Tools for the Diagnosis of ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Correct diagnosis is essential for the appropriate clinical management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review provides an overview of the available diagnostic tools. DATA SOURCES: We identified diagnostic accuracy studies in 12 databases published from 1980 through June 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Any ADHD tool evaluation for the diagnosis of ADHD, requiring a reference standard of a clinical diagnosis by a mental health specialist. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards. RESULTS: In total, 231 studies met eligibility criteria. Studies evaluated parental ratings, teacher ratings, youth self-reports, clinician tools, neuropsychological tests, biospecimen, EEG, and neuroimaging. Multiple tools showed promising diagnostic performance, but estimates varied considerably across studies, with a generally low strength of evidence. Performance depended on whether ADHD youth were being differentiated from neurotypically developing children or from clinically referred children. LIMITATIONS: Studies used different components of available tools and did not report sufficient data for meta-analytic models. CONCLUSIONS: A valid and reliable diagnosis of ADHD requires the judgment of a clinician who is experienced in the evaluation of youth with and without ADHD, along with the aid of standardized rating scales and input from multiple informants across multiple settings, including parents, teachers, and youth themselves.

Treatments for ADHD in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Effective treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is essential to improving youth outcomes. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review provides an overview of the available treatment options. DATA SOURCES: We identified controlled treatment evaluations in 12 databases published from 1980 to June 2023; treatments were not restricted by intervention content. STUDY SELECTION: Studies in children and adolescents with clinically diagnosed ADHD, reporting patient health and psychosocial outcomes, were eligible. Publications were screened by trained reviewers, supported by machine learning. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted and critically appraised by 1 reviewer and checked by a methodologist. Data were pooled using random-effects models. Strength of evidence and applicability assessments followed Evidence-based Practice Center standards. RESULTS: In total, 312 studies reported in 540 publications were included. We grouped evidence for medication, psychosocial interventions, parent support, nutrition and supplements, neurofeedback, neurostimulation, physical exercise, complementary medicine, school interventions, and provider approaches. Several treatments improved ADHD symptoms. Medications had the strongest evidence base for improving outcomes, including disruptive behaviors and broadband measures, but were associated with adverse events. LIMITATIONS: We found limited evidence of studies comparing alternative treatments directly and indirect analyses identified few systematic differences across stimulants and nonstimulants. Identified combination of medication with youth-directed psychosocial interventions did not systematically produce better results than monotherapy, though few combinations have been evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: A growing number of treatments are available that improve ADHD symptoms and other outcomes, in particular for school-aged youth. Medication therapies remain important treatment options but are associated with adverse events.

Caring for high-need patients.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the construct of "high need" and identify common need domains among high-need patients, their care professionals, and healthcare organizations; and to describe the interventions that health care systems use to address these needs, including exploring the potential unintended consequences of interventions. METHODS: We conducted a modified Delphi panel informed by an environmental scan. Expert stakeholders included patients, interdisciplinary healthcare practitioners (physicians, social workers, peer navigators), implementation scientists, and policy makers. The environmental scan used a rapid literature review and semi-structured interviews with key informants who provide healthcare for high-need patients. We convened a day-long virtual panel meeting, preceded and followed by online surveys to establish consensus. RESULTS: The environmental scan identified 46 systematic reviews on high-need patients, 19 empirical studies documenting needs, 14 intervention taxonomies, and 9 studies providing construct validity for the concept "high need." Panelists explored the construct and terminology and established that individual patients' needs are unique, but areas of commonality exist across all high-need patients. Panelists agreed on 11 domains describing patient (e.g., social circumstances), 5 care professional (e.g., communication), and 8 organizational (e.g., staffing arrangements) needs. Panelists developed a taxonomy of interventions with 15 categories (e.g., care navigation, care coordination, identification and monitoring) directed at patients, care professionals, or the organization. The project identified potentially unintended consequences of interventions for high-need patients, including high costs incurred for patients, increased time and effort for care professionals, and identification of needs without resources to respond appropriately. CONCLUSIONS: Care for high-need patients requires a thoughtful approach; differentiating need domains provides multiple entry points for interventions directed at patients, care professionals, and organizations. Implementation efforts should consider outlined intended and unintended downstream effects on patients, care professionals, and organizations.

Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) for vascular surgery: an evidence map and scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) interventions aim to improve patient outcomes. Vascular surgery patients have unique requirements and it is unclear which ERAS interventions are supported by an evidence base. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review to identify ERAS randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in the biomedical or nursing literature. We assessed interventions for applicability to vascular surgery and differentiated interventions given at preadmission, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative surgery stages. We documented the research in an evidence map. RESULTS: We identified 76 relevant RCTs. Interventions were mostly administered in preoperative (23 RCTs; 30%) or intraoperative surgery stages (35 RCTs; 46%). The majority of studies reported mortality outcomes (44 RCTs; 58%), but hospital (27 RCTs; 35%) and intensive care unit (9 RCTs; 12%) length of stay outcomes were less consistently described. CONCLUSION: The ERAS evidence base is growing but contains gaps. Research on preadmission interventions and more consistent reporting of key outcomes is needed.

Multiple chemical sensitivity scoping review protocol: overview of research and MCS construct.

INTRODUCTION: Multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS) has been characterised by reported adverse responses to environmental exposures of common chemical agents (eg, perfumes, paint, cleaning products and other inhaled or ingested agents) in low doses considered non-toxic for the general population. There is currently no consensus on whether MCS can be established as a distinct disorder. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The scoping review of the literature will be guided by five questions: How is MCS defined and which diagnostic criteria have been proposed? What methods are used to report prevalence and incidence estimates of MCS? What are the characteristics of the body of scientific evidence that addresses whether MCS is a distinct disorder or syndrome? What underlying mechanisms for MCS have been proposed in the scientific literature? Which treatment and management approaches for MCS have been evaluated in empirical research studies? We will conduct a comprehensive search in 14 research databases. Citation screening will be supported by machine learning algorithms. Two independent reviewers will assess eligibility of full-text publications against prespecified criteria. Data abstraction will support concise evidence tables. A formal consultation exercise will elicit input regarding the review results and presentation. The existing research evidence will be documented in a user-friendly visualisation in the format of an evidence map. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Determined to be exempt from review (UP-22-00516). Results will be disseminated through a journal manuscript and data will be publicly accessible through an online data repository. REGISTRATION DETAILS: The protocol is registered in Open Science Framework (osf.io/4a3wu).

Interventions for People Who Have Attempted Suicide and Their Family Members: A Systematic Review.

Following a suicide attempt, components of aftercare can include efforts to reduce suicidal behavior (i.e., suicide, attempt, or ideation) of a person who has attempted suicide and facilitate the psychosocial adjustment of the patient and their family members. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis of key outcomes was to synthesize the existing evidence on interventions for people who have attempted suicide and their family members. The authors found that aftercare interventions show a statistically significant reduction in further suicide attempts for intervention participants. Studies also reported a reduction in suicide deaths, depression, and hopelessness, but the results are based on limited quality of evidence. The uptake of interventions and treatment retention varied widely by aftercare intervention. The authors could not explore the effects of the intervention target (e.g., participants who attempted suicide versus family members or both) or populations because of the homogeneity of the sample and the lack of studies measuring family member responses. The identified studies did not meaningfully address the effects of interventions on family members because these were rarely included in existing research studies.

Disciplinary trends in the use of the Delphi method: A bibliometric analysis.

The Delphi method is an iterative, anonymous, group-based process for eliciting and aggregating opinion on a topic to explore the existence of consensus among experts. The year 2023 marks the 60th anniversary of the first peer-reviewed journal article on the Delphi method. Originally developed for operations research, this method is now applied extensively by researchers representing diverse scientific fields. We used a bibliometric analysis to describe general trends in the expansion of its use across disciplines over time. We conducted a systematic literature search for all English-language, peer-reviewed journal articles on the Delphi method through its first 60 years. We found 19,831 articles: 96.8% (n = 19,204) on the actual use of the Delphi method in an empirical study and 3.2% (n = 627) describing, examining, or providing some guidance on how to use the Delphi method. Almost half (49.9%) of all articles were published in the 2010s and an additional third (32.5%) in the first few years of the 2020s. Nearly two-thirds (65%, n = 12,883) of all published articles have appeared in medical journals, compared to 15% in science and technology (n = 3,053) or social science (n = 3,016) journals. We conclude that the expanded use of the Delphi method has been driven largely by the medical field, though social scientists and technologists continue to be at the forefront of methodological work on the Delphi method. Therefore, we call for greater transdisciplinary collaboration on methodological guidance and standards for the Delphi method.

Disparities in pediatric cancer survivorship care: A systematic review.

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.

A Scoping Review of Guidelines and Quality Measures to Screen for Social and Caregiver Support and Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care.

High-risk patients-those patients with complex health care needs who are most likely to face hospitalization or death in the following two years-are most often initially seen in the primary care setting. This small group of patients uses a disproportionate amount of care resources. Contributing to the challenges of care planning for this population is that individuals are highly heterogeneous; no two patients present the same set of symptoms, diagnoses, and challenges related to social determinants of health (SDOH). Methods for early identification of these high-risk patients-and their care needs-have raised the possibility of timely enhanced care. In this study, the authors conduct a scoping review to identify existing measures of care quality; assessment and screening guidelines; and tools that (1) assess social support, the need for caregiver support, and the need for referral to social services and (2) screen for cognitive impairment (CI). Evidence-based screening guidelines define who and what should be assessed-and how often-to enhance care quality and improve health outcomes, whereas measures permit ascertainment that this assessment is occurring. Evidence-based guidelines and measures-those that are found to lead to better health care outcomes-would be candidates for inclusion in a measure dashboard for high-risk patients in primary care settings.

Managing Urinary Incontinence for Women in Primary Care: Environmental Scan (Base Year).

Urinary incontinence (UI) is a highly prevalent condition among women worldwide. Although effective nonsurgical treatments exist, including pharmacological, behavioral, and physical therapies, many women with the condition are never diagnosed because of a lack of information, stigma, and the absence of regular screening in primary care, and those who are diagnosed might not receive or adhere to treatment. In this study, the authors present an environmental scan of studies published from 2012 through 2022 that assess the dissemination and implementation of nonsurgical UI treatment-including screening, management, and referral strategies-for women in primary care. The scan was conducted as part of the RAND's support and evaluation contract for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Managing Urinary Incontinence initiative. The initiative, which builds on the agency's EvidenceNOW model, funds five grant projects to disseminate and implement improved nonsurgical treatment of UI for women within primary care practices in separate regions of the United States.

Systematic review and quantitative and qualitative comparative analysis of interventions to address HIV-related stigma and discrimination.

A strong global commitment exists to eliminate HIV-related stigma and discrimination, and multiple strategies to reduce or eliminate stigma and discrimination have been tried. Using a PICOTS framework and applying the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria, we undertook a systematic review to determine the success of interventions aiming to address internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare, and at the legal or policy level, and to identify their critical success factors. Random effects meta-analyses summarized results wherever possible. We carried out a component analysis to identify and characterize successful interventions. Internalized stigma interventions were diverse: across all studies, we found a reduction of stigma but it was not statistically significant [standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.56; confidence interval (CI) 0.31-1.02; 17 studies). For interventions to address stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, effect estimates varied considerably but most studies showed positive effects (SMD 0.71; CI 0.60-0.84, 8 studies). Boosted regression analyses found that a combined approach comprising education, counseling, community participation, support person, and access to a HIV specialist often yielded success. Studies of efforts to address stigma and discrimination through law and policy documented, mostly qualitatively, the effect of court cases and directives. Across a range of settings and populations, promising interventions have been identified that, through diverse pathways, have positively impacted the types of stigma and discrimination studied. This evidence base must be built upon and brought to scale to help reach global HIV-related targets and, most importantly, improve the health and quality of life of people with HIV.

Care coordination across healthcare systems: development of a research agenda, implications for practice, and recommendations for policy based on a modified Delphi panel.

OBJECTIVE: For 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. DESIGN: The modified Delphi approach convened a 2-day stakeholder panel with moderated virtual discussions, preceded and followed by online surveys. SETTING: The 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. PARTICIPANTS: The 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 MEASURES: The study planned to formulate a research agenda, implications for practice and recommendations for policy. RESULTS: For 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. CONCLUSIONS: Recommendations from the stakeholder panel created an agenda to foster further research, practice and policy innovations in cross-system care coordination.

Programs for Care System Transitions in Mental Health: A Systematic Review.

Although transitions between health care systems are common when patients move between jobs or insurers, they are especially difficult to navigate when patients with mental health conditions leave an integrated system, such as the Military Health System (MHS). The authors synthesize evidence from studies of interventions that facilitate transitions between mental health care systems, such as the transition from the MHS to the Veterans Health Administration (VHA). The authors searched multiple research databases, reference-mined bibliographies of existing reviews, and consulted with experts to identify existing evaluations of transition support interventions. Key informants helped identify pertinent populations of interest who are transitioning between health care systems. Seventeen studies evaluating different approaches met inclusion criteria. Studies reported on different outcomes, and few could be combined in aggregated analyses. Analyses showed that care transition interventions can increase outpatient mental health service use, but the overall body of evidence is limited.

Evidence-Based Quality Improvement: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

BACKGROUND: Quality improvement (QI) initiatives often reflect approaches based on anecdotal evidence, but it is unclear how initiatives can best incorporate scientific literature and methods into the QI process. Review of studies of QI initiatives that aim to systematically incorporate evidence review (termed evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI)) may provide a basis for further methodological development. METHODS: In this scoping review (registration: https://osf.io/hr5bj ) of EBQI, we searched the databases PubMed, CINAHL, and SCOPUS. The review addressed three central questions: How is EBQI defined? How is evidence used to inform evidence-informed QI initiatives? What is the effectiveness of EBQI? RESULTS: We identified 211 publications meeting inclusion criteria. In total, 170 publications explicitly used the term "EBQI." Published definitions emphasized relying on evidence throughout the QI process. We reviewed a subset of 67 evaluations of QI initiatives in primary care, including both studies that used the term "EBQI" with those that described an evidence-based initiative without using EBQI terminology. The most frequently reported EBQI components included use of evidence to identify previously tested effective QI interventions; engaging stakeholders; iterative intervention development; partnering with frontline clinicians; and data-driven evaluation of the QI intervention. Effectiveness estimates were positive but varied in size in ten studies that provided data on patient health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: EBQI is a promising strategy for integrating relevant prior scientific findings and methods systematically in the QI process, from the initial developmental phase of the IQ initiative through to its evaluation. Future QI researchers and practitioners can use these findings as the basis for further development of QI initiatives.

Quality Measures for Patients at Risk of Adverse Outcomes in the Veterans Health Administration: Expert Panel Recommendations.

Importance: Despite longstanding efforts to improve health care quality for patients with complex needs who are at highest risk for hospitalization or death, to our knowledge, no guidance exists on what constitutes measurable high-quality care for this heterogeneous population. Identifying quality measures that are cross-cutting (ie, relevant to multiple chronic conditions and disease states) may enable health care professionals and health care systems to better design and report on quality improvement efforts for this patient population. Objective: To identify quality measures of care and prioritize quality-of-care concepts in the ambulatory primary care setting for patients in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) who have complex care needs and are at high risk for adverse outcomes, such as hospitalization or death. Evidence Review: In this expert panel assessment and prioritization, relevant measure concepts for future quality measure development in 3 care categories (assessment, management, and other features of health care) were extracted from a systematic review, conducted from June 2020 to June 2021, of published studies that suggested, evaluated, or used indicators of quality care for patients at high risk of adverse outcomes. Measure concepts associated with single conditions, surgical or other specialty care settings, and inpatient care were excluded. A panel of 14 experts (10 VHA leaders and staff, 2 non-VHA physician investigators, and 2 veterans) discussed and rated the importance of the remaining set of potentially relevant measure concepts using a modified RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method on January 15, 2021. Measure concepts were rated on a scale of 1 to 9, with 9 being the highest priority. A median rating of 7.5 or greater was used as the cutoff to identify the highest-priority items. Findings: The systematic review identified 519 measure concepts, from which 15 domains and 49 measure concepts were proposed for expert panel consideration. After panel discussions and changes to measure concepts, the expert panel rated 63 measure concepts in 13 domains. The measure concepts with the highest median ratings focused on caregiver availability and support, COVID-19 vaccination, and pneumonia vaccination (all rated 9.0); housing instability (rated 8.5); and physical function, depression symptoms, cognitive impairment, prescription regimen, primary care follow-up after an emergency department visit or hospitalization, and timely transmission of discharge information to primary care (all rated 8.0). Recommendations to improve care included timely assessment of housing instability, caregiver support, physical function, depression symptoms, and cognitive impairment; annual prescription regimen review; coordinated transitions in care; and preventive care including vaccinations. Conclusions and Relevance: The expert panelists identified a parsimonious set of high-priority, evidence-based, cross-cutting quality measure concepts for improving care of patients at high risk for adverse health outcomes in the VHA. These quality measures may inform both future research for patients at high risk and health care system quality improvement.

Predictors of burnout among US healthcare providers: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: One potential barrier to optimal healthcare may be provider burnout or occupational-related stress in the workplace. The objective of this study is to conduct a systematic review to identify the predictors of burnout among US. healthcare providers. DESIGN: Systematic review using in-depth critical appraisal to assess risk of bias and present the quality of evidence in synthesised results from the prognostic studies. DATA SOURCES: We searched 11 databases, registries, existing reviews and contacted experts through 4 October 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We included all studies evaluating potential predictors and documenting the presence and absence of associations with burnout assessed as a multidimensional construct. We excluded studies that relied solely on a single continuous subscale of burnout. Data were abstracted from eligible studies and checked for accuracy by a content expert and a methodologist. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened citations and full-text publications using predetermined eligibility criteria. RESULTS: The 141 identified studies evaluated a range of burnout predictors. Findings for demographic characteristics were conflicting or show no association. Workplace factors, such as workload, work/life balance, job autonomy and perceived support from leadership, had stronger associations with risk for burnout. Mental health factors, such as anxiety, and physical health risks may increase the risk, although the direction of these associations is unclear as few prospective studies exist to address this question. Factors such as social support appear to have a protective effect. CONCLUSION: We found the most evidence for workplace, mental health and psychosocial factors in predicting burnout but limited evidence for other potential predictors. However, more prospective studies are needed to improve our understanding about how to prevent provider burnout. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD4202014836.

Methods for Identifying Health Research Gaps, Needs, and Priorities: A Scoping Review.

Well-defined, systematic, and transparent processes to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities are vital to ensuring that available funds target areas with the greatest potential for impact. This study documents a scoping review of published methods used for identifying health research gaps, establishing research needs, and determining research priorities and provides relevant information on 362 studies. Of the 362 studies, 167 were linked to funding decisionmaking and underwent a more detailed data abstraction process. The authors noted that most studies focused on physical health conditions, but few addressed psychological health conditions. The most frequent method for identifying research gaps, needs, and priorities was to convene workshops or conferences. One-third of studies employed quantitative methods, and nearly as many used the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnerships approach. Other methods included literature reviews, qualitative methods, consensus methods, and reviews of source materials. The criterion most widely applied to determine health research gaps, needs, and priorities was the importance to stakeholders, followed by the potential value and feasibility of carrying out the research. The two largest stakeholder groups were researchers and clinicians. More than one-half the studies involved patients and the public as stakeholders. Very few studies have evaluated the impact of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities. This study provides a roadmap of methods used for identifying health research gaps, needs, and priorities, which may help accelerate progress toward validating methods that ensure the effective targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and to maximize impact.

Stress Control for Military, Law Enforcement, and First Responders: A Systematic Review.

Military personnel, police officers, firefighters, and other first responders must prepare for and respond to life-threatening crises on a daily basis. This lifestyle places stress on personnel, and particularly so on military personnel who may be isolated from support systems and other resources. The authors conducted a systematic review of studies of interventions designed to prevent, identify, and manage acute occupational stress among military, law enforcement, and first responders. The body of evidence consisted of 38 controlled trials, 35 cohort comparisons, and 42 case studies with no comparison group, reported in 136 publications. Interventions consisted of resilience training, stress inoculation with biofeedback, mindfulness, psychological first aid, front-line mental health centers, two- to seven-day restoration programs, debriefing (including critical incident stress debriefing), third-location decompression, postdeployment mental health screening, reintegration programs, and family-centered programs. Study limitations (risk of bias), directness, consistency, precision, and publication bias were considered in rating the quality of evidence for each outcome area. Overall, interventions had positive effects on return to duty, absenteeism, and distress. However, there was no significant impact on symptoms of psychological disorders such as PTSD, depression, and anxiety. Because of study limitations, inconsistency of results, indirectness, and possible publication bias, there was insufficient evidence to form conclusions about the effects of most specific intervention types, components, settings, or specific populations.

Sleep Management in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): A Systematic Review.

Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a condition that can emerge after exposure to a traumatic event. It involves several symptoms, including distressing memories or dreams and/or dissociative reactions; psychological distress at exposure to trauma cues; physiologic reactions to cues; avoidance of stimuli associated with the event; negative alterations in cognitions and mood associated with the trauma; and alterations in arousal and reactivity, including sleep disturbance. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence from randomized controlled trials on the effects that interventions for adults with PTSD have on sleep outcomes. The authors searched research databases and bibliographies of existing systematic reviews to identify pertinent trials published in English; literature was identified by the searches using predetermined eligibility criteria. The primary outcome domain included sleep quality, insomnia, and nightmares. Secondary outcomes were PTSD symptoms and adverse events. Risk of bias and the quality of evidence were assessed for each outcome. The identified interventions addressed pharmacological, psychological, behavioral, complementary, and integrative medicine treatments aimed at improving sleep or lessening other PTSD symptoms. Interventions in general showed an effect on sleep. Interventions explicitly targeting sleep-particularly psychotherapy targeting sleep-showed larger effects on sleep than did interventions not targeting sleep. Heterogeneity was considerable, but sleep effect estimates were not systematically affected by trauma type, setting, or modality. Comparative effectiveness studies are needed to support the findings.

Frameworks and measures for HIV-related internalized stigma, stigma and discrimination in healthcare and in laws and policies: a systematic review.

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.