Psychosocial predictors, assessment, and outcomes of cosmetic procedures: a systematic rapid evidence assessment.

BACKGROUND: Recent breast implant complications led to a UK government policy review of the evidence concerning cosmetic interventions. We synthesised cosmetic intervention research evidence covering psychosocial factors associated with requesting procedures and psychological outcomes, effects of procedures on psychological outcomes, preintervention assessments for identifying those at risk, alternative therapy effectiveness, and issues in achieving informed consent. METHODS: Undertaking a systematic rapid evidence assessment, six databases and three journals were searched. Included studies were systematic reviews or primary studies of participants requesting cosmetic procedures; published 2002-2012; containing either psychological or psychosocial measures, a psychological outcome, or evaluation of informed consent. Reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, and assessed quality, undertaking narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Methodological quality of the included 13 systematic reviews and 179 primary studies was low, with wide variation in psychosocial measures. Findings suggest several psychosocial factors (e.g., intimate partner violence) may be associated with requesting cosmetic surgery. Multiple factors (e.g., unrealistic expectations) may predict poor psychological outcomes. Current psychological screening tools focus predominantly on body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) symptoms. Psychological and pharmacological interventions are effective alternative BDD treatments. Patients and doctors bring different needs to informed consent discussions, inconsistently matched to those required by professional ethics, litigation risk, and facilitating profit. CONCLUSIONS: Systematically reviewing this literature for UK policy has highlighted that some groups may be at risk of poor post-cosmetic procedure outcomes. Practitioners and patients must explore reasons for seeking cosmetic procedures and discuss all potential results and alternative solutions. Future research should employ more robust methodologies to identify effects in those at risk, led by consensus on a core set of psychological outcomes.

Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking in pregnancy remains one of the few preventable factors associated with complications in pregnancy, stillbirth, low birthweight and preterm birth and has serious long-term implications for women and babies. Smoking in pregnancy is decreasing in high-income countries, but is strongly associated with poverty and increasing in low- to middle-income countries. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy on smoking behaviour and perinatal health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: In this fifth update, we searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (1 March 2013), checked reference lists of retrieved studies and contacted trial authors to locate additional unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, cluster-randomised trials, randomised cross-over trials, and quasi-randomised controlled trials (with allocation by maternal birth date or hospital record number) of psychosocial smoking cessation interventions during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion and trial quality, and extracted data. Direct comparisons were conducted in RevMan, and subgroup analyses and sensitivity analysis were conducted in SPSS. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-six trials were included in this updated review, with 77 trials (involving over 29,000 women) providing data on smoking abstinence in late pregnancy.In separate comparisons, counselling interventions demonstrated a significant effect compared with usual care (27 studies; average risk ratio (RR) 1.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.19 to 1.75), and a borderline effect compared with less intensive interventions (16 studies; average RR 1.35, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.82). However, a significant effect was only seen in subsets where counselling was provided in conjunction with other strategies. It was unclear whether any type of counselling strategy is more effective than others (one study; RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.53). In studies comparing counselling and usual care (the largest comparison), it was unclear whether interventions prevented smoking relapse among women who had stopped smoking spontaneously in early pregnancy (eight studies; average RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.21). However, a clear effect was seen in smoking abstinence at zero to five months postpartum (10 studies; average RR 1.76, 95% CI 1.05 to 2.95), a borderline effect at six to 11 months (six studies; average RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.77), and a significant effect at 12 to 17 months (two studies, average RR 2.20, 95% CI 1.23 to 3.96), but not in the longer term. In other comparisons, the effect was not significantly different from the null effect for most secondary outcomes, but sample sizes were small.Incentive-based interventions had the largest effect size compared with a less intensive intervention (one study; RR 3.64, 95% CI 1.84 to 7.23) and an alternative intervention (one study; RR 4.05, 95% CI 1.48 to 11.11).Feedback interventions demonstrated a significant effect only when compared with usual care and provided in conjunction with other strategies, such as counselling (two studies; average RR 4.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 10.21), but the effect was unclear when compared with a less intensive intervention (two studies; average RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.45 to 3.12).The effect of health education was unclear when compared with usual care (three studies; average RR 1.51, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.59) or less intensive interventions (two studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.31).Social support interventions appeared effective when provided by peers (five studies; average RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.19), but the effect was unclear in a single trial of support provided by partners.The effects were mixed where the smoking interventions were provided as part of broader interventions to improve maternal health, rather than targeted smoking cessation interventions.Subgroup analyses on primary outcome for all studies showed the intensity of interventions and comparisons has increased over time, with higher intensity interventions more likely to have higher intensity comparisons. While there was no significant difference, trials where the comparison group received usual care had the largest pooled effect size (37 studies; average RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.44), with lower effect sizes when the comparison group received less intensive interventions (30 studies; average RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.31), or alternative interventions (two studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.53). More recent studies included in this update had a lower effect size (20 studies; average RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.59), I(2)= 3%, compared to those in the previous version of the review (50 studies; average RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.73). There were similar effect sizes in trials with biochemically validated smoking abstinence (49 studies; average RR 1.43, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.67) and those with self-reported abstinence (20 studies; average RR 1.48, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.87). There was no significant difference between trials implemented by researchers (efficacy studies), and those implemented by routine pregnancy staff (effectiveness studies), however the effect was unclear in three dissemination trials of counselling interventions where the focus on the intervention was at an organisational level (average RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.50). The pooled effects were similar in interventions provided for women with predominantly low socio-economic status (44 studies; average RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.66), compared to other women (26 studies; average RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.79); though the effect was unclear in interventions among women from ethnic minority groups (five studies; average RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.40) and aboriginal women (two studies; average RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.67). Importantly, pooled results demonstrated that women who received psychosocial interventions had an 18% reduction in preterm births (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.96), and infants born with low birthweight (14 studies; average RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.94). There did not appear to be any adverse effects from the psychosocial interventions, and three studies measured an improvement in women's psychological wellbeing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Psychosocial interventions to support women to stop smoking in pregnancy can increase the proportion of women who stop smoking in late pregnancy, and reduce low birthweight and preterm births.

Comparing midwife-led and doctor-led maternity care: a systematic review of reviews.

AIMS: A report of a systematic review of reviews which examines the impact of having midwives-led maternity care for low-risk women, rather than physicians. BACKGROUND: A rising birth rate, increasing complexity of births, and economic constraints pose difficulties for maternity services in the UK. Evidence about the most effective, cost-effective, and efficient ways to give maternity services is needed. DATA SOURCES: Searches were carried out in August-September 2009 of ten electronic databases, 16 key nursing and research websites, and reference lists of 56 relevant reviews. We also contacted 38 experts for information. No date restrictions were employed. REVIEW METHODS: A narrative review of systematic reviews or 'meta review' was conducted using transparent and systematic procedures to limit bias at all stages. Systematic reviews that compared midwife-led care during pregnancy and birth with physician-led care were eligible for inclusion. RESULTS: Three meta-analytic reviews were included. Midwife-led care for low-risk women was found to be better for a range of maternal outcomes, reduced the number of procedures in labour, and increased satisfaction with care. For some maternal, foetal, and neonatal outcomes reviews found no evidence that care led by midwives is different to that led by physicians. No adverse outcomes associated with midwife-led care were identified. CONCLUSIONS: For low-risk women, health and other benefits can result from having their maternity care led by midwives rather than physicians. Moreover, there appear to be no negative impacts on mothers and infants receiving midwife-led care.

Patients' and clinicians' research priorities.

BACKGROUND: If research addresses the questions of relevance to patients and clinicians, decision-makers will be better equipped to design and deliver health services which meet their needs. To this end, a number of initiatives have engaged patients and clinicians in setting research agendas. This paper aimed to scope the research literature addressing such efforts. METHODS: A systematic search strategy combined electronic searches of bibliographic databases with handsearching and contacting key authors. Two researchers, initially working independently, described the relevant reports. FINDINGS: Over 250 studies addressed patients' or clinicians' priorities for research and outcomes for assessment. This literature described different routes for patients and clinicians to contribute to research agendas. Two-thirds of the studies addressing patients' or clinicians' research questions were applicable across health care, with the remainder focussed on specific health conditions. The 27 formal studies of patient involvement revealed a literature that has grown in the last decade. Although only nine studies engaged patients and clinicians in identifying research questions together, they show that methods have advanced over time, with all of them engaging participants directly and repeatedly in facilitated debate and most employing formal decision-making procedures. CONCLUSION: A sizeable literature is available to inform priorities for research and the methods for setting research agendas with patients and clinicians. We recommend that research funders and researchers draw on this literature to provide relevant research for health service decision-makers.

'It's on your conscience all the time': a systematic review of qualitative studies examining views on obesity among young people aged 12-18 years in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the perspectives of young people in the UK on obesity, body size, shape and weight. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies using thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Sensitive searches of 18 electronic databases from 1997 to February 2010 supplemented by grey literature searches. STUDY SELECTION: Studies produced since 1997 using qualitative methods to collect perspectives of people aged 12-18 years in the UK, reporting methods for data collection or analysis. Studies of people with eating disorders and those rated low in reliability and usefulness were excluded. RESULTS: Searches identified 30 studies involving over 1400 young people from a range of contexts. Young people of all sizes placed considerable emphasis on personal responsibility, and on the social, rather than health implications of being overweight. Young people with experience of obesity described severe, unrelenting, size-related abuse and isolation. Regardless of their own size, young people were judgemental of individuals who were overweight, but those with experience of obesity described an environment that contained multiple barriers to weight loss. Only one study asked young people directly what might support them to have a healthy body size. Study findings were configured under three main themes, labelled with quotes from included studies: general perceptions of size and society's responses ('It's on your conscience all the time'); the experiences of young people who were overweight ('If I had the choice I wouldn't be this size') and these larger young people's experiences of trying to loose weight and suggestions for action ('Make sure, even when it's hard, you've got people there'). CONCLUSIONS: The perspectives of young people in the UK, when synthesised across the spectrum of body sizes, paint a picture of a stigmatising and abusive social world. Research and policy need to engage young people actively so as to address the social implications of obesity.