Systematic Review of Contemporary Theories Used for Co-creation, Co-design and Co-production in Public Health.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to systematically identify and summarize the contemporary theories and theoretical frameworks used for co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health research. METHODS: The reporting of this systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Given substantial interest in and application of co-creation, co-design and co-production, we searched PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and APA PsycINFO from 2012 to March-April 2022. A quality assessment and data extraction for theory content was performed. RESULTS: Of the 3763 unique references identified through the comprehensive search strategy, 10 articles were included in the review: four articles named co-creation, two articles named co-creation and co-design, two articles named co-production and co-design, and two articles named co-design. Empowerment Theory was employed by two articles, whereas other theories (n = 5) or frameworks (n = 3) were employed by one article each. For the quality assessment, eight articles received a strong rating and two articles received a moderate rating. CONCLUSION: There is little indication of theory applications for the approaches of co-creation, co-design and co-production in public health since 2012, given 10 articles were included in this review. Yet, the theories described in these 10 articles can be useful for developing such co-approaches in future public health research.

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? A systematic integrative review.

When physicians and nurses are looking at the same patient, they may not see the same picture. If assuming that the clinical reasoning of both professions is alike and ignoring possible differences, aspects essential for care can be overlooked. Understanding the multifaceted concept of clinical reasoning of both professions may provide insight into the nature and purpose of their practices and benefit patient care, education and research. We aimed to identify, compare and contrast the documented features of clinical reasoning of physicians and nurses through the lens of layered analysis and to conduct a simultaneous concept analysis. The protocol of this systematic integrative review was published doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049862. A comprehensive search was performed in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Psychinfo, and Web of Science) from 30th March 2020 to 27th May 2020. A total of 69 Empirical and theoretical journal articles about clinical reasoning of practitioners were included: 27 nursing, 37 medical, and five combining both perspectives. Two reviewers screened the identified papers for eligibility and assessed the quality of the methodologically diverse articles. We used an onion model, based on three layers: Philosophy, Principles, and Techniques to extract and organize the data. Commonalities and differences were identified on professional paradigms, theories, intentions, content, antecedents, attributes, outcomes, and contextual factors. The detected philosophical differences were located on a care-cure and subjective-objective continuum. We observed four principle contrasts: a broad or narrow focus, consideration of the patient as such or of the patient and his relatives, hypotheses to explain or to understand, and argumentation based on causality or association. In the technical layer a difference in the professional concepts of diagnosis and the degree of patient involvement in the reasoning process were perceived. Clinical reasoning can be analysed by breaking it down into layers, and the onion model resulted in detailed features. Subsequently insight was obtained in the differences between nursing and medical reasoning. The origin of these differences is in the philosophical layer (professional paradigms, intentions). This review can be used as a first step toward gaining a better understanding and collaboration in patient care, education and research across the nursing and medical professions.

The risk of preterm birth in women with uterine fibroids: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids have been identified as a possible risk factor for preterm birth, however, the magnitude of this risk is unclear. Our objective was to determine the risk of total, spontaneous, and medically indicated preterm birth in women with fibroids. METHODS: A literature search was performed on 9 June 2021. We selected studies reporting on preterm birth in women with and without fibroids. Fibroids had to be diagnosed by routine ultrasound before or during pregnancy. Main outcomes were total preterm birth <37, <34, <32, and <28 weeks of gestation, and spontaneous and medically indicated preterm birth. Two authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. We performed quality assessment with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Meta-analyses were presented as Odds Ratios (ORs) with 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CIs). MAIN RESULTS: The search yielded 2078 unique articles of which 11 were included. Meta-analysis for preterm birth <37 weeks of gestation included 256,650 singleton deliveries: 12,309 with fibroids and 244,341 without fibroids. Women with fibroids had a higher rate of preterm birth (11.6% versus 9.0%; OR 1.66, 95%CI 1.29-2.14). Fibroids were also associated with preterm birth <34 (OR 1.88, 95%CI 1.34-2.65), <32 (OR 2.03, 95%CI 1.40-2.95) and <28 (OR 2.24, 95%CI 1.45-3.47) weeks of gestation. Data on type of preterm birth was limited: one study showed a significant association of fibroids with spontaneous preterm birth and another with indicated preterm birth. The main limitations of the included studies were the lack of correction for confounders, the risk of ascertainment bias due to possible underreporting of fibroids, and the substantial heterogeneity between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest fibroids are associated with an increased risk of preterm birth, with a stronger risk at earlier gestational ages. We encourage further research to clarify the association between fibroids and preterm birth by systematic myometrial assessment in pregnancy. REGISTRATION: Prospero database [CRD42020186976].

Reasoning like a doctor or like a nurse? An integrative review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical reasoning, a major competency for all health professionals, has been defined and studied 'within' each profession. We do not know if content, process and outcomes are comparable 'between' physician and nursing clinical reasoning. This paper aims to set up a protocol for an integrative review to analyse and synthesise the scientific nursing and medical clinical reasoning literature. It builds on the history of nursing and medical clinical reasoning research and aims to create a higher level of conceptual clarity of clinical reasoning, to increase mutual understanding in collaboration in patient care, education and research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This integrative review follows stepwise the methods described by Whittmore and Knafl: problem identification, literature search, data evaluation, data analysis and presentation.The initial systematic and comprehensive search strategy is developed in collaboration with the clinical librarian and is performed in electronic databases, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Web of Science from 30 March 2020 to 27 May 2020. Empirical and theoretical studies are included. This search will be accompanied by ancestry searching and purposeful sampling. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow chart will summarise the selection process. The quality of eligible studies will be evaluated with a checklist, suitable for diverse study methods.The data analysis is inspired by concept analysis of Walker and Avant and layered analysis of an intervention of Cianciolo and Regehr. We will extract the data of the included studies conforming these layers and features, to capture the multifaceted nature of clinical reasoning in both professions. The data will be presented in a validity matrix to facilitate comparing and contrasting. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required. The outcomes will be disseminated through conference presentations and publications.

Clinical practice guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES) on bariatric surgery: update 2020 endorsed by IFSO-EC, EASO and ESPCOP.

BACKGROUND: Surgery for obesity and metabolic diseases has been evolved in the light of new scientific evidence, long-term outcomes and accumulated experience. EAES has sponsored an update of previous guidelines on bariatric surgery. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of bariatric surgeons, obesity physicians, nutritional experts, psychologists, anesthetists and a patient representative comprised the guideline development panel. Development and reporting conformed to GRADE guidelines and AGREE II standards. RESULTS: Systematic review of databases, record selection, data extraction and synthesis, evidence appraisal and evidence-to-decision frameworks were developed for 42 key questions in the domains Indication; Preoperative work-up; Perioperative management; Non-bypass, bypass and one-anastomosis procedures; Revisional surgery; Postoperative care; and Investigational procedures. A total of 36 recommendations and position statements were formed through a modified Delphi procedure. CONCLUSION: This document summarizes the latest evidence on bariatric surgery through state-of-the art guideline development, aiming to facilitate evidence-based clinical decisions.

Why physiology will continue to guide the choice between balanced crystalloids and normal saline: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Crystalloids are the most frequently prescribed drugs in intensive care medicine and emergency medicine. Thus, even small differences in outcome may have major implications, and therefore, the choice between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline continues to be debated. We examined to what extent the currently accrued information size from completed and ongoing trials on the subject allow intensivists and emergency physicians to choose the right fluid for their patients. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis with random effects inverse variance model. Published randomized controlled trials enrolling adult patients to compare balanced crystalloids versus normal saline in the setting of intensive care medicine or emergency medicine were included. The main outcome was mortality at the longest follow-up, and secondary outcomes were moderate to severe acute kidney injury (AKI) and initiation of renal replacement therapy (RRT). Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were performed, and risk of bias and overall quality of evidence were assessed. Additionally, previously published meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses and ongoing large trials were analysed for included studies, required information size calculations and the assumptions underlying those calculations. RESULTS: Nine studies (n = 32,777) were included. Of those, eight had data available on mortality, seven on AKI and six on RRT. Meta-analysis showed no significant differences between balanced crystalloids versus normal saline for mortality (P = 0.33), the incidence of moderate to severe AKI (P = 0.37) or initiation of RRT (P = 0.29). Quality of evidence was low to very low. Analysis of previous meta-analyses and ongoing trials showed large differences in calculated required versus accrued information sizes and assumptions underlying those. TSA revealed the need for extremely large trials based on our realistic and clinically relevant assumptions on relative risk reduction and baseline mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis could not find significant differences between balanced crystalloids and normal saline on mortality at the longest follow-up, moderate to severe AKI or new RRT. Currently accrued information size is smaller, and the required information size is larger than previously anticipated. Therefore, completed and ongoing trials on the topic may fail to provide adequate guidance for choosing the right crystalloid. Thus, physiology will continue to play an important role for individualizing this choice.

EAES and SAGES 2018 consensus conference on acute diverticulitis management: evidence-based recommendations for clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Acute diverticulitis (AD) presents a unique diagnostic and therapeutic challenge for general surgeons. This collaborative project between EAES and SAGES aimed to summarize recent evidence and draw statements of recommendation to guide our members on comprehensive AD management. METHODS: Systematic reviews of the literature were conducted across six AD topics by an international steering group including experts from both societies. Topics encompassed the epidemiology, diagnosis, management of non-complicated and complicated AD as well as emergency and elective operative AD management. Consensus statements and recommendations were generated, and the quality of the evidence and recommendation strength rated with the GRADE system. Modified Delphi methodology was used to reach consensus among experts prior to surveying the EAES and SAGES membership on the recommendations and likelihood to impact their practice. Results were presented at both EAES and SAGES annual meetings with live re-voting carried out for recommendations with < 70% agreement. RESULTS: A total of 51 consensus statements and 41 recommendations across all six topics were agreed upon by the experts and submitted for members' online voting. Based on 1004 complete surveys and over 300 live votes at the SAGES and EAES Diverticulitis Consensus Conference (DCC), consensus was achieved for 97.6% (40/41) of recommendations with 92% (38/41) agreement on the likelihood that these recommendations would change practice if not already applied. Areas of persistent disagreement included the selective use of imaging to guide AD diagnosis, recommendations against antibiotics in non-complicated AD, and routine colonic evaluation after resolution of non-complicated diverticulitis. CONCLUSION: This joint EAES and SAGES consensus conference updates clinicians on the current evidence and provides a set of recommendations that can guide clinical AD management practice.

Utility of language comprehension tests for unintelligible or non-speaking children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review.

AIM: to identify the use and utility of language comprehension tests for unintelligible or non-speaking children with severe cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: severe CP was defined as severe dysarthria (unintelligible speech) or anarthria (absence of speech) combined with severe limited mobility, corresponding to Gross Motor Function Classification System levels IV to V. An electronic search in the databases of PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, and CINAHL was made of studies published between January 1965 and December 2008. Indexing terms and free-text terms for 'cerebral palsy', 'language', and 'instrumentation' were used. Studies were included when (1) the focus was to investigate comprehension of spoken language of children (0-18 y) with severe CP, and (2) language tests were described. RESULTS: twelve standardized tests and five experimental instruments were identified. All standardized tests were developed for children without limited mobility. Only the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised was frequently used and feasible for older children with severe CP (> 9y). The other tests were used occasionally. To establish utility, adaptations of standardized test procedures were necessary. INTERPRETATION: language comprehension tests for children with severe CP are scarce. A language comprehension test specifically designed for these children is warranted. Cite this as: Dev Med Child Neurol 52: e267-e277.

Utility of language comprehension tests for unintelligible or non-speaking children with cerebral palsy: a systematic review.

AIM: to identify the use and utility of language comprehension tests for unintelligible or non-speaking children with severe cerebral palsy (CP). METHOD: severe CP was defined as severe dysarthria (unintelligible speech) or anarthria (absence of speech) combined with severe limited mobility, corresponding to Gross Motor Function Classification System levels IV to V. An electronic search in the databases of PubMed, PsychInfo, Embase, and CINAHL was made of studies published between January 1965 and December 2008. Indexing terms and free-text terms for 'cerebral palsy', 'language', and 'instrumentation' were used. Studies were included when (1) the focus was to investigate comprehension of spoken language of children (0-18 y) with severe CP, and (2) language tests were described. RESULTS: twelve standardized tests and five experimental instruments were identified. All standardized tests were developed for children without limited mobility. Only the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test - Revised was frequently used and feasible for older children with severe CP (> 9 y). The other tests were used occasionally. To establish utility, adaptations of standardized test procedures were necessary. INTERPRETATION: language comprehension tests for children with severe CP are scarce. A language comprehension test specifically designed for these children is warranted.