Primary Care Healthcare Professionals' Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Towards Promoting the Reduction of Children's Secondhand Smoke Exposure: A Mixed-Methods Review and Synthesis.

INTRODUCTION: Secondhand smoke exposure (SHSe) leads to increased mortality and morbidity. Primary care healthcare professionals (HCPs) are well placed to support patients to reduce SHSe. This paper explores HCPs': (1) knowledge around SHSe; (2) current practices to promote SHSe reduction; (3) beliefs and experiences regarding delivering interventions to reduce SHSe; and (4) identified factors that influence the delivery of SHSe-related interventions. METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched for relevant literature published January 1980-February 2016. 17 quantitative and 3 qualitative studies were included in this mixed-methods review. Data synthesis followed the method outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. This segregated approach involved independent syntheses of the quantitative and qualitative data followed by an overall mixed-methods synthesis. RESULTS: Primary care HCPs had a basic understanding of the risks associated with SHSe but required training to help them intervene. It was more common for HCPs to ask about SHSe or provide advice than to act to facilitate SHSe reduction. SHSe was viewed as an issue of high importance and considered relevant to the role of the primary care HCPs. However, barriers such as the priority given to the issue and the desire to protect the professional relationship with patients prevented HCPs from intervening around SHSe. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care HCPs require training, guidance, and support to enable them to intervene and support patients to effectively reduce SHSe. IMPLICATIONS: This review used rigorous methods to explore the current, global literature on how children's exposure to secondhand smoke is being addressed in primary care settings. The review findings highlight healthcare professionals' need for further training and support, which would enable them to better translate their knowledge of the risks associated with secondhand smoke exposure into actual clinical practices. The review identified a lack of practical action taken to address secondhand smoke exposure, even once it has been identified as an issue.

Physical activity for primary dysmenorrhea: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Primary dysmenorrhea is cramping abdominal pain associated with menses. It is prevalent, affects quality of life, and can cause absenteeism. Although evidence-based medical treatment options exist, women may not tolerate these or may prefer to use nonmedical treatments. Physical activity has been recommended by clinicians for primary dysmenorrhea since the 1930s, but there is still no high-quality evidence on which to recommend its use. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the effectiveness of physical activity for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhea. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Clinicaltrials.gov, and OpenGrey were performed, from database inception to May 24, 2017. Google searches and citation searching of previous reviews were also conducted. Studies were selected using the following PICOS criteria: participants were nonathlete females experiencing primary dysmenorrhea; intervention was physical activity delivered for at least 2 menstrual cycles; comparator was any comparator; outcomes were pain intensity or pain duration; and study type was randomized controlled trials. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random effects meta-analyses for pain intensity and pain duration were conducted, with prespecified subgroup analysis by type of physical activity intervention. Strength of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Searches identified 15 eligible randomized controlled trials totaling 1681 participants. Data from 11 studies were included in the meta-analyses. Pooled results demonstrated effect estimates for physical activity vs comparators for pain intensity (-1.89 cm on visual analog scale; 95% CI, -2.96 to -1.09) and pain duration (-3.92 hours; 95% CI, -4.86 to -2.97). Heterogeneity for both of these results was high and only partly mitigated by subgroup analysis. Primary studies were of low or moderate methodological quality but results for pain intensity remained stable during sensitivity analysis by study quality. GRADE assessment found moderate-quality evidence for pain intensity and low-quality evidence for pain duration. CONCLUSION: Clinicians can inform women that physical activity may be an effective treatment for primary dysmenorrhea but there is a need for high-quality trials before this can be confirmed.