Search

Objective: Attendance at population-based breast cancer (mammographic) screening varies. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assesses all identified patient-level factors associated with routine population breast screening attendance., Design: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for studies of any design, published January 1987-June 2019, and reporting attendance in relation to at least one patient-level factor., Data Synthesis: Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. OR and 95% CIs were calculated for attendance for each factor and random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken where possible., Results: Of 19 776 studies, 335 were assessed at full text and 66 studies (n=22 150 922) were included. Risk of bias was generally low. In meta-analysis, increased attendance was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) (n=11 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.75); higher income (n=5 studies; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.29); home ownership (n=3 studies; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 2.08 to 2.23); being non-immigrant (n=7 studies; OR 2.23, 95% CI: 2.00 to 2.48); being married/cohabiting (n=7 studies; OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.19) and medium (vs low) level of education (n=6 studies; OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41). Women with previous false-positive results were less likely to reattend (n=6 studies; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88). There were no differences by age group or by rural versus urban residence., Conclusions: Attendance was lower in women with lower SES, those who were immigrants, non-homeowners and those with previous false-positive results. Variations in service delivery, screening programmes and study populations may influence findings. Our findings are of univariable associations. Underlying causes of lower uptake such as practical, physical, psychological or financial barriers should be investigated., Trial Registration Number: CRD42016051597., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RM reports personal fees from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Centre for Leadership in Applied Research and Health Care (CLARHC) West Midlands during the conduct of the study. LA-K reports grants from the NIHR during the conduct of the study. ST-P reports grants from NIHR outside the submitted work. AC reports grants from the NIHR for the NIHR Applied Research Centre (ARC) West Midlands and previously from the NIHR CLARHC West Midlands, which supported her and researchers working on this project. AC also received grants from Public Health England (PHE) outside the submitted work., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objective: To systemically review and critically appraise published studies of the association between vitamin D supplementation or serum vitamin D level and susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19, including clinical course, morbidity and mortality outcomes., Design: Systematic review., Data Sources: MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MedRxiv and BioRxiv preprint databases. COVID-19 databases of the WHO, Cochrane, CEBM Oxford and Bern University up to 10 June 2020., Study Selection: Studies that assessed vitamin D supplementation and/or low serum vitamin D in patients acutely ill with, or at risk of, severe betacoronavirus infection (SARS-CoV, MERS-CoV, SARS-CoV-2)., Data Extraction: Two authors independently extracted data using a predefined data extraction form and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black Quality Assessment Checklist., Results: Searches elicited 449 papers, 59 studies were eligible full-text assessment and 4 met the eligibility criteria of this review. The four studies were narratively synthesised and included (1) a cross-sectional study (n=107) suggesting an inverse association between serum vitamin D and SARS-CoV-2; (2) a retrospective cohort study (348 598 participants, 449 cases) in which univariable analysis showed that vitamin D protects against COVID-19; (3) an ecological country level study demonstrating a negative correlation between vitamin D and COVID-19 case numbers and mortality; and (4) a case-control survey (n=1486) showing cases with confirmed/probable COVID-19 reported lower vitamin D supplementation. All studies were at high/unclear risk of bias., Conclusion: There is no robust evidence of a negative association between vitamin D and COVID-19. No relevant randomised controlled trials were identified and there is no robust peer-reviewed published evidence of association between vitamin D levels and severity of symptoms or mortality due to COVID-19. Guideline producers should acknowledge that benefits of vitamin D supplementation in COVID-19 are as yet unproven despite increasing interest., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Introduction: The aim of the protocol is to present the methodology of a scoping review that aims to synthesise up-to-date evidence on adolescent undernutrition in South Asia., Methods and Analysis: The proposed scoping review will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual. The scoping review question, eligibility criteria and search strategy will be based on the Population, Concept and Context strategy. We will conduct the search in electronic bibliographic databases (Medline (OVID), Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Scopus) as well as various grey literature sources in order to synthesise and present the findings with descriptive statistics and a narrative description of both quantitative and qualitative evidence., Ethics and Dissemination: This study protocol does not require ethical approval. This protocol will accurately describe the proposed scoping review that will map the evidence on adolescent undernutrition in South Asia. The proposed review aims to gather published and unpublished literature to inform policy and healthcare organisations as well as identify future research priorities in South Asia., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: We were commissioned by the behavioural insights team at Public Health England to synthesise the evidence on choice architecture interventions to increase healthy purchasing and/or consumption of food and drink by National Health Service (NHS) staff., Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts and Web of Science were searched from inception until May 2017 and references were screened independently by two reviewers., Design: A systematic review that included randomised experimental or intervention studies, interrupted time series and controlled before and after studies., Participants: Healthcare staff of high-income countries., Intervention: Choice architecture interventions that aimed to improve dietary purchasing and/or consumption (outcomes) of staff., Appraisal and Synthesis: Eligibility assessment, quality appraisal, data abstraction and analysis were completed by two reviewers. Quality appraisal of randomised trials was informed by the Cochrane Handbook , and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Nonrandomized Studies was used for the remainder. Findings were narratively synthesised., Results: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies included multiple workplaces (including healthcare settings), 13 were conducted in healthcare settings only. Interventions in 10 studies were choice architecture only and 8 studies involved a complex intervention with a choice architecture element. Interventions involving a proximity element (making behavioural options easier or harder to engage with) appear to be frequently effective at changing behaviour. One study presented an effective sizing intervention. Labelling alone was generally not effective at changing purchasing behaviour. Interventions including an availability element were generally reported to be successful at changing behaviour but no included study examined this element alone. There was no strong evidence for the effect of pricing on purchasing or dietary intake., Conclusion: Proximity, availability and sizing are choice architecture elements that are likely to be effective for NHS organisations., Trial Registration Number: CRD42017064872., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)