This review demonstrates that various interventions can have a positive impact on the ability of health professions clinical educators to conduct education research. We note several key elements of the interventions including: (1) protected time, (2) mentorship and/or collaboration, (3) departmental and institutional commitment and leadership, and (4) financial support. Through our analysis we describe the complexities around evaluating clinical educators' health professions research activities and the interventions used to promote education research. While improved study quality would allow more detailed understanding and evaluation of these key features, we are able to provide recommendations for potential strategies for improving participation in and quality of health professions education research based on this analysis.

No abstract

Background With recent evidence for the increasing risk of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC), our objective was to evaluate the incidence of yCRC in one-year age increments, particularly focusing around the screening age of 50 years. Methods We conducted a longitudinal study using linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada including a provincial cancer registry, inpatient/outpatient visits, and vital statistics from January 1, 1986 to December 31, 2016. We calculated incidence rates per 100,000 at every age from 20 to 60 years and estimated annual percent change in incidence (APCi) of yCRC using joinpoint regression analysis. Results We identified 3,614 individuals with yCRC (49.9% women). The incidence of CRC steadily rose from 20 to 60 years, with a marked increase from 49 to 50 years (incidence rate ratio = 1.19; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.04 to 1.34). Furthermore, there was a trend of increased incidence of yCRC among women (APCi = 0.79%; 95% CI = 0.22% to 1.36%) and men (APCi = 2.17%; 95% CI = 1.59% to 2.76%). Analyses stratified by age yielded APCi’s of 2.49% (95% CI = 1.36% to 3.63%) and 0.12% (95% CI = -0.54% to 0.79%) for women aged 30-39 years and 40-49 years, respectively and 2.97% (95% CI = 1.65% to 4.31%) and 1.86% (95% CI = 1.19% to 2.53%) for men. Conclusion Our findings indicate a steady increase over one-year age increments in the risk of yCRC during the years approaching and beyond screening age. These findings highlight the need to raise awareness as well as continue discussions regarding considerations of lowering the screening age.

No abstract

Background: Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods: This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis-Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies.Discussion: This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy.Trial registration: The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338