When appraising research papers, how much understanding is enough? More specifically, in deciding whether research results can inform practice, do appraisers need to substantively understand how findings are derived or is it sufficient simply to grasp that suitable analytic techniques were chosen and used by researchers? The degree or depth of understanding that research appraisers need to attain before findings can legitimately/sensibly inform practice is underexplored. In this paper it is argued that, where knowledge/justified beliefs derived from research evidence prompt (...) actions that materially affect patient care, appraisers have an epistemic duty to demand high (maximal) rather than low (minimal) levels of understanding regards finding derivation (i.e. appraisers have a duty to seek a superior epistemic situation). If this argument holds assumptions about appraiser competence/ability and the feasibility of currentUKconceptions of evidence based practice are destabilized. (shrink)

Emergency services personnel are a high stress occupation, being frequently confronted with highly consequential stressors and expected to perform: without fault; under high pressure; and in unpredictable circumstances. Research often invokes similarities between the experiences of emergency services personnel and elite athletes, opening up the possibility of transferring learnings between these contexts. Both roles involve genuine risks to emotional wellbeing because their occupations involve significant stress. Similarly, both roles face obstacles and injury, and their “success” is dependent on high-quality execution (...) of their skills under pressure. As such, both occupations are required to have resilience and effective coping abilities to ensure psychological well-being. Researchers suggest emotional awareness may be a key variable in the management and maintenance of resilience. This study: explored the experiences of emergency services personnel; characterised connections between emotional awareness and resilience; and reflected on the ways these findings can be extrapolated to elite athletes. We analysed 11 interviews with emergency services personnel. Participants identified resilience as crucial when coping with stress, however, many defined resilience as remaining unaffected by stress rather than, for example, managing and responding to it. Participants defined emotional awareness as understanding their emotions, and they recognised associated benefits for coping, resilience, and burnout. Nevertheless, most participants did not engage in practices to improve their emotional awareness. Barriers, such as maladaptive beliefs and help-seeking stigma, interfered with participants’ ability to cultivate emotional awareness, to promote resilience. In contrast, some participants described profound improvements in resilience and coping following the cultivation of emotional awareness. This finding illustrates that systemic change must target the individual, team, and organisation to correct misperceptions about resilience, emotional awareness, and psychological help-seeking. Developing emotional awareness may help emergency services personnel and other high stress occupations like elite athletes process difficult experiences and enhance their resilience, promoting well-being, and career longevity. (shrink)

BACKGROUND Patients with chronic pain face significant barriers in finding clinicians to manage long-term opioid therapy (LTOT). For patients on LTOT, it is increasingly common to have them sign opioid treatment agreements (OTAs). OTAs enumerate the risks of opioids, as informed consent documents would, but also the requirements that patients must meet to receive LTOT. While there has been an ongoing scholarly discussion about the practical and ethical implications of OTA use in the abstract, little is known about how clinicians (...) use them and if OTAs themselves modify clinician prescribing practices. OBJECTIVE To determine how clinicians use OTAs and the potential impacts of OTAs on opioid prescribing. DESIGN We conducted qualitative analysis of four focus groups of clinicians from a large Midwestern academic medical center. Groups were organized according to self-identified prescribing patterns: two groups for clinicians who identified as prescribers of LTOT, and two who did not. PARTICIPANTS 17 clinicians from General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Palliative Care were recruited using purposive, convenience sampling. APPROACH Discussions were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed for themes using reflexive thematic analysis by a multidisciplinary team. KEY RESULTS Our analysis identified three main themes: (1) OTAs did not influence clinicians’ decisions whether to use LTOT generally but did shape clinical decision-making for individual patients; (2) clinicians feel OTAs intensify the power they have over patients, though this was not uniformly judged as harmful; (3) there is a potential misalignment between the intended purposes of OTAs and their implementation. CONCLUSION This study reveals a complicated relationship between OTAs and access to pain management. While OTAs seem not to impact the clinicians’ decisions about whether to use LTOT generally, they do sometimes influence prescribing decisions for individual patients. Clinicians shared complex views about OTAs’ purposes, which shows the need for more clarity about how OTAs could be used to promote shared decision-making, joint accountability, informed consent, and patient education. (shrink)