| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Hamilton, K., et al.
(författare)
-
Which diabetes specific patient reported outcomes should be measured in routine care? A systematic review to inform a core outcome set for adults with Type 1 and 2 diabetes mellitus: The European Health Outcomes Observatory (H2O) programme
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Patient Education and Counseling. - 0738-3991 .- 1873-5134. ; 116
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: The objective was to identify candidate patient reported outcomes with potential to inform individual patient care and service development for inclusion in a digital outcome set to be collected in routine care, as part of an international project to enhance care outcomes for people with diabetes. Methods: PubMed, COSMIN and COMET databases were searched. Published studies were included if they rec-ommended patient reported outcomes that were clinically useful and/or important to people with diabetes. To aid selection decisions, recommended outcomes were considered in terms of the evidence endorsing them and their importance to people with diabetes. Results: Twenty-seven studies recommending 53 diabetes specific outcomes, and patient reported outcome measures, were included. The outcomes reflected the experience of living with diabetes (e.g. psychological well-being, symptom experience, health beliefs and stigma) and behaviours (e.g. self-management). Diabetes distress and self-management behaviours were most endorsed by the evidence. Conclusions: The review provides a comprehensive list of candidate outcomes endorsed by international evidence and informed by existing outcome sets, and suggestions for measures. Practice implications: The review offers evidence to guide clinical application. Integrated measurement of these outcomes in care settings holds enormous potential to improve provision of care and outcomes in diabetes.
|
|
| 4. |
- Biskup, E, et al.
(författare)
-
Awareness of sex and gender dimensions among physicians: the European federation of internal medicine assessment of gender differences in Europe (EFIM-IMAGINE) survey
- 2022
-
Ingår i: Internal and emergency medicine. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1970-9366 .- 1828-0447. ; 17:5, s. 1395-1404
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Sociocultural gender is a complex construct encompassing different aspects of individuals’ life, whereas sex refers to biological factors. These terms are often misused, although they impact differently on individuals’ health. Recognizing the role of sex and gender on health status is fundamental in the pursuit of a personalized medicine. Aim of the current study was to investigate the awareness in approaching clinical and research questions on the impact of sex and gender on health among European internists. Clinicians affiliated with the European Federation of Internal Medicine from 33 countries participated to the study on a voluntary basis between January 1st, 2018 and July 31st, 2019. Internists’ awareness and knowledge on sex and gender issues in clinical medicine were measured by an online anonymized 7-item survey. A total of 1323 European internists responded to the survey of which 57% were women, mostly young or middle-aged (78%), and practicing in public general medicine services (74.5%). The majority (79%) recognized that sex and gender are not interchangeable terms, though a wide discrepancy exists on what clinicians think sex and gender concepts incorporate. Biological sex and sociocultural gender were recognized as determinants of health mainly in cardiovascular and autoimmune/rheumatic diseases. Up to 80% of respondents acknowledged the low participation of female individuals in trials and more than 60% the lack of sex-specific clinical guidelines. Internists also express the willingness of getting more knowledge on the impact of sex and gender in cerebrovascular/cognitive and inflammatory bowel diseases. Biological sex and sociocultural gender are factors influencing health and disease. Although awareness and knowledge remain suboptimal across European internists, most acknowledge the underrepresentation of female subjects in trials, the lack of sex-specific guidelines and the need of being more informed on sex and gender-based differences in diseases.
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
