Zeballos-Palacios, Claudia

Background The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. Methods We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). Information sources Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. Risk of bias Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. Data synthesis Narrative synthesis. Results 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK’s general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence—which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes—warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. Conclusion Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths—in person and virtually, and with electronic health records—are needed. Trial registration number OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Abstract Background Several treatments are available to reduce the risk of fragility fractures associated with osteoporosis. The choice of treatment requires knowledge of patients’ values and preferences. The aim of the present study was to summarize what is known about the values and preferences relevant to the management of osteoporosis in women. Methods We conducted a comprehensive search of several databases for studies reported in any language that had included women who had already started or were about to start any pharmacological therapy for osteoporosis. Pairs of reviewers independently selected the studies and extracted the data. The results were synthesized narratively. Results We included 26 studies reporting on 15,348 women (mean age, 66 years). The women considered the effectiveness and adverse events equally, followed by the convenience of taking the drug and its effect on daily routine (less frequent dosing was preferred, the oral route was preferred, and the injectable route was preferred over oral if given less frequently). The treatment cost and duration were less important factors for decision making. Fear of breast cancer and fear of resuming uterine bleeding were common reasons for not choosing estrogen therapy. Calcium and vitamin D were viewed as safe and natural. Across the studies, the preferences were not affected by age, previous drug exposure, or employment status. Conclusions Women starting osteoporosis medications value effectiveness and side effects equally and prefer medications given less frequently. Injectable drugs appear acceptable if given less frequently. More research on patient values and preferences is needed to guide decision making in osteoporosis.

Objective: Explore the perspectives, decision-making process, and final mode of delivery among pregnant women with a previous C-section (Cesarean section) in a general public sector hospital in Lima, Peru. Methods: A qualitative prospective study using semistructured interviews at two time points in the outpatient obstetrics and gynecology clinic of a public sector, university-affiliated reference hospital in Lima, Peru. Seventeen adult pregnant women with a prior C-section who were deemed by their attending obstetrician to be candidates for a trial of labor were interviewed. The first interview was between 37 and 38 weeks of pregnancy, and the second interview was 24 to 48 hours after delivery. Main outcome measures: Predelivery decision-making process and final mode of delivery. Results: Among the 17 participants, about half (9) of the participants stated that the physician explained that they had two approaches for delivery, a trial of labor after C-section (TOLAC) or elective repeated C-section (ERCD). Two women stated that their respective providers explained only one option, either an ERCD or TOLAC. However, 6 women did not receive any information from their providers about their delivery options. Of the 10 participants that decided TOLAC, 8 ended up having a C-section, and of the 7 patients that had planned an ERCD, 1 ended up having a vaginal delivery. Conclusion: Many participants affirmed that they made the decision about their approach of delivery. However, most of the participants that decided a TOLAC ended up having a C-section because of complications during the final weeks of pregnancy or during labor.