The Northern Region Clinical Practice Committee (NRCPC) conducts hospital-based health technology assessments (HTA) to provide advice to hospital managers regarding both the implementation of new technologies and the configuration of existing services. To assist in the comparison of dissimilar health technologies applied across different disciplines and different hospitals, the NRCPC developed a prioritization tool. This abstract reports the use of the tool over the 17-year period that the committee has been in operation.

The score given to each HTA depends on cost-utility, predicted health improvements and the quality of evidence. In addition to the scoring tool, editorial notes are provided to contextualize the agreed score and to explain the NRCPCs interpretation of the evidence.

Most of the time hospital managers have made decisions concordant with the recommendations of the NRCPC; submissions are recommended to be implemented, declined, or receive interim approval with data collection. The latter often occurs when there are uncertainties about efficacy, but no (or very few) safety concerns, or where there are uncertainties about whether the proposed costs are reproducible in the hospital setting. In these cases, management responses often require submitters to undertake a limited number of cases and collect data for audit over a one-to two-year period. Low-scoring submissions are often declined, whereas high-scoring submissions have not been declined to date. The interim approval (with data collection) strategy has had variable outcomes based on the willingness of the implementing clinicians to collect accurate data about both costs and outcomes. From 2005 to 2022, the NRCPC received 146 submissions. This poster reports graphical representations of the decisions made over the NRCPCs period of operation.

The NRCPC scoring tool has been successful to date in providing a framework for decision makers to allow consistent, unbiased and objective assessments of dissimilar technologies. Prioritization tools in hospital-based HTA are beneficial to decision makers in hospital settings.

This project aimed to identify methodological issues reported by Evidence Review Groups (ERGs) in the systematic reviews (SR) supporting single technology appraisal (STA) submissions to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). STA submissions contain SRs related to the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the proposed intervention and NICE require the methods for these reviews to be clearly detailed in the submission. The intention of this project was to identify methodological aspects of submissions where companies may need additional guidance or support to provide the evidence required for efficient and effective decision-making and in turn facilitate timely access to clinical innovation.

From 2019, 61 STAs were identified from the NICE website, of which 46 were included. We extracted information about the data requests or clarification questions raised by the ERG in relation to the methodological section of both the clinical and cost effectiveness SRs reported in the STA. We then categorized these data and grouped by theme to determine the most common methodological issues faced by companies. We did not assess whether comments made by the ERG were accurate or justified.

For both clinical and cost-effectiveness SRs, the most frequent clarification questions arose from the search methods section, specifically seeking information about missing intervention or comparator terms, the use of search filters and search platforms. Clarification questions were also commonly asked about the appropriateness of interventions and comparators. There were very few clarification questions asked about screening, data extraction or risk of bias assessment.

Companies looking to submit an STA should align their submission methodology to established best practice guidance for systematic reviewing to ensure their methods are fit for purpose and avoid unnecessary delays to the STA process. Consistency with the PRISMA reporting standards would help ensure that the ERG is provided with the information needed to assess the appropriateness of the STA methodology and is likely to reduce the need for clarification questions.