Establishing the Top 10 Research Priorities for Adolescent and Young Adult (AYA) Cancer in Canada: A Protocol for a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Adolescents and young adults (AYAs; 15-39 years) diagnosed with cancer have unique medical and psychosocial needs. These needs could be better addressed through research that is focused on the topics that matter most to them. However, there is currently no patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer in Canada. This manuscript describes the early development and project protocol for a priority-setting partnership (PSP) for establishing the top 10 research priorities for AYA cancer in Canada. This project follows the PSP methodology outlined by the James Lind Alliance (JLA) to engage patients, caregivers, and clinicians in research prioritization. The steps of a JLA PSP include establishing a steering group and project partners, gathering uncertainties, data processing and verifying uncertainties, interim priority setting, and a final priority setting workshop. The AYA cancer PSP will result in a top 10 list of research priorities identified by Canadian AYA patients, caregivers, and clinicians that will be published and shared broadly with the research community. The first steering group meeting was held in April 2023, and the project is ongoing. The establishment of a patient-oriented research agenda for AYA cancer will catalyze a long-term and impactful research focus and ultimately improve outcomes for AYA patients with cancer in Canada.

Reporting of equity in observational epidemiology: A methodological review.

Background: Observational studies can inform how we understand and address persisting health inequities through the collection, reporting and analysis of health equity factors. However, the extent to which the analysis and reporting of equity-relevant aspects in observational research are generally unknown. Thus, we aimed to systematically evaluate how equity-relevant observational studies reported equity considerations in the study design and analyses. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for health equity-relevant observational studies from January 2020 to March 2022, resulting in 16 828 articles. We randomly selected 320 studies, ensuring a balance in focus on populations experiencing inequities, country income settings, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) topic. We extracted information on study design and analysis methods. Results: The bulk of the studies were conducted in North America (n = 95, 30%), followed by Europe and Central Asia (n = 55, 17%). Half of the studies (n = 171, 53%) addressed general health and well-being, while 49 (15%) focused on mental health conditions. Two-thirds of the studies (n = 220, 69%) were cross-sectional. Eight (3%) engaged with populations experiencing inequities, while 22 (29%) adapted recruitment methods to reach these populations. Further, 67 studies (21%) examined interaction effects primarily related to race or ethnicity (48%). Two-thirds of the studies (72%) adjusted for characteristics associated with inequities, and 18 studies (6%) used flow diagrams to depict how populations experiencing inequities progressed throughout the studies. Conclusions: Despite over 80% of the equity-focused observational studies providing a rationale for a focus on health equity, reporting of study design features relevant to health equity ranged from 0-95%, with over half of the items reported by less than one-quarter of studies. This methodological study is a baseline assessment to inform the development of an equity-focussed reporting guideline for observational studies as an extension of the well-known Strengthening Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline.

A scoping review establishes need for consensus guidance on reporting health equity in observational studies.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the support from the available guidance on reporting of health equity in research for our candidate items and to identify additional items for the Strengthening Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology-Equity extension. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a scoping review by searching Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Cochrane Methodology Register, LILACS, and Caribbean Center on Health Sciences Information up to January 2022. We also searched reference lists and gray literature for additional resources. We included guidance and assessments (hereafter termed "resources") related to conduct and/or reporting for any type of health research with or about people experiencing health inequity. RESULTS: We included 34 resources, which supported one or more candidate items or contributed to new items about health equity reporting in observational research. Each candidate item was supported by a median of six (range: 1-15) resources. In addition, 12 resources suggested 13 new items, such as "report the background of investigators". CONCLUSION: Existing resources for reporting health equity in observational studies aligned with our interim checklist of candidate items. We also identified additional items that will be considered in the development of a consensus-based and evidence-based guideline for reporting health equity in observational studies.

Improving social justice in observational studies: protocol for the development of a global and Indigenous STROBE-equity reporting guideline.

BACKGROUND: Addressing persistent and pervasive health inequities is a global moral imperative, which has been highlighted and magnified by the societal and health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Observational studies can aid our understanding of the impact of health and structural oppression based on the intersection of gender, race, ethnicity, age and other factors, as they frequently collect this data. However, the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guideline, does not provide guidance related to reporting of health equity. The goal of this project is to develop a STROBE-Equity reporting guideline extension. METHODS: We assembled a diverse team across multiple domains, including gender, age, ethnicity, Indigenous background, disciplines, geographies, lived experience of health inequity and decision-making organizations. Using an inclusive, integrated knowledge translation approach, we will implement a five-phase plan which will include: (1) assessing the reporting of health equity in published observational studies, (2) seeking wide international feedback on items to improve reporting of health equity, (3) establishing consensus amongst knowledge users and researchers, (4) evaluating in partnership with Indigenous contributors the relevance to Indigenous peoples who have globally experienced the oppressive legacy of colonization, and (5) widely disseminating and seeking endorsement from relevant knowledge users. We will seek input from external collaborators using social media, mailing lists and other communication channels. DISCUSSION: Achieving global imperatives such as the Sustainable Development Goals (e.g., SDG 10 Reduced inequalities, SDG 3 Good health and wellbeing) requires advancing health equity in research. The implementation of the STROBE-Equity guidelines will enable a better awareness and understanding of health inequities through better reporting. We will broadly disseminate the reporting guideline with tools to enable adoption and use by journal editors, authors, and funding agencies, using diverse strategies tailored to specific audiences.

Insights from using an outcomes measurement properties search filter and conducting citation searches to locate psychometric articles of tools used to measure context attributes.

OBJECTIVES: To describe our experience with using a methodological outcomes measurement search filter (precise and sensitive versions of a filter designed to locate articles that report on psychometric properties of measurement tools) and citation searches to locate psychometric articles for tools that can be used to measure context attributes. To compare the precise filter when used alone and with reference list checking to citation searching according to number of records found, precision, and sensitivity. RESULTS: Using the precise filter, we located 130 of 150 (86.6%) psychometric articles related to 22 of 31 (71.0%) tools that potentially measured an attribute of context. In a subset of six tools, the precise filter alone was more precise than searching with the precise filter combined with reference list searching, or citation searching alone. The precise filter combined with reference list checking was the most sensitive search method examined. Overall, we found the precise filter helpful for our project as it decreased record screening time. For non-patient reported outcomes tools, we had less success with locating psychometric articles using the precise filter because some psychometric articles were not indexed in PubMed. More research that systematically evaluates database searching methods is needed to validate our findings.

Priorities for pulmonary hypertension research: A James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is a rare condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The priorities for future research in PH according to patients, caregivers, and clinicians have not been established. We performed a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership in Canada. An initial survey of 249 respondents (76% patients and/or caregivers, 12.5% clinicians) generated 1588 questions, which were combined into 187 summary questions. An evidence check identified 352 systematic reviews and guidelines which were mapped to the summary questions, which determined that 157 summary questions were unanswered by existing research. An interim prioritisation survey (240 respondents, 66% patients and/or caregivers, 18% clinicians) asked respondents to choose which of the 157 summary questions were among the 30-40 most important. In a final workshop patients, caregivers, and clinicians discussed and ranked the top 25 questions from the interim survey to identify the Top 10 PH research priorities. These results will inform researchers and funding bodies about patient, caregiver, and clinician priorities for future research on PH.

Guidance relevant to the reporting of health equity in observational research: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Health inequities are defined as unfair and avoidable differences in health between groups within a population. Most health research is conducted through observational studies, which are able to offer real-world insights about etiology, healthcare policy/programme effectiveness and the impacts of socioeconomic factors. However, most published reports of observational studies do not address how their findings relate to health equity. Our team seeks to develop equity-relevant reporting guidance as an extension of the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. This scoping review will inform the development of candidate items for the STROBE-Equity extension. We will operationalise equity-seeking populations using the PROGRESS-Plus framework of sociodemographic factors. As part of a parallel stream of the STROBE-Equity project, the relevance of candidate guideline items to Indigenous research will be led by Indigenous coinvestigators on the team. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute method for conducting scoping reviews. We will evaluate the extent to which the identified guidance supports or refutes our preliminary candidate items for reporting equity in observational studies. These candidate items were developed based on items from equity-reporting guidelines for randomised trials and systematic reviews, developed by members of this team. We will consult with our knowledge users, patients/public partners and Indigenous research steering committee to invite suggestions for relevant guidance documents and interpretation of findings. If the identified guidance suggests the need for additional candidate items, they will be developed through inductive thematic analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: We will follow a principled approach that promotes ethical codevelopment with our community partners, based on principles of cultural safety, authentic partnerships, addressing colonial structures in knowledge production and the shared ownership, interpretation, and dissemination of research. All products of this research will be published as open access.

Inappropriate use of clinical practices in Canada: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes and inefficient use of resources. We aimed to conduct a systematic review of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada. METHODS: We searched multiple bibliometric databases and grey literature to identify inappropriately used clinical practices in Canada between 2007 and 2021. Two team members independently screened citations, extracted data and assessed methodological quality. Findings were synthesized in 2 categories: diagnostics and therapeutics. We reported ranges of proportions of inappropriate use for all practices. Medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs), based on the percentage of patients not receiving recommended practices (underuse) or receiving practices not recommended (overuse), were calculated. All statistics are at the study summary level. RESULTS: We included 174 studies, representing 228 clinical practices and 28 900 762 patients. The median proportion of inappropriate care, as assessed in the studies, was 30.0% (IQR 12.0%-56.6%). Underuse (median 43.9%, IQR 23.8%-66.3%) was more frequent than overuse (median 13.6%, IQR 3.2%-30.7%). The most frequently investigated diagnostics were glycated hemoglobin (underused, range 18.0%-85.7%, n = 9) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (overused, range 3.0%-35.1%, n = 5). The most frequently investigated therapeutics were statin medications (underused, range 18.5%-71.0%, n = 6) and potentially inappropriate medications (overused, range 13.5%-97.3%, n = 9). INTERPRETATION: We have provided a summary of inappropriately used clinical practices in Canadian health care systems. Our findings can be used to support health care professionals and quality agencies to improve patient care and safety in Canada.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions.

BACKGROUND: Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

Behavioural interventions delivered through interactive social media for health behaviour change, health outcomes, and health equity in the adult population.

BACKGROUND: Social networking platforms offer a wide reach for public health interventions allowing communication with broad audiences using tools that are generally free and straightforward to use and may be combined with other components, such as public health policies. We define interactive social media as activities, practices, or behaviours among communities of people who have gathered online to interactively share information, knowledge, and opinions. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess the effectiveness of interactive social media interventions, in which adults are able to communicate directly with each other, on changing health behaviours, body functions, psychological health, well-being, and adverse effects. Our secondary objective was to assess the effects of these interventions on the health of populations who experience health inequity as defined by PROGRESS-Plus. We assessed whether there is evidence about PROGRESS-Plus populations being included in studies and whether results are analysed across any of these characteristics. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE (including trial registries) and PsycINFO. We used Google, Web of Science, and relevant web sites to identify additional studies and searched reference lists of included studies. We searched for published and unpublished studies from 2001 until June 1, 2020. We did not limit results by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before-and-after (CBAs) and interrupted time series studies (ITSs). We included studies in which the intervention website, app, or social media platform described a goal of changing a health behaviour, or included a behaviour change technique. The social media intervention had to be delivered to adults via a commonly-used social media platform or one that mimicked a commonly-used platform. We included studies comparing an interactive social media intervention alone or as a component of a multi-component intervention with either a non-interactive social media control or an active but less-interactive social media comparator (e.g. a moderated versus an unmoderated discussion group). Our main outcomes were health behaviours (e.g. physical activity), body function outcomes (e.g. blood glucose), psychological health outcomes (e.g. depression), well-being, and adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were process outcomes important for behaviour change and included knowledge, attitudes, intention and motivation, perceived susceptibility, self-efficacy, and social support. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a pre-tested data extraction form and collected data independently, in duplicate. Because we aimed to assess broad outcomes, we extracted only one outcome per main and secondary outcome categories prioritised by those that were the primary outcome as reported by the study authors, used in a sample size calculation, and patient-important. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 studies (871,378 participants), of which 84 were RCTs, three were CBAs and one was an ITS. The majority of the studies were conducted in the USA (54%). In total, 86% were conducted in high-income countries and the remaining 14% in upper middle-income countries. The most commonly used social media platform was Facebook (39%) with few studies utilising other platforms such as WeChat, Twitter, WhatsApp, and Google Hangouts. Many studies (48%) used web-based communities or apps that mimic functions of these well-known social media platforms. We compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with non-interactive social media interventions, which included paper-based or in-person interventions or no intervention. We only reported the RCT results in our 'Summary of findings' table. We found a range of effects on health behaviours, such as breastfeeding, condom use, diet quality, medication adherence, medical screening and testing, physical activity, tobacco use, and vaccination. For example, these interventions may increase physical activity and medical screening tests but there was little to no effect for other health behaviours, such as improved diet or reduced tobacco use (20,139 participants in 54 RCTs). For body function outcomes, interactive social media interventions may result in small but important positive effects, such as a small but important positive effect on weight loss and a small but important reduction in resting heart rate (4521 participants in 30 RCTs). Interactive social media may improve overall well-being (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.14 to 0.79, moderate effect, low-certainty evidence) demonstrated by an increase of 3.77 points on a general well-being scale (from 1.15 to 6.48 points higher) where scores range from 14 to 70 (3792 participants in 16 studies). We found no difference in effect on psychological outcomes (depression and distress) representing a difference of 0.1 points on a standard scale in which scores range from 0 to 63 points (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.12, low-certainty evidence, 2070 participants in 12 RCTs). We also compared studies assessing interactive social media interventions with those with an active but less interactive social media control (11 studies). Four RCTs (1523 participants) that reported on physical activity found an improvement demonstrated by an increase of 28 minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity per week (from 10 to 47 minutes more, SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.59, small effect, very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found little to no difference in well-being for those in the intervention and control groups (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.08 to 0.13, small effect, low-certainty evidence), demonstrated by a mean change of 0.4 points on a scale with a range of 0 to 100. Adverse events related to the social media component of the interventions, such as privacy issues, were not reported in any of our included studies. We were unable to conduct planned subgroup analyses related to health equity as only four studies reported relevant data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review combined data for a variety of outcomes and found that social media interventions that aim to increase physical activity may be effective and social media interventions may improve well-being. While we assessed many other outcomes, there were too few studies to compare or, where there were studies, the evidence was uncertain. None of our included studies reported adverse effects related to the social media component of the intervention. Future studies should assess adverse events related to the interactive social media component and should report on population characteristics to increase our understanding of the potential effect of these interventions on reducing health inequities.

PROTOCOL: When and how to replicate systematic reviews.

This is a protocol for a co-registered Cochrane and Campbell Review (Methodology). The objectives are as follows: To identify, describe and assess methods for: when to replicate a systematic review; how to replicate a systematic review.

Inappropriateness of health care in Canada: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition in Canada and globally that a substantial proportion of health care delivered is inappropriate as evidenced by (1) harmful and/or ineffective practices being overused, (2) effective clinical practices being underused, and (3) other clinical practices being misused. Inappropriate health care leads to negative patient experiences, poor health outcomes, and inefficient use of scarce health care resources. The purpose of this study is to conduct a systematic review of inappropriate health care in Canada. Our specific objectives are to (1) systematically search and critically review published and grey literature for studies on inappropriate health care in Canada; (2) estimate the nature and magnitude of inappropriate health care in Canada and its provincial and territorial jurisdictions. METHODS: We will include all quantitative study designs reporting objective or subjective measurements of inappropriate health care in Canada over the last 10 years. We will search the following online databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and ISI-Web of Knowledge, which contains Web of Science Core Collection-Citation Indexes, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Social Science & Humanities. We will also search grey literature sources to identify provincial and national audits of inappropriate health care. Two authors will independently screen, assess data quality, and extract data for synthesis. Study findings will be synthesized narratively. We will organize our data into three care categorizations: preventive care, acute care, and chronic care. We will provide a compendium of inappropriate health care for each care category for Canada and each Canadian province and territory, where sufficient data exists, by calculating (1) overall medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse of clinical practices and (2) the range of medians of underuse, overuse, and misuse for each clinical practice investigated. DISCUSSION: This review will result in the first-ever evidence-based compendium of inappropriate health care in Canada. We will also develop detailed reports of inappropriate health care for each Canadian province and territory. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018093495.

Potential harms associated with routine collection of patient sociodemographic information: A rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Health systems are recommended to capture routine patient sociodemographic data as a key step in providing equitable person-centred care. However, collection of this information has the potential to cause harm, especially for vulnerable or potentially disadvantaged patients. OBJECTIVE: To identify harms perceived or experienced by patients, their families, or health-care providers from collection of sociodemographic information during routine health-care visits and to identify best practices for when, by whom and how to collect this information. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched OVID MEDLINE, PubMed "related articles" via NLM and healthevidence.org to the end of January 2018 and assessed reference lists and related citations of included studies. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included studies reporting on harms of collecting patient sociodemographic information in health-care settings. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data on study characteristics and types of harms were extracted and summarized narratively. MAIN RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included; 13 provided patient perceptions or experiences with the collection of these data and seven studies reported on provider perceptions. Five reported on patient recommendations for collecting sociodemographic information. Patients and providers reported similar potential harms which were grouped into the following themes: altered behaviour which may affect care-seeking, data misuse or privacy concerns, discomfort, discrimination, offence or negative reactions, and quality of care. Patients suggested that sociodemographic information be collected face to face by a physician. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, patients support the collection of sociodemographic information. However, harms are possible, especially for some population subgroups. Harms may be mitigated by providing a rationale for the collection of this information.

Non-clinical interventions for reducing unnecessary caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Caesarean section rates are increasing globally. The factors contributing to this increase are complex, and identifying interventions to address them is challenging. Non-clinical interventions are applied independently of a clinical encounter between a health provider and a patient. Such interventions may target women, health professionals or organisations. They address the determinants of caesarean births and could have a role in reducing unnecessary caesarean sections. This review was first published in 2011. This review update will inform a new WHO guideline, and the scope of the update was informed by WHO's Guideline Development Group for this guideline. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of non-clinical interventions intended to reduce unnecessary caesarean section. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers in March 2018. We also searched websites of relevant organisations and reference lists of related reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome measures were: caesarean section, spontaneous vaginal birth and instrumental birth. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We narratively described results of individual studies (drawing summarised evidence from single studies assessing distinct interventions). MAIN RESULTS: We included 29 studies in this review (19 randomised trials, 1 controlled before-after study and 9 interrupted time series studies). Most of the studies (20 studies) were conducted in high-income countries and none took place in low-income countries. The studies enrolled a mixed population of pregnant women, including nulliparous women, multiparous women, women with a fear of childbirth, women with high levels of anxiety and women having undergone a previous caesarean section.Overall, we found low-, moderate- or high-certainty evidence that the following interventions have a beneficial effect on at least one primary outcome measure and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of adverse effects.Interventions targeted at women or familiesChildbirth training workshops for mothers alone may reduce caesarean section (risk ratio (RR) 0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.33 to 0.89) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.25, 95% CI 1.16 to 4.36). Childbirth training workshops for couples may reduce caesarean section (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.94) and may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 2.13, 95% CI 1.09 to 4.16). We judged this one study with 60 participants to have low-certainty evidence for the outcomes above.Nurse-led applied relaxation training programmes (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.43; 104 participants, low-certainty evidence) and psychosocial couple-based prevention programmes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.90; 147 participants, low-certainty evidence) may reduce caesarean section. Psychoeducation may increase spontaneous vaginal birth (RR 1.33, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.61; 371 participants, low-certainty evidence). The control group received routine maternity care in all studies.There were insufficient data on the effect of the four interventions on maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity.Interventions targeted at healthcare professionalsImplementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion for caesarean section indication slightly reduces the risk of overall caesarean section (mean difference in rate change -1.9%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.1; 149,223 participants). Implementation of clinical practice guidelines combined with audit and feedback also slightly reduces the risk of caesarean section (risk difference (RD) -1.8%, 95% CI -3.8 to -0.2; 105,351 participants). Physician education by local opinion leader (obstetrician-gynaecologist) reduced the risk of elective caesarean section to 53.7% from 66.8% (opinion leader education: 53.7%, 95% CI 46.5 to 61.0%; control: 66.8%, 95% CI 61.7 to 72.0%; 2496 participants). Healthcare professionals in the control groups received routine care in the studies. There was little or no difference in maternal and neonatal mortality or morbidity between study groups. We judged the certainty of evidence to be high.Interventions targeted at healthcare organisations or facilitiesCollaborative midwifery-labourist care (in which the obstetrician provides in-house labour and delivery coverage, 24 hours a day, without competing clinical duties), versus a private practice model of care, may reduce the primary caesarean section rate. In one interrupted time series study, the caesarean section rate decreased by 7% in the year after the intervention, and by 1.7% per year thereafter (1722 participants); the vaginal birth rate after caesarean section increased from 13.3% before to 22.4% after the intervention (684 participants). Maternal and neonatal mortality were not reported. We judged the certainty of evidence to be low.We studied the following interventions, and they either made little or no difference to caesarean section rates or had uncertain effects.Moderate-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: antenatal education programmes for physiologic childbirth; antenatal education on natural childbirth preparation with training in breathing and relaxation techniques; computer-based decision aids; individualised prenatal education and support programmes (versus written information in pamphlet).Low-certainty evidence suggests little or no difference in caesarean section rates between usual care and: psychoeducation; pelvic floor muscle training exercises with telephone follow-up (versus pelvic floor muscle training without telephone follow-up); intensive group therapy (cognitive behavioural therapy and childbirth psychotherapy); education of public health nurses on childbirth classes; role play (versus standard education using lectures); interactive decision aids (versus educational brochures); labourist model of obstetric care (versus traditional model of obstetric care).We are very uncertain as to the effect of other interventions identified on caesarean section rates as the certainty of the evidence is very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We evaluated a wide range of non-clinical interventions to reduce unnecessary caesarean section, mostly in high-income settings. Few interventions with moderate- or high-certainty evidence, mainly targeting healthcare professionals (implementation of guidelines combined with mandatory second opinion, implementation of guidelines combined with audit and feedback, physician education by local opinion leader) have been shown to safely reduce caesarean section rates. There are uncertainties in existing evidence related to very-low or low-certainty evidence, applicability of interventions and lack of studies, particularly around interventions targeted at women or families and healthcare organisations or facilities.

Canadian Rheumatology Association Recommendations for the Assessment and Monitoring of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus.

OBJECTIVE: To develop recommendations for the assessment of people with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) in Canada. METHODS: Recommendations were developed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) approach. The Canadian SLE Working Group (panel of Canadian rheumatologists and a patient representative from Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance) was created. Questions for recommendation development were identified based on the results of a previous survey of SLE practice patterns of members of the Canadian Rheumatology Association. Systematic literature reviews of randomized trials and observational studies were conducted. Evidence to Decision tables were prepared and presented to the panel at 2 face-to-face meetings and online. RESULTS: There are 15 recommendations for assessing and monitoring SLE, with varying applicability to adult and pediatric patients. Three recommendations focus on diagnosis, disease activity, and damage assessment, suggesting the use of a validated disease activity score per visit and annual damage score. Strong recommendations were made for cardiovascular risk assessment and measuring anti-Ro and anti-La antibodies in the peripartum period and conditional recommendations for osteoporosis and osteonecrosis. Two conditional recommendations were made for peripartum assessments, 1 for cervical cancer screening and 2 for hepatitis B and C screening. A strong recommendation was made for annual influenza vaccination. CONCLUSION: These are considered the first guidelines using the GRADE method for the monitoring of SLE. Existing evidence is largely of low to moderate quality, resulting in more conditional than strong recommendations. Additional rigorous studies and special attention to pediatric SLE populations and patient preferences are needed.

The prevalence of patient engagement in published trials: a systematic review.

Plain English summary: With the growing movement to engage patients in research, questions are being asked about who is engaging patients and how they are being engaged. Internationally, research groups are supporting and funding patient-oriented research studies that engage patients in the identification of research priorities and the design, conduct and uptake of research. As we move forward, we need to know what meaningful patient engagement looks like, how it benefits research and clinical practice, and what are the barriers to patient engagement?We conducted a review of the published literature looking for trials that report engaging patients in the research. We included both randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials. We looked at these trials for important study characteristics, including how patients were engaged, to better understand the practices used in trials. Importantly, we also discuss the number of trials reporting patient engagement practices relative to all published trials. We found that very few trials report any patient engagement activities even though it is widely supported by many major funding organizations. The findings of our work will advance patient-oriented research by showing how patients can be engaged and by stressing that patient engagement practices need to be better reported. Background: Patient-Oriented Research (POR) is research informed by patients and is centred on what is of importance to them. A fundamental component of POR is that patients are included as an integral part of the research process from conception to dissemination and implementation, and by extension, across the research continuum from basic research to pragmatic trials [J Comp Eff Res 2012, 1:181-94, JAMA 2012, 307:1587-8]. Since POR's inception, questions have been raised as to how best to achieve this goal.We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative trials that report engaging patients in their research. Our main goal was to describe the characteristics of published trials engaging patients in research, and to identify the extent of patient engagement activities reported in these trials. Methods: The MEDLINE®, EMBASE®, Cinahl, PsycINFO, Cochrane Methodology Registry, and Pubmed were searched from May 2011 to June 16th, 2016. Title, abstract and full text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Data were extracted from included trials by one reviewer and verified by a second. All trials that report patient engagement for the purposes of research were included. Results: Of the 9490 citations retrieved, 2777 were reviewed at full text, of which 23 trials were included. Out of the 23 trials, 17 were randomized control trials, and six were non-randomized comparative trials. The majority of these trials (83%, 19/23) originated in the United States and United Kingdom. The trials engaged a range of 2-24 patients/ community representatives per study. Engagement of children and minorities occurred in 13% (3/23) and 26% (6/23) of trials; respectively. Engagement was identified in the development of the research question, the selection of study outcomes, and the dissemination and implementation of results. Conclusions: The prevalence of patient engagement in patient-oriented interventional research is very poor with 23 trials reporting activities engaging patients. Research dedicated to determining the best practice for meaningful engagement is still needed, but adequate reporting measures also need to be defined.

Some Cochrane risk-of-bias items are not important in osteoarthritis trials: a meta-epidemiological study based on Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of bias-related study characteristics on treatment effects in osteoarthritis (OA) trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on OA trials included in Cochrane reviews, the impact of study characteristics on treatment effect estimates was evaluated. Characteristics included items of the risk of bias (RoB) tool, trial size, single vs. multisite, and source of funding. Effect sizes (ESs) were calculated as standardized mean differences (SMDs). Meta-regression was performed to identify "relevant study-level covariates" that decrease the between-study variance (τˆ2). RESULTS: Twenty reviews, including 126 OA trials with a high degree of heterogeneity, were included (τˆ2 = 0.1247). Among the RoB domains, only patient blinding had an impact on the results (reducing heterogeneity according to τˆ2 < 7%). Inadequate blinding of patients yielded larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.15; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01-0.29, P = 0.035). The most important study characteristic was trial size (heterogeneity reduced by 25%), with small trials reporting larger effects (SMDDifference = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.16-0.42, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: In musculoskeletal reviews addressing pain, all the items included in the Cochrane RoB tool might not be equally important. OA trial results may be affected by bias constructs that are not yet fully elucidated.

Development and Alpha-testing of a Stepped Decision Aid for Patients Considering Nonsurgical Options for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis Management.

OBJECTIVE: To develop an innovative stepped patient decision aid (StDA) comparing the benefits and harms of 13 nonsurgical treatment options for managing osteoarthritis (OA) and to evaluate its acceptability and effects on informed decision making. METHODS: Guided by the Ottawa Decision Support Framework and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards, the process involved (1) developing a decision aid with evidence on 13 nonsurgical treatments from the 2012 American College of Rheumatology OA clinical practice guidelines; and (2) interviewing patients with OA and healthcare providers to test its acceptability and effects on knowledge and decisional conflict. RESULTS: The StDA helped make the decision explicit, and presented evidence on 13 OA treatments clustered into 5 steps or levels according to their benefits and harms. Probabilities of benefits and harms were presented using pictograms of 100 faces formatted to allow comparisons across sets of options. It also included a values clarification exercise and knowledge test. Feedback was obtained from 49 patients and 7 healthcare providers. They found that the StDA presented evidence in a clear manner, and helped patients clarify their values and make an informed decision. Some participants found that there was too much information and others said that there was not enough on each treatment option. CONCLUSION: This innovative StDA allows patients to consider both the evidence and their values for multiple options. The findings are being used to revise and plan future evaluation. The StDA is an example of how research evidence in guidelines can be implemented in practice.