Effective Practice And Organisation Of Care Research Articles

Admission avoidance hospital at home.

Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review. To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field. Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care. We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up. Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs.

Interventions to improve medication adherence in adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary care: a systematic review.

Medication non-adherence is a notable contributor to healthcare inefficiency, resulting in poor medication management, impaired patient outcomes, and ineffective symptom control. To summarise interventions targeting medication adherence for adults with mental-physical multimorbidity in primary healthcare settings. A systematic review of the literature - published in any language and with any country of origin - was conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and the Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature - more commonly known as CINAHL - were searched for relevant studies. Data were extracted and synthesised using narrative synthesis. The Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy was used to classify intervention types. Risk of bias was assessed using the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's quality assessment tool for controlled intervention studies. Eleven studies, representing 2279 patients, were included. All interventions examined were classified into one EPOC domain, namely 'delivery arrangements'. All included studies examined patients who had a physical condition and depression. Seven studies examining interventions focused on coordination of care and management of care processes reported statistically significant improvements in medication adherence that were attributed to the intervention. Four studies considering the use of information and communication technology observed no changes in medication adherence. Interventions that coordinate and manage healthcare processes may help improve patients' adherence to medication regimes in those with mental-physical multimorbidity. However, it is still necessary to better understand how digital health technology can support patients in following their medication regimes. As the growing challenges of treating multimorbidity are faced, everyone involved in health services - from providers to policymakers - must be receptive to a more integrated approach to healthcare delivery.

Clinical Impact of the Implementation Strategies Used to Apply the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium or 2018 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium, Immobility, Sleep Disruption Guideline Recommendations: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To summarize the effectiveness of implementation strategies for ICU execution of recommendations from the 2013 Pain, Agitation/Sedation, Delirium (PAD) or 2018 PAD, Immobility, Sleep Disruption (PADIS) guidelines. PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from January 2012 to August 2023. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020175268). Articles were included if: 1) design was randomized or cohort, 2) adult population evaluated, 3) employed recommendations from greater than or equal to two PAD/PADIS domains, and 4) evaluated greater than or equal to 1 of the following outcome(s): short-term mortality, delirium occurrence, mechanical ventilation (MV) duration, or ICU length of stay (LOS). Two authors independently reviewed articles for eligibility, number of PAD/PADIS domains, quality according to National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute assessment tools, implementation strategy use (including Assess, prevent, and manage pain; Both SAT and SBT; Choice of analgesia and sedation; Delirium: assess, prevent, and manage; Early mobility and exercise; Family engagement and empowerment [ABCDEF] bundle) by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) category, and clinical outcomes. Certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Among the 25 of 243 (10.3%) full-text articles included ( n = 23,215 patients), risk of bias was high in 13 (52%). Most studies were cohort ( n = 22, 88%). A median of 5 (interquartile range [IQR] 4-7) EPOC strategies were used to implement recommendations from two (IQR 2-3) PAD/PADIS domains. Cohort and randomized studies were pooled separately. In the cohort studies, use of EPOC strategies was not associated with a change in mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.01; 95% CI, 0.9-1.12), or delirium (RR 0.92; 95% CI, 0.82-1.03), but was associated with a reduction in MV duration (weighted mean difference [WMD] -0.84 d; 95% CI, -1.25 to -0.43) and ICU LOS (WMD -0.77 d; 95% CI, -1.51 to 0.04). For randomized studies, EPOC strategy use was associated with reduced mortality and MV duration but not delirium or ICU LOS. Using multiple implementation strategies to adopt PAD/PADIS guideline recommendations may reduce mortality, duration of MV, and ICU LOS. Further prospective, controlled studies are needed to identify the most effective strategies to implement PAD/PADIS recommendations.

Digital health interventions for improving access to primary care in India: A scoping review.

Access to quality healthcare remains a challenge in low-and middle-income countries. Vulnerable populations with unmet needs face the greatest challenge in accessing primary care for appropriate and timely healthcare. The use of digital technologies can not only strengthen health systems but also improve access to health care, particularly for the vulnerable. This scoping review aims to assess the various digital health technologies and interventions available for improving access to primary care for the vulnerable in India. This scoping review employed the Joanna Brigg Institute's (JBI) guidelines and Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. The literature search was conducted in Medline/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science-Core Collection, Scopus, AgeLine, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register databases, using the keywords, such as 'Access', 'Healthcare', 'Assistive technology', 'Digital health' 'Vulnerable', 'India' and 'Healthcare technology'. A two-staged screening of titles and abstracts, followed by full-text was conducted independently by two reviewers, using the Rayyan software. Subsequently, the data was extracted from selected studies using a pre-designed and approved extraction form. The data was then synthesised and analysed narratively. The protocol for this review has been registered with open science forum (OSF) registries (https://osf.io/63pjw/). The search yielded about 3840 records, 3544 records were eligible for screening of titles and abstracts. We included seven studies after a two-round screening and identified seven different technological innovations developed to bridge gaps in access to primary care. The commonly used digital health interventions for improving access to primary care were virtual tele-health systems and mHealth applications in-built within an android smartphone or a tablet. Digital health interventions was either used as a standalone tele-health aid or a collaborative system for community workers, primary care physicians as well as the health service users. The purpose of these innovations was to increase awareness and knowledge to access support for specific aspects of healthcare. Virtual primary health care with the specialist in the hub supporting general physicians at the primary health centres in blocks and districts was another such model used for improving access to primary care. Digital health interventions was also used for mass community screening of disabilities, such as persons with hearing disability. To re-imagine a digitally empowered health systems in India, also inclusive of the vulnerable, it is important to inclusively conceptualise, systematically develop and rigorously evaluate any public health interventions including those that are enabled by digital health interventions to bridge the gaps in access to primary care in India. Such a strategy could address the paucity of evidence in public health interventions and provide sustainable strategies to strengthen health systems in India. Trial registration: Open Science Framework-Registration Link: https://osf.io/63pjw/.

Effects of European Union membership on the bibliometric indicators of Croatia’s research in the field of clinical medicine

Background: After the fall of communism, post-communist Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries struggled to advance to the level of Western European countries of similar sizes, both in quality and quantity of their publication performance. (Gui et al., 2019; Hu &amp; Zhang, 2017; Jurajda et al., 2017) The same may apply to the field of medicine, where CEE countries still function on the basis of individual work and personal connections, with few publications in higher impact journals. (Jovanovic et al., n.d.) Being a researcher in a country with lower research performance has an effect on the extent of publication and the development of international collaborations. (Pina et al., 2019) Entering the European Union has made some difference in that field, as shown in the example of Malta and several other countries. (Makkonen &amp; Mitze, 2016; McMillan et al., 2016)Aim: Our aim is to test the hypothesis that the quantity and quality of publications by Croatian authors in the field of clinical medicine have increased after Croatia’s accession to the EU.Methods: Bibliometric data for publications indexed in Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus, and authored or co-authored by researchers with Croatian affiliations in clinical medicine were collected via the inbuilt export for two time periods: 2005-2013 and 2014-2022. Additional data will be collected through automated data extraction using Python, WoSAPI and ScopusAPI.The study sample was all publications with a Croatian affiliation indexed in WoSCC (n=113,695) and Scopus (n=122,932) at the time of the data extraction for the period between 2005 and 2022. Minimal sample size with the desired precision of estimate of 0.05 and confidence level of 95% was estimated at 385. However, we aimed to include all publications with a Croatian affiliation in clinical medicine in both databases.A list of all possible names for all types and forms of organizations dealing in clinical medicine was compiled using public domain records and lists, especially the list of registered subjects, provided by the government and public, government-run institutions. Names that shared the same relevant words, such as hospital, were grouped under a single term. Terms were then truncated to include all possible and relevant variants, e.g. hosp* for hospital, hospitals, hospice and hospices. Truncated terms, which included terms with two or more truncated and non-truncated words, were connected using a Boolean operator OR and put in brackets. Brackets were further combined to include only the results with Croatia in the affiliation, retrieving only works with a Croatian affiliation in the field of clinical medicine.The indicators that will be compared are author count, publication count, and citation count. An interrupted time-series analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Resources for Review Authors. (Cochrane EPOC, 2017) The analysis will calculate pre- and post-intervention (membership in EU) coefficients and change in the slope of the annual value of indices, which may indicate if the intervention observed had an actual impact on possible changes. Additionally, the percentage of journal articles and reviews in all types of publications may indicate an increase in the quality of publications before and after Croatia accession to the EU.Expected results: We expect our analysis to show a positive correlation between the EU membership and quantity and quality of publications by Croatian authors in the field of clinical medicine, regardless of other influencing factors such as funding. We plan to have the results by the end of August 2023.Conclusions: The positive impact of EU membership on a small country’s quantity and perceived quality of publications may help Croatia’s decision-makers when deciding on joining other such communities, as well as decision-makers in similar countries considering EU membership. In addition, it might instigate others to conduct similar studies to see the full impact that formal international relations may have on science and scientific production.

Implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining task-sharing in family planning: a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

BackgroundEnsuring access to quality family planning (FP) services is fundamental to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets 3.1, 3.7, and 5.6, including universal access to reproductive health services. However, barriers such as health workforce shortages and restrictive policies on the role of mid and lower-level health workforce cadres limit access to contraceptives and FP in many settings.Workforce reorganization makes more efficient use of human resources. Consequently, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends task-sharing for FP by different cadres. Evidence on the implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining task-sharing could inform financing, implementation approaches, and technical assistance of national and global FP task-sharing programs. Therefore, this study aims to describe and assess the quality of the evidence on implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining task-sharing in FP and the outcome of the scale-up/sustainability interventions.MethodsThis systematic review protocol was developed using relevant guidelines, including the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Protocols (PRISMA-P). A search of five databases, namely CINAHL (EBSCOhost), EMBASE (OvidSP), Global Health (OvidSP), MEDLINE (OvidSP), and Scopus (www.scopus.com), and gray literature resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will screen and select studies, assess their quality using the “Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool,” and extract data from eligible studies. Publications or articles are eligible if they report implementation strategies, facilitators, or barriers to scaling up/sustainability of task-sharing in FP/contraception or the outcomes of the scale-up/sustainability interventions. A convergent synthesis that integrates qualitative, quantitative, descriptive, and mixed-methods data into one dataset will be used for analysis based on an a priori framework—the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy of the health system framework. Two independent reviewers will assess the quality of evidence using the GRADE-CERQual guideline.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this systematic review of implementation strategies, facilitators, and barriers to scaling up and sustaining task-sharing in family planning is the first in this area. Our rigorous methodology based on up-to-date guidelines can help generate relevant recommendations to support interventions to scale up and sustain task-sharing in family planning.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022339885.

Implementation strategies to scale up self-administered depot medroxyprogesterone acetate subcutaneous injectable contraception: a scoping review

BackgroundSelf-administered depot medroxyprogesterone acetate subcutaneous injectable contraception (DMPA-SC) is registered in many countries. It shows great potential for improving contraceptive access, continuation, and autonomy. However, there are challenges in rolling out this new efficacious intervention, and major implementation problems have been encountered during scale-up.ObjectiveTo describe the implementation strategies to scale up self-administered DMPA-SC and the barriers, facilitators, and outcomes of these programs.MethodRecent guidelines, including the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for scoping reviews, were used to design and report this review. An article or report was eligible for inclusion if it reported interventions that could scale up self-administered DMPA-SC implementation or its facilitators, barriers, or outcomes. We searched six electronic databases and the grey literature for eligible articles and reports. Two reviewers independently screened the document titles, abstracts, and full texts to identify eligible documents. Data were extracted using structured forms. Using the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) taxonomy of health systems framework for thematic analysis, data were presented in a narrative approach.ResultsOf the 755 retrieved documents, 34 were included in this review. Most of the documents included were multi-country reports (n = 14), and all documents were published within the last 5 years (2018–2021). This review identified documents that reported interventions in all EPOC domains. The most-reported interventions were: task-sharing amongst health workforce cadres, engaged leadership, encouraging policies, training and education, DMPA-SC demand generation, integration into existing programs, improved funding mechanisms, collaboration with development partners, and supply chain strengthening. The main barriers were suboptimal funding, inadequate human resources, and poor logistics supply of DMPA-SC. There was minimal evidence of scale-up outcomes.ConclusionThis scoping review reported a wide range of interventions employed by countries and programs to scale up DMPA-SC self-administration but minimal evidence of the scale-up outcomes. Evidence from this review can help design better programs that improves access to quality family planning services to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) targets 3.7. However, efforts should focus on rigorous implementation research that assess scaled up self-administered DMPA-SC interventions and report their outcomes.RegistrationThe protocol for this review was registered in the protocols.io repository (https://www.protocols.io/view/a-protocol-for-a-scoping-review-of-implementation-x54v9yemmg3e/v1).

Prospective application of theoretical implementation frameworks to improve health care in hospitals — a systematic review

BackgroundHealth Service implementation projects are often guided by theoretical implementation frameworks. Little is known about the effectiveness of these frameworks to facilitate change in processes of care and patient outcomes within the inpatient setting. The aim of this review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of theoretical implementation frameworks in inpatient healthcare settings to change processes of care and associated patient outcomes.MethodWe conducted a search in CINAHL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EMCARE and Cochrane Library databases from 1st January 1995 to 15th June 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to potentially eligible studies. Eligible studies: implemented evidence-based care into an in-patient setting using a theoretical implementation framework applied prospectively; used a prospective study design; presented process of care or patient outcomes; and were published in English. We extracted theoretical implementation frameworks and study design against the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) Checklist and implementation strategies mapped to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy. We summarised all interventions using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. We appraised study quality using the Item bank on risk of bias and precision of observational studies and the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for cluster randomised trials. We extracted process of care and patient outcomes and described descriptively. We conducted meta-analysis for process of care and patient outcomes with reference to framework category.ResultsTwenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria. Twenty-one used a pre-post (no comparison), two a pre-post with a comparison, and two a cluster randomised trial design. Eleven theoretical implementation frameworks were prospectively applied: six process models; five determinant frameworks; and one classic theory. Four studies used two theoretical implementation frameworks. No authors reported their justification for selecting a particular framework and implementation strategies were generally poorly described. No consensus was reached for a preferred framework or subset of frameworks based on meta-analysis results.ConclusionsRather than the ongoing development of new implementation frameworks, a more consistent approach to framework selection and strengthening of existing approaches is recommended to further develop the implementation evidence base.Trial registrationCRD42019119429.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of policies regulating drug marketing.

The costs of developing new treatments and bringing them to the market are substantial. The pharmaceutical industry uses drug promotion to gain a competitive market share, and drive sale volumes and industry profitability. This involves disseminating information about new treatments to relevant targets. However, conflicts of interest can arise when profits are prioritised over patient care and its benefits. Drug promotion regulations are complex interventions that aim to prevent potential harm associated with these activities. To assess the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion on drug utilisation, coverage or access, healthcare utilisation, patient outcomes, adverse events and costs. We searched Epistemonikos for related reviews and their included studies. To find primary studies we searched MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Embase, EconLit, Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, INRUD Bibliography, two trial registries and two sources of grey literature. All databases and sources were searched in January 2023. We planned to include studies that assessed policies regulating drug promotion to consumers, healthcare professionals or regulators and third-party payers, or any combination of these groups.In this review we defined policies as laws, rules, guidelines, codes of practice, and financial or administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. One of the following outcomes had to be reported: drug utilisation, coverage or access, healthcare utilisation, patient health outcomes, any adverse effects (unintended consequences), and costs. The study had to be a randomised or non-randomised trial, an interrupted time series analysis (ITS), a repeated measures (RM) study or a controlled before-after (CBA) study. At least two review authors independently assessed eligibility for inclusion of studies. When consensus was not reached, any disagreements were discussed with a third review author. We planned to use the criteria suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials, and CBA studies, we planned to estimate relative effects, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we planned to report the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For ITS and RM, we planned to compute changes along two dimensions: change in level and change in slope. We planned to undertake a structured synthesis following EPOC guidance. MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded 4593 citations, and 13 studies were selected for full-text review. No study met the inclusion criteria. We sought to assess the effects of policies that regulate drug promotion on drug use, coverage or access, use of health services, patient outcomes, adverse events, and costs, however we did not find studies that met the review's inclusion criteria. As pharmaceutical policies that regulate drug promotion have untested effects, their impact, as well as their positive and negative influences, is currently only a matter of opinion, debate, informal or descriptive reporting. There is an urgent need to assess the effects of pharmaceutical policies that regulate drug promotion using well-conducted studies with high methodological rigour.

Models of service delivery in adult cochlear implantation and evaluation of outcomes: A scoping review of delivery arrangements.

This study aimed to describe available evidence of cochlear implantation delivery arrangements in adults and the outcomes by which these service models are measured. Scoping review of English language, primary studies conducted on adults (≥18 years) with ten or more subjects, published between January 2000 and June 2022, which assessed the effects of delivery arrangements of cochlear implantation were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL Plus, AMED, PsycINFO, LILACS, KoreaMed, IndMed, Cochrane CRCT, ISRCTN registry, WHO ICTRP and Web of Science were systematically searched. Included studies had to have a method section explicitly measure at least one of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) outcome category. Criteria for systematic reviews and delivery arrangement category based on EPOC taxonomy was included in data extraction. Data was narratively synthesized based on EPOC categories. A total of 8135 abstracts were screened after exclusion of duplicates, of these 357 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Around 40% of the studies investigated how care is delivered, focusing on quality and safety systems. New care pathways to coordinate care and the use of information and communication technology were emerging areas. There was little evidence on continuity, coordination and integration of care, how the workforce is managed, where care is provided and changes in the healthcare environment. The main outcome measure for various delivery arrangements were the health status and performance in a test. A substantial body of evidence exists about safety and efficacy of cochlear implantation in adults, predominantly focused on surgical aspects and this area is rapidly growing. There is a lack of evidence on aspects of care delivery that may have more impact on patients' experience such as continuity, coordination and integration of care and should be a focus of future research. This would lead to a better understanding of how patient's view CI experience, associated costs and the value of different care models.

The effect of minimum volume standards in hospitals (MIVOS) — protocol of a systematic review

BackgroundThe volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations.MethodsTo be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews.To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019).DiscussionThis systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42022318883

Effectiveness and Evidence Level of Dance on Functioning of Children and Adolescents with Neuromotor Impairments: A Systematic Review.

The aim of this paper is to investigate the effects of dance therapy in children with neuromotor impairments (CNI), organizing the outcomes according to International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) domains, and to investigate if there is adequate evidence of effectiveness to recommend dance as a therapy. Electronic searches were conducted in December 2021. We include studies assessing the effects of dance in CNI up to 18 years. Data extraction included studies' populations, intervention features, and main outcomes. We classified outcomes according to the ICF framework. We used the Cochrane collaboration's tool, modified by effective practice and organization of care (EPOC), to assess the methodological quality. The GRADE synthesized the body of evidence. Twelve studies were included, with most of them addressing the body structure and function and activity components of ICF. Only three studies addressed components of participation, and four of personal factors. All these studies reported the positive effects of dance. Nevertheless, all of them presented high risk of bias. We found very low evidence level for improvement of body structure and function and activity components. Dance therapy presents low evidence level for improvements of body structure and function and activity in CNI. Further studies with low risk of bias and larger samples are needed.

The use of angiotensin receptor blockers in dementia prevention.

The aim of this study was to evaluate if the use of ARBs confers a neuroprotective effect on AD, through a systematic review. Studies published on Embase, LILACS, SciELO, and PubMed were evaluated. The selection of the studies included those that evaluated the use of antihypertensive drugs in individuals with a previous diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. The data were extracted with the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) form. The risk of bias was evaluated by the EPOC "Risk of bias tool." A total of 12 articles were identified, and 3 articles were selected. Two of them analyzed the use of ARB/ACEI versus other antihypertensives and the development of dementia. There is a tendency for ARBs to be superior to other antihypertensives in preventing dementia.

Oral Health Interventions in Natural Disasters: A Scoping Review.

This work aimed to identify, appraise, and summarize existing knowledge about oral health interventions in the context of natural disasters and verify the main research gaps. We searched in PubMed (National Library of Medicine, Maryland, USA), EMBASE (Elsevier, Amsterdam, Netherlands) and Epistemonikos (Epistemonikos Foundation, Santiago, Chile) until 2021 for primary studies and systematic reviews, assessing any oral health intervention in the context of natural disasters. The interventions were classified according to Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) categories, and the type of natural disaster was defined according to the classification by the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). We assessed a total of 19 studies (majorly in Japan, n = 8), all performed in the context of an earthquake or mixed natural disasters (earthquake and tsunami). Regarding interventions, 12 studies reported a promotional/ preventive intervention, with oral examination being the most frequent. 7 studies reported therapeutic interventions, mainly related to emergency management of fractures and injuries. The evidence accessed in our study was limited, highlighting the need for further research to focus on different oral health care interventions and outcomes in the context of different natural disasters, thus enhancing the formulation and implementation of recommendations and protocols worldwide.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being.

Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greatercomplexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers onprofessional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language. Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention. Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

Interprofessional collaboration and patient-reported outcomes in inpatient care: a systematic review

BackgroundInterprofessional collaboration (IPC) is seen as the “gold standard” of comprehensive care, but credible evidence concerning the effects on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) is lacking. The aim of this systematic review is to study the effect of IPC on PRO in inpatient care.MethodsWe systematically searched six electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science/Social Science Citation Index, CENTRAL (Cochrane Library), Current Contents (LIVIVO), CINAHL, and Embase) for studies published between 1997 and 2021. Additional studies were identified through citation tracking, manually searching the Internet and Google Scholar, and consultation of experts. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using the RoB 2 tool for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and ROBINS-I for non-randomized studies (NRS). The included controlled before-and-after study (CBA) was assessed using both the ROBINS-I and the Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) quality criteria. Results were synthesized through narrative description, grouping, and thematic analysis of extracted data.ResultsThe search yielded 10,213 records, from which 22 studies (16 RCTs, five NRS, and one CBA) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In all but five studies, RoB was assessed as being high (RoB 2) resp. critical or serious (ROBINS-I). Within these 22 studies, nine inductively derived outcomes were assessed: (i) quality of life, (ii) coping, (iii) functional ability and health status, (iv) psychiatric morbidity, (v) pain, (vi) managing one’s own health care, (vii) treatment success, (viii) satisfaction, and (ix) therapeutic relationship. While some studies do not report effect estimates, and some of the reported effects appear to be imprecisely estimated, the overall results indicate that IPC may affect PRO positively across all outcomes.ConclusionsDue to high clinical heterogeneity and high RoB, the question whether IPC affects PRO cannot be answered conclusively. Methodically rigorous studies are needed in order to answer the question of effectiveness of IPC.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017073900

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment for community-dwelling, high-risk, frail, older people.

Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and functional capability in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated care plan. CGA is not limited simply to assessment, but also directs a holistic management plan for older people, which leads to tangible interventions. While there is established evidence that CGA reduces the likelihood of death and disability in acutely unwell older people, the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor health outcomes is less clear. To determine the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older adults at risk of poor health outcomes in terms of mortality, nursing home admission, hospital admission, emergency department visits, serious adverse events, functional status, quality of life and resource use, when compared to usual care. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, three trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and McMaster Aging Portal) and grey literature up to April 2020; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors. We included randomised trials that compared CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor healthcare outcomes to usual care in the community. Older people were defined as 'at risk' either by being frail or having another risk factor associated with poor health outcomes. Frailty was defined as a vulnerability to sudden health state changes triggered by relatively minor stressor events, placing the individual at risk of poor health outcomes, and was measured using objective screening tools. Primary outcomes of interest were death, nursing home admission, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department visits and serious adverse events. CGA was delivered by a team with specific gerontological training/expertise in the participant's home (domiciliary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (dCGA)) or other sites such as a general practice or community clinic (community Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (cCGA)). Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics (methods, participants, intervention, outcomes, notes) using standardised data collection forms adapted from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection form. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest. We included 21 studies involving 7893 participants across 10 countries and four continents. Regarding selection bias, 12/21 studies used random sequence generation, while 9/21 used allocation concealment. In terms of performance bias, none of the studies were able to blind participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention, while 14/21 had a blinded outcome assessment. Eighteen studies were at low risk of attrition bias, and risk of reporting bias was low in 7/21 studies. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias in terms of differences of baseline characteristics. Three studies were at low risk of bias across all domains (accepting that it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to the intervention). CGA probably leads to little or no difference in mortality during a median follow-up of 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.02; 18 studies, 7151 participants (adjusted for clustering); moderate-certainty evidence). CGA results in little or no difference in nursing home admissions during a median follow-up of 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; 13 studies, 4206 participants (adjusted for clustering); high-certainty evidence). CGA may decrease the risk of unplanned hospital admissions during a median follow-up of 14 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; 6 studies, 1716 participants (adjusted for clustering); low-certainty evidence). The effect of CGA on emergency department visits is uncertain and evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.59; 3 studies, 873 participants (adjusted for clustering)). Only two studies (1380 participants; adjusted for clustering) reported serious adverse events (falls) with no impact on the risk; however, evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17). CGA had no impact on death or nursing home admission. There is low-certainty evidence that community-dwelling, frail, older people who undergo CGA may have a reduced risk of unplanned hospital admission. Further studies examining the effect of CGA on emergency department visits and change in function and quality of life using standardised assessments are required.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.

Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations. To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies. We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs. Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes. We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low. The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare islimited.

Fortification of salt with iron and iodine versus fortification of salt with iodine alone for improving iron and iodine status.

Fortification of salt with iron and iodine versus fortification of salt with iodine alone for improving iron and iodine status.

Language used to describe medication review activities: does it require standardisation? A narrative synthesis

Abstract Introduction Medication review (MR) is a health care professional’s systematic assessment of a patient’s medications with recommendations for improvement (1). To enable comparison between different evaluations of medication review-based interventions to determine whether the nature of activity differs, it is important that standardised language is used. Currently, there is no accepted international taxonomy for describing medication review activities. Therefore, we undertook a systematic review of literature with narrative synthesis to determine whether standardisation may be appropriate. Aim To determine the range of terms used to describe medication review activities. Method A PROSPERO registered systematic review (CRD 42020215992) was performed using search terms according to the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) framework. ‘Population’ &amp; ‘Comparison’ were not used. Synonyms for medication review activities were used for both ‘Intervention’ and ‘Outcomes’, e.g., stop, start, change, alter. We included all papers reporting medication review activities in English with empirical data. Papers not using language to describe medication review activities were excluded. Two researchers reviewed all titles, abstracts, and full-text papers independently; discussion resolved any disagreement. Data extraction was carried out independently as per Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) as follows: The papers were assessed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The research team themed the extracted terms. Results After deleting duplicates, 9746 titles were screened. Twenty-one studies were included: eight quantitative non-randomised trials, eight randomised controlled trials, and five quantitative descriptive studies. The studies covered the UK, Netherlands, Australia, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Canada, and Jordan. The table summarises the medication review activities reported in these papers. Conclusion Various authors reported medication review activities. ‘Alter’ and ‘adaptation’ are examples of ambiguous terms. Determining whether actions are related with activities to reduce or increase doses is difficult due to such terminology. As a result, comparing medication review approaches may be difficult. Limiting the search strategy to English-language only may have missed some studies. A taxonomy to describe and define medication review activities, thereby standardising MR reporting, should improve the presentation of data from process evaluations and the ability to compare activity between studies. Reference (1) Christensen M, Lundh A. Medication review in hospitalised patients to reduce morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev [Internet]. 2016 Feb 20; Available from: https://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD008986.pub3