Effectiveness of face masks for reducing transmission of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid systematic review.

This rapid systematic review of evidence asks whether (i) wearing a face mask, (ii) one type of mask over another and (iii) mandatory mask policies can reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 infection, either in community-based or healthcare settings. A search of studies published 1 January 2020-27 January 2023 yielded 5185 unique records. Due to a paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies were included in the analysis. We analysed 35 studies in community settings (three RCTs and 32 observational) and 40 in healthcare settings (one RCT and 39 observational). Ninety-five per cent of studies included were conducted before highly transmissible Omicron variants emerged. Ninety-one per cent of observational studies were at 'critical' risk of bias (ROB) in at least one domain, often failing to separate the effects of masks from concurrent interventions. More studies found that masks (n = 39/47; 83%) and mask mandates (n = 16/18; 89%) reduced infection than found no effect (n = 8/65; 12%) or favoured controls (n = 1/65; 2%). Seven observational studies found that respirators were more protective than surgical masks, while five found no statistically significant difference between the two mask types. Despite the ROB, and allowing for uncertain and variable efficacy, we conclude that wearing masks, wearing higher quality masks (respirators), and mask mandates generally reduced SARS-CoV-2 transmission in these study populations. This article is part of the theme issue 'The effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions on the COVID-19 pandemic: the evidence'.

Patient engagement in a Canadian health research funding institute: implementation and impact.

BACKGROUND: Patient engagement (PE) or involvement in research is when patient partners are integrated onto teams and initiatives (not participants in research). A number of health research funding organisations have PE frameworks or rubrics but we are unaware of them applying and reporting on their own internal PE efforts. We describe our work at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research's Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (CIHR IMHA) to implement, evaluate and understand the impact of its internal PE strategy. METHODS: A co-production model was used involving patient partners, a PE specialist and staff from IMHA. A logic model was co-developed to guide implementing and evaluating IMHA's PE strategy. Some of evaluating the PE strategy and understanding its impact was a collaboration between the Public and Patient Engagement Collaborative (McMaster University) and IMHA. RESULTS: IMHA convened a PE Research Ambassador (PERA) group which co-led this work with the support of a PE specialist. In doing so, PERA had a number of meetings since 2020, set its own priorities and co-produced a number of outputs (video, publications, webinars, blog and modules called the How-to Guide for PE in Research). This work to evaluate and measure impacts of IMHA's PE strategy revealed positive results, for example, on PERA members, Institute Advisory Board members and staff, as well as beyond the institute based on uptake and use of the modules. Areas for improvement are mainly related to increasing the diversity of PERA and to improving accessibility of the PE outputs (more languages and formats). CONCLUSIONS: Implementing a PE strategy within CIHR IMHA resulted in several PE activities and outputs with impacts within and beyond the institute. We provide templates and outputs related to this work that may inform the efforts of other health research funding organisations. We encourage health research funders to move beyond encouraging or requiring PE in funded projects to fully 'walk the talk' of PE by implementing and evaluating their own PE strategies.

Co-creating and hosting PxP: a conference about patient engagement in research for and by patient partners.

Research projects, initiatives and conferences that include patients as partners rather than as participants are becoming more common. Including patients as partners (what we will call 'patient partners') is an approach called patient engagement or involvement in research, and we will call it patient engagement throughout this paper. Patient engagement moves traditional health research conferences and events to include a broader audience for their knowledge exchange and community building efforts, beyond academics and healthcare professionals. However, there are few examples of conferences where patients are given the opportunity to fully lead. Our conference went beyond patient engagement - it was patient-led. Patient partners conceived, planned, and decided on all aspects of a virtual conference.We present the work and processes we undertook throughout 2023 to create and produce a free conference called "PxP: For patients, by patients" or PxP for short, with a tagline of "Partnering to make research stronger." PxP was patient-led and about patient engagement in research rather than a specific disease or condition. PxP was supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis. The PxP website, known as the PxP Hub, now houses the conference recordings along with resources about patient engagement in research. These resources were recommended by the PxP Steering Committee members, speakers, and others who attended the 2023 conference. Here we lead you through how the idea for PxP was generated; how the international patient partner Steering Committee was convened and supported; how PxP was brought to life over nine months; the PxP 3-day event and feedback collected to improve future efforts; trade-offs, challenges and learnings; and resources required to support this type of event. We close with what the future holds for PxP in 2024 and beyond.It's time to elevate patients into leadership roles for conferences and events, and we encourage you to adopt the PxP ethos by using or adapting our approach and resources to support your opportunity.

Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation vs non-rehabilitation comparators for physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care (LTC) residents with dementia. INTRODUCTION: LTC residents living with dementia often have impaired physical functioning and quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical functioning and quality of life for individuals living with dementia; however, many LTC residents with dementia do not receive physical rehabilitation and providers are unsure what interventions to employ. A synthesis of studies examining physical rehabilitation will help guide practice in the LTC sector where most residents live with dementia. Previous syntheses have focused on all residents in LTC, specific professions, interventions, or people with dementia in the community. Our review focused on LTC residents with dementia and used a broader definition of physical rehabilitation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review included studies that evaluated physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among LTC residents with any severity of dementia. We included experimental and quasi-experimental studies that measured the effect on activities of daily living, performance-based physical functioning, and self- or proxy-rated quality of life. METHODS: Searches were conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), PubMed (National Library of Medicine), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers assessed the studies against the inclusion criteria. Two independent reviewers extracted data and conducted a methodological quality assessment using standardized checklists from JBI. Certainty of evidence was ascertained using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Where possible, studies were pooled in meta-analyses; otherwise, a narrative synthesis was presented. RESULTS: Thirty-three studies were included (n=3072 participants); 27 were randomized controlled trials and (RCTs) the remaining 6 were non-randomized trials. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. Many of the included studies focused on increasing activity or walking, while few were individually tailored or at an intensity appropriate to induce therapeutic effects on physical function. Physical function was measured via several outcome measures, limiting our ability to pool results. There was low-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation improved activities of daily living assessed with multiple instruments (12 RCTs, 1348 participants, standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.78; 95% CI 0.27 to 1.30) and lower extremity function assessed with the Short Physical Performance Battery Score (3 RCTs, 258 participants, mean difference [MD] 3.01 points; 95% CI 1.37 to 4.66), compared with non-rehabilitation interventions. There was very low- to moderate-certainty evidence that physical rehabilitation demonstrated no change in the 30-Second Sit to Stand Test (2 RCTs, 293 participants, MD 0.79 repetitions; 95% CI -0.45 to 2.03), 6-Minute Walk Test (4 RCTs, 363 participants, MD 17.32 meters; 95% CI -29.41 to 64.05), Timed Walk Test (4 RCTs, 400 participants, MD 0.10 meters/seconds; 95% CI -0.02 to 0.22), Timed Up and Go Test (3 RCTs, 275 participants, MD -2.89 seconds; 95% CI -6.62 to 0.84), or quality of life (4 RCTs, 419 participants, SMD 0.20; 95% CI -0.08 to 0.47). CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates that physical rehabilitation may improve activities of daily living for LTC residents living with dementia, although the evidence is of low certainty. The effect of physical rehabilitation on specific functional tasks, such as gait speed and quality of life, are less clear. Future research should examine the effects of individualized, progressive interventions on outcome measures that reflect the capacity and preferences of LTC residents with more advanced dementia. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022308444.

Effectiveness of physical rehabilitation in improving physical functioning and quality of life for long-term-care residents with dementia: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to evaluate the effectiveness of physical rehabilitation versus non-rehabilitation control in improving physical functioning and quality of life in long-term care residents with dementia. INTRODUCTION: Many long-term-care residents live with dementia and have impaired physical function and poor quality of life. Physical rehabilitation can improve physical function and quality of life for people living with dementia, yet many long-term-care residents with dementia do not receive this intervention, and health care providers are unsure of which rehabilitation interventions are effective. Studies synthesizing effective rehabilitation programs are needed to guide practice in the long-term-care sector where many residents live with dementia. Previous studies have focused broadly on long-term care, specific professions, interventions or outcomes, or people with dementia in the community. Our review will focus on long-term-care residents living with dementia and a broader definition of physical rehabilitation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include studies that evaluate physical rehabilitation in comparison with non-rehabilitation controls among long-term-care residents with any severity of dementia. We will include studies that measure the effect on performance-based physical functioning and self- or proxy-reported quality of life. METHODS: Searches will be conducted in APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), CINAHL (EBSCO), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane CENTRAL database with no date or language limitations. Two independent reviewers will conduct a critical appraisal of eligible studies, assess methodological quality, and extract the data. Where possible, studies will be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42022308444.

A paradigm change to inform fibromyalgia research priorities by engaging patients and health care professionals.

Background: Research objectives should be focused toward advancing knowledge that has meaningful impact on health. However, research agendas are mostly driven by the health care community, with limited input from patients. Aims: In this study, prioirities of uncertainties for the management of fibromyalgia (FM) that could propel future research were identified by a defined process using the James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership (JLA-PSP) methodology. Methods: As a first step, a survey was distributed across Canada that engaged patients, caregivers, and health care professionals to provide narrative input to eight open-ended questions regarding FM care. Responses were thematically condensed and synthesized into an initial list of 43 uncertainties used to guide a comprehensive literature search. Questions already effectively addressed in the literature were excluded, leaving 25 uncertainties that were ranked during a one-day consensus workshop. Results: Three broad themes emerged: the value of personalized targeted treatment and subgrouping of patients; the efficacy of various self-management strategies and educational initiatives; and identification of the ideal health care setting to provide FM care. Opioids and cannabinoids were the only specific pharmacologic interventions ranked as needing further research. Conclusions: The prioritized questions highlight the importance of recognizing the heterogeneity of FM symptoms, the need for a personalized treatment approach, and a better understanding of the value of self-management strategies. This is the first study that uses an established and transparent methodology to engage all FM stakeholders to help inform researchers and funding bodies of clinically relevant research priorities.

Contexte: Les objectifs en matière de recherche devraient se concentrer sur l'avancement des connaissances qui ont des effets significatifs sur la santé. Toutefois, les programmes de recherche sont surtout définis par le milieu des soins de santé, tandis que la contribution des patients demeure limitée.Objectifs: Dans cette étude, les incertitudes prioritaires pour la prise en charge de la fibromylagie, qui pourraient donner lieu à de futures études, ont été déterminées selon un processus fondé sur la méthodologie du Partenariat d'établissement des priorités de la James Lind Alliance.Méthodes: Comme première étape, une enquête a été distribuée partout au Canada auprès de patients, de prestataires de soins et de professionnels de la santé afin d'obtenir leurs réponses sous forme narrative à huit questions ouvertes concernant les soins relatifs à la fibromyalgie. Les réponses ont été regroupées par thèmes et résumées dans une liste initiale de 43 incertitudes qui a été utilisée pour orienter une recherche exhaustive de la littérature. Les questions déjà abordées de manière efficace dans la littérature ont été exclues, tandis que les 25 incertitudes restantes ont été classées dans le cadre d'un atelier de recherche de consensus d'une journée.Résultats: Trois grands thèmes se sont démarqués : l'utilité des traitements ciblés personnalisés et de la division des patients en sous-groupes; l'efficacité de diverses stratégies d'auto-prises en charge et initiatives éducatives; et la détermination du cadre de soins de santé idéal pour dispenser les soins relatifs à la fibromyalgie.Conclusions: Les questions priorisées soulignent l'importance de reconnaître l'hétérogénéité des symptômes de la fibromyalgie, la nécessité d'une approche de traitement personnalisé et une meilleure compréhension de l'utilité des stratégies d'auto-prise en charge. Il s'agit de la première étude à utiliser une méthodologie établie et transparente pour impliquer toutes les parties concernées par la fibromyalgie pour aider à faire connaître aux chercheurs et aux agences de financement les priorités pertinentes sur le plan clinique.