Gibbon Aggression During Introductions: An International Survey

Little is known regarding the prevalence of aggression seen during introductions of captive gibbons (Hylobatidae). In this study, an online survey was developed to quantify and collect contextual details regarding the frequency and types of aggression seen during introductions of captive gibbons (Hylobatidae). Nineteen percent of institutions (17 institutions) reported observing aggression, and 6 of these institutions recorded multiple instances of aggression, though a vast majority of these cases resulted in mild injuries or none at all. The female was the primary aggressor in 23% of cases, the male was the primary aggressor in 58% of cases, and both were the primary aggressor in 1 case. Although these aggressive interactions were often not associated with a known cause, 27% of cases were associated with food displacement. In most cases, management changes, including trying new pairings, greatly reduced situational aggression, suggesting that individual personalities may play a factor in aggression. These data begin to explain the extent of aggression observed in captive gibbons; future studies will address possible correlations with aggression and introduction techniques.     

Survey of Home Visiting by General Practitioners in North-east England

A total of 190 general practitioners in North-east England recorded the details of each home visit they made during a two-week period towards the end of 1969. Altogether 17,200 visits were made and these have been analysed. Two major points emerge: firstly, the extreme variation in visiting habits by general practitioners; and, secondly, the feeling that many home visits were unnecessary.     

Worldwide Enucleation Techniques and Materials for Treatment of Retinoblastoma: An International Survey

Purpose

To investigate the current practice of enucleation with or without orbital implant for retinoblastoma in countries across the world.

Methods

A digital survey identifying operation techniques and material used for orbital implants after enucleation in patients with retinoblastoma.

Results

We received a response of 58 surgeons in 32 different countries. A primary artificial implant is routinely inserted by 42 (72.4%) surgeons. Ten (17.2%) surgeons leave the socket empty, three (5.2%) decide per case. Other surgeons insert a dermis fat graft as a standard primary implant (n=1), or fill the socket in a standard secondary procedure (n=2; one uses dermis fat grafts and one artificial implants). The choice for porous implants was more frequent than for non-porous implants: 27 (58.7%) and 15 (32.6%), respectively. Both porous and non-porous implant types are used by 4 (8.7%) surgeons. Twenty-five surgeons (54.3%) insert bare implants, 11 (23.9%) use separate wrappings, eight (17.4%) use implants with prefab wrapping and two insert implants with and without wrapping depending on type of implant. Attachment of the muscles to the wrapping or implant (at various locations) is done by 31 (53.4%) surgeons. Eleven (19.0%) use a myoconjunctival technique, nine (15.5%) suture the muscles to each other and seven (12.1%) do not reattach the muscles. Measures to improve volume are implant exchange at an older age (n=4), the use of Restylane SQ (n=1) and osmotic expanders (n=1). Pegging is done by two surgeons.

Conclusion

No (worldwide) consensus exists about the use of material and techniques for enucleation for the treatment of retinoblastoma. Considerations for the use of different techniques are discussed.     

Understanding of Statistical Terms Routinely Used in Meta-Analyses: An International Survey among Researchers

Objective

Biomedical literature is increasingly enriched with literature reviews and meta-analyses. We sought to assess the understanding of statistical terms routinely used in such studies, among researchers.

Methods

An online survey posing 4 clinically-oriented multiple-choice questions was conducted in an international sample of randomly selected corresponding authors of articles indexed by PubMed.

Results

A total of 315 unique complete forms were analyzed (participation rate 39.4%), mostly from Europe (48%), North America (31%), and Asia/Pacific (17%). Only 10.5% of the participants answered correctly all 4 “interpretation” questions while 9.2% answered all questions incorrectly. Regarding each question, 51.1%, 71.4%, and 40.6% of the participants correctly interpreted statistical significance of a given odds ratio, risk ratio, and weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals respectively, while 43.5% correctly replied that no statistical model can adjust for clinical heterogeneity. Clinicians had more correct answers than non-clinicians (mean score ± standard deviation: 2.27±1.06 versus 1.83±1.14, p<0.001); among clinicians, there was a trend towards a higher score in medical specialists (2.37±1.07 versus 2.04±1.04, p = 0.06) and a lower score in clinical laboratory specialists (1.7±0.95 versus 2.3±1.06, p = 0.08). No association was observed between the respondents'' region or questionnaire completion time and participants'' score.

Conclusion

A considerable proportion of researchers, randomly selected from a diverse international sample of biomedical scientists, misinterpreted statistical terms commonly reported in meta-analyses. Authors could be prompted to explicitly interpret their findings to prevent misunderstandings and readers are encouraged to keep up with basic biostatistics.     

Multidisciplinary Views on Applying Explicit and Implicit Motor Learning in Practice: An International Survey

Background

A variety of options and techniques for causing implicit and explicit motor learning have been described in the literature. The aim of the current paper was to provide clearer guidance for practitioners on how to apply motor learning in practice by exploring experts’ opinions and experiences, using the distinction between implicit and explicit motor learning as a conceptual departure point.

Methods

A survey was designed to collect and aggregate informed opinions and experiences from 40 international respondents who had demonstrable expertise related to motor learning in practice and/or research. The survey was administered through an online survey tool and addressed potential options and learning strategies for applying implicit and explicit motor learning. Responses were analysed in terms of consensus (≥ 70%) and trends (≥ 50%). A summary figure was developed to illustrate a taxonomy of the different learning strategies and options indicated by the experts in the survey.

Results

Answers of experts were widely distributed. No consensus was found regarding the application of implicit and explicit motor learning. Some trends were identified: Explicit motor learning can be promoted by using instructions and various types of feedback, but when promoting implicit motor learning, instructions and feedback should be restricted. Further, for implicit motor learning, an external focus of attention should be considered, as well as practicing the entire skill. Experts agreed on three factors that influence motor learning choices: the learner’s abilities, the type of task, and the stage of motor learning (94.5%; n = 34/36). Most experts agreed with the summary figure (64.7%; n = 22/34).

Conclusion

The results provide an overview of possible ways to cause implicit or explicit motor learning, signposting examples from practice and factors that influence day-to-day motor learning decisions.     

Physical Violence against General Practitioners and Nurses in Chinese Township Hospitals: A Cross-Sectional Survey

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to identify risk factors of physical violence in Chinese township hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey was used in a sample of 442 general practitioners and 398 general nurses from 90 township hospitals located in Heilongjiang province, China (response rate = 84.8%).

Results

A total of 106 of the 840 (12.6%) respondents reported being physically attacked in their workplace in the previous 12 months. Most perpetrators were the patients’ relatives (62.3%), followed by the patient (22.6%); 73.6% of perpetrators were aged between 20 and 40 years. Of the physical violence incidents, about 56.6% (n = 60) resulted in a physical injury, and 45.4% of respondents took two or three days of sick leave. Reporting workplace violence in hospitals to superiors or authorities was low (9.4%). Most respondents (62.8%) did not receive training on how to avoid workplace violence. Logistic regression analyses indicated that general nurses, aged 35 years or younger, and with a higher-level professional title were more likely to experience physical violence. Healthcare workers with direct physical contact (washing, turning, lifting) with patients had a higher risk of physical violence compared to other health care workers. Procedures for reporting workplace violence were a protective factor for physical violence; when in place, reporting after psychological violence (verbal abuse, bullying/mobbing, harassment, and threats) was more protective than waiting until an instance of physical violence (beating, kicking, slapping, stabbing, etc.).

Conclusions

Physical violence in Chinese township hospitals is an occupational hazard of rural public health concern. Policies, procedures, and intervention strategies should be undertaken to manage this issue.     

Placebo Use in the United Kingdom: Results from a National Survey of Primary Care Practitioners

Objectives

Surveys in various countries suggest 17% to 80% of doctors prescribe ‘placebos’ in routine practice, but prevalence of placebo use in UK primary care is unknown.

Methods

We administered a web-based questionnaire to a representative sample of UK general practitioners. Following surveys conducted in other countries we divided placebos into ‘pure’ and ‘impure’. ‘Impure’ placebos are interventions with clear efficacy for certain conditions but are prescribed for ailments where their efficacy is unknown, such as antibiotics for suspected viral infections. ‘Pure’ placebos are interventions such as sugar pills or saline injections without direct pharmacologically active ingredients for the condition being treated. We initiated the survey in April 2012. Two reminders were sent and electronic data collection closed after 4 weeks.

Results

We surveyed 1715 general practitioners and 783 (46%) completed our questionnaire. Our respondents were similar to those of all registered UK doctors suggesting our results are generalizable. 12% (95% CI 10 to 15) of respondents used pure placebos while 97% (95% CI 96 to 98) used impure placebos at least once in their career. 1% of respondents used pure placebos, and 77% (95% CI 74 to 79) used impure placebos at least once per week. Most (66% for pure, 84% for impure) respondents stated placebos were ethical in some circumstances.

Conclusion and implications

Placebo use is common in primary care but questions remain about their benefits, harms, costs, and whether they can be delivered ethically. Further research is required to investigate ethically acceptable and cost-effective placebo interventions.