Strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research: A systematic review.

RATIONALE: Moving towards high quality primary health care, involving family physicians in primary care research becomes an essential prerequisite to ensures a better adoption and routinization of patient-centred, evidence-based practices. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of strategies to engage family physicians in primary care research. METHODS: We systematically reviewed evidence for strategies used to engage family physicians in primary care research. We included any study design that reported at least one quantitative outcome. Searches were carried out on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Pairs of reviewers independently screened for publications in two stages using standardized forms. We performed data analysis through a narrative synthesis approach, using the Reasoned-action approach as framework. RESULTS: A total of 4859 deduped records were identified of which 41 studies met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. The majority of studies (n = 35) investigated family physician's participation in a research project. They aimed to influence family physicians' intention (n = 7) or their ability (n = 3) to participate in a research project. Three types of strategies (compensation/incentive, recruitment by a peer and support from a research network or an academic institution) demonstrated a significant increase in participation rate. Methodological quality of the studies evaluating these strategies was relatively low. Few studies (n = 6) targeted research capacity-building programmes with no significant impact noted. CONCLUSION: Numerous strategies have been used to engage family physicians in primary care research, but few studies evaluated their effectiveness in a rigorous way. REGISTRATION: The protocol of this review was registered with the SPOR Evidence Alliance and on the PROSPERO platform (registration number: CRD42020189322).

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition.

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

Global prevalence of antidepressant drug utilization in the community: protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Antidepressant drugs are the most frequently prescribed medication for mental disorders. They are also used off-label and for non-psychiatric indications. Prescriptions of antidepressants have increased in the last decades, but no systematic review exists on the extent of their use in the community. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will conduct a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. We will search for studies published from 1 January 2010 in the Embase and MEDLINE databases using a combination of controlled vocabulary and keywords adjusted for each database without any language restriction. The main inclusion criterion is the presence of prevalence data of antidepressant utilization. Thus, we will include all studies with a descriptive observational design reporting the prevalence of antidepressant use in the community. Study selection (by title/abstract and full-text screening) and data extraction for included studies will be independently conducted by pairs of reviewers. We will then synthesize the data on the prevalence of antidepressant use in individuals living in the community. If possible, we will perform a meta-analysis to generate prevalence-pooled estimates. If the data allows it, we will conduct subgroup analyses by antidepressant class, age, sex, country and other sociodemographic categories. We will evaluate the risk of bias for each included study through a quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal tool: Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data. DistillerSR software will be used for the management of this review. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review as it will not directly involve human or animal subjects. The findings of our systematic review will be disseminated through publications in peer-reviewed journals, the Qualaxia Network (https://qualaxia.org), presentations at international conferences on mental health and pharmacoepidemiology, as well as general public events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021247423.

Shared Transcriptional Signatures in Major Depressive Disorder and Mouse Chronic Stress Models.

BACKGROUND: Most of our knowledge of the biological basis of major depressive disorder (MDD) is derived from studies of chronic stress models in rodents. While these models capture certain aspects of the behavioral and neuroendocrine features of MDD, the extent to which they reproduce the molecular pathology of the human syndrome remains unknown. METHODS: We systematically compared transcriptional signatures in two brain regions implicated in depression-medial prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens-of humans with MDD and of 3 chronic stress models in mice: chronic variable stress, adult social isolation, and chronic social defeat stress. We used differential expression analysis combined with weighted gene coexpression network analysis to create interspecies gene networks and assess the capacity of each stress paradigm to recapitulate the transcriptional organization of gene networks in human MDD. RESULTS: Our results show significant overlap between transcriptional alterations in medial prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens in human MDD and the 3 mouse chronic stress models, with each of the chronic stress paradigms capturing distinct aspects of MDD abnormalities. Chronic variable stress and adult social isolation better reproduce differentially expressed genes, while chronic social defeat stress and adult social isolation better reproduce gene networks characteristic of human MDD. We also identified several gene networks and their constituent genes that are most significantly associated with human MDD and mouse stress models. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the ability of 3 chronic stress models in mice to recapitulate distinct aspects of the broad molecular pathology of human MDD, with no one mouse model apparently better than another.