Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Informal learning”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

456 records · Page 26Linked to original sources
PubMed2026

A Multimethod Evaluation to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of HPVVaxFacts, a Tailored Mobile Web App, for Parents With Unvaccinated Children: Pilot 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve provider-parent communication on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to reduce concerns, and increase intention and uptake. HPVVaxFacts (233 Analytics) is a novel, mobile web app delivering tailored education based on the Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action, addressing parental concerns preclinic visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HPVVaxFacts among parents of adolescents aged 9-17 years. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial in 2 urban Tennessee clinics from June to September 2023 comparing 2 groups: tailored education via HPVVaxFacts mobile web app (intervention, n=27), and nutrition education (attention control, n=30). Eligible parents had or were caregivers to a child aged 9 to 17 years unvaccinated against HPV, had a mobile phone, had an upcoming clinic visit, and spoke English. The recruitment strategy was patient intake software-Phreesia (Phreesia, Inc) and eClinicalWorks (eClinicalWorks). Although unblinded, parents could deduce their study arm assignment. Providers were blinded. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HPV vaccine knowledge, concerns, intentions, and vaccination rates) were assessed using multimethod evaluation. Parents were assessed at baseline and immediately post intervention via surveys. Vaccination rates were assessed at 12 months post intervention via electronic health records. Nineteen parent interviews were conducted up to 9 months post intervention. A clinic staff consultation (n=6) was 1 month post intervention. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled parents, most were female (52/57, 91%), non-Hispanic White (44/57, 77%), had ≤US $80,000 household income (32/57, 56%), and had some college or less (27/57, 47%). In total, 81% (29/36) of parents viewed HPVVaxFacts. Post intervention, HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the intervention group compared to the attention control group (48% vs 17%; difference 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-0.46; P=.01). Parents in the HPVVaxFacts arm demonstrated a greater reduction in knowledge (ie, knowledge increase; mean change: -0.6 vs 0.1) and concern scores (mean change: -3.4 vs -1.4) than those in the nutrition education arm. However, between-arm differences were not statistically significant (P=.13 and P=.14, respectively). The majority found the study protocol and HPVVaxFacts acceptable. Benefits of HPVVaxFacts include confirming their decision to vaccinate, supporting parent-child discussion on the vaccine, and answering questions preclinic visit or offering questions for the provider. Study protocol delivery and mobile web app instructions were suggested areas for improvement. Barriers for HPVVaxFacts use include content in English only and digital format. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests HPVVaxFacts was feasible and acceptable among parents to provide previsit, tailored information on HPV vaccination. Outcomes offer a positive trajectory but need more exploration. Next steps include a well-powered efficacy trial to determine the impact of HPVVaxFacts on initiation vaccine rates and parental hesitancy factors, as well as to explore an interaction, effect modification, and mediation among different variables.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Empirical Meropenem Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Critically Ill Adults With Sepsis: Feasibility of a Randomised Trial.

BACKGROUND: Meropenem and piperacillin/tazobactam are commonly used empirical antibiotics in critically ill adults with sepsis, but whether one is superior to the other is uncertain. METHODS: The Empirical Meropenem versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam for Adult Patients with Sepsis (EMPRESS) trial is an ongoing investigator-initiated, randomised, open-label, adaptive clinical trial with an integrated feasibility phase comparing empirical treatment with meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis. The integrated feasibility phase enrolled 200 participants across 10 intensive care units (ICUs) in Denmark between 28 June and 12 December 2025. Five pre-specified feasibility criteria were evaluated; if all feasibility criteria were met, the trial would proceed unaltered, whereas failure to meet one or more criteria would require intervention and re-evaluation. RESULTS: We randomised 200 of 284 screened patients (70.4%). The median age was 70&#x2009;years (interquartile range (IQR): 60-77), 65.5% were males. At randomisation, 80.0% received vasopressors or inotropes, and 43.5% were on invasive mechanical ventilation. Four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met: time to completion of the feasibility phase (5.5&#x2009;months vs. threshold <&#x2009;12.0&#x2009;months), recruitment proportion (70.4% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;50.0%), proportion of participants without consent to the continued collection of data (2.5% vs. threshold <&#x2009;5.0%) and protocol adherence (81.0% vs. threshold &#x2265;&#x2009;75.0%). The proportion of participants with timely primary outcome data availability (30-day mortality) within 45&#x2009;days was 85.5% and below the pre-specified threshold of &#x2265;&#x2009;95.0%. The proportions were low in the first 3&#x2009;months (33.3%, 22.2% and 30.8%, respectively), increasing to 95.8% in the last month of the feasibility phase. All-cause mortality at 30&#x2009;days was 30.5%, and specific serious adverse reactions occurred in 4.0% of participants. CONCLUSIONS: In this integrated feasibility evaluation of the EMPRESS trial comparing empirical meropenem versus piperacillin/tazobactam in critically ill adults with sepsis, four of five pre-specified feasibility criteria were met. The unmet criterion, timely primary outcome data availability, improved substantially during the feasibility phase. We consider the trial feasible and will proceed without modifications. EDITORIAL COMMENT: This feasibility study assessed recruitment, randomised allocation and data collection for the multicentre EMPRESS trial. For adaptive trials on trial platforms, careful interim checking of trial design functions is an important and necessary process. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Information System EUCT number: 2023-509703-33-00; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06184659; Universal Trial Number: U1111-1301-6379.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Assessment and CommuniCation ExcelLEnce foR sAfe paTient outcomEs (ACCELERATE): A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a nurse-led assessment and handover communication intervention on patient adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to experience harm from undetected deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. We aimed to implement and evaluate an organisational, ward-level nurse-led assessment and communication intervention to proactively reduce patient adverse events. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised Trial over 12-months was conducted at three metropolitan hospitals. Our intervention comprised a comprehensive, systematic patient assessment at shift commencement; a structured patient-centred bedside nurse-to-nurse clinical handover; and multidisciplinary communication consisting of nurse participation in medical ward rounds. Evidence-based implementation strategies informed intervention delivery to nine clusters (20-35 bed-wards with &#x2265;70% permanent nurses) over three sequential 14-week steps. Routinely collected patient-level data were used to measure intervention effect. The primary outcome was a composite measure of medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls; and stage 2-4 pressure injuries. Secondary outcomes were: individual measures of the primary outcome; nurse-reported perceptions of safety culture; organisational readiness to change; barriers to physical assessment; staff engagement; and patient-reported experience measures of safety and overall hospital experience. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, hospital, pre/post intervention, and Trial step (fortnight), with random effects for ward and patient. RESULTS: There were 13,753 eligible admissions. No change was observed in the primary composite outcome measure (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.99 [0.77, 1.28]; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.95). There was no significant difference in medical emergency team calls (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.75, 1.39]; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.91); unplanned intensive care unit admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.35 [0.57, 3.20]; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.50) and falls (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.96, 2.45]; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.07). However, stage 2-4 pressure injuries significantly decreased by 41% (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.38, 0.93]; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.02); a significant absolute effect improvement of 0.8% ([95% CI: 0.3%-1.3%], p&#xa0;<&#xa0;0.01). There were statistically significant improvements in nurses' overall perceptions of Safety Attitudes (Pre: 74.6, Post: 79.7; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.02), and the Organisational Readiness to Change subscales of, leader culture (Pre: 3.73, Post 3.91; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.02), leadership behaviour (Pre: 3.85, Post: 4.11; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.03), and general resources (Pre: 3.06, Post: 3.30; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.03). A statistically significant decrease in Barriers to Physical Assessment (Pre: 2.48, Post: 2.24; p&#xa0;<0.001) and in six of seven sub-scales was observed. Patients' overall Measure of Safety remained high, but unchanged (Pre: 3.94 Post: 3.92; p&#xa0;=&#xa0;0.07). CONCLUSION: The ACCELERATE Trial demonstrated that nurse-driven initiatives, emphasising structured physical assessments by nurses, patient-centred clinical handovers, and multidisciplinary communication, significantly: reduced pressure injuries; decreased nurses' perceived barriers to performing physical assessments; and improved leadership behaviour, communication, and ward safety culture perceptions. Results highlight the transformative potential of this approach, which now warrants testing at scale for broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000265875.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Methods for defining equity-stratifying variables: a systematic review of validation studies.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Disease burden is often disproportionally higher among those who are socially disadvantaged by factors defined in the PROGRESS-Plus framework (ie, Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender/sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, and Social capital, with "Plus" covering features like age and disability). The accuracy and applicability of case definitions to identify these variables from administrative and clinical health data are unknown. We conducted a systematic review to explore how equity-stratifying variables, as categorized by the PROGRESS-Plus framework, have been defined and validated in epidemiologic studies using administrative health, population-level, or electronic health record (EHR) data. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched from the inception of the databases to 2024 for validation studies of equity-stratifying variables in adults using administrative health datasets, health registries, or EHR data. Titles and abstracts, followed by relevant full-text articles, were screened in duplicate by two reviewers for eligibility. The data sources utilized, algorithms employed, and their associated performance measures were extracted and synthesized from included studies. Given substantial heterogeneity in study design, equity-stratifying variable definition, and performance metrics, meta-analysis was not possible. RESULTS: Of the 9099 unique citations screened, 188 full texts were reviewed and 116 were included in this review. Most studies were published between 2019 and 2024 (n = 64, 55%) and were validation studies of race/ethnicity definitions that used race/ethnicity codes or surname list algorithms (n = 66, 57%). No studies examined religion. Regarding the reported performance measure estimates, the race/ethnicity/culture/language equity-stratifying variables category had the largest variability across sensitivity, positive predictive value (PPV), and Cohen's Kappa. Occupation validation studies had the lowest variation in sensitivity and PPV. CONCLUSION: Despite an increasing number of publications reporting on the validation of equity-stratifying variables relevant to the PROGRESS-Plus framework, performance measures varied widely across studies. The significant heterogeneity in equity-stratifying variable definitions and methods used to validate them support the need for further rigorous validation of equity-stratifying variables in administrative and clinical health data. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: Disease burden is often higher in people who experience financial hardships, lower level of education, discrimination due to race/ethnicity, and unstable housing. These social factors can be considered health equity factors and are important for understanding health inequalities. Health researchers often use large datasets, such as hospital or electronic health records (EHRs), to study these health equity factors. However, it is not clear how accurately these data sources capture information about people's social circumstances and how these factors are defined. In this study, we reviewed existing research to understand how health equity factors have been defined across health data sources and how accurate they are at measuring aspects of health equity and social disadvantage. Of the more than 9000 studies we identified, we included 116 that met our criteria for this systematic review. Most included studies focused on identifying race and ethnicity, often using codes or surname-based methods. We found that the accuracy of these methods varied widely across studies, meaning results may not always be reliable or comparable. Overall, our findings show that there are inconsistencies in how social factors are defined and measured in health data. This makes it difficult to fully understand and address health inequalities using routinely collected health data. More work is needed to develop and validate better quality and more consistent methods for capturing these important social factors.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Effectiveness of Caregiver-Mediated Spoken Language Interventions for Children Under Five at Risk of Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Caregiver-mediated interventions are commonly used by Speech and Language Therapists to support early language development. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is associated with reduced quality of life throughout the lifespan. Understanding factors that predict intervention success is essential for developing appropriate, cost-effective therapy provision for the approximately 12% of preschool children who present with early markers for Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions for under-fives at risk of DLD, and factors influencing intervention effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic review following PRISMA guidelines was conducted. Five electronic databases were searched to identify experimental studies comparing caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions to control conditions in under-fives presenting with risk factors for DLD. Risk factors included prematurity, socioeconomic factors, caregiver language development concerns, and formal or informal language screening or assessment scores. Twenty-six experimental studies with 1407 child participants were included in qualitative synthesis. Meta-analysis was performed on nine Randomised Controlled Trials involving 947 children. RESULTS: Effectiveness was examined for outcomes including child language gains, child wellbeing, inclusion and attainment. Meta-analysis indicated a significant effect of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions on language outcomes compared to treatment-as-usual, non-language intervention or waitlist control conditions. Non-language outcomes were evaluated via qualitative synthesis. Interventions significantly improved language development trajectories for under-fives presenting with risk factors or early markers for DLD. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS: This review contributes to the growing evidence base demonstrating that caregiver-mediated interventions can positively impact language development and wellbeing outcomes for children under five at risk of DLD. These findings support the implementation of caregiver-mediated environmental language interventions in clinical practice to maximise accessibility and cost-effectiveness while delivering optimal outcomes for vulnerable populations. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Previous research on caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions has highlighted gaps in the evidence regarding the impact of risk factors, demographic characteristics, dosage and intervention components on child language outcomes. Developmental Language Disorder has relatively high population prevalence, estimated at 7%. Prevalence is associated with risk factors including low household socioeconomic status (SES), prematurity and late language emergence. In contrast to its prevalence, there is low public and professional awareness of DLD and a low diagnostic rate. Therefore, a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions is important in order to increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this underserved population. Timely and effective intervention with young children presenting with early markers for DLD has the potential to offer lifelong improvement to their wellbeing, inclusion and attainment outcomes. Recent systematic reviews of the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated language interventions had differences in population age range and diagnostic inclusion criteria. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Our review examines the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated early spoken language interventions on child language, attainment and wellbeing, and on caregiver self-efficacy and adherence to language support strategies. Our population was children under five presenting with risk factors for Developmental Language Disorder, in the absence of other neurodevelopmental or genetic conditions such as intellectual disability or autism. This review adds depth and detail to the evidence base supporting the effectiveness of caregiver-mediated spoken language interventions in improving outcomes for this population of young children, and factors that influence their success. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The high prevalence of Developmental Language Disorder, estimated at around 7% of the population, and the strong association with risk factors including low SES, prematurity and late language emergence, coupled with the low awareness of DLD and low diagnostic rate, mean that a strengthened evidence base and additional insights into the factors affecting success of family-based interventions can increase the effectiveness of service provision and care planning for this population. Timely and effective intervention in this group of young children has the potential to improve wellbeing and attainment outcomes across the lifespan. This review contributes to our understanding of how to implement cost-effective, socially valid and maximally engaging partnership working with families of young children at risk for DLD.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Thymosin-&#x251;1 for people with chronic hepatitis B.

RATIONALE: Chronic hepatitis B is a global public health concern. It is caused by infection with the hepatitis B virus (HBV). The goal of treating chronic HBV infection is to prevent progression to chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis, hepatic decompensation, liver failure, hepatocellular carcinoma, and death. Individual studies have evaluated various immunomodulatory therapies with inconsistent results. Thymosin-&#x251;1 is known to have antiviral effects; however, results of randomised clinical trials on the effects of thymosin-&#x3b1;1 as a potential treatment for people with chronic HBV have been inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of thymosin-&#x251;1 therapy in people with chronic hepatitis B. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, four other databases and six trials registers, in addition to reference checking, citation searching, and contacting study authors to identify trials for inclusion. The latest search date was 10 June 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated thymosin-&#x3b1;1 at any dose, route of administration, or formulation type, in people with chronic hepatitis B regardless of age, sex, or ethnicity. Thymosin-&#x3b1;1 could have been administered as monotherapy, in combination with an additional drug, or in addition to standard medical treatment and compared with placebo, no intervention, the same additional drug, or the same standard medical treatment. OUTCOMES: Our critical outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and health-related quality of life. Among our important outcomes were HBV-related morbidity, HBV-related mortality, non-serious adverse events, and the proportion of people without histological improvements. RISK OF BIAS: We used the Cochrane Risk of bias 2 tool (RoB 2) to assess risk of bias. SYNTHESIS METHODS: We followed Cochrane methods. We conducted meta-analyses for predefined outcomes using data from the longest follow-up period, irrespective of the risk of bias judgements. We presented dichotomous outcome results as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous outcome results as mean differences, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) at their longest follow-ups. We used the random-effects model for our primary analyses. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. INCLUDED STUDIES: We included 10 RCTs conducted in Bangladesh, China, Italy, Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan, with 1349 randomised participants (range: 12 to 690; 1045 (77.5%) were male). Among the trials reporting age, none included participants younger than 17 years (age range: 17 to 75 years). The trials were published between 1991 and 2018, and assessed thymosin-&#x251;1 in adults with chronic hepatitis B infection, with or without comorbidities. Only two trials mentioned comorbidities (cirrhosis and acute-on-chronic liver failure). The trials compared thymosin-&#x251;1, with or without a cointervention, with placebo or no intervention, or with the same cointervention. The control interventions were placebos in two trials and no intervention in two. The remaining six trials administered co-interventions, such as interferon, pegylated interferon, lamivudine, and standard medical therapy (entecavir or tenofovir), and entecavir. Follow-ups ranged from six months to five years after the end of treatment (median: 12 months). Four trials were funded by industry, five by research grants, and one provided no information. All 10 trials (11 records) provided data on at least one outcome in our review. We identified no ongoing trials. Sixteen studies are awaiting assessment due to incomplete reporting. We received no responses to our enquiries. SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS: Thymosin-&#x251;1, compared with the control interventions, may reduce all-cause mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), serious adverse events (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.53 to 0.99; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 1056 participants; low-certainty evidence), HBV-related mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.96; I&#xb2; = 0%; 3 studies, 907 participants; very low-certainty evidence), non-serious adverse events (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.83; I&#xb2; = 0%; 5 studies, 300 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and may have little to no effect on health-related quality of life (MD 0.70, 95% CI -2.55 to 3.95; I&#xb2; not applicable; 1 study, 161 participants; very low-certainty evidence; score range: 0 to 100; the higher the score, the better) and on histological improvement (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.06; I&#xb2; = 74%; 2 studies, 702 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on hepatitis B-related morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; I&#xb2; = 3%; 3 studies, 854 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We judged the certainty of evidence to be low for serious adverse events and very low for the remaining outcomes. Reasons for downgrading were mainly due to study limitations, including overall high or some concerns for risk of bias; imprecision of the pooled effect estimates (including wide or very wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect, and small participant numbers); and inconsistency due to substantial heterogeneity (I&#xb2; = 74%). The test for subgroup differences provided no evidence of differences in effect according to thymosin&#x2011;&#x3b1;1 administration for any outcome (P &#x2265; 0.05). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We assessed the certainty of evidence as very low for all outcomes except for serious adverse events (low). Therefore, we are not sure whether thymosin-&#x3b1;1 monotherapy versus placebo or no intervention, or with the same co-interventions, reduces all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, HBV-related mortality, and non-serious adverse events, nor whether it has any effect on quality of life (based on one trial) and histological improvement. The effect of thymosin-&#x251;1 on HBV-related morbidity is very uncertain. We observed no statistically significant differences between trials with and without cointerventions. We found no ongoing trials. FUNDING: This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding. REGISTRATION: Protocol available via DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD014610.

Humans↗