Search

Aim: To identify and map evidence describing components of neurodevelopmental follow‐up care for children with congenital heart disease (CHD). Method: This was a scoping review of studies reporting components of neurodevelopmental follow‐up programmes/pathways for children with CHD. Eligible publications were identified through database searches, citation tracking, and expert recommendations. Two independent reviewers screened studies and extracted data. An evidence matrix was developed to visualize common characteristics of care pathways. Qualitative content analysis identified implementation barriers and enablers. Results: The review included 33 studies. Twenty‐one described individual care pathways across the USA (n = 14), Canada (n = 4), Australia (n = 2), and France (n = 1). The remainder reported surveys of clinical practice across multiple geographical regions. While heterogeneity in care existed across studies, common attributes included enrolment of children at high‐risk of neurodevelopmental delay; centralized clinics in children's hospitals; referral before discharge; periodic follow‐up at fixed ages; standardized developmental assessment; and involvement of multidisciplinary teams. Implementation barriers included service cost/resourcing, patient burden, and lack of knowledge/awareness. Multi‐level stakeholder engagement and integration with other services were key drivers of success. Interpretation: Defining components of effective neurodevelopmental follow‐up programmes and care pathways, along with enhancing and expanding guideline‐based care across regions and into new contexts, should continue to be priorities. What this paper adds: Twenty‐two different neurodevelopmental follow‐up care pathways/programmes were published, originating from four countries.Twelve additional publications described broad practices for neurodevelopmental follow‐up across regionsCommon attributes across eligibility, service structure, assessment processes, and care providers were noted.Studies reported programme acceptability, uptake, cost, and effectiveness.Implementation barriers included service cost/resourcing, patient burden, and lack of knowledge/awareness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Musculoskeletal conditions of the foot and ankle are common, yet the cost‐effectiveness of the variety of treatments available is not well defined. The aim of this systematic review was therefore to identify, appraise, and synthesize the literature pertaining to the cost‐effectiveness of interventions for musculoskeletal foot and ankle conditions. Methods: Electronic databases were searched for studies presenting economic evaluations of nonsurgical and surgical treatments for acute or chronic musculoskeletal conditions of the foot and ankle. Data on cost, incremental cost‐effectiveness, and quality‐adjusted life years for each intervention and comparison were extracted. Risk of bias was assessed using the Drummond checklist for economic studies (range 0–35). Results: Thirty‐six studies were identified reporting nonsurgical interventions (n = 10), nonsurgical versus surgical interventions (n = 14), and surgical interventions (n = 12). The most common conditions were osteoarthritis, ankle fracture, and Achilles tendon rupture. The strongest economic evaluations were for interventions managing end‐stage ankle osteoarthritis, ankle sprain, ankle fracture, calcaneal fracture, and Achilles tendon rupture. Total ankle replacement and ankle arthrodesis for end‐stage ankle osteoarthritis, in particular, have been demonstrated through high‐quality studies to be cost‐effective compared to the nonsurgical alternative. Conclusion: Selected interventions for musculoskeletal foot and ankle conditions dominate comparators, whereas others require thoughtful consideration as they provide better clinical improvements, but at an increased cost. Researchers should consider measuring and reporting costs alongside clinical outcome to provide context when determining the appropriateness of interventions for other foot and ankle symptoms to best inform future clinical practice guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]