Objective To investigate the reading habits of authors of articles published in the Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine (CJEBM) and to compare the findings with those from other surveys. Methods A total of 512 questionnaires were sent to authors who had contributed to CJEBM over the past 7 years. Results A total of 129 questionnaires were returned (response rate 31.6%). The replies showed that the main purpose of reading literature was to keep up with the latest developments in medicine (94% of replies). The main reading material was medical journals (86%). Most respondents (57%) spent more than 3 hours a week reading journals. The biggest problem identified by authors was the lack of full text papers, but the first choice was the electronic versions of the literature. More than half of the authors (57%) said that they spent less time reading than in the past. Conclusion Effective reading of the medical literature is a basic requirement in the practice of evidence-based medicine. It is necessary and important for clinicians and healthcare providers to improve their reading skills and methods.
Objective To investigate the cognition degree and clinical use of new COPD classification system of 2011 GOLD in respiratory specialists, and further analyze the reasons of failing to clinical use. Methods Respiratory specialists from 42 hospitals in Chongqing were investigated through questionnaire survey. The questionnaire contains two parts. The first part contains nine questions about the knowledge of 2011 GOLD new COPD classification system and its clinical use. The second part contains six questions about the reasons of failing to clinical use of the COPD classification system. Results A total of 204 valid questionnaires were recovered. More than 90% respiratory specialists had understood the new COPD classification system with different degree, and believed it is suitable for clinical use. More than twothirds respiratory specialists knew well the ways about CAT and mMRC, but only 24% specialists were using these ways. The main reasons of failing to clinical use were as follows: 60% specialists believed the pulmonary function test can evaluate the COPD classification, and 66. 7% specialists were limited by short visit time. The cognition degree and clinical use of the new COPD classification systemin the specialists from third grade A class hospitals was better than those from the other hospitals. But the difference was not significant among specialists with different professional title.Conclusion Respiratory specialists in Chongqing knew well about the new COPD classification systemin 2011 GOLD, but did not use it widely in clinical works due to the complicated operation of the new COPD classification system.
ObjectiveTo know the fundamental status of painless digestive endoscopy in China. MethodsA 23-item survey including multiple choices and fill-in-the-blank questions on 3 pages was performed on anesthesiologists in China excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong on www.xqnmz.com and www.dxy.cn/bbs from November 1 to December 31, 2013, among which 5 questions were on personal details, 9 on hospital and department, and 9 on clinic details. The results about the basic facts, risk factors of anesthesia and drug use and monitoring of painless digestive endoscopy in China were analyzed. ResultsA total of 726 questionnaires were collected, among which 667 (91.87%) were considered valid. Interviewed hospitals included hospitals from 31 provinces, municipalities and autonomous regions excluding Taiwan, Macao and Hong Kong. Thirty questionnaires were from the first-grade hospitals (4.5%), 292 from the second-grade (43.78%), and 345 from the third-grade (51.72%). And 69.12% of the questionnaires showed these hospitals could only carry out painless gastroscopy and/or colonoscopy, while 80.81% showed the number of the mean painless endoscopy cases was 0-30 per day; 47.23% of the respondents working in digestive endoscopy center had to complete the anesthesia procedure alone, and 35.83% of the respondents illustrated their digestive endoscopy centers had established the post anesthesia care unit; 62.97% were equipped with anesthesia apparatus or ventilator; 89.96% were equipped with tracheal intubation tool; and 21.44% were equipped with defibrillator. Among them, 25.79% did not prepare rescue medicines regularly in digestive endoscopy center. Propofol was the most frequently used anesthetic, and composited fentanyl was at the highest use rate for gastrointestinal endoscopy. Respondents who used electrocardiogram, non-invasive blood pressure and pulse oxygen saturation the least to monitor during painless gastroscopy and colonoscopy took up 43.48% and 46.08% respectively. ConclusionPainless digestive endoscopy needs further development and standardization with the regulation of related guidelines and standardized residents training.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the necessary factors of questionnaires design on patients' values and preferences in order to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires when developing clinical practice guidelines.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient values and preferences. The authors included the articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options. We assessed the questionnaires' construction with psychometric methodology and summarized the necessary factors on patients' preferences and values into the domains and items.ResultsTwenty articles were eventually included. Five out of 20 studies (25%, 5/20) described the process of item generation while merely one questionnaire (5%, 1/20) mentioned pilot testing. Regarding validity, there were 6 questionnaires (30%, 6/20) that assessed validity. For acceptability, the time taken to complete the questionnaires range from 10 to 30 minutes and only 6 studies reported response rates. The results showed that the factors affecting the design of questionnaires on patients' values and preference were related to the effectiveness, safety, prognostic factors and others. The main factors were the effects, side effects and risk of complications, risk of relapse and the cost of treatments.ConclusionsOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patients' preference and values. There is still no valid or reliable questionnaires for patients' preference and values when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patients' preference and values. It is suggested that the factors this study provides can be used in formulating questionnaires on patients' preference and values.