Annette Moxey

Aim:  To examine the impact of perceived importance of spirituality or religion (ISR) and religious service attendance (RSA) on health and well‐being in older Australians.Methods:  A cross‐sectional survey of 752 community‐dwelling men and women aged 55–85 years from the Hunter Region, New South Wales.Results:  Overall, 51% of participants felt spirituality or religion was important in their lives and 24% attended religious services at least 2–3 times a month. In univariate regression analyses, ISR and RSA were associated with increased levels of social support (P < 0.001). However, ISR was also associated with more comorbidities (incidence–rate ratio= 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.08–1.33). There were no statistically significant associations between ISR or RSA and other measures such as mental and physical health.Conclusion:  Spirituality and religious involvement have a beneficial impact on older Australians' perceptions of social support, and may enable individuals to better cope with the presence of multiple comorbidities later in life.

Computerised clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) are used widely to improve quality of care and patient outcomes. This systematic review evaluated the impact of CDSSs in targeting specific aspects of prescribing, namely initiating, monitoring and stopping therapy. We also examined the influence of clinical setting (institutional vs ambulatory care), system- or user-initiation of CDSS, multi-faceted vs stand alone CDSS interventions and clinical target on practice changes in line with the intent of the CDSS.

Background: Aprotinin has been shown to be effective in reducing peri-operative blood loss and the need for re-operation due to continued bleeding in cardiac surgery. The lysine analogues tranexamic acid (TXA) and epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA) are cheaper, but it is not known if they are as effective as aprotinin. Methods: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies of published articles. Data from head-to-head trials were pooled using a conventional (Cochrane) meta-analytic approach and a Bayesian approach which estimated the posterior probability of TXA and EACA being equivalent to aprotinin; we used as a non-inferiority boundary a 20% increase in the rates of transfusion or re-operation because of bleeding. Results: Peri-operative blood loss was significantly greater with TXA and EACA than with aprotinin: weighted mean differences were 106 mls (95% CI 37 to 227 mls) and 185 mls (95% CI 134 to 235 mls) respectively. The pooled relative risks (RR) of receiving an allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion with TXA and EACA, compared with aprotinin, were 1.08 (95% CI 0.88 to 1.32) and 1.14 (95% CI 0.84 to 1.55) respectively. The equivalent Bayesian posterior mean relative risks were 1.15 (95% Bayesian Credible Interval [BCI] 0.90 to 1.68) and 1.21 (95% BCI 0.79 to 1.82) respectively. For transfusion, using a 20% non-inferiority boundary, the posterior probabilities of TXA and EACA being non-inferior to aprotinin were 0.82 and 0.76 respectively. For re-operation the Cochrane RR for TXA vs. aprotinin was 0.98 (95% CI 0.51 to 1.88), compared with a posterior mean Bayesian RR of 0.63 (95% BCI 0.16 to 1.46). The posterior probability of TXA being non-inferior to aprotinin was 0.92, but this was sensitive to the inclusion of one small trial. Conclusion: The available data are conflicting regarding the equivalence of lysine analogues and aprotinin in reducing peri-operative bleeding, transfusion and the need for re-operation. Decisions are sensitive to the choice of clinical outcome and non-inferiority boundary. The data are an uncertain basis for replacing aprotinin with the cheaper lysine analogues in clinical practice. Progress has been hampered by small trials and failure to study clinically relevant outcomes.

Before planned surgery, patients may choose autologous donation in order to avoid the small, but potential, risks of receiving an allogeneic blood transfusion. This study examined the perceived risks of allogeneic blood transfusions, preferences and willingness to pay for autologous donation and the desired role in the decision-making process in three populations: post-surgical patients, special interest group members and the general public. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected from 206 respondents with the help of computer-assisted semi-structured telephone interviews. Thirty-three per cent of the sample voiced concerns about receiving allogeneic blood transfusions. The risks of hepatitis C virus, human immunodeficiency virus, variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and a haemolytic reaction were perceived as being low, but were rated as numerically higher than those of other life events that have equal probability. Autologous donation was perceived as removing all the risks associated with transfusion, and respondents were willing to pay a median $976 AUD ($664 US) to use this technique. Over 80% of respondents preferred to be involved in making the decision about whether to use autologous donation. Even though autologous donation is not 'risk-free' and the blood supply is very safe, people overestimate the associated risks and have a preference for their own blood. Decision aids presenting balanced information on the advantages and disadvantages of both allogeneic and autologous blood may be required.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the impact of different presentations of equivalent information (framing) on treatment decisions faced by patients. DESIGN: A systematic review of the published literature was conducted. English language publications allocating participants to different frames were retrieved using electronic and bibliographic searches. Two reviewers examined each article for inclusion, and assessed methodological quality. Study characteristics were tabulated and where possible, relative risks (RR; 95% confidence intervals) were calculated to estimate intervention effects. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-seven articles, yielding 40 experimental studies, were included. Studies examined treatment (N=24), immunization (N=5), or health behavior scenarios (N=11). Overall, active treatments were preferred when outcomes were described in terms of relative rather than absolute risk reductions or number needed to treat. Surgery was preferred to other treatments when treatment efficacy was presented in a positive frame (survival) rather than a negative frame (mortality) (relative risk [RR]=1.51, 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.39 to 1.64). Framing effects were less obvious for immunization and health behavior scenarios. Those with little interest in the behavior at baseline were influenced by framing, particularly when information was presented as gains. In studies judged to be of good methodological quality and/or examining actual decisions, the framing effect, although still evident, was less convincing compared to the results of all included studies. CONCLUSIONS: Framing effects varied with the type of scenario, responder characteristics, scenario manipulations, and study quality. When describing treatment effects to patients, expressing the information in more than one way may present a balanced view to patients and enable them to make informed decisions.