Refine
Year of publication
- 2021 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3) (remove)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- efficacy (3) (remove)
Institute
School psychologists are asked to systematically evaluate the effects of their work to ensure quality standards. Given the different types of methods applied to different users of school psychology measuring the effects of school psychological services is a complex task. Thus, the focus of our scoping review was to systematically investigate the state of past research on the measurement of the effects of school psychological services published between 1998 and 2018 in eight major school psychological journals. Of the 5,048 peer-reviewed articles published within this period, 623 were coded by two independent raters as explicitly refering to school psychology or counseling in the school context in their titles or abstracts. However, only 22 included definitions of effects of school psychological services or described outcomes used to evaluate school psychological services based on full text screening. These findings revealed that measurement of the effects of school psychological services has not been a focus of research despite its' relevance in guidelines of school psychological practice.
Background: Tetracyclines and clindamycin plus rifampicin combination therapy are both considered first-line therapy in current hidradenitis suppurativa guidelines. However, evidence for their efficacy is drawn from small studies, often without validated outcomes. Objective: To assess the 12-week efficacy of oral tetracyclines and a combination of clindamycin and rifampicin. Methods: A prospective, international cohort study performed between October 2018 and August 2019. Results: In total, 63.6% of the included 283 patients received oral tetracyclines, and 36.4% were treated with clindamycin and rifampicin. Both groups showed a significant decrease in International Hidradenitis Suppurativa Severity Score System from baseline (both P < .001). The Hidradenitis Suppurativa Clinical Response (HiSCR) was achieved in 40.1% and 48.2% of patients, respectively (P = .26). Patient characteristics or disease severity were not associated with the attainment of HiSCR or the minimal clinically important differences for the Dermatology Life Quality Index and pain. Limitations: Cohort study. Respectively, 23.9% and 19.4% of patients had to be excluded from the HiSCR analysis for the tetracycline and combination therapy group because of a low abscess and nodule count at baseline. Conclusion: This study shows significant efficacy of both tetracycline treatment and clindamycin and rifampicin combination therapy after 12 weeks in patients with hidradenitis suppurativa. No significant differences in efficacy were observed between the 2 treatments, regardless of disease severity.
Objective: This study was undertaken to elicit patients' preferences for attributes characterizing antiseizure medication (ASM) monotherapy options before treatment consultation, and to explore the trade-offs patients consider between treatment efficacy and risks of side effects. Further objectives were to explore how treatment consultation may affect patient preferences, to elicit physicians' preferences in selecting treatment, and to compare patient and physician preferences for treatment.
Methods: This prospective, observational study (EP0076; VOTE) included adults with focal seizures requiring a change in their ASM monotherapy. Patients completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) survey before and after treatment consultation. Physicians completed a similar survey after the consultation. The DCE comprised 12 choices between two hypothetical treatments defined by seven attributes. The conditional relative importance of each attribute was calculated.
Results: Three hundred ten patients (mean [SD] age = 46.8 [18.3] years, 52.3% female) were enrolled from eight European countries, of whom 305 completed the survey before consultation and 273 completed the survey before and after consultation. Overall, this preference study in patients who intended to receive a new ASM monotherapy suggests that patient preferences were ordered as expected, with better outcomes being preferred to worse outcomes; patients preferred a higher chance of seizure freedom, lower risk of developing clinical depression, and fewer severe adverse events; avoiding moderate-to-severe “trouble thinking clearly” was more important than avoiding any other side effect. There were qualitative differences in what patients and physicians considered to be the most important aspects of treatment for patients; compared with patients, physicians had a qualitatively stronger preference for greater chance of seizure freedom and avoiding personality changes. Patients' preference weights were qualitatively similar before and after treatment consultation.
Significance: For patients, seizure freedom and avoiding trouble thinking clearly were the most important treatment attributes. Physicians and patients may differ in the emphasis they place on specific attributes.