Search

Abstract Background The number of older people in prison is growing. As a result, there will also be more prisoners suffering from dementia. The support and management of this population is likely to present multiple challenges to the prison system. Objectives To examine the published literature on the care and supervision of people living in prison with dementia and on transitioning into the community; to identify good practice and recommendations that might inform the development of prison dementia care pathways. Methods A scoping review methodology was adopted with reporting guided by the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews checklist and explanation. Results Sixty-seven papers were included. Most of these were from high income countries, with the majority from the United Kingdom (n = 34), followed by the United States (n = 15), and Australia (n = 12). One further paper was from India. Discussion The literature indicated that there were difficulties across the prison system for people with dementia along the pathway from reception to release and resettlement. These touched upon all aspects of prison life and its environment, including health and social care. A lack of resources and national and regional policies were identified as important barriers, although a number of solutions were also identified in the literature, including the development of locally tailored policies and increased collaboration with the voluntary sector. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive and inclusive review of the literature on dementia care pathways in prison to date. It has identified a number of important areas of concern and opportunities for future research across the prison system, and its operations. This will hopefully lead to the identification or adaptation of interventions to be implemented and evaluated, and facilitate the development of dementia care pathways in prisons.

BackgroundExtrusion of electrodes outside the cochlea and tip fold overs may lead to suboptimal outcomes in cochlear implant (CI) recipients. Intraoperative measures such as Trans-Impedance Matrix (TIM) measurements may enable clinicians to identify electrode malposition and direct surgeons to correctly place the electrode array during surgery.ObjectivesTo assess the current literature on the effectiveness of TIM measurements in identifying extracochlear electrodes and tip fold overs.MethodsA scoping review of studies on TIM-based measurements were carried out using the Databases-Medline/PubMed, AMED, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library following PRISMA guidelines. Eleven full texts articles met the inclusion criteria. Only human studies pertaining to TIM as a tool used in CI were included in the review. Further, patient characteristics, electrode design, and TIM measurement outcomes were reported.ResultsTIM measurements were available for 550 implanted ears with the subjects age ranged between 9 months to 89 years. Abnormal TIM measurements were reported for 6.55% (36). Tip fold over was detected in 3.64% (20) of the cases, extracochlear electrodes in 1.45% (8), and 1.45% (8) were reported as buckling. Slim-modiolar electrode array designs were more common (54.71%) than pre-curved (23.34%) or lateral wall (21.95%) electrode array. Abnormal cochlear anatomy was reported for five ears (0.89%), with normal cochlear anatomy for all other patients.ConclusionTIM measurement is a promising tool for the intraoperative detection of electrode malposition. TIM measurement has a potential to replace intraoperative imaging in future. Though, TIM measurement is in its early stages of clinical utility, intuitive normative data sets coupled with standardised criteria for detection of abnormal electrode positioning would enhance its sensitivity.

Background: Ambient air pollution is a pervasive and ubiquitous hazard, which has been linked to premature morbidity and a growing number of morbidity endpoints. Air pollution may be linked to neurodegeneration, and via this or other pathways, to neurodegenerative diseases. Emerging evidence suggests that air pollution may contribute to neurodegenerative diseases such as dementia, Parkinson’s Disease (PD), Multiple Sclerosis (MS) and Motor Neuron Diseases (MND), although this evidence remains inconsistent and very limited for MS and MND. In addition, this evidence base is rapidly emerging and would benefit from a wide and critical synthesis, including a better understanding of heterogeneity. Objectives: In this paper, we present a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis and specify our methods a priori. The main aim of the planned systematic review is to answer the question of whether long-term exposure (>1 year) to ambient (outdoor) air pollution (exposure, compared to lower exposure) increases the risk of adult (population) incidence of neurodegenerative diseases (outcomes) in epidemiological observational studies (study design). Another aim is to meta-analyze the associations between long-term exposure to ambient air pollutants and the risk of the selected outcomes and assess the shape of exposure–response functions. To set the stage for the proposed work, we also overview the existing epidemiological evidence in this protocol, but do not critically evaluate it, as these results will be fully presented in the planned systematic review. Search and study eligibility: We will search the electronic databases Medline (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), Cochrane Library, Cinahl (via Ebscohost), Global Health (via Ebscohost), PsycINFO (via Ebscohost), Scopus, Web of Science (Core Collection), from inception to October 2022. Eligible studies must contain primary research investigating the link between 1-year + exposure to any outdoor air pollutant, from any source, and dementia, PD, MS, and MND, or dementia subtypes: Alzheimer’s Disease, vascular dementia, and mixed dementia. The search strategy and eligibility criteria are pre-determined and described in full in this protocol. Study appraisal and synthesis methods: Articles will be stored and screened using Rayyan QCRI. Title and abstract screening, full text review, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and data preparation for statistical analysis will be conducted independently by two reviewers using pre-defined forms and criteria, described in this protocol. All these steps will also be piloted and the forms and/or methods adapted if issues arise. Meta-analysis and assessment of the shape of the exposure–response functions will be conducted if four independent exposure-outcomes pairs are available, and the remainder of results will be synthesized in the forms of tables and via a narrative summary. Certainty in the body of evidence will be assessed using the OHAT approach. This protocol describes the planned analysis and synthesis a priori and serves to increase transparency and impact of this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Objectives To assess the risk of new-onset or worsening hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia with systemic corticosteroid therapy (CST) as reported in published randomised control trial (RCT) studies.Data sources Literature search using MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, Web of Science and ScopusStudy eligibility criteria Published articles on results of RCT with a systemic CST arm with numerical data presented on adverse effect (AE).Participants and interventions Reports of hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia associated with systemic CST in patients or healthy volunteer’s ≥17 years of age.Study appraisal methods Risk of bias tool, assessment at the level of AE and key study characteristics.Results A total of 5446 articles were screened to include 118 studies with 152 systemic CST arms (total participants=17 113 among which 8569 participants treated with CST). Pooled prevalence of hyperglycaemia in the CST arms within the studies was 10% (95% CI 7% to 14%), with the highest prevalence in respiratory illnesses at 22% (95% CI 9% to 35%). Pooled prevalence of severe hyperglycaemia, hypertension, weight gain and hyperlipidaemia within the corticosteroid arms was 5% (95% CI 2% to 9%), 6% (95% CI 4% to 8%), 13% (95% CI 8% to 18%), 8% (95% CI 4% to 17%), respectively. CST was significantly associated hyperglycaemia, hypertension and weight gain as noted in double-blinded placebo-controlled parallel-arms studies: OR of 2.13 (95% CI 1.66 to 2.72), 1.68 (95% CI 0.96 to 2.95) and 5.20 (95% CI 2.10 to 12.90), respectively. Intravenous therapy posed higher risk than oral therapy: OR of 2.39 (95% CI 1.16 to 4.91).Limitations There was significant heterogeneity in the AE definitions and quality of AE reporting in the primary studies and patient populations in the studies. The impact of cumulative dose effect on incidental AE could not be calculated.Conclusions and implications of key findings Systemic CST use is associated with increased risk of metabolic AEs, which differs for each disease group and route of administration.PROSPERO registration number CRD42020161270.

BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.