Diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care standard G6PD test™ (SD Biosensor) for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase deficiency: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glucose-6-Phosphate Dehydrogenase deficiency (G6PDd) is a common genetic enzymopathy that can induce haemolysis triggered by various factors, including some anti-malarial drugs. Although many Point-of-Care (PoC) tests, such as Standard G6PD™ are available to detect G6PDd, its pooled diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) remains unknown. METHODS: To estimate the DTA of StandG6PD-BS at various thresholds of G6PDd, a systematic review with a DTA meta-analysis were conducted, searching EMBASE, MEDLINE, and SciELO databases up to April 4, 2024.The included studies were those that measured G6PD activity using StandG6PD-BS (reference test) and spectrophotometry (gold standard) in patients suspected of having G6PDd. The risk of bias (RoB) of the studies was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool and the certainty of evidence (CoE) with the GRADE approach. For the estimation of within-study DTA, a random-effect bivariate meta-analysis was performed to determine the pooled sensitivity and specificity for 30%, 70%, and 80% enzyme levels' thresholds, and a graphical analysis of the heterogeneity using crosshair and Confidence Regions on receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space plots. RESULTS: After screening 2496 reports, four studies were included with 7864 participants covering all thresholds. Two studies had high RoB in QUADAS-2 domains 2 and 3, and the others had low RoB, with low, moderate, and high heterogeneity at the 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled sensitivity was 99.1%, 95.7%, and 90% for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. The pooled specificity was 97.4%; 92.9%; and 89.0% for 30%, 70%, and 80% thresholds, respectively. CONCLUSION: StandG6PD-BS is a PoC test with high sensitivity and specificity to detect G6PDd at different thresholds.

Factors that influence the provision of home-based rehabilitation services for people needing rehabilitation: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: To increase people's access to rehabilitation services, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to explore how the delivery of these services can be adapted. This includes the use of home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation. Home-based rehabilitation services may become frequently used options in the recovery process of patients, not only as a solution to accessibility barriers, but as a complement to the usual in-person inpatient rehabilitation provision. Telerehabilitation is also becoming more viable as the usability and availability of communication technologies improve. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that influence the organisation and delivery of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation for people needing rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Global Health, the VHL Regional Portal, Epistemonikos, Health Systems Evidence, and EBM Reviews as well as preprints, regional repositories, and rehabilitation organisations websites for eligible studies, from database inception to search date in June 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; and that explored patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and behaviours about the provision of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation services responding to patients' needs in different phases of their health conditions.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a purposive sampling approach and applied maximum variation sampling in a four-step sampling frame. We conducted a framework thematic analysis using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) framework as our starting point. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 223 studies in the review and sampled 53 of these for our analysis. Forty-five studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in low-and middle-income countries. Twenty studies addressed in-person home-based rehabilitation, 28 studies addressed home-based telerehabilitation services, and five studies addressed both modes of delivery. The studies mainly explored the perspectives of healthcare providers, patients with a range of different health conditions, and their informal caregivers and family members.  Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessments, we had high confidence in eight of the findings, and moderate confidence in five, indicating that it is highly likely or likely respectively that these findings are a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. There were two findings with low confidence. High and moderate confidence findings Home-based rehabilitation services delivered in-person or through telerehabilitation  Patients experience home-based services as convenient and less disruptive of their everyday activities. Patients and providers also suggest that these services can encourage patients' self-management and can make them feel empowered about the rehabilitation process. But patients, family members, and providers describe privacy and confidentiality issues when services are provided at home. These include the increased privacy of being able to exercise at home but also the loss of privacy when one's home life is visible to others.  Patients and providers also describe other factors that can affect the success of home-based rehabilitation services. These include support from providers and family members, good communication with providers, the requirements made of patients and their surroundings, and the transition from hospital to home-based services. Telerehabilitation specifically Patients, family members and providers see telerehabilitation as an opportunity to make services more available. But providers point to practical problems when assessing whether patients are performing their exercises correctly. Providers and patients also describe interruptions from family members.  In addition, providers complain of a lack of equipment, infrastructure and maintenance and patients refer to usability issues and frustration with digital technology. Providers have different opinions about whether telerehabilitation is cost-efficient for them. But many patients see telerehabilitation as affordable and cost-saving if the equipment and infrastructure have been provided. Patients and providers suggest that telerehabilitation can change the nature of their relationship. For instance, some patients describe how telerehabilitation leads to easier and more relaxed communication. Other patients describe feeling abandoned when receiving telerehabilitation services.  Patients, family members and providers call for easy-to-use technologies and more training and support. They also suggest that at least some in-person sessions with the provider are necessary. They feel that telerehabilitation services alone can make it difficult to make meaningful connections. They also explain that some services need the provider's hands. Providers highlight the importance of personalising the services to each person's needs and circumstances. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis identified several factors that can influence the successful implementation of in-person home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation services. These included factors that facilitate implementation, but also factors that can challenge this process. Healthcare providers, program planners and policymakers might benefit from considering these factors when designing and implementing programmes.

A Reporting Tool for Adapted Guidelines in Health Care: The RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist.

BACKGROUND: Adaptation of existing guidelines can be an efficient way to develop contextualized recommendations. Transparent reporting of the adaptation approach can support the transparency and usability of the adapted guidelines. OBJECTIVE: To develop an extension of the RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (including recommendations that have been adopted, adapted, or developed de novo), the RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist. DESIGN: A multistep process was followed to develop the checklist: establishing a working group, generating an initial checklist, optimizing the checklist (through an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review, and a final assessment of adapted guidelines), and approval of the final checklist by the working group. SETTING: International collaboration. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 119 professionals participated in the development process. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' consensus on items in the checklist. RESULTS: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist contains 34 items grouped in 7 sections: basic information (7 items); scope (6 items); rigor of development (10 items); recommendations (4 items); external review and quality assurance (2 items); funding, declaration, and management of interest (2 items); and other information (3 items). A user guide with explanations and real-world examples for each item was developed to provide a better user experience. LIMITATION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist requires further validation in real-life use. CONCLUSION: The RIGHT-Ad@pt checklist has been developed to improve the reporting of adapted guidelines, focusing on the standardization, rigor, and transparency of the process and the clarity and explicitness of adapted recommendations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Strategies to adapt and implement health system guidelines and recommendations: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based health system guidelines are pivotal tools to help outline the important financial, policy and service components recommended to achieve a sustainable and resilient health system. However, not all guidelines are readily translatable into practice and/or policy without effective and tailored implementation and adaptation techniques. This scoping review mapped the evidence related to the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping reviews. A search strategy was implemented in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, LILACS (VHL Regional Portal), and Web of Science databases in late August 2020. We also searched sources of grey literature and reference lists of potentially relevant reviews. All findings were reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. RESULTS: A total of 41 studies were included in the final set of papers. Common strategies were identified for adapting and implementing health system guidelines, related barriers and enablers, and indicators of success. The most common types of implementation strategies included education, clinical supervision, training and the formation of advisory groups. A paucity of reported information was also identified related to adaptation initiatives. Barriers to and enablers of implementation and adaptation were reported across studies, including the need for financial sustainability. Common approaches to evaluation were identified and included outcomes of interest at both the patient and health system level. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this review suggest several themes in the literature and identify a need for future research to strengthen the evidence base for improving the implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines in low- and middle-income countries. The findings can serve as a future resource for researchers seeking to evaluate implementation and adaptation of health system guidelines. Our findings also suggest that more effort may be required across research, policy and practice sectors to support the adaptation and implementation of health system guidelines to local contexts and health system arrangements in low- and middle-income countries.

Development of a STandard reporting guideline for Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP): context and study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Evidence briefs for policy (EBP) draw on best-available data and research evidence (e.g., systematic reviews) to help clarify policy problems, frame options for addressing them, and identify implementation considerations for policymakers in a given context. An increasing number of governments, non-governmental organizations and research groups have been developing EBP on a wide variety of topics. However, the reporting characteristics of EBP vary across organizations due to a lack of internationally accepted standard reporting guidelines. This project aims to develop a STandard reporting guideline of Evidence briefs for Policy (STEP), which will encompass a reporting checklist and a STEP statement and a user manual. METHODS: We will refer to and adapt the methods recommended by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network. The key actions include: (1) developing a protocol; (2) establishing an international multidisciplinary STEP working group (consisting of a Coordination Team and a Delphi Panel); (3) generating an initial draft of the potential items for the STEP reporting checklist through a comprehensive review of EBP-related literature and documents; (4) conducting a modified Delphi process to select and refine the reporting checklist; (5) using the STEP to evaluate published policy briefs in different countries; (6) finalizing the checklist; (7) developing the STEP statement and the user manual (8) translating the STEP into different languages; and (9) testing the reliability through real world use. DISCUSSION: Our protocol describes the development process for STEP. It will directly address what and how information should be reported in EBP and contribute to improving their quality. The decision-makers, researchers, journal editors, evaluators, and other stakeholders who support evidence-informed policymaking through the use of mechanisms like EBP will benefit from the STEP. Registration We registered the protocol on the EQUATOR network. ( https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#84 ).

Implementation of the clinical practice guideline for individuals with amputations in Colombia: a qualitative study on perceived barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: The issue of lower extremity amputation has been in the Colombian political agenda for its relationship with the armed conflict and antipersonnel mines. In 2015 the Colombian Ministry of Health published a national clinical practice guideline (CPG) for amputee patients. However, there is a need to design implementation strategies that target end-users and the context in which the CPG will be used. This study aims to identify users' perceptions about the barriers and facilitators for implementing the guideline for the care of amputee patients in a middle-income country such as Colombia. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 38 users, including patients, health workers, and administrative staff of institutions of the health system in Colombia. Individuals were purposively selected to ensure different perspectives, allowing a balance of individual positions. RESULTS: According to participants' perceptions, barriers to implementation are classified as individual barriers (characteristics of the amputee patient and professionals), health system barriers (resource availability, timely care, information systems, service costs, and regulatory changes), and barriers related to clinical practice guidelines (utility, methodological rigour, implementation flexibility, and characteristics of the group developing the guidelines). CONCLUSIONS: Our study advances knowledge on the perceived individual and health system barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the CPG for amputee patients in Colombia. Importantly, the governance, financial, and service delivery arrangements of the Colombian health system are determining factors in implementing CPGs. For example, the financial arrangements between the insurance companies and the health care provider institutions were identified as barriers for the implementation of recommendations related to the continuity and opportunity of care of patients with amputations. The design of implementation strategies that successfully address the individual behaviours and the contextual health systems arrangements may significantly impact the health care process for amputee patients in Colombia.

Individual, health system, and contextual barriers and facilitators for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines: a systematic metareview.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to improve the quality of care and reduce unjustified individual variation in clinical practice. Knowledge of the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of the CPG recommendations is the first step in creating strategies to improve health outcomes. The present systematic meta-review sought to explore the barriers and facilitators for the implementation of CPGs. METHODS: A search was conducted in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Health System Evidence and International Guideline Library (G-I-N) databases. Systematic reviews of qualitative, quantitative or mixed-methods studies that identified barriers or facilitators for the implementation of CPGs were included. The selection of the title and abstract, the evaluation of the full text, extraction of the data and the quality assessment were carried out by two independent reviewers. To summarise the evidence, we grouped the barriers and facilitators according to the following contexts: political and social, health organisational system, guidelines, health professionals and patients. RESULTS: Overall, 25 systematic reviews were selected. The relevant barriers in the social-political context were the absence of a leader, difficulties with teamwork and a lack of agreement with colleagues. Relevant barriers in the health system were a lack of time, financial problems and a lack of specialised personnel. Barriers of the CPGs included a lack of clarity and a lack of credibility in the evidence. Regarding the health professional, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and confidence in oneself were relevant. Regarding patients, a negative attitude towards implementation, a lack of knowledge about the CPG and sociocultural beliefs played a role. Some of the most frequent facilitators were consistent leadership, commitment of the members of the team, administrative support of the institution, existence of multidisciplinary teams, application of technology to improve the practice and education regarding the guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The barriers and facilitators described in this review are factors that influence the implementation of evidence in clinical practice. Knowledge of these factors should contribute to the development of a theoretical basis for the creation of CPG implementation strategies to improve professional practice and health outcomes for patients.

Countries Response for People With Disabilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Background and Objectives: During the Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic, isolation and prevention measures to reduce COVID-19 contagions are essential for the care of all people; these measures should comply with the principles of inclusion and accessibility for people with disabilities (PWD), with all kinds of deficiencies and levels of dependency. Thereby, the aim of this article is to present the measures adopted for PWD or people with rehabilitation needs, for containment, mitigation, or suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus in different countries of all continents and of all income levels. Methods: A narrative approach was used in this article. First, a broad search was carried out in the 193 member states of the UN, and then 98 countries that issued any document, report, or information related to disability and COVID-19 were selected. Finally, 32 countries were included in this article because they presented official information. We considered official sources, the information available in the government, or on the health ministry page of the country. In this way, the countries that presented information which did not correspond to an official source were excluded. The search was conducted in August 2020 and updated in March 2021. Results: First, the non-pharmacological general interventions for PWD included informative measures and general recommendations during the stay at home, isolation, and biosecurity measures, contagion prevention, detection of positive cases, mobilization measures, and measures implemented in institutions or residences of PWD. Second, we identified the economic and social benefits provided to PWD during the pandemic. Finally, we identified the measures taken by countries according to the type of impairment (visual, hearing, physical, mental, and cardiopulmonary impairment) during the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusion: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, only 50% of countries from the five world regions created and implemented specific measures for PWD to containment, mitigation, or suppression of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. There is very little specific information available about the measures to continue with the care of people with rehabilitation needs and the long-term follow-up of PWD, and for the prevention and response to violence, especially for women with disabilities.

Adaptations for rehabilitation services during the COVID-19 pandemic proposed by scientific organizations and rehabilitation professionals.

OBJECTIVE: To describe adaptations in the provision of rehabilitation services proposed by scientific and professional rehabilitation organizations to avoid interruptions to patients rehabilitation process and delays in starting rehabilitation in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: A narrative review approach was used to identify the recommendations of scientific and professional organizations in the area of rehabilitation. A systematic search was performed in the main data-bases in 78 international and regional web portals of rehabilitation organizations. A total of 21 publications from these organizations were identified and selected. RESULTS: The results are presented in 4 categories: adequacy of inpatient services, including acute care services and intensive care unit for patients with and without COVID-19; adequacy of outpatient services, including home-based rehabilitation and tele-rehabilitation; recommendations to prevent the spread of COVID-19; and regulatory standards and positions during the COVID-19 pandemic expressed by organizations for protecting the rights of health workers and patients. CONCLUSION: Health systems around the world are rapidly learning from actions aimed at the reorganization of rehabilitation services for patients who are in the process of recovery from acute or chronic conditions, and the rapid response to the rehabilitation of survivors of COVID-19, as well as from efforts in the prevention of contagion of those providing the services.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection.

BACKGROUND: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. AIM: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. METHODS: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. RESULT: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives.

Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. OBJETIVO: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. MÉTODOS: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. RESULTADOS: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.

Non-pharmaceutical interventions for containment, mitigation and suppression of COVID-19 infection / Intervenciones no farmacéuticas para la contención, mitigación y supresión del COVID-19

Abstract Background: The best scientific evidence is required to design effective Non-pharmaceutical interventions to help policymakers to contain COVID-19. Aim: To describe which Non-pharmaceutical interventions used different countries and a when they use them. It also explores how Non-pharmaceutical interventions impact the number of cases, the mortality, and the capacity of health systems. Methods: We consulted eight web pages of transnational organizations, 17 of international media, 99 of government institutions in the 19 countries included, and besides, we included nine studies (out of 34 identified) that met inclusion criteria. Result: Some countries are focused on establishing travel restrictions, isolation of identified cases, and high-risk people. Others have a combination of mandatory quarantine and other drastic social distancing measures. The timing to implement the interventions varied from the first fifteen days after detecting the first case to more than 30 days. The effectiveness of isolated non-pharmaceutical interventions may be limited, but combined interventions have shown to be effective in reducing the transmissibility of the disease, the collapse of health care services, and mortality. When the number of new cases has been controlled, it is necessary to maintain social distancing measures, self-isolation, and contact tracing for several months. The policy decision-making in this time should be aimed to optimize the opportunities of saving lives, reducing the collapse of health services, and minimizing the economic and social impact over the general population, but principally over the most vulnerable. The timing of implementing and lifting interventions could have a substantial effect on those objectives.

Resumen Antecedentes: Se requiere la mejor evidencia científica para diseñar intervenciones no farmacológicas efectivas para ayudar a los formuladores de políticas a contener COVID-19. Objetivo: Describir qué intervenciones no farmacológicas utilizaron diferentes países y cuándo las implementaron. También explora cómo las intervenciones no farmacológicas afectan el número de casos, la mortalidad y la capacidad de los sistemas de salud. Métodos: Consultamos ocho páginas web de organizaciones transnacionales, 17 de medios internacionales, 99 de instituciones gubernamentales en los 19 países incluidos, y además, incluimos nueve estudios (de 34 identificados) que cumplían con los criterios de inclusión. Resultados: Algunos países implementaron restricciones de viaje, aislamiento de casos identificados y personas de alto riesgo. Otros combinaron varias medidas más drásticas de distanciamiento social. El tiempo para implementar las intervenciones varió desde los primeros quince días después de detectar el primer caso hasta más de 30 días. La efectividad de las intervenciones no farmacológicas combinadas ha demostrado ser efectivas para reducir la transmisibilidad de la enfermedad, el colapso de los servicios de salud y la mortalidad. Cuando se controle el número de casos nuevos, es necesario mantener medidas de distanciamiento social, autoaislamiento y rastreo de contactos durante varios meses. La toma de decisiones políticas en este momento debe tener como objetivo optimizar las oportunidades de salvar vidas, reducir el colapso de los servicios de salud y minimizar el impacto económico y social sobre la población en general, pero principalmente sobre los más vulnerables.

Intervenciones para la salud mental de estudiantes universitarios durante la pandemia por COVID-19. Síntesis rápida. / Mental health interventions for college students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rapid Synthesis

En esta síntesis se consideran las siguientes cuatro acciones concretas: 1. Lineamientos generales en salud mental de universitarios. 2. Promoción y prevención en salud mental. 3. Atención de síntomas mentales. 4. Adaptaciones pedagógicas con énfasis en salud mental. En general, se encontró que la sugerencia más frecuente es el diseño de un programa estructurado específico para el tema de salud mental en las universidades. En este programa se integran todas las demás acciones por lo que los desarrolladores de estas propuestas sugieren que sea diseñado por un grupo multidisciplinario de profesionales en salud mental, pedagogos y personal administrativo. Además, debe ser incluyente en el sentido de que incorpore siempre la visión de los mismos estudiantes (36). Debe ser dinámico de manera que se ajuste y actualice según se vaya monitoreando las necesidades y barreras emergentes; y, finalmente, este programa ser sensible a la cultura, pues las estrategias de afrontamiento pueden ser distintas (20) de ahí que cada universidad debe diseñarlo pensando en sus particularidades.