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.

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

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this review is to characterize methods conducted or supported by research funding organizations to identify health research gaps, needs, or priorities. METHOD: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science up to September 2019. Eligible studies reported on methods to identify health research gaps, needs, and priorities that had been conducted or supported by research funding organizations. Using a published protocol, we extracted data on the method, criteria, involvement of stakeholders, evaluations, and whether the method had been replicated (i.e., used in other studies). RESULTS: Among 10,832 citations, 167 studies were eligible for full data extraction. More than half of the studies employed methods to identify both needs and priorities, whereas about a quarter of studies focused singularly on identifying gaps (7%), needs (6%), or priorities (14%) only. The most frequently used methods were the convening of workshops or meetings (37%), quantitative methods (32%), and the James Lind Alliance approach, a multi-stakeholder research needs and priority setting process (28%). The most widely applied criteria were importance to stakeholders (72%), potential value (29%), and feasibility (18%). Stakeholder involvement was most prominent among clinicians (69%), researchers (66%), and patients and the public (59%). Stakeholders were identified through stakeholder organizations (51%) and purposive (26%) and convenience sampling (11%). Only 4% of studies evaluated the effectiveness of the methods and 37% employed methods that were reproducible and used in other studies. DISCUSSION: To ensure optimal targeting of funds to meet the greatest areas of need and maximize outcomes, a much more robust evidence base is needed to ascertain the effectiveness of methods used to identify research gaps, needs, and priorities.

Quality Indicators for High-Need Patients: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare systems are increasingly implementing programs for high-need patients, who often have multiple chronic conditions and complex social situations. Little, however, is known about quality indicators that might guide healthcare organizations and providers in improving care for high-need patients. We sought to conduct a systematic review to identify potential quality indicators for high-need patients. METHODS: This systematic review (CRD42020215917) searched PubMed, CINAHL, and EMBASE; guideline clearing houses ECRI and GIN; and Google scholar. We included publications suggesting, evaluating, and utilizing indicators to assess quality of care for high-need patients. Critical appraisal of the indicators addressed the development process, endorsement and adoption, and characteristics, such as feasibility. We standardized indicators by patient population subgroups to facilitate comparisons across different indicator groups. RESULTS: The search identified 6964 citations. Of these, 1382 publications were obtained as full text, and 53 studies met inclusion criteria. We identified over 1700 quality indicators across studies. Quality indicator characteristics varied widely. The scope of the selected indicators ranged from detailed criterion (e.g., "annual eye exam") to very broad categories (e.g., "care coordination"). Some publications suggested disease condition-specific indicators (e.g., diabetes), some used condition-independent criteria (e.g., "documentation of the medication list in the medical record available to all care agencies"), and some publications used a mixture of indicator types. DISCUSSION: We identified and evaluated existing quality indicators for a complex, heterogeneous patient group. Although some quality indicators were not disease-specific, we found very few that accounted for social determinants of health and behavioral factors. More research is needed to develop quality indicators that address patient risk factors.

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.

Clinical interventions for adults with comorbid alcohol use and depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base. CONCLUSIONS: We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Management of Gout: A Systematic Review in Support of an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Gout is a common type of inflammatory arthritis in patients seen by primary care physicians. PURPOSE: To review evidence about treatment of acute gout attacks, management of hyperuricemia to prevent attacks, and discontinuation of medications for chronic gout in adults. DATA SOURCES: Multiple electronic databases from January 2010 to March 2016, reference mining, and pharmaceutical manufacturers. STUDY SELECTION: Studies of drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and commonly prescribed by primary care physicians, randomized trials for effectiveness, and trials and observational studies for adverse events. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was performed by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Study quality was assessed by 2 independent reviewers. Strength-of-evidence assessment was done by group discussion. DATA SYNTHESIS: High-strength evidence from 28 trials (only 3 of which were placebo-controlled) shows that colchicine, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), and corticosteroids reduce pain in patients with acute gout. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that low-dose colchicine is as effective as high-dose colchicine and causes fewer gastrointestinal adverse events. Moderate-strength evidence suggests that urate-lowering therapy (allopurinol or febuxostat) reduces long-term risk for acute gout attacks after 1 year or more. High-strength evidence shows that prophylaxis with daily colchicine or NSAIDs reduces the risk for acute gout attacks by at least half in patients starting urate-lowering therapy, and moderate-strength evidence indicates that duration of prophylaxis should be longer than 8 weeks. Although lower urate levels reduce risk for recurrent acute attacks, treatment to a specific target level has not been tested. LIMITATION: Few studies of acute gout treatments, no placebo-controlled trials of management of hyperuricemia lasting longer than 6 months, and few studies in primary care populations. CONCLUSION: Colchicine, NSAIDs, and corticosteroids relieve pain in adults with acute gout. Urate-lowering therapy decreases serum urate levels and reduces risk for acute gout attacks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol registration: http://effectivehealth-care.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/564/1992/Gout-managment-protocol-141103.pdf).

Diagnosis of Gout: A Systematic Review in Support of an American College of Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Alternative strategies exist for diagnosing gout that do not rely solely on the documentation of monosodium urate (MSU) crystals. PURPOSE: To summarize evidence regarding the accuracy of clinical tests and classification algorithms compared with that of a reference standard of MSU crystals in joint aspirate for diagnosing gout. DATA SOURCES: Several electronic databases from inception to 29 February 2016. STUDY SELECTION: 21 prospective cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies including participants with joint inflammation and no previous definitive gout diagnosis who had MSU analysis of joint aspirate. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment by 2 reviewers independently; overall strength of evidence (SOE) judgment by group. DATA SYNTHESIS: Recently developed algorithms including clinical, laboratory, and imaging criteria demonstrated good sensitivity (up to 88%) and fair to good specificity (up to 96%) for diagnosing gout (moderate SOE). Three studies of dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) showed sensitivities of 85% to 100% and specificities of 83% to 92% for diagnosing gout (low SOE). Six studies of ultrasonography showed sensitivities of 37% to 100% and specificities of 68% to 97%, depending on the ultrasonography signs assessed (pooled sensitivity and specificity for the double contour sign: 74% [95% CI, 52% to 88%] and 88% [CI, 68% to 96%], respectively [low SOE]). LIMITATION: Important study heterogeneity and selection bias; scant evidence in primary and urgent care settings and in patients with conditions that may be confused with or occur with gout. CONCLUSION: Multidimensional algorithms, which must be validated in primary and urgent care settings, may help clinicians make a provisional diagnosis of gout. Although DECT and ultrasonography also show promise for gout diagnosis, accessibility to these methods may be limited. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (Protocol registration: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/564/1937/gout-protocol-140716.pdf).

Acupuncture for the Treatment of Adults with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Acupuncture has been suggested as a treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), yet its clinical effects are unclear. This review aims to estimate effects of acupuncture on PTSD symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, and sleep quality for adults with PTSD. We searched 10 databases in January 2016 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We performed random effects meta-analyses and examined quality of the body of evidence (QoE) using the GRADE approach to rate confidence in meta-analytic effect estimates. Seven RCTs with 709 participants met inclusion criteria. We identified very low QoE indicating significant differences favoring acupuncture (versus any comparator) at post-intervention on PTSD symptoms (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.80, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.59, -0.01], 6 RCTs), and low QoE at longer follow-up on PTSD (SMD = -0.46, 95% CI [-0.85, -0.06], 4 RCTs) and depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.56; 95% CI [-0.88, -0.23], 4 RCTs). No significant differences were observed between acupuncture and comparators at post-intervention for depressive symptoms (SMD = -0.58, 95% CI [-1.18, 0.01], 6 RCTs, very low QoE), anxiety symptoms (SMD = -0.82, 95% CI [-2.16, 0.53], 4 RCTs, very low QoE), and sleep quality (SMD = -0.46, 95% CI [-3.95, 3.03], 2 RCTs, low QoE). Safety data (7 RCTs) suggest little risk of serious adverse events, though some participants experienced minor/moderate pain, superficial bleeding, and hematoma at needle insertion sites. To increase confidence in findings, sufficiently powered replication trials are needed that measure all relevant clinical outcomes and dedicate study resources to minimizing participant attrition.

What Defines a High-Performing Health Care Delivery System: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Purchasers, payers, and policy makers are increasingly measuring and rewarding high-performing health systems, which use a variety of definitions of high performance, yet it is unclear if a consistently applied definition exists. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is a commonly used, agreed-on definition of what constitutes a "high-performing" health care delivery system. METHODS: Searches were conducted for English-language articles defining high performance with respect to a health care system or organization in PubMed and WorldCat databases from 2005 to 2015 and the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report from 1999 to 2016. The entity/condition to which the definition was applied was extracted from included articles. The number and type of dimensions used to define high performance within and across articles was tabulated and the number and type of metrics used by performance dimension and by article was calculated. RESULTS: No consistent definition of a high-performing health care system or organization was identified. High performance was variably defined across different dimensions, including quality (93% of articles), cost (67%), access (35%), equity (26%), patient experience (21%), and patient safety (18%). Most articles used more than one dimension to define high performance (75%), but only five used five or more dimensions. The most commonly paired dimensions were quality and cost (63%). CONCLUSION: The absence of a consistent definition of what constitutes high performance and how to measure it hinders our ability to compare and reward health care delivery systems on performance, underscoring the need to develop a consistent definition of high performance.

Usage and effect of health information exchange: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Health information exchange (HIE) is increasing in the United States, and it is incentivized by government policies. PURPOSE: To systematically review and evaluate evidence of the use and effect of HIE on clinical care. DATA SOURCES: Selected databases from 1 January 2003 to 31 May 2014. STUDY SELECTION: English-language hypothesis-testing or quantitative studies of several types of data exchange among unaffiliated organizations for use in clinical care that addressed health outcomes, efficiency, utilization, costs, satisfaction, HIE usage, sustainability, and attitudes or barriers. DATA EXTRACTION: Data extraction was done in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Low-quality evidence from 12 hypothesis-testing studies supports an effect of HIE use on reduced use or costs in the emergency department. Direct evidence that HIEs were used by providers was reported in 21 studies involving 13 distinct HIE organizations, 6 of which were located in New York, and generally showed usage in less than 10% of patient encounters. Findings from 17 studies of sustainability suggest that approximately one quarter of existing HIE organizations consider themselves financially stable. Findings from 38 studies about attitudes and barriers showed that providers, patients, and other stakeholders consider HIE to be valuable, but barriers include technical and workflow issues, costs, and privacy concerns. LIMITATION: Publication bias, possible selective reporting of outcomes, and a dearth of reporting on context and implementation processes. CONCLUSION: Health information exchange use probably reduces emergency department usage and costs in some cases. Effects on other outcomes are unknown. All stakeholders claim to value HIE, but many barriers to acceptance and sustainability exist. A small portion of operational HIEs have been evaluated, and more research is needed to identify and understand success factors. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007469).

Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic treatments to prevent fractures: an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis is a major contributor to the propensity to fracture among older adults, and various pharmaceuticals are available to treat it. PURPOSE: To update a review about the benefits and harms of pharmacologic treatments used to prevent fractures in adults at risk. DATA SOURCES: Multiple computerized databases were searched between 2 January 2005 and 4 March 2014 for English-language studies. STUDY SELECTION: Trials, observational studies, and systematic reviews. DATA EXTRACTION: Duplicate extraction and assessment of data about study characteristics, outcomes, and quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: From more than 52 000 titles screened, 315 articles were included in this update. There is high-strength evidence that bisphosphonates, denosumab, and teriparatide reduce fractures compared with placebo, with relative risk reductions from 0.40 to 0.60 for vertebral fractures and 0.60 to 0.80 for nonvertebral fractures. Raloxifene has been shown in placebo-controlled trials to reduce only vertebral fractures. Since 2007, there is a newly recognized adverse event of bisphosphonate use: atypical subtrochanteric femur fracture. Gastrointestinal side effects, hot flashes, thromboembolic events, and infections vary among drugs. LIMITATIONS: Few studies have directly compared drugs used to treat osteoporosis. Data in men are very sparse. Costs were not assessed. CONCLUSION: Good-quality evidence supports that several medications for bone density in osteoporotic range and/or preexisting hip or vertebral fracture reduce fracture risk. Side effects vary among drugs, and the comparative effectiveness of the drugs is unclear. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and RAND Corporation.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.