Search

BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer survivors (CCS) experience many long-term health problems that can be mitigated with recommended survivorship care. However, many CCS do not have access to survivorship care nor receive recommended survivorship care. We reviewed the empirical evidence of disparities in survivorship care for CCS. METHODS: This systematic review searched PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for studies on survivorship care for CCS (PROSPERO: CRD42021227965) and abstracted the reported presence or absence of disparities in care. We screened 7945 citations, and of those, we reviewed 2760 publications at full text. RESULTS: A total of 22 studies reported in 61 publications met inclusion criteria. Potential disparities by cancer treatment (N = 14), diagnosis (N = 13), sex (N = 13), and current age (N = 13) were frequently studied. There was high quality of evidence (QOE) of survivorship care disparities associated with non-White race, Hispanic ethnicity, and being uninsured. Moderate QOE demonstrated disparities among CCS who were unemployed and older. Lower QOE was found for disparities based on cancer diagnosis, cancer treatment, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, sex, insurance type, income, educational attainment, and geographic area. CONCLUSIONS: We found strong empirical evidence of disparities in survivorship care for CCS associated with race, ethnicity, and insurance status. Multiple other disparate groups, such as those by employment, income, insurance type, education, cancer diagnosis, age at diagnosis, time since diagnosis, cancer treatment, geographic area, sex, and self-identified gender warrant further investigation. Prospective, multilevel research is needed to examine the role of other patient characteristics as potential disparities hindering adequate survivorship care in CCS.

ObjectiveFor large, integrated healthcare delivery systems, coordinating patient care across delivery systems with providers external to the system presents challenges. We explored the domains and requirements for care coordination by professionals across healthcare systems and developed an agenda for research, practice and policy.DesignThe modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys.SettingThe work addresses care coordination across healthcare systems. We introduced common care scenarios and differentiated recommendations for a large (main) healthcare organisation and external healthcare professionals that contribute additional care.ParticipantsThe panel composition included health service providers, decision makers, patients and care community, and researchers. Discussions were informed by a rapid review of tested approaches to fostering collaboration, facilitating care coordination and improving communication across healthcare systems.Outcome measuresThe study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy.ResultsFor research recommendations, we found consensus for developing measures of shared care, exploring healthcare professionals' needs in different care scenarios and evaluating patient experiences. Agreed practice recommendations included educating external professionals about issues specific to the patients in the main healthcare system, educating professionals within the main healthcare system about the roles and responsibilities of all involved parties, and helping patients better understand the pros and cons of within-system and out-of-system care. Policy recommendations included supporting time for professionals with high overlap in patients to engage regularly and sustaining support for care coordination for high-need patients.ConclusionsRecommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

BackgroundUnderstanding the safety of vaccines is critical to inform decisions about vaccination. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review of the safety of vaccines recommended for children, adults, and pregnant women in the United States.MethodsWe searched the literature in November 2020 to update a 2014 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality review by integrating newly available data. Studies of vaccines that used a comparator and reported the presence or absence of key adverse events were eligible. Adhering to Evidence-based Practice Center methodology, we assessed the strength of evidence (SoE) for all evidence statements. The systematic review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020180089).ResultsOf 56,603 reviewed citations, 338 studies reported in 518 publications met inclusion criteria. For children, SoE was high for no increased risk of autism following measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. SoE was high for increased risk of febrile seizures with MMR. There was no evidence of increased risk of  intussusception with rotavirus vaccine at the latest follow-up (moderate SoE), nor of diabetes (high SoE). There was no evidence of increased risk or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for newer vaccines such as 9-valent human papillomavirus and meningococcal B vaccines. For adults, there was no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) or insufficient evidence for key adverse events for the new adjuvanted inactivated influenza vaccine and recombinant adjuvanted zoster vaccine. We found no evidence of increased risk (varied SoE) for key adverse events among pregnant women following tetanus, diphtheria, and acellular pertussis vaccine, including stillbirth (moderate SoE).ConclusionsAcross a large body of research we found few associations of vaccines and serious key adverse events; however, rare events are challenging to study. Any adverse events should be weighed against the protective benefits that vaccines provide.

BackgroundMindfulness interventions aim to foster greater attention and awareness of present moment experiences. Uptake of mindfulness programs in the workplace has grown as organizations look to support employee health, wellbeing, and performance.ObjectiveIn support of evidence-based decision making in workplace contexts, we created an evidence map summarizing physical and mental health, cognitive, affective, and interpersonal outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mindfulness interventions.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases to July 2017, dually-screened all reviews, and consulted topic experts to identify systematic reviews on mindfulness interventions. The distribution of evidence is presented as an evidence map in a bubble plot.ResultsIn total, 175 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Reviews included a variety of mindfulness-based interventions. The largest review included 109 randomized controlled trials. The majority of these addressed general health, psychological conditions, chronic illness, pain, and substance use. Twenty-six systematic reviews assessed studies conducted in workplace settings and with healthcare professionals, educators, and caregivers. The evidence map shows the prevalence of research by the primary area of focus. An outline of promising applications of mindfulness interventions is included.ConclusionsThe evidence map provides an overview of existing mindfulness research. It shows the body of available evidence to inform policy and organizational decision-making supporting employee wellbeing in work contexts.

BackgroundThe prevalence of knee osteoarthritis (OA)/degenerative joint disease (DJD) is increasing in the USA. Systematic reviews of treatment efficacy and adverse events (AEs) of hyaluronic acid (HA) injections report conflicting evidence about the balance of benefits and harms. We review evidence on efficacy and AEs of intraarticular viscosupplementation with HA in older individuals with knee osteoarthritis and account for differences in these conclusions from another systematic review.MethodsWe searched PubMed and eight other databases and gray literature sources from 1990 to December 12, 2014. Double-blind placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting functional outcomes or quality-of-life; RCTs and observational studies on delay/avoidance of arthroplasty; RCTs, case reports, and large cohort studies and case series assessing safety; and systematic reviews reporting on knee pain were considered for inclusion. A standardized, pre-defined protocol was applied by two independent reviewers to screen titles and abstracts, review full text, and extract details on study design, interventions, outcomes, and quality. We compared our results with those of a prior systematic review and found them to be discrepant; our analysis of why this discrepancy occurred is the focus of this manuscript.ResultsEighteen RCTs reported functional outcomes: pooled analysis of ten placebo-controlled, blinded trials showed a standardized mean difference of -0.23 (95 % confidence interval (CI) -0.45 to -0.01) favoring HA at 6 months. Studies reported few serious adverse events (SAEs) and no significant differences in non-serious adverse events (NSAEs) (relative risk (RR) [95 % CI] 1.03 [0.93-1.15] or SAEs (RR [95 % CI] 1.39 [0.78-2.47]). A recent prior systematic review reported similar functional outcomes, but significant SAE risk. Differences in SAE inclusion and synthesis accounted for the disparate conclusions.ConclusionsTrials show a small but significant effect of HA on function on which recent systematic reviews agree, but lack of AE synthesis standardization leads to opposite conclusions about the balance of benefits and harms. A limitation of the re-analysis of the prior systematic review is that it required imputation of missing data.

ImportanceEvidence supports palliative care effectiveness. Given workforce constraints and the costs of new services, payers and providers need help to prioritize their investments. They need to know which patients to target, which personnel to hire, and which services best improve outcomes.ObjectiveTo inform how payers and providers should identify patients with "advanced illness" and the specific interventions they should implement, we reviewed the evidence to identify (1) individuals appropriate for palliative care and (2) elements of health service interventions (personnel involved, use of multidisciplinary teams, and settings of care) effective in achieving better outcomes for patients, caregivers, and the healthcare system.Evidence reviewSystematic searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases (1/1/2001-1/8/2015).ResultsRandomized controlled trials (124) met inclusion criteria. The majority of studies in cancer (49%, 38 of 77 studies) demonstrated statistically significant patient or caregiver outcomes (e.g., p

ObjectiveValid, reliable critical appraisal tools advance quality improvement (QI) intervention impacts by helping stakeholders identify higher quality studies. QI approaches are diverse and differ from clinical interventions. Widely used critical appraisal instruments do not take unique QI features into account and existing QI tools (eg, Standards for QI Reporting Excellence) are intended for publication guidance rather than critical appraisal. This study developed and psychometrically tested a critical appraisal instrument, the QI Minimum Quality Criteria Set (QI-MQCS) for assessing QI-specific features of QI publications.MethodsApproaches to developing the tool and ensuring validity included a literature review, in-person and online survey expert panel input, and application to empirical examples. We investigated psychometric properties in a set of diverse QI publications (N=54) by analysing reliability measures and item endorsement rates and explored sources of disagreement between reviewers.ResultsThe QI-MQCS includes 16 content domains to evaluate QI intervention publications: Organisational Motivation, Intervention Rationale, Intervention Description, Organisational Characteristics, Implementation, Study Design, Comparator Description, Data Sources, Timing, Adherence/Fidelity, Health Outcomes, Organisational Readiness, Penetration/Reach, Sustainability, Spread and Limitations. Median inter-rater agreement for QI-MQCS items was κ 0.57 (83% agreement). Item statistics indicated sufficient ability to differentiate between publications (median quality criteria met 67%). Internal consistency measures indicated coherence without excessive conceptual overlap (absolute mean interitem correlation=0.19). The critical appraisal instrument is accompanied by a user manual detailing What to consider, Where to look and How to rate.ConclusionsWe developed a ready-to-use, valid and reliable critical appraisal instrument applicable to healthcare QI intervention publications, but recognise scope for continuing refinement.

BackgroundThe purpose of this review is to study the effect of school-based interventions on smoking prevention for girls.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of articles published since 1992 on school-based tobacco-control interventions in controlled trials for smoking prevention among children. We searched the databases of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, The Cochrane Databases, CINAHL, Social Science Abstracts, and PsycInfo. Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion and quality and extracted data. A pooled random-effects estimate was estimated of the overall relative risk.ResultsThirty-seven trials were included, of which 16 trials with 24,210 girls were included in the pooled analysis. The overall pooled effect was a relative risk (RR) of 0.96 (95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.86-1.08; I (2)=75 %). One study in which a school-based intervention was combined with a mass media intervention showed more promising results compared to only school-based prevention, and four studies with girl-specific interventions, that could not be included in the pooled analysis, reported statistically significant benefits for attitudes and intentions about smoking and quit rates.ConclusionsThere was no evidence that school-based smoking prevention programs have a significant effect on preventing adolescent girls from smoking. Combining school-based programs with mass media interventions, and developing girl-specific interventions, deserve additional study as potentially more effective interventions compared to school-based-only intervention programs.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42012002322.

: Introduction: There is strong global commitment to eliminate HIV‐related stigma, and work in this area continues to evolve. Wide variation exists in frameworks and measures used. Methods: Building on the existing knowledge syntheses, we carried out a systematic review to identify frameworks and measures aiming to understand or assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and in law and policy. The review addressed two questions: Which conceptual frameworks have been proposed to assess internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination experienced in healthcare settings, and stigma and discrimination entrenched in national laws and policies? Which measures of these different types of stigma and discrimination have been proposed and what are their descriptive properties? Searches, completed on 6 May 2021, cover publications from 2008 onwards. The review is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021249348), the protocol incorporated stakeholder input, and the data are available in the Systematic Review Data Repository. Results and discussion: Sixty‐nine frameworks and 50 measures met the inclusion criteria. Critical appraisal figures and detailed evidence tables summarize these resources. We established a compendium of frameworks and a catalogue of measures of HIV‐related stigma and discrimination. Seventeen frameworks and 10 measures addressed at least two of our focus domains, with least attention to stigma and discrimination in law and policy. The lack of common definitions and variability in scope and structure of HIV‐related frameworks and measures creates challenges in understanding what is being addressed and measured, both in relation to stigma and efforts to mitigate or reduce its harmful effects. Having comparable data is essential for tracking change over time within and between interventions. Conclusions: This systematic review provides an evidence base of current understandings of HIV‐related stigma and discrimination and how further conceptual clarification and increased adaptation of existing tools might help overcome challenges across the HIV care continuum. With people living with HIV at the centre, experts from different stakeholder groups could usefully collaborate to guide a more streamlined approach for the field. This can help to achieve global targets and understand, measure and help mitigate the impact of different types of HIV‐related stigma on people's health and quality of life., INTRODUCTION HIV‐related stigma and discrimination constitute significant barriers to HIV responses around the world. Fragmentation of efforts to address HIV‐related stigma and discrimination has hampered progress to date. To strengthen [...]

BackgroundSystematic reviews are a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine but are useful only if up-to-date. Methods for detecting signals of when a systematic review needs updating have face validity, but no proposed method has had an assessment of predictive validity performed.MethodsThe AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report. Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating. AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs. Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid. We then classified the concordance of each pair as good, fair, or poor. We also made a summary determination of the priority for updating each CER based on the actual changes in conclusions in the updated report, and compared these determinations with the earlier assessments of priority.ResultsThe 9 CERs included 149 individual conclusions, 84% with matches in the update reports. Across reports, 83% of matched conclusions had good concordance, and 99% had good or fair concordance. The one instance of poor concordance was partially attributable to the publication of new evidence after the surveillance signal searches had been done. Both CERs originally judged as being low priority for updating had no substantive changes to their conclusions in the actual updated report. The agreement on overall priority for updating between prediction and actual changes to conclusions was Kappa = 0.74.ConclusionsThese results provide some support for the validity of a surveillance system for detecting signals indicating when a systematic review needs updating.

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can become outdated as new evidence emerges over time. Organizations that produce SRs need a surveillance method to determine when reviews are likely to require updating. This report describes the development and initial results of a surveillance system to assess SRs produced by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program.MethodsTwenty-four SRs were assessed using existing methods that incorporate limited literature searches, expert opinion, and quantitative methods for the presence of signals triggering the need for updating. The system was designed to begin surveillance six months after the release of the original review, and then ceforth every six months for any review not classified as being a high priority for updating. The outcome of each round of surveillance was a classification of the SR as being low, medium or high priority for updating.ResultsTwenty-four SRs underwent surveillance at least once, and ten underwent surveillance a second time during the 18 months of the program. Two SRs were classified as high, five as medium, and 17 as low priority for updating. The time lapse between the searches conducted for the original reports and the updated searches (search time lapse - STL) ranged from 11 months to 62 months: The STL for the high priority reports were 29 months and 54 months; those for medium priority reports ranged from 19 to 62 months; and those for low priority reports ranged from 11 to 33 months. Neither the STL nor the number of new relevant articles was perfectly associated with a signal for updating. Challenges of implementing the surveillance system included determining what constituted the actual conclusions of an SR that required assessing; and sometimes poor response rates of experts.ConclusionIn this system of regular surveillance of 24 systematic reviews on a variety of clinical interventions produced by a leading organization, about 70% of reviews were determined to have a low priority for updating. Evidence suggests that the time period for surveillance is yearly rather than the six months used in this project.

Background Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Methods and findings We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base. Conclusions We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence., Author(s): Sean Grant 1,2,*, Gulrez Azhar 2, Eugeniu Han 2, Marika Booth 2, Aneesa Motala 2, Jody Larkin 3, Susanne Hempel 2 Introduction Alcohol use disorders (AUDs) and depressive disorders [...]