Positive thinking about negative studies.

The non-reporting of negative studies results in a scientific record that is incomplete, one-sided and misleading. The consequences of this range from inappropriate initiation of further studies that might put participants at unnecessary risk to treatment guidelines that may be in error, thus compromising day-to-day clinical practice.

A core outcome set for trials evaluating self-management interventions in people with severe mental illness and coexisting type 2 diabetes.

BACKGROUND: People with severe mental illness (SMI), such as schizophrenia, have higher rates of type 2 diabetes and worse outcomes, compared to those without SMI and it is not known whether diabetes self-management interventions are effective for people who have both conditions. Research in this area has been impeded by a lack of consensus on which outcomes to prioritise in people with co-existing SMI and diabetes. AIMS: To develop a core outcome set (COS) for use in effectiveness trials of diabetes self-management interventions in adults with both type 2 diabetes and SMI. METHODS: The COS was developed in three stages: (i) identification of outcomes from systematic literature review of intervention studies, followed by multi-stakeholder and service user workshops; (ii) rating of outcomes in a two-round online Delphi survey; (iii) agreement of final 'core' outcomes through a stakeholder consensus workshop. RESULTS: Seven outcomes were selected: glucose control, blood pressure, body composition (body weight, BMI, body fat), health-related quality of life, diabetes self-management, diabetes-related distress and medication adherence. CONCLUSIONS: This COS is recommended for future trials of effectiveness of diabetes self-management interventions for people with SMI and type 2 diabetes. Its use will ensure trials capture important outcomes and reduce heterogeneity so findings can be readily synthesised to inform practice and policy.

Improving the Detection, Assessment, Management and Prevention of Delirium in Hospices (the DAMPen-D study): Feasibility study of a flexible and scalable implementation strategy to deliver guideline-adherent delirium care.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a complex condition, stressful for all involved. Although highly prevalent in palliative care settings, it remains underdiagnosed and associated with poor outcomes. Guideline-adherent delirium care may improve its detection, assessment and management. AIM: To inform a future definitive study that tests whether an implementation strategy designed to improve guideline-adherent delirium care in palliative care settings improves patient outcomes (reduced proportion of in-patient days with delirium). DESIGN: With Patient Involvement members, we conducted a feasibility study to assess the acceptability of and engagement with the implementation strategy by hospice staff (intervention), and whether clinical record data collection of process (e.g. guideline-adherent delirium care) and clinical outcomes (evidence of delirium using a validated chart-based instrument;) pre- and 12-weeks post-implementation of the intervention would be possible. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: In-patient admissions in three English hospices. RESULTS: Between June 2021 and December 2022, clinical record data were extracted from 300 consecutive admissions. Despite data collection during COVID-19, target clinical record data collection (n = 300) was achieved. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a delirium episode during in-patient stay at both timepoints. A 6% absolute reduction in proportion of delirium days in those with a delirium episode was observed. Post-implementation improvements in guideline-adherent metrics include: clinical delirium diagnosis 15%-28%; delirium risk assessment 0%-16%; screening on admission 7%-35%. CONCLUSIONS: Collection of data on delirium outcomes and guideline-adherence from clinical records is feasible. The signal of patient benefit supports formal evaluation in a large-scale study.

'It's tough. It is hard': A qualitative interview study of staff and volunteers caring for hospice in-patients with delirium.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is a distressing condition often experienced by hospice in-patients. Increased understanding of current multidisciplinary care of delirium is needed to develop interventions in this setting. AIM(S): To explore hospice staff and volunteers' practice, its influences and what may need to change to improve hospice delirium care. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study using behaviour change theory from a critical realist stance. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-seven staff, including different professional groups and roles, and volunteers were purposively sampled from two in-patient hospices. RESULTS: We found that participants' practice focus was on managing hyperactive symptoms of delirium, through medication use and non-pharmacological strategies. Delirium prevention, early recognition and hypoactive delirium received less attention. Our theoretically-informed analysis identified this focus was influenced by staff and volunteers' emotional responses to the distress associated with hyperactive symptoms of delirium as well as understanding of delirium prevention, recognition and care, which varied between staff groups. Non-pharmacological delirium management was supported by adequate staffing levels, supportive team working and a culture of person-centred and family-centred care, although behaviours that disrupted the calm hospice environment challenged this. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings can inform hospice-tailored behaviour change interventions that develop a shared team understanding and engage staff's emotional responses to improve delirium care. Reflective learning opportunities are needed that increase understanding of the potential to reduce patient distress through prevention and early recognition of delirium, as well as person-centred management. Organisational support for adequate, flexible staffing levels and supportive team working is required to support person-centred delirium care.

Barriers and facilitators to integrating depression care in tuberculosis services in South Asia: a multi-country qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common among people with tuberculosis (TB). The condition is typically unrecognised or untreated despite available and effective treatments in most low- and middle-income countries. TB services in these countries are relatively well established, offering a potential opportunity to deliver integrated depression screening and care. However, there is limited evidence on how such integration could be achieved. This study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to integrate depression care in TB services. METHODS: We conducted nine workshops with 76 study participants, including people with TB, their carers, and health service providers in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan, seeking views on integrating depression care into TB clinics. We used a deductive thematic approach to analyse the translated transcripts of audio recordings, contemporaneous notes made during workshops for Bangladesh and India and workshop reports for Pakistan. Using the SURE (Supporting the Use of Research Evidence) thematic framework, we extracted and categorised barriers and facilitators into various domains. RESULTS: Reported barriers to integrating depression care in TB services included lack of knowledge about depression amongst patients and the staff, financial burden, and associated stigma for people with TB and their carers. Government buy-in and understanding of how to identify and screen for depression screening were potential facilitators reported. Additionally, breaking through mental health stigma and providing the additional resources required to deliver this service (human resources and consultation time) were essential for integrating depression and TB care. CONCLUSIONS: Depression is a common condition found among people with TB, requiring early identification among people with TB. Integrating depression care into Tb services by health workers requires the availability of political support and the provision of resources.

Development of a Supported Self-management Intervention for People With Severe Mental Illness and Type 2 Diabetes: Theory and Evidence-Based Co-design Approach.

BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes is 2 to 3 times more common among people with severe mental illness (SMI). Self-management is crucial, with additional challenges faced by people with SMI. Therefore, it is essential that any diabetes self-management program for people with SMI addresses the unique needs of people living with both conditions and the inequalities they experience within health care services. OBJECTIVE: We combined theory, empirical evidence, and co-design approaches to develop a type 2 diabetes self-management intervention for people with SMI. METHODS: The development process encompassed 4 steps: step 1 involved prioritizing the mechanisms of action (MoAs) and behavior change techniques (BCTs) for the intervention. Using findings from primary qualitative research and systematic reviews, we selected candidate MoAs to target in the intervention and candidate BCTs to use. Expert stakeholders then ranked these MoAs and BCTs using a 2-phase survey. The average scores were used to generate a prioritized list of MoAs and BCTs. During step 2, we presented the survey results to an expert consensus workshop to seek expert agreement with the definitive list of MoAs and BCTs for the intervention and identify potential modes of delivery. Step 3 involved the development of trigger films using the evidence from steps 1 and 2. We used animations to present the experiences of people with SMI managing diabetes. These films were used in step 4, where we used a stakeholder co-design approach. This involved a series of structured workshops, where the co-design activities were informed by theory and evidence. RESULTS: Upon the completion of the 4-step process, we developed the DIAMONDS (diabetes and mental illness, improving outcomes and self-management) intervention. It is a tailored self-management intervention based on the synthesis of the outputs from the co-design process. The intervention incorporates a digital app, a paper-based workbook, and one-to-one coaching designed to meet the needs of people with SMI and coexisting type 2 diabetes. CONCLUSIONS: The intervention development work was underpinned by the MoA theoretical framework and incorporated systematic reviews, primary qualitative research, expert stakeholder surveys, and evidence generated during co-design workshops. The intervention will now be tested for feasibility before undergoing a definitive evaluation in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial.

Effectiveness and implementation of psychological interventions for depression in people with non-communicable diseases in South Asia: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

We evaluate the effectiveness of psychological interventions for depression in people with NCDs in South Asia and explore the individual, organizational, and policy-level barriers and facilitators for the implementation and scaling up of these interventions. Eight databases (and local web pages) were searched in May 2022. We conducted random effects models to evaluate the pooled effect of psychological interventions on depression in people with NCDs. We extracted the individual, organizational, and policy level barriers and facilitators. We found five randomized control trials, nine qualitative studies, and 35 policy documents that fitted the inclusion criteria. The pooled standardized mean difference in depression comparing psychological interventions with usual care was -2.31 (95% CI, -4.16 to -0.45; p = .015, I2 = 96.0%). We found barriers and facilitators to intervention delivery, mental health appears in the policy agenda in Bangladesh and Pakistan. However, there is a lack of policies relating to training in mental health for NCD health providers and a lack of integration of mental health care with NCD care. All of the psychological interventions reported to be effective in treating depression in this population. There are important delivery and policy barriers to the implementation and scaling up of psychological interventions for people with NCDs.

The integrity of the research record: a mess so big and so deep and so tall.

SUMMARY: Poor research integrity is increasingly recognised as a serious problem in science. We outline some evidence for this claim and introduce the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) journals' Research Integrity Group, which has been created to address this problem.

Healthcare resource use and costs for people with type 2 diabetes mellitus with and without severe mental illness in England: longitudinal matched-cohort study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink.

BACKGROUND: Approximately 60 000 people in England have coexisting type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and severe mental illness (SMI). They are more likely to have poorer health outcomes and require more complex care pathways compared with those with T2DM alone. Despite increasing prevalence, little is known about the healthcare resource use and costs for people with both conditions. AIMS: To assess the impact of SMI on healthcare resource use and service costs for adults with T2DM, and explore the predictors of healthcare costs and lifetime costs for people with both conditions. METHOD: This was a matched-cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink linked to Hospital Episode Statistics for 1620 people with comorbid SMI and T2DM and 4763 people with T2DM alone. Generalised linear models and the Bang and Tsiatis method were used to explore cost predictors and mean lifetime costs respectively. RESULTS: There were higher average annual costs for people with T2DM and SMI (£1930 higher) than people with T2DM alone, driven primarily by mental health and non-mental health-related hospital admissions. Key predictors of higher total costs were older age, comorbid hypertension, use of antidepressants, use of first-generation antipsychotics, and increased duration of living with both conditions. Expected lifetime costs were approximately £35 000 per person with both SMI and T2DM. Extrapolating nationally, this would generate total annual costs to the National Health Service of around £250 m per year. CONCLUSIONS: Our estimates of resource use and costs for people with both T2DM and SMI will aid policymakers and commissioners in service planning and resource allocation.

Reporting of outcomes and measures in studies of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: to inform development of a core outcome set, we evaluated outcomes, definitions, measures and measurement time points in clinical trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in older adults resident in long-term care (LTC). DATA SOURCES: we searched electronic databases, systematic review repositories and trial registries (1980 to 10 December 2021). STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: we included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies. We extracted data on study characteristics, outcomes and measurement features. We assessed outcome reporting quality using the MOMENT study scoring system. We categorised outcomes using the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials taxonomy. DATA SYNTHESIS: we identified 18 studies recruiting 5,639 participants. All evaluated non-pharmacological interventions; most (16 studies, 89%) addressed delirium prevention. We identified 12 delirium-specific outcomes (mean [SD] 2.4 [1.5] per study), of which delirium incidence (14 studies, 78%) and severity (6 studies, 33%) were most common. We found heterogeneity in description of outcomes and measurement time points. The Confusion Assessment Method (three versions) was the most common measure used to ascertain delirium incidence (7 of 14 studies, 50%). We identified 25 non-delirium specific outcomes (mean [SD] 4.0 [2.3] per study), with hospital admission the most commonly reported (9 studies, 50%). CONCLUSIONS: we identified few studies of interventions for the prevention or treatment of delirium in older adults resident in LTC. These studies were heterogeneous in the outcomes reported and measures used. These data inform the consensus-building stage of a core outcome set.

Risk factors for delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common and distressing for patients receiving palliative care. Interventions targetting modifiable risk factors in other settings have been shown to prevent delirium. Research on delirium risk factors in palliative care can inform context-specific risk-reduction interventions. AIM: To investigate risk factors for the development of delirium in adult patients receiving specialist palliative care. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42019157168). DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (1980-2021) were searched for studies reporting the association of risk factors with delirium incidence/prevalence for patients receiving specialist palliative care. Study risk of bias and certainty of evidence for each risk factor were assessed. RESULTS: Of 28 included studies, 16 conducted only univariate analysis, 12 conducted multivariate analysis. The evidence for delirium risk factors was limited with low to very low certainty. POTENTIALLY MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Opioids and lower performance status were positively associated with delirium, with some evidence also for dehydration, hypoxaemia, sleep disturbance, liver dysfunction and infection. Mixed, or very limited, evidence was found for some factors targetted in multicomponent prevention interventions: sensory impairments, mobility, catheter use, polypharmacy (single study), pain, constipation, nutrition (mixed evidence). NON-MODIFIABLE RISK FACTORS: Older age, male sex, primary brain cancer or brain metastases and lung cancer were positively associated with delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Findings may usefully inform interventions to reduce delirium risk but more high quality prospective cohort studies are required to enable greater certainty about associations of different risk factors with delirium during specialist palliative care.

A core outcome set for studies evaluating interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium for adults requiring an acute care hospital admission: an international key stakeholder informed consensus study.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium in adults in an acute hospital setting report heterogeneous outcomes. Our objective was to develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set (COS) for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in adults with an acute care hospital admission and not admitted to an intensive care unit. METHODS: A rigorous COS development process was used including a systematic review, qualitative interviews, modified Delphi consensus process, and in-person consensus using nominal group technique (registration http://www.comet - initiative.org/studies/details/796 ). Participants in qualitative interviews were delirium survivors or family members. Participants in consensus methods comprised international representatives from three stakeholder groups: researchers, clinicians, and delirium survivors and family members. RESULTS: Item generation identified 8 delirium-specific outcomes and 71 other outcomes from 183 studies, and 30 outcomes from 18 qualitative interviews, including 2 that were not extracted from the systematic review. De-duplication of outcomes and formal consensus processes involving 110 experts including researchers (N = 32), clinicians (N = 63), and delirium survivors and family members (N = 15) resulted in a COS comprising 6 outcomes: delirium occurrence and reoccurrence, delirium severity, delirium duration, cognition, emotional distress, and health-related quality of life. Study limitations included exclusion of non-English studies and stakeholders and small representation of delirium survivors/family at the in-person consensus meeting. CONCLUSIONS: This COS, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in adults presenting to an acute care hospital and not admitted to an intensive care unit.

A Core Outcome Set for Research Evaluating Interventions to Prevent and/or Treat Delirium in Critically Ill Adults: An International Consensus Study (Del-COrS).

OBJECTIVES: Delirium in critically ill adults is highly prevalent and has multiple negative consequences. To-date, trials of interventions to prevent or treat delirium report heterogenous outcomes. To develop international consensus among key stakeholders for a core outcome set for future trials of interventions to prevent and/or treat delirium in critically ill adults. DESIGN: Core outcome set development, as recommended by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Handbook. Methods of generating items for the core outcome set included a systematic review and qualitative interviews with ICU survivors and family members. Consensus methods include a two-round web-based Delphi process and a face-to-face meeting using nominal group technique methods. SUBJECTS: International representatives from three stakeholder groups: 1) clinical researchers, 2) ICU interprofessional clinicians, and 3) ICU survivors and family members. SETTING: Telephone interviews, web-based surveys, and a face-to-face consensus meeting held at the 2019 European Delirium Association's annual meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Qualitative interviews with 24 ICU survivors and family members identified 36 potential outcomes; six were additional to the 97 identified from the systematic review. After item reduction, 32 outcomes were presented in Delphi Round 1; 179 experts participated, 38 ICU survivors/family members (21%), 100 clinicians (56%), 41 researchers (23%). Three additional outcomes were added to Round 2; 134 Round 1 participants (75%) completed it. Upon conclusion of the consensus building processes, the final core outcome set comprised seven outcomes: delirium occurrence (including prevalence or incidence); delirium severity; time to delirium resolution; health-related quality of life; emotional distress (i.e., anxiety, depression, acute and posttraumatic stress); cognition (including memory); and mortality. CONCLUSIONS: This core outcome set, endorsed by the American and Australian Delirium Societies and European Delirium Association, is recommended for future clinical trials evaluating delirium prevention or treatment interventions in critically ill adults.

Living with diabetes alongside a severe mental illness: A qualitative exploration with people with severe mental illness, family members and healthcare staff.

AIMS: Diabetes is two to three times more prevalent in people with severe mental illness, yet little is known about the challenges of managing both conditions from the perspectives of people living with the co-morbidity, their family members or healthcare staff. Our aim was to understand these challenges and to explore the circumstances that influence access to and receipt of diabetes care for people with severe mental illness. METHODS: Framework analysis of qualitative semi-structured interviews with people with severe mental illness and diabetes, family members, and staff from UK primary care, mental health and diabetes services, selected using a maximum variation sampling strategy between April and December 2018. RESULTS: In all, 39 adults with severe mental illness and diabetes (3 with type 1 diabetes and 36 with type 2 diabetes), nine family members and 30 healthcare staff participated. Five themes were identified: (a) Severe mental illness governs everyday life including diabetes management; (b) mood influences capacity and motivation for diabetes self-management; (c) cumulative burden of managing multiple physical conditions; (d) interacting conditions and overlapping symptoms and (e) support for everyday challenges. People living with the co-morbidity and their family members emphasised the importance of receiving support for the everyday challenges that impact diabetes management, and identified barriers to accessing this from healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: More intensive support for diabetes management is needed when people's severe mental illness (including symptoms of depression) or physical health deteriorates. Interventions that help people, including healthcare staff, distinguish between symptoms of diabetes and severe mental illness are also needed.

The experience of delirium in palliative care settings for patients, family, clinicians and volunteers: A qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is common in palliative care settings and is distressing for patients, their families and clinicians. To develop effective interventions, we need first to understand current delirium care in this setting. AIM: To understand patient, family, clinicians' and volunteers' experience of delirium and its care in palliative care contexts. DESIGN: Qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis (PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018102417). DATA SOURCES: The following databases were searched: CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Embase, MEDLINE and PsycINFO (2000-2020) for qualitative studies exploring experiences of delirium or its care in specialist palliative care services. Study selection and quality appraisal were independently conducted by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 21 papers describing 16 studies were included. In quality appraisal, trustworthiness (rigour of methods used) was assessed as high (n = 5), medium (n = 8) or low (n = 3). Three major themes were identified: interpretations of delirium and their influence on care; clinicians' responses to the suffering of patients with delirium and the roles of the family in delirium care. Nursing staff and other clinicians had limited understanding of delirium as a medical condition with potentially modifiable causes. Practice focused on alleviating patient suffering through person-centred approaches, which could be challenging with delirious patients, and medication use. Treatment decisions were also influenced by the distress of family and clinicians and resource limitations. Family played vital roles in delirium care. CONCLUSIONS: Increased understanding of non-pharmacological approaches to delirium prevention and management, as well as support for clinicians and families, are important to enable patients' multi-dimensional needs to be met.

Outcomes and measures of delirium interventional studies in palliative care to inform a core outcome set: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Trials of interventions for delirium in various patient populations report disparate outcomes and measures but little is known about those used in palliative care trials. A core outcome set promotes consistency of outcome selection and measurement. AIM: To inform core outcome set development by examining outcomes, their definitions, measures and time-points in published palliative care studies of delirium prevention or treatment delirium interventions. DESIGN: Prospectively registered systematic review adhering to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. DATA SOURCES: We searched six electronic databases (1980-November 2020) for original studies, three for relevant reviews and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for unpublished studies and ongoing trials. We included randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised intervention studies of pharmacological and non-pharmacological delirium prevention and/or treatment interventions. RESULTS: From 13/3244 studies (2863 adult participants), we identified 9 delirium-specific and 13 non-delirium specific outcome domains within eight Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy categories. There were multiple and varied outcomes and time points in each domain. The commonest delirium specific outcome was delirium severity (n = 7), commonly using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (6/8 studies, 75%). Four studies reported delirium incidence. Non-delirium specific outcomes included mortality, agitation, adverse events, other symptoms and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The review identified few delirium interventions with heterogeneity in outcomes, their definition and measurement, highlighting the need for a uniform approach. Findings will inform the next stage to develop consensus for a core outcome set to inform delirium interventional palliative care research.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Interventions for preventing type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of type 2 diabetes is increased in individuals with mental disorders. Much of the burden of disease falls on the populations of low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of pharmacological, behaviour change, and organisational interventions versus active and non-active comparators in the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes among people with mental illness in LMICs. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, as well as three international trials registries. We also searched conference proceedings and checked the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. Searches are current up to 20 February 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmacological, behavioural or organisational interventions targeting the prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes in adults with mental disorders in LMICs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors working independently performed data extraction and risk of bias assessments. We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: One hospital-based RCT with 150 participants (99 participants with schizophrenia) addressed our review's primary outcome of prevention or delay of type 2 diabetes onset. Low-certainty evidence from this study did not show a difference between atypical and typical antipsychotics in the development of diabetes at six weeks (risk ratio (RR) 0.46, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.03 to 7.05) (among a total 99 participants with schizophrenia, 68 were in atypical and 31 were in typical antipsychotic groups; 55 participants without mental illness were not considered in the analysis). An additional 29 RCTs with 2481 participants assessed one or more of the review's secondary outcomes. All studies were conducted in hospital settings and reported on pharmacological interventions. One study, which we could not include in our meta-analysis, included an intervention with pharmacological and behaviour change components. We identified no studies of organisational interventions. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests there may be no difference between the use of atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.69; two studies with 144 participants), and fasting blood glucose levels (mean difference (MD) 0.05 lower, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.00; two studies with 211 participants). Participants who receive typical antipsychotics may have a lower body mass index (BMI) at follow-up than participants who receive atypical antipsychotics (MD 0.57, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.81; two studies with 141 participants; moderate certainty of evidence), and may have lower total cholesterol levels eight weeks after starting treatment (MD 0.35, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.43; one study with 112 participants). There was moderate certainty evidence suggesting no difference between the use of metformin and placebo for the outcomes of drop-outs from care (RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.09 to 16.35; three studies with 158 participants). There was moderate-to-high certainty evidence of no difference between metformin and placebo for fasting blood glucose levels (endpoint data: MD -0.35, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; change from baseline data: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.22; five studies with 264 participants). There was high certainty evidence that BMI was lower for participants receiving metformin compared with those receiving a placebo (MD -1.37, 95% CI -2.04 to -0.70; five studies with 264 participants; high certainty of evidence). There was no difference between metformin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Low-certainty evidence from one study (48 participants) suggests there may be no difference between the use of melatonin and placebo for the outcome of drop-outs from care (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.66). Fasting blood glucose is probably reduced more in participants treated with melatonin compared with placebo (endpoint data: MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.01; change from baseline data: MD -0.24, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.09; three studies with 202 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). There was no difference between melatonin and placebo for the outcomes of waist circumference, blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Very low-certainty evidence from one study (25 participants) suggests that drop-outs may be higher in participants treated with a tricyclic antidepressant (TCA) compared with those receiving a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.01). It is uncertain if there is no difference in fasting blood glucose levels between these groups (MD -0.39, 95% CI -0.88 to 0.10; three studies with 141 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if there is no difference in BMI and depression between the TCA and SSRI antidepressant groups. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Only one study reported data on our primary outcome of interest, providing low-certainty evidence that there may be no difference in risk between atypical and typical antipsychotics for the outcome of developing type 2 diabetes. We are therefore not able to draw conclusions on the prevention of type 2 diabetes in people with mental disorders in LMICs. For studies reporting on secondary outcomes, there was evidence of risk of bias in the results. There is a need for further studies with participants from LMICs with mental disorders, particularly on behaviour change and on organisational interventions targeting prevention of type 2 diabetes in these populations.

Non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised non-ICU patients.

BACKGROUND: Delirium is an acute neuropsychological disorder that is common in hospitalised patients. It can be distressing to patients and carers and it is associated with serious adverse outcomes. Treatment options for established delirium are limited and so prevention of delirium is desirable. Non-pharmacological interventions are thought to be important in delirium prevention.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions designed to prevent delirium in hospitalised patients outside intensive care units (ICU). SEARCH METHODS: We searched ALOIS, the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, with additional searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, Web of Science Core Collection, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization Portal/ICTRP to 16 September 2020. There were no language or date restrictions applied to the electronic searches, and no methodological filters were used to restrict the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of single and multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for preventing delirium in hospitalised adults cared for outside intensive care or high dependency settings. We only included non-pharmacological interventions which were designed and implemented to prevent delirium.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently examined titles and abstracts identified by the search for eligibility and extracted data from full-text articles. Any disagreements on eligibility and inclusion were resolved by consensus. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were: incidence of delirium; inpatient and later mortality; and new diagnosis of dementia. We included secondary and adverse outcomes as pre-specified in the review protocol. We used risk ratios (RRs) as measures of treatment effect for dichotomous outcomes and between-group mean differences for continuous outcomes. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. A complementary exploratory analysis was undertaker using a Bayesian component network meta-analysis fixed-effect model to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of the individual components of multicomponent interventions and describe which components were most strongly associated with reducing the incidence of delirium. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs that recruited a total of 5718 adult participants. Fourteen trials compared a multicomponent delirium prevention intervention with usual care. Two trials compared liberal and restrictive blood transfusion thresholds. The remaining six trials each investigated a different non-pharmacological intervention. Incidence of delirium was reported in all studies.  Using the Cochrane risk of bias tool, we identified risks of bias in all included trials. All were at high risk of performance bias as participants and personnel were not blinded to the interventions. Nine trials were at high risk of detection bias due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors and three more were at unclear risk in this domain.  Pooled data showed that multi-component non-pharmacological interventions probably reduce the incidence of delirium compared to usual care (10.5% incidence in the intervention group, compared to 18.4% in the control group, risk ratio (RR) 0.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.46 to 0.71, I2 = 39%; 14 studies; 3693 participants; moderate-certainty evidence, downgraded due to risk of bias).  There may be little or no effect of multicomponent interventions on inpatient mortality compared to usual care (5.2% in the intervention group, compared to 4.5% in the control group, RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.74, I2 = 15%; 10 studies; 2640 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to inconsistency and imprecision).  No studies of multicomponent interventions reported data on new diagnoses of dementia.  Multicomponent interventions may result in a small reduction of around a day in the duration of a delirium episode (mean difference (MD) -0.93, 95% CI -2.01 to 0.14 days, I2 = 65%; 351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of multicomponent interventions on delirium severity (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.49, 95% CI -1.13 to 0.14, I2=64%; 147 participants; very low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and serious imprecision). Multicomponent interventions may result in a reduction in hospital length of stay compared to usual care (MD -1.30 days, 95% CI -2.56 to -0.04 days, I2=91%; 3351 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and inconsistency), but little to no difference in new care home admission at the time of hospital discharge (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.07; 536 participants; low-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). Reporting of other adverse outcomes was limited.  Our exploratory component network meta-analysis found that re-orientation (including use of familiar objects), cognitive stimulation and sleep hygiene were associated with reduced risk of incident delirium. Attention to nutrition and hydration, oxygenation, medication review, assessment of mood and bowel and bladder care were probably associated with a reduction in incident delirium but estimates included the possibility of no benefit or harm.  Reducing sensory deprivation, identification of infection, mobilisation and pain control all had summary estimates that suggested potential increases in delirium incidence, but the uncertainty in the estimates was substantial.  Evidence from two trials suggests that use of a liberal transfusion threshold over a restrictive transfusion threshold probably results in little to no difference in incident delirium (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.36; I2 = 9%; 294 participants; moderate-certainty evidence downgraded due to risk of bias).  Six other interventions were examined, but evidence for each was limited to single studies and we identified no evidence of delirium prevention.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-certainty evidence regarding the benefit of multicomponent non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium in hospitalised adults, estimated to reduce incidence by 43% compared to usual care. We found no evidence of an effect on mortality. There is emerging evidence that these interventions may reduce hospital length of stay, with a trend towards reduced delirium duration, although the effect on delirium severity remains uncertain. Further research should focus on implementation and detailed analysis of the components of the interventions to support more effective, tailored practice recommendations.

Effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ to reduce agitation in care home residents with dementia: an open-cohort cluster randomised controlled trial.

OBJECTIVES: Agitation is common and problematic in care home residents with dementia. This study investigated the (cost)effectiveness of Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) for reducing agitation in this population. METHOD: Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with cost-effectiveness analysis in 50 care homes, follow-up at 6 and 16 months and stratified randomisation to intervention (n = 31) and control (n = 19). Residents with dementia were recruited at baseline (n = 726) and 16 months (n = 261). Clusters were not blinded to allocation. Three DCM cycles were scheduled, delivered by two trained staff per home. Cycle one was supported by an external DCM expert. Agitation (Cohen-Mansfield Agitation Inventory (CMAI)) at 16 months was the primary outcome. RESULTS: DCM was not superior to control on any outcomes (cross-sectional sample n = 675: 287 control, 388 intervention). The adjusted mean CMAI score difference was -2.11 points (95% CI -4.66 to 0.44, p = 0.104, adjusted ICC control = 0, intervention 0.001). Sensitivity analyses supported the primary analysis. Incremental cost per unit improvement in CMAI and QALYs (intervention vs control) on closed-cohort baseline recruited sample (n = 726, 418 intervention, 308 control) was £289 and £60,627 respectively. Loss to follow-up at 16 months in the original cohort was 312/726 (43·0%) mainly (87·2%) due to deaths. Intervention dose was low with only a quarter of homes completing more than one DCM cycle. CONCLUSION: No benefits of DCM were evidenced. Low intervention dose indicates standard care homes may be insufficiently resourced to implement DCM. Alternative models of implementation, or other approaches to reducing agitation should be considered.