A systematic review of the accessibility, acceptability, safety, efficiency, clinical effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of private cataract and orthopedic surgery clinics.

OBJECTIVES: Many publicly funded health systems use a mix of privately and publicly operated providers of care to deliver elective surgical services. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the role of privately operated but publicly funded provision of surgical services for adult patients who had cataract or orthopedic surgery within publicly funded health systems in high-income countries. METHODS: Electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, OVID Embase, and EBSCO EconLit) were searched on 26 March 2021, and gray literature sources were searched on 6 April 2021. Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify studies, and extracted data. The outcomes evaluated include accessibility, acceptability, safety, clinical effectiveness, efficiency, and cost/cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Twenty-nine primary studies met the inclusion criteria and were synthesized narratively. We found mixed results across each of our reported outcomes. Wait times were shorter for patients treated in private facilities. There was evidence that some private facilities cherry-pick or cream-skim by selecting less complex patients, which increases the postoperative length of stay and costs for public facilities, restricts access to private facilities for certain groups of patients, and increases inequality within the health system. Seven studies found improved safety outcomes in private facilities, noting that private patients had a lower preoperative risk of complications. Only two studies reported cost and cost-effectiveness outcomes. One costing study concluded that private facilities' costs were lower than those of public facilities, and a cost-utility study showed that private contracting to reduce public waiting times for joint replacement was cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence exists that private-sector contracts address existing healthcare delivery problems. Value for money also remains to be evaluated properly.

Quality of reporting of economic evaluations in rehabilitation research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The quality of reporting of health economic evaluations for rehabilitation services has been questioned, limiting the ability to provide accurate recommendations for health decisions. PURPOSE: To document current overall reporting quality of the published literature for economic evaluations of rehabilitation services using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS), and to identify factors that could influence the quality of reporting. DATA SOURCES: Electronic literature searches were performed using MEDLINE and the NHS Economic Evaluations Database via the Cochrane Library. STUDY SELECTION: Prospective rehabilitation economic evaluation articles from 2013 to 2020 were selected. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS/RESULTS: Title and abstracts of 3,454 papers were reviewed. 204 papers were selected for a full text screening. From those, 129 potential papers were identified to be included in this study. LIMITATIONS: Only two databases were used in data collection, and papers were selected from 2013 to 2020 only. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent reporting in health economic evaluations of rehabilitation services has continued, despite the availability of the CHEERS checklist. The methods of the analyzed studies were frequently under-reported, thereby creating challenges in determining whether the results reported were valid.IMPLICATIONS FOR REHABILITATIONVariable quality of reporting has been identified in rehabilitation research assessing cost-effectiveness.To grow as an area of expertise, the field of rehabilitation must produce research demonstrating its cost-effectiveness.Both rehabilitation clinicians and funders would benefit from full and transparent information to identify optimal solutions for effective and efficient care.

Wildfire exposure during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Maternal wildfire exposure (e.g., smoke, stress) has been associated with poor birth outcomes with effects potentially mediated through air pollution and psychosocial stress. Despite the recent hike in the intensity and frequency of wildfires in some regions of the world, a critical appraisal of the evidence on the association between maternal wildfire exposure and adverse birth outcomes has not yet been undertaken. We conducted a systematic review that evaluated the scientific evidence on the association between wildfire exposure during pregnancy and the risk of adverse birth outcomes. METHODS: Comprehensive searches in nine bibliographic databases were conducted from database inception up to June 2020. Observational epidemiological studies that evaluated associations between exposure to wildfire during pregnancy and adverse birth outcomes were eligible for inclusion. Studies were assessed using the National Toxicology Program's Office of Health Assessment and Translation (NTP OHAT) risk of bias tool and certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Screening of retrieved articles, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were performed by two independent reviewers. Study results were synthesized descriptively. RESULTS: Eight epidemiological studies conducted in four countries and involving 1,702,252 births were included in the review. The exposure to wildfire during pregnancy was assessed in individual studies by measurement of PM2.5 (n = 2), PM10 (n = 1), Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (TOMS)aerosol index (n = 1), heat spots (n = 1), and by proximity of maternal residence to wildfire-affected areas (n = 3). There is some evidence indicating that maternal wildfire exposure associates with birth weight reduction (n = 7) and preterm birth (n = 4), particularly when exposure to wildfire smoke occurred in late pregnancy. The association between wildfire exposure and small for gestational age (n = 2) and infant mortality (n = 1) was inconclusive. CONCLUSION: Current evidence suggests that maternal exposure to wildfire during late pregnancy is linked to reduced birth weight and preterm birth. Well-designed comprehensive studies are needed to better understand the perinatal effects of wildfires.

Association between the antepartum oral glucose tolerance test and the risk of future diabetes mellitus among women with gestational diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: The antepartum oral glucose tolerance test (OGTT) has re-emerged as associated with risk of diabetes among women with gestational diabetes (GDM). This systematic review summarized evidence on associations between antepartum OGTT and risk of diabetes in GDM (PROSPERO CRD42018100316). METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 1982 to February 2020. Studies assessing associations between antepartum OGTT and risk of diabetes among women with GDM were included. Data on study characteristics, participants, OGTT values, and diabetes outcomes were extracted. Estimates on the association between antepartum OGTT and diabetes at follow-up were recorded. Pooled odds ratios for developing diabetes were calculated by study design. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Of 6423 citations, 17 studies were included. Both elevated fasting blood glucose (FBG; OR: 3.62 ([95% CI 1.30, 10.12], I2 = 36%, p < 0.05)) and 2 h OGTT (OR: 3.96 [1.17, 13.40], I2 = 87%, p < 0.05) were associated with diabetes. These associations were attenuated (FBG: OR: 1.91 ([95% CI 0.80, 24.54], I2 = 83%, p = NS) and 1.58 ([95% CI 0.92, 2.74] I2 = 83%, p = NS) for prospective and retrospective data, respectively; 2 h OGTT: ORa: 1.95 ([95% CI 0.43, 8.93], I2 = 94%, p = NS)) after adjustments for common confounders. Further research is needed before clinical recommendations can be made.

Pharmacologic treatment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) affects approximately 3% of adults globally. Many pharmacologic treatments options exist, yet the comparative benefits and harms of individual treatments are largely unknown. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to assess the relative effects of individual pharmacologic treatments for adults with ADHD. METHODS: We searched English-language published and grey literature sources for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving pharmacologic treatment of ADHD in adults (December 2018). The primary outcome was clinical response; secondary outcomes were quality of life, executive function, driving behaviour, withdrawals due to adverse events, treatment discontinuation, serious adverse events, hospitalization, cardiovascular adverse events, and emergency department visits. Data were pooled via pair-wise meta-analyses and Bayesian network meta-analyses. Risk of bias was assessed by use of Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool, and the certainty of the evidence was assessed by use of the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Eighty-one unique trials that reported at least one outcome of interest were included, most of which were at high or unclear risk of at least one important source of bias. Notably, only 5 RCTs were deemed at overall low risk of bias. Included pharmacotherapies were methylphenidate, atomoxetine, dexamfetamine, lisdexamfetamine, guanfacine, bupropion, mixed amphetamine salts, and modafinil. As a class, ADHD pharmacotherapy improved patient- and clinician-reported clinical response compared with placebo (range: 4 to 15 RCTs per outcome); however, these findings were not conserved when the analyses were restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and the certainty of the finding is very low. There were few differences among individual medications, although atomoxetine was associated with improved patient-reported clinical response and quality of life compared with placebo. There was no significant difference in the risk of serious adverse events or treatment discontinuation between ADHD pharmacotherapies and placebo; however, the proportion of participants who withdrew due to adverse events was significantly higher among participants who received any ADHD pharmacotherapy. Few RCTs reported on the occurrence of adverse events over a long treatment duration. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, despite a class effect of improving clinical response relative to placebo, there were few differences among the individual ADHD pharmacotherapies, and most studies were at risk of at least one important source of bias. Furthermore, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low for all outcomes, and there was limited reporting of long-term adverse events. As such, the choice between ADHD pharmacotherapies may depend on individual patient considerations, and future studies should assess the long-term effects of individual pharmacotherapies on patient-important outcomes, including quality of life, in robust blinded RCTs. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD 42015026049.

A systematic review of the effectiveness of knowledge translation interventions for chronic noncancer pain management.

BACKGROUND: Reliable evidence detailing effective treatments and management practices for chronic noncancer pain exists. However, little is known about which knowledge translation (KT) interventions lead to the uptake of this evidence in practice. OBJECTIVES: To conduct a systematic review of the effectiveness of KT interventions for chronic noncancer pain management. METHODS: Comprehensive searches of electronic databases, the gray literature and manual searches of journals were undertaken. Randomized controlled trials, controlled clinical trials and controlled before-and-after studies of KT interventions were included. Data regarding interventions and primary outcomes were categorized using a standard taxonomy; a risk-of-bias approach was adopted for study quality. A narrative synthesis of study results was conducted. RESULTS: More than 8500 titles and abstracts were screened, with 230 full-text articles reviewed for eligibility. Nineteen studies were included, of which only a small proportion were judged to be at low risk of bias. Interactive KT education for health care providers has a positive effect on patients' function, but its benefits for other health provider- and patient-related outcomes are inconsistent. Interactive education for patients leads to improvements in knowledge and function. Little research evidence supports the effectiveness of structural changes in health systems and quality improvement processes or coordination of care. CONCLUSIONS: KT interventions incorporating interactive education in chronic noncancer pain led to positive effects on patients' function and knowledge about pain. Future studies should provide implementation details and use consistent theoretical frameworks to better estimate the effectiveness of such interventions.

What do we know about knowledge translation in the care of older adults? A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: The recent emphasis on knowledge translation (KT) in health care is based on the premise that quality of care improves when research findings are translated into practice. This study aimed to identify the extent, nature, and settings of KT research pertaining to the care of older adults. DESIGN AND METHODS: We searched Medline, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, and EMBASE for systematic reviews related to KT using the terms knowledge translation, research use, evidence-based practice, clinical practice guidelines, or diffusion of innovations. Then we searched the systematic reviews to identify included articles related to older adults. We used quantitative content analysis to summarize the information. RESULTS: Two of the 53 systematic reviews about KT focused on the care of older adults. One examined the impact of quality systems on care processes and outcomes for long term care residents. The other studied the effectiveness of active-mode learning programs on physician behavior. Sixty-one of the 1709 primary research articles (3.6%) pertained to the care of older adults. Thirty of these were conducted in long term care facilities, 26 in outpatient clinics, 2 in hospitals, and 3 in multiple settings. Most studies focused on KT interventions targeting professionals (eg, prescribing medications). Organizational interventions (eg, modifying roles) were few; financial and regulatory interventions were rare. CONCLUSION: We identified a gap in KT research pertaining to the care of older adults. KT intervention research focusing on organizational, financial, and regulatory areas is warranted. The connection between geriatrics and KT is fertile ground for future research.