Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are important contributors to healthcare quality and patient safety, but their performance does not always follow recommended clinical practice. There are many approaches to influencing practice among healthcare professionals. These approaches include audit and feedback, reminders, educational materials, educational outreach visits, educational meetings or conferences, use of local opinion leaders, financial incentives, and organisational interventions. In this review, we evaluated the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions. These interventions are aimed at changing the performance of healthcare professionals through interactions with patients, or through information provided by or to patients. Examples of patient-mediated interventions include 1) patient-reported health information, 2) patient information, 3) patient education, 4) patient feedback about clinical practice, 5) patient decision aids, 6) patients, or patient representatives, being members of a committee or board, and 7) patient-led training or education of healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance (adherence to clinical practice guidelines or recommendations for clinical practice). SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Ovid in March 2018, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in March 2017, and ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry (ICTRP) in September 2017, and OpenGrey, the Grey Literature Report and Google Scholar in October 2017. We also screened the reference lists of included studies and conducted cited reference searches for all included studies in October 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised studies comparing patient-mediated interventions to either usual care or other interventions to improve professional practice. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel statistics and the random-effects model. For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean difference (MD) using inverse variance statistics. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 studies with a total of 12,268 patients. The number of healthcare professionals included in the studies ranged from 12 to 167 where this was reported. The included studies evaluated four types of patient-mediated interventions: 1) patient-reported health information interventions (for instance information obtained from patients about patients' own health, concerns or needs before a clinical encounter), 2) patient information interventions (for instance, where patients are informed about, or reminded to attend recommended care), 3) patient education interventions (intended to increase patients' knowledge about their condition and options of care, for instance), and 4) patient decision aids (where the patient is provided with information about treatment options including risks and benefits). For each type of patient-mediated intervention a separate meta-analysis was produced.Patient-reported health information interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 26 (95% CI 23 to 30) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 17 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). We are uncertain about the effect of patient-reported health information interventions on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (very low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes and adverse events were not reported in the included studies and resource use was poorly reported.Patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 42) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 20 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient information interventions may have little or no effect on desirable patient health outcomes and patient satisfaction (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of patient information interventions on undesirable patient health outcomes because the certainty of the evidence is very low. Adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 46 (95% CI 39 to 54) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 35 per 100 in the comparison group (no intervention or usual care). Patient education interventions may slightly increase the number of patients with desirable health outcomes (low-certainty evidence). Undesirable patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies.Patient decision aid interventions may have little or no effect on healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). We found that for every 100 patients consulted or treated, 32 (95% CI 24 to 43) are in accordance with recommended clinical practice compared to 37 per 100 in the comparison group (usual care). Patient health outcomes, patient satisfaction, adverse events and resource use were not reported in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that two types of patient-mediated interventions, patient-reported health information and patient education, probably improve professional practice by increasing healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate-certainty evidence). We consider the effect to be small to moderate. Other patient-mediated interventions, such as patient information may also improve professional practice (low-certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence).The impact of these interventions on patient health and satisfaction, adverse events and resource use, is more uncertain mostly due to very low certainty evidence or lack of evidence.

A comparative evaluation of PDQ-Evidence.

BACKGROUND: A strategy for minimising the time and obstacles to accessing systematic reviews of health system evidence is to collect them in a freely available database and make them easy to find through a simple 'Google-style' search interface. PDQ-Evidence was developed in this way. The objective of this study was to compare PDQ-Evidence to six other databases, namely Cochrane Library, EVIPNet VHL, Google Scholar, Health Systems Evidence, PubMed and Trip. METHODS: We recruited healthcare policy-makers, managers and health researchers in low-, middle- and high-income countries. Participants selected one of six pre-determined questions. They searched for a systematic review that addressed the chosen question and one question of their own in PDQ-Evidence and in two of the other six databases which they would normally have searched. We randomly allocated participants to search PDQ-Evidence first or to search the two other databases first. The primary outcomes were whether a systematic review was found and the time taken to find it. Secondary outcomes were perceived ease of use and perceived time spent searching. We asked open-ended questions about PDQ-Evidence, including likes, dislikes, challenges and suggestions for improvements. RESULTS: A total of 89 people from 21 countries completed the study; 83 were included in the primary analyses and 6 were excluded because of data errors that could not be corrected. Most participants chose PubMed and Cochrane Library as the other two databases. Participants were more likely to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence than using Cochrane Library or PubMed for the pre-defined questions. For their own questions, this difference was not found. Overall, it took slightly less time to find a systematic review using PDQ-Evidence. Participants perceived that it took less time, and most participants perceived PDQ-Evidence to be slightly easier to use than the two other databases. However, there were conflicting views about the design of PDQ-Evidence. CONCLUSIONS: PDQ-Evidence is at least as efficient as other databases for finding health system evidence. However, using PDQ-Evidence is not intuitive for some people. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was prospectively registered in the ISRCTN registry 17 April 2015. Registration number: ISRCTN12742235 .

Fertility after cryopreservation of ovarian tissue due to cancer treatment. / Fertilitet etter kryopreservering av ovarialvev ved kreftbehandling.

BAKGRUNN: Kryopreservering av ovarialvev som fertilitetsbevarende metode tilbys prepubertale jenter og kvinner i reproduktiv alder med høy risiko for å utvikle prematur ovarialsvikt i forbindelse med medisinsk eller kirurgisk behandling. I denne studien ønsket vi å kartlegge fertilitet og prematur ovarialsvikt hos kvinner som har fått gjort kryopreservering av ovarialvev i forbindelse med kreftbehandling. MATERIALE OG METODE: Et spørreskjema ble i 2014 sendt til 94 kvinner over 18 år som i perioden 2004-12 hadde fått kryopreservert ovarialvev i forbindelse med behandling for en malign tilstand. Skjemaet inneholdt spørsmål om menstruasjonsfrekvens, prevensjonsbruk, fertilitet, fremtidig barneønske og sannsynlighet for at de ville benytte ovarialvevet senere. Av de 77 kvinnene som returnerte spørreskjemaet, ble 74 kvinner inkludert i studien. RESULTATER: Totalt 20 av 74 kvinner (27 %) hadde prematur ovarialsvikt definert som opphør av ovarialfunksjonen før 40 års alder. Risikoen var lavest hos kvinner behandlet for brystkreft (5 %) og høyest hos kvinner behandlet for leukemi (75 %). Størst risiko for prematur ovarialsvikt fant man i pasientgruppene som hadde gjennomgått stamcelletransplantasjon, strålebehandling mot helkropp og/eller abdomen og bekken. Til sammen hadde 22 kvinner født 31 barn etter kreftbehandlingen, hvorav to etter reimplantasjon av ovarialvev. FORTOLKNING: Risikoen for å utvikle prematur ovarialsvikt er avhengig av pasientens kreftdiagnose. Hvilke fertilitetsbevarende tiltak som anbefales, bør differensieres avhengig av pasienten kreftdiagnose og planlagt behandling.

A case study of the organisation of research knowledge by systematic reviews within the mental health care field.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to explore how systematic reviews of the effects of complex interventions within the field of organisation of mental health care organised research knowledge. METHODS: We looked up references included in 14 mental health care reviews in the database Epistemonikos to examine overlap between reviews. We classified topic concordance between study reports and reviews as similar, narrower, broader or other topic to indicate how well the research knowledge was organised. FINDINGS: We examined 182 comparisons between the theme of study reports and reviews. In 100 (55%) of the 182 comparisons, the review had a broader theme, 18 (10%) narrower, 34 (19%) similar and in 30 (16%), the review's theme was classified as 'other'. The content analysis indicated that there existed (inconsistent) overlapping of study reports between different topics. CONCLUSIONS: Within the field organisation of mental health care, there exists some unclear and inconsistent organisation of current knowledge. This may diminish the validity and reliability of systematic reviews. It is important that review authors take care in defining the review question precisely, conduct thorough literature searches, consider each study's hypothesis, disciplinary tradition and context, and if necessary, examine which other reviews have included a study in question.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice either on its own or as a component of multifaceted quality improvement interventions. This is based on the belief that healthcare professionals are prompted to modify their practice when given performance feedback showing that their clinical practice is inconsistent with a desirable target. Despite its prevalence as a quality improvement strategy, there remains uncertainty regarding both the effectiveness of audit and feedback in improving healthcare practice and the characteristics of audit and feedback that lead to greater impact. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes and to examine factors that may explain variation in the effectiveness of audit and feedback. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 4, part of The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 10 December 2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to November Week 3 2010) (searched 09 December 2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 48) (searched 09 December 2010); CINAHL, Ebsco (1981 to present) (searched 10 December 2010); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to present) (searched 12-15 September 2011). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as a summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured health professional practice or patient outcomes. In the case of multifaceted interventions, only trials in which audit and feedback was considered the core, essential aspect of at least one intervention arm were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All data were abstracted by two independent review authors. For the primary outcome(s) in each study, we calculated the median absolute risk difference (RD) (adjusted for baseline performance) of compliance with desired practice compliance for dichotomous outcomes and the median percent change relative to the control group for continuous outcomes. Across studies the median effect size was weighted by number of health professionals involved in each study. We investigated the following factors as possible explanations for the variation in the effectiveness of interventions across comparisons: format of feedback, source of feedback, frequency of feedback, instructions for improvement, direction of change required, baseline performance, profession of recipient, and risk of bias within the trial itself. We also conducted exploratory analyses to assess the role of context and the targeted clinical behaviour. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual, and qualitative analyses were undertaken to examine variation in effect size related to these factors. MAIN RESULTS: We included and analysed 140 studies for this review. In the main analyses, a total of 108 comparisons from 70 studies compared any intervention in which audit and feedback was a core, essential component to usual care and evaluated effects on professional practice. After excluding studies at high risk of bias, there were 82 comparisons from 49 studies featuring dichotomous outcomes, and the weighted median adjusted RD was a 4.3% (interquartile range (IQR) 0.5% to 16%) absolute increase in healthcare professionals' compliance with desired practice. Across 26 comparisons from 21 studies with continuous outcomes, the weighted median adjusted percent change relative to control was 1.3% (IQR = 1.3% to 28.9%). For patient outcomes, the weighted median RD was -0.4% (IQR -1.3% to 1.6%) for 12 comparisons from six studies reporting dichotomous outcomes and the weighted median percentage change was 17% (IQR 1.5% to 17%) for eight comparisons from five studies reporting continuous outcomes. Multivariable meta-regression indicated that feedback may be more effective when baseline performance is low, the source is a supervisor or colleague, it is provided more than once, it is delivered in both verbal and written formats, and when it includes both explicit targets and an action plan. In addition, the effect size varied based on the clinical behaviour targeted by the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Audit and feedback generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. The effectiveness of audit and feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how the feedback is provided. Future studies of audit and feedback should directly compare different ways of providing feedback.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments. OBJECTIVES: Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010). SELECTION CRITERIA: Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival. MAIN RESULTS: The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to randomised controlled trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register - CMR (The Cochrane Library (online) Issue 1 2008) (searched 20 February 2008); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to date of search) (searched 06 May 2008); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to date of search) (searched 16 May 2008); ERIC, CSA (1966 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); and National Research Register (online) (Issue 3 2007) (searched 03 September 2007); C2-SPECTR (searched 09 April 2008). We also searched PubMed (25 March 2008) to retrieve "related articles" for 15 studies included in a previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. Studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention, or which evaluated incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit patients were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials with more than 26,604 participants. There were 24 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while three evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.18), use of opt-out, rather than opt-in, procedures for contacting potential trial participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34). However, some of these strategies have disadvantages, which may limit their widespread use. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded. The effects of many other recruitment strategies are unclear; examples include the use of video to provide trial information to potential participants and modifying the training of recruiters. Many studies looked at recruitment to hypothetical trials and it is unclear how applicable these results are to real trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trialists can increase recruitment to their trials by using the strategies shown to be effective in this review: telephone reminders; use of opt-out, rather than opt-in; procedures for contacting potential trial participants and open designs. Some strategies (e.g. open trial designs) need to be considered carefully before use because they also have disadvantages. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded.

Strategies to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Recruiting participants to trials can be extremely difficult. Identifying strategies that improve trial recruitment would benefit both trialists and health research. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effects of strategies to improve recruitment of participants to randomised controlled trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register - CMR (The Cochrane Library (online) Issue 1 2008) (searched 20 February 2008); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to date of search) (searched 06 May 2008); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to date of search) (searched 16 May 2008); ERIC, CSA (1966 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Science Citation Index Expanded, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); Social Sciences Citation Index, ISI Web of Science (1975 to date of search) (searched 19 March 2008); and National Research Register (online) (Issue 3 2007) (searched 03 September 2007); C2-SPECTR (searched 09 April 2008). We also searched PubMed (25 March 2008) to retrieve "related articles" for 15 studies included in a previous version of this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of methods to increase recruitment to randomised controlled trials. This includes non-healthcare studies and studies recruiting to hypothetical trials. Studies aiming to increase response rates to questionnaires or trial retention, or which evaluated incentives and disincentives for clinicians to recruit patients were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted on the method evaluated; country in which the study was carried out; nature of the population; nature of the study setting; nature of the study to be recruited into; randomisation or quasi-randomisation method; and numbers and proportions in each intervention group. We used risk ratios and their 95% confidence intervals to describe the effects in individual trials, and assessed heterogeneity of these ratios between trials. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 27 eligible trials with more than 26,604 participants. There were 24 studies involving interventions aimed directly at trial participants, while three evaluated interventions aimed at people recruiting participants. All studies were in health care. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.37 to 5.18), use of opt-out, rather than opt-in, procedures for contacting potential trial participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.34). However, some of these strategies have disadvantages, which may limit their widespread use. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded. The effects of many other recruitment strategies are unclear; examples include the use of video to provide trial information to potential participants and modifying the training of recruiters. Many studies looked at recruitment to hypothetical trials and it is unclear how applicable these results are to real trials. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Trialists can increase recruitment to their trials by using the strategies shown to be effective in this review: telephone reminders; use of opt-out, rather than opt-in; procedures for contacting potential trial participants and open designs. Some strategies (e.g. open trial designs) need to be considered carefully before use because they also have disadvantages. For example, opt-out procedures are controversial and open designs are by definition unblinded.

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews.

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found?

Patient-mediated interventions to improve professional practice: A summary of a Cochrane systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of patient-mediated interventions on healthcare professionals' performance. METHODS: We conducted a systematic Cochrane review according to established guidelines. We searched predefined databases in 2016 and 2017. Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, performed meta-analyses, and assessed the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). RESULTS: We included 25 randomised studies with a total of 12 268 patients. We found that patient-reported health information interventions and patient education interventions probably improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (moderate certainty evidence). We also found that patient information interventions may improve healthcare professionals' adherence to recommended clinical practice (low certainty evidence). Patient decision aids may make little or no difference to the number of healthcare professionals' adhering to recommended clinical practice (low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSION: Our findings strengthen the belief that patient-mediated interventions have the potential to improve professional practice, especially patient-reported health information interventions and patient education interventions. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Our findings show that patient-reported health information interventions and patient education interventions are relevant approaches to improve professional practice. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that these types of patient-mediated interventions can contribute to improving the quality of healthcare services.

"A waste of time without patients": The views of patient representatives attending a workshop in evidence-based practice.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making is a central element of evidence-based practice (EBP). Training in EBP has traditionally focused on providers, but there is an increasing interest in developing such educational resources for patients. The aim of this study is to explore the views of patient representatives attending a workshop in EBP. METHODS: We conducted three focus groups with participants attending EBP workshops in 2013, 2014, and 2015. We used the framework method for content analysis. We reviewed the transcribed interviews independently and assigned initial codes and final categories to the transcriptions. We created an analytical framework and a flow diagram to visualize the category hierarchy and the relationship between categories. RESULTS: We identified two main themes; "How to facilitate training in evidence-based practice for patients," and "Outputs of training in evidence based practice for patients." Training in EBP for patient representatives "should reflect the principles EBP," and include interaction with both health professionals and other representatives. The educational needs of representatives are much the same as those of health professionals, and the training should therefore be "on a par with professionals." The relevance of such training may depend on the representatives' mandate, and costs might be an important barrier. Important outputs of such training include "becoming a knowledge manager," "enabling participation and informed decisions" and "re-defining the patient representatives' role." CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that training in EBP is attractive to patient representatives with outputs perceived important. Organizers should consider the principles of EBP when planning such training.

Quasi-experimental study designs series-paper 8: identifying quasi-experimental studies to inform systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This article reviews the available evidence and guidance on methods to identify reports of quasi-experimental (QE) studies to inform systematic reviews of health care, public health, international development, education, crime and justice, and social welfare. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Research, guidance, and examples of search strategies were identified by searching a range of databases, key guidance documents, selected reviews, conference proceedings, and personal communication. Current practice and research evidence were summarized. RESULTS: Four thousand nine hundred twenty-four records were retrieved by database searches, and additional documents were obtained by other searches. QE studies are challenging to identify efficiently because they have no standardized nomenclature and may be indexed in various ways. Reliable search filters are not available. There is a lack of specific resources devoted to collecting QE studies and little evidence on where best to search. CONCLUSION: Searches to identify QE studies should search a range of resources and, until indexing improves, use strategies that focus on the topic rather than the study design. Better definitions, better indexing in databases, prospective registers, and reporting guidance are required to improve the retrieval of QE studies and promote systematic reviews of what works based on the evidence from such studies.

Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: This review is an abridged version of a Cochrane Review previously published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2010, Issue 4, Art. No.: MR000013 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000013.pub5 (see www.thecochranelibrary.com for information). Cochrane Reviews are regularly updated as new evidence emerges and in response to feedback, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews should be consulted for the most recent version of the review. OBJECTIVE: To identify interventions designed to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials, and to quantify their effect on trial participation. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Methodology Review Group Specialised Register in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, C2-SPECTR, the National Research Register and PubMed. Most searches were undertaken up to 2010; no language restrictions were applied. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials, including those recruiting to hypothetical studies. Studies on retention strategies, examining ways to increase questionnaire response or evaluating the use of incentives for clinicians were excluded. The study population included any potential trial participant (eg, patient, clinician and member of the public), or individual or group of individuals responsible for trial recruitment (eg, clinicians, researchers and recruitment sites). Two authors independently screened identified studies for eligibility. RESULTS: 45 trials with over 43 000 participants were included. Some interventions were effective in increasing recruitment: telephone reminders to non-respondents (risk ratio (RR) 1.66, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.46; two studies, 1058 participants), use of opt-out rather than opt-in procedures for contacting potential participants (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.84; one study, 152 participants) and open designs where participants know which treatment they are receiving in the trial (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.36; two studies, 4833 participants). However, the effect of many other strategies is less clear, including the use of video to provide trial information and interventions aimed at recruiters. CONCLUSIONS: There are promising strategies for increasing recruitment to trials, but some methods, such as open-trial designs and opt-out strategies, must be considered carefully as their use may also present methodological or ethical challenges. Questions remain as to the applicability of results originating from hypothetical trials, including those relating to the use of monetary incentives, and there is a clear knowledge gap with regard to effective strategies aimed at recruiters.

Curative ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). BACKGROUND: Radiofrequency catheter (RF)-ablation around pulmonary vein ostia and in left atrium may reduce or prevent recurrence of AF, as documented in observational studies and registry reports; however, few RCTs are available. METHODS: Using relevant search phrases, Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for RCTs, last time in May 2007. Titles and abstracts were screened. When entry criteria were fulfilled, full-text papers were read and graded according to quality and relevance. RESULTS: One thousand and ninety four abstracts were evaluated, and five RCTs included (578 randomized patients). The studies had moderate quality and relevance, but the results were consistent: ablation is better than drug treatment in preventing AF recurrence; the relative risk (95% CI)) one year after ablation ranged from 0.20 (0.08-0.51) to 0.62 (0.39-0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Results from observational and registry studies are confirmed: RF-ablation reduces recurrence rate of AF, and can be done with few serious complications. Limitations are few patients>70 years, and only one year follow-up.