Network Meta-analysis and Economic Evaluation of Neurostimulation Interventions for Chronic Non-surgical Refractory back Pain.

OBJECTIVES: Different types of spinal cord stimulation (SCS) have now been evaluated for the management of chronic non-surgical refractory back pain (NSRBP). A direct comparison between the different types of SCS or between closed-loop SCS with conventional medical management (CMM) for patients with NSRBP has not been previously conducted, and therefore, their relative effectiveness and cost-effectiveness remain unknown. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic review, network meta-analysis (NMA) and economic evaluation of closed-loop SCS compared with fixed-output SCS and CMM for patients with NSRBP. METHODS: Databases were searched to 8th September 2023. Randomised controlled trials of SCS for NSRBP were included. Results of studies were combined using fixed-effect NMA models. A cost-utility analysis was performed from the perspective of the UK National Health Service with results reported as incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). RESULTS: Closed-loop SCS resulted in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (mean difference [MD] 32.72 [95% CrI 15.69-49.78]) and improvements in secondary outcomes compared to fixed-output SCS at 6-months follow-up. Compared to CMM, both closed-loop and fixed-output SCS result in statistically and clinically significant reductions in pain intensity (closed-loop SCS vs. CMM MD 101.58 [95% CrI 83.73-119.48]; fixed-output SCS versus CMM MD 68.86 [95% CrI 63.43-74.31]) and improvements in secondary outcomes. Cost-utility analysis shows that closed-loop SCS dominates fixed-output SCS and CMM, and fixed-output SCS also dominates CMM. DISCUSSION: Current evidence shows that closed-loop and fixed-output SCS provide more benefits and are cost-saving compared to CMM for patients with NSRBP.

Best step-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of individual participant data.

BACKGROUND: There is uncertainty about the best treatment option for children/adolescents with uncontrolled asthma despite inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and international guidelines make different recommendations. We evaluated the pharmacological treatments to reduce asthma exacerbations and symptoms in uncontrolled patients age <18 years on ICS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, Web of Science, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Technology Appraisals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment series, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, conference abstracts and internal clinical trial registers (1 July 2014 to 5 May 2023) for randomised controlled trials of participants age <18 years with uncontrolled asthma on any ICS dose alone at screening. Studies before July 2014 were retrieved from previous systematic reviews/contact with authors. Patients had to be randomised to any dose of ICS alone or combined with long-acting ß2-agonists (LABA) or combined with leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), LTRA alone, theophylline or placebo. Primary outcomes were exacerbation and asthma control. The interventions evaluated were ICS (low/medium/high dose), ICS+LABA, ICS+LTRA, LTRA alone, theophylline and placebo. RESULTS: Of the 4708 publications identified, 144 trials were eligible. Individual participant data were obtained from 29 trials and aggregate data were obtained from 19 trials. Compared with ICS Low, ICS Medium+LABA was associated with the lowest odds of exacerbation (OR 0.44, 95% credibility interval (95% CrI) 0.19-0.90) and with an increased forced expiratory volume in 1 s (mean difference 0.71, 95% CrI 0.35-1.06). Treatment with LTRA was the least preferred. No apparent differences were found for asthma control. CONCLUSIONS: Uncontrolled children/adolescents on low-dose ICS should be recommended a change to medium-dose ICS+LABA to reduce the risk for exacerbation and improve lung function.

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of MRI-based technologies for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease: systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies are non-invasive diagnostic tests that can be used to assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Objectives: The study objectives were to assess the diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of two magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies (LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography) for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for whom advanced fibrosis or cirrhosis had not been diagnosed and who had indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, or for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse was unsuitable, or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Data sources: The data sources searched were MEDLINE, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Database of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the Health Technology Assessment. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using established methods. Diagnostic test accuracy estimates were calculated using bivariate models and a summary receiver operating characteristic curve was calculated using a hierarchical model. A simple decision-tree model was developed to generate cost-effectiveness results. Results: The diagnostic test accuracy review (13 studies) and the clinical impact review (11 studies) only included one study that provided evidence for patients who had indeterminate or discordant results from fibrosis testing. No studies of patients for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse were unsuitable were identified. Depending on fibrosis level, relevant published LiverMultiScan diagnostic test accuracy results ranged from 50% to 88% (sensitivity) and from 42% to 75% (specificity). No magnetic resonance elastography diagnostic test accuracy data were available for the specific population of interest. Results from the clinical impact review suggested that acceptability of LiverMultiScan was generally positive. To explore how the decision to proceed to biopsy is influenced by magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies, the External Assessment Group presented cost-effectiveness analyses for LiverMultiScan plus biopsy versus biopsy only. Base-case incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained results for seven of the eight diagnostic test strategies considered showed that LiverMultiScan plus biopsy was dominated by biopsy only; for the remaining strategy (Brunt grade ≥2), the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year gained was £1,266,511. Results from threshold and scenario analyses demonstrated that External Assessment Group base-case results were robust to plausible variations in the magnitude of key parameters. Limitations: Diagnostic test accuracy, clinical impact and cost-effectiveness data for magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies for the population that is the focus of this assessment were limited. Conclusions: Magnetic resonance imaging-based technologies may be useful to identify patients who may benefit from additional testing in the form of liver biopsy and those for whom this additional testing may not be necessary. However, there is a paucity of diagnostic test accuracy and clinical impact data for patients who have indeterminate results from fibrosis testing, for whom transient elastography or acoustic radiation force impulse are unsuitable or who had discordant results from fibrosis testing. Given the External Assessment Group cost-effectiveness analyses assumptions, the use of LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography for assessing non-alcoholic fatty liver disease for patients with inconclusive results from previous fibrosis testing is unlikely to be a cost-effective use of National Health Service resources compared with liver biopsy only. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42021286891. Funding: Funding for this study was provided by the Evidence Synthesis Programme of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease includes a range of conditions that are caused by a build-up of fat in the liver, and not by alcohol consumption. This build-up of fat can cause inflammation. Persistent inflammation can cause scar tissue (fibrosis) to develop. It is important to identify patients with fibrosis because severe fibrosis can cause permanent liver damage (cirrhosis), which can lead to liver failure and liver cancer. In the National Health Service, patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease undergo tests to determine whether they have fibrosis. The test results are not always accurate and multiple tests can give conflicting results. Some of the tests may not be suitable for patients who have a very high body mass index. In the National Health Service, a liver biopsy may be offered to patients with inconclusive or conflicting test results or to those patients for whom other tests are unsuitable. However, liver biopsy is expensive, and is associated with side-effects such as pain and bleeding. Magnetic resonance imaging-based testing could be used as an extra test to help clinicians assess non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and identify patients who may need a liver biopsy. We assessed two magnetic resonance imaging-based diagnostic tests, LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography. LiverMultiScan is imaging software that is used alongside magnetic resonance imaging to measure markers of liver disease. Magnetic resonance elastography is used in some National Health Service centres to assess liver fibrosis; however, magnetic resonance elastography requires more equipment than just an magnetic resonance imaging scanner. We reviewed all studies examining how well LiverMultiScan and magnetic resonance elastography assess patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. We also built an economic model to estimate the costs and benefits of using LiverMultiScan to identify patients who should be sent for a biopsy. Results from the model showed that LiverMultiScan may not provide good value for money to the National Health Service.

Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Tackling problematic polypharmacy requires tailoring the use of medicines to individual needs and circumstances. This may involve stopping medicines (deprescribing) but patients and clinicians report uncertainty on how best to do this. The TAILOR medication synthesis sought to help understand how best to support deprescribing in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. OBJECTIVES: We identified two research questions: (1) what evidence exists to support the safe, effective and acceptable stopping of medication in this patient group, and (2) how, for whom and in what contexts can safe and effective tailoring of clinical decisions related to medication use work to produce desired outcomes? We thus described three objectives: (1) to undertake a robust scoping review of the literature on stopping medicines in this group to describe what is being done, where and for what effect; (2) to undertake a realist synthesis review to construct a programme theory that describes 'best practice' and helps explain the heterogeneity of deprescribing approaches; and (3) to translate findings into resources to support tailored prescribing in clinical practice. DATA SOURCES: Experienced information specialists conducted comprehensive searches in MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Google (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA) and Google Scholar (targeted searches). REVIEW METHODS: The scoping review followed the five steps described by the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for conducting a scoping review. The realist review followed the methodological and publication standards for realist reviews described by the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) group. Patient and public involvement partners ensured that our analysis retained a patient-centred focus. RESULTS: Our scoping review identified 9528 abstracts: 8847 were removed at screening and 662 were removed at full-text review. This left 20 studies (published between 2009 and 2020) that examined the effectiveness, safety and acceptability of deprescribing in adults (aged ≥ 50 years) with polypharmacy (five or more prescribed medications) and multimorbidity (two or more conditions). Our analysis revealed that deprescribing under research conditions mapped well to expert guidance on the steps needed for good clinical practice. Our findings offer evidence-informed support to clinicians regarding the safety, clinician acceptability and potential effectiveness of clinical decision-making that demonstrates a structured approach to deprescribing decisions. Our realist review identified 2602 studies with 119 included in the final analysis. The analysis outlined 34 context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the knowledge work of tailored prescribing under eight headings related to organisational, health-care professional and patient factors, and interventions to improve deprescribing. We conclude that robust tailored deprescribing requires attention to providing an enabling infrastructure, access to data, tailored explanations and trust. LIMITATIONS: Strict application of our definition of multimorbidity during the scoping review may have had an impact on the relevance of the review to clinical practice. The realist review was limited by the data (evidence) available. CONCLUSIONS: Our combined reviews recognise deprescribing as a complex intervention and provide support for the safety of structured approaches to deprescribing, but also highlight the need to integrate patient-centred and contextual factors into best practice models. FUTURE WORK: The TAILOR study has informed new funded research tackling deprescribing in sleep management, and professional education. Further research is being developed to implement tailored prescribing into routine primary care practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018107544 and PROSPERO CRD42018104176. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Many patients take multiple medicines, every day, on a long-term basis. Some feel overloaded by their medicines. However, both doctors and patients have told us that they feel anxious about knowing when and how to safely stop medicines. TAILOR aimed to help by providing the information that doctors and patients need to make individual (tailored) decisions about whether or not to stop (deprescribe) medicines. We had two research questions and so used a different research method to answer each. Both methods involved us first finding all the published research looking at deprescribing for older people living with long-term conditions and using five or more medicines a day. Our first (scoping) review produced a map of what we know about deprescribing: how it is done and if it is safe. We found evidence that structured deprescribing can be safe and acceptable to clinicians, but specific effects were very varied and patient views were often not reported. Our team's patient partners continuously reminded us that medicines mean more to individuals than just a medical effect (e.g. a 'tablet for my blood pressure'), meaning that our research needed to describe good person-centred deprescribing. Our second (realist) review focused on this by looking at if and how tailored deprescribing decisions happen. Our results showed that health-care services need to give clinicians the permission and resources they need to work with patients to develop a joint understanding of the value of medicines, to guide decisions about using/changing medicines, and so to build and maintain trust. Our findings remind us that decisions about medicines are personal. We need to remember that any changes in medicines affect not just an individual's disease, but also their understanding of their health and health care. Our work makes recommendations on how future practice and research can be more person centred. We are now working with patients and health-care professionals to share our findings with a wide audience.

Equity in healthcare access and service coverage for older people: a scoping review of the conceptual literature.

There is currently no global review of the conceptual literature on the equity of healthcare coverage (including access) for older people. It is important to understand the factors affecting access to health and social care for this group, so that policy and service actions can be taken to reduce potential inequities. A scoping review of published and grey literature was conducted with the aim of summarising how health and social care service access and coverage for older people has been conceptualised. PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, SciELO, LILACS, BIREME and Global Index Medicus were searched. Selection of sources and data charting were conducted independently by two reviewers. The database searches retrieved 10 517 citations; 32 relevant articles were identified for inclusion from a global evidence base. Data were summarised and a meta-framework and model produced listing concepts specific to equitable health and social care service coverage relating to older people. The meta-framework identified the following relevant factors: acceptability, affordability, appropriateness, availability and resources, awareness, capacity for decision-making, need, personal social and cultural circumstances, physical accessibility. This scoping review is relevant to the development and specification of policy for older people. It conceptualises those factors, such as acceptability and affordability, that affect an older person's ability and capacity to access integrated, person-centred health and social care services in a meaningful way. These factors should be taken into account when seeking to determine whether equity in service use or access is being achieved for older people.

Modelling tool to support decision-making in the NHS Health Check programme: workshops, systematic review and co-production with users.

BACKGROUND: Local authorities in England commission the NHS Health Check programme to invite everyone aged 40-74 years without pre-existing conditions for risk assessment and eventual intervention, if needed. However, the programme's effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity impact remain uncertain. AIM: To develop a validated open-access flexible web-based model that enables local commissioners to quantify the cost-effectiveness and potential for equitable population health gain of the NHS Health Check programme. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were as follows: (1) co-produce with stakeholders the desirable features of the user-friendly model; (2) update the evidence base to support model and scenario development; (3) further develop our computational model to allow for developments and changes to the NHS Health Check programme and the diseases it addresses; (4) assess the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and equity of alternative strategies for implementation to illustrate the use of the tool; and (5) propose a sustainability and implementation plan to deploy our user-friendly computational model at the local level. DESIGN: Co-production workshops surveying the best-performing local authorities and a systematic literature review of strategies to increase uptake of screening programmes informed model use and development. We then co-produced the workHORSE (working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment) model to estimate the health, economic and equity impact of different NHS Health Check programme implementations, using illustrative-use cases. SETTING: Local authorities in England. PARTICIPANTS: Stakeholders from local authorities, Public Health England, the NHS, the British Heart Foundation, academia and other organisations participated in the workshops. For the local authorities survey, we invited 16 of the best-performing local authorities in England. INTERVENTIONS: The user interface allows users to vary key parameters that represent programme activities (i.e. invitation, uptake, prescriptions and referrals). Scenarios can be compared with each other. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Disease cases and case-years prevented or postponed, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, net monetary benefit and change in slope index of inequality. RESULTS: The survey of best-performing local authorities revealed a diversity of effective approaches to maximise the coverage and uptake of NHS Health Check programme, with no distinct 'best buy'. The umbrella literature review identified a range of effective single interventions. However, these generally need to be combined to maximally improve uptake and health gains. A validated dynamic, stochastic microsimulation model, built on robust epidemiology, enabled service options analysis. Analyses of three contrasting illustrative cases estimated the health, economic and equity impact of optimising the Health Checks, and the added value of obtaining detailed local data. Optimising the programme in Liverpool can become cost-effective and equitable, but simply changing the invitation method will require other programme changes to improve its performance. Detailed data inputs can benefit local analysis. LIMITATIONS: Although the approach is extremely flexible, it is complex and requires substantial amounts of data, alongside expertise to both maintain and run. CONCLUSIONS: Our project showed that the workHORSE model could be used to estimate the health, economic and equity impact comprehensively at local authority level. It has the potential for further development as a commissioning tool and to stimulate broader discussions on the role of these tools in real-world decision-making. FUTURE WORK: Future work should focus on improving user interactions with the model, modelling simulation standards, and adapting workHORSE for evaluation, design and implementation support. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019132087. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 35. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The NHS Health Check programme is available for adults aged 40­74 years in England to find the early risk of heart disease, cancers, lung disease and dementia, and lower that risk. However, some studies have suggested that the current scheme could perhaps be improved. We systematically looked at previous studies to understand what makes a screening programme successful. We also contacted local authorities with the best NHS Health Check programmes to find out how they were being delivered so well. The most successful local authorities highlighted a wide variety of methods for achieving success. All had concrete plans in place for delivery, including different approaches for encouraging more adults to participate. We further developed our existing computer model into a web-based tool [workHORSE (working Health Outcomes Research Simulation Environment)]. This tool can help those responsible for commissioning NHS Health Checks to further improve the delivery of their local programme. We held four workshops with relevant professionals to develop the workHORSE model. These workshops resulted in a useful 'real-world' tool for local commissioners: a tool that can calculate the current and potential future benefits of different programmes. We used the model to show how commissioners can explore and compare a variety of different programmes. We found that combining several improvements can be useful. However, this provides modest benefits in improving health and value for money. At the same time, the impact on reducing inequalities is less clear and depends on the interventions used. Our results suggest that: a variety of successful approaches can be used to help increase the uptake of screening programmes such as NHS Health Checksjointly developing a computer model with end-users leads to a more user-friendly and relevant model to improve the programmethe stage is now set for further work to identify the best approach in each local area.

EstablishINg the best STEp-up treatments for children with uncontrolled asthma despite INhaled corticosteroids (EINSTEIN): protocol for a systematic review, network meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis using individual participant data (IPD).

INTRODUCTION: Asthma affects millions of children worldwide-1.1 million children in the UK. Asthma symptoms cannot be cured but can be controlled with low-dose inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) in the majority of individuals. Treatment with a low-dose ICS, however, fails to control asthma symptoms in around 10%-15% of children and this places the individual at increased risk for an asthma attack. At present, there is no clear preferred treatment option for a child whose asthma is not controlled by low-dose ICS and international guidelines currently recommend at least three treatment options. Herein, we propose a systematic review and individual participant data network meta-analysis (IPD-NMA) aiming to synthesise all available published and unpublished evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to establish the clinical effectiveness of pharmacological treatments in children and adolescents with uncontrolled asthma on ICS and help to make evidence-informed treatment choices. This will be used to parameterise a Markov-based economic model to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative treatment options in order to inform decisions in the context of drug formularies and clinical guidelines. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search in MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, NICE Technology Appraisals and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment series for RCTs of interventions in patients with uncontrolled asthma on ICS. All studies where children and adolescents were eligible for inclusion will be considered, and authors or sponsors will be contacted to request IPD on patients aged <18. The reference lists of existing clinical guidelines, along with included studies and relevant reviews, will be checked to identify further relevant studies. Unpublished studies will be located by searching across a range of clinical trial registries, including internal trial registers for pharmaceutical companies. All studies will be appraised for inclusion against predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion with a third reviewer. We will perform an IPD-NMA-eventually supplemented with aggregate data for the RCTs without IPD-to establish both the probability that a treatment is best and the probability that a particular treatment is most likely to be effective for a specific profile of the patient. The IPD-NMA will be performed for each outcome variable within a Bayesian framework, using the WinBUGS software. Also, potential patient-level characteristics that may modify treatment effects will be explored, which represents one of the strengths of this study. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Committee on Research Ethics, University of Liverpool, has confirmed that ethics review is not required. The dissemination plan consists of publishing the results in an open-access medical journal, a plain-language summary available for parents and children, dissemination via local, national and international meetings and conferences and the press offices of our Higher Education Institutions (HEIs). A synopsis of results will be disseminated to NICE and British Thoracic Society/Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) as highly relevant to future clinical guideline updates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019127599.

What is the evidence for the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being: a scoping review and evidence-based logic model to guide healthcare strategy decision making on the use of gardening approaches as a social prescription.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically identify and describe studies that have evaluated the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. A secondary objective was to use this evidence to build evidence-based logic models to guide health strategy decision making about gardens and gardening as a non-medical, social prescription. DESIGN: Scoping review of the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. Gardens include private spaces and those open to the public or part of hospitals, care homes, hospices or third sector organisations. DATA SOURCES: A range of biomedical and health management journals was searched including Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs, Greenfile, Environment Complete and a number of indicative websites were searched to locate context-specific data and grey literature. We searched from 1990 to November 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included research studies (including systematic reviews) that assessed the effect, value or impact of any garden that met the gardening definition. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Three reviewers jointly screened 50 records by titles and abstracts to ensure calibration. Each record title was screened independently by 2 out of 3 members of the project team and each abstract was screened by 1 member of a team of 3. Random checks on abstract and full-text screening were conducted by a fourth member of the team and any discrepancies were resolved through double-checking and discussion. RESULTS: From the 8896 papers located, a total of 77* studies was included. Over 35 validated health, well-being and functional biometric outcome measures were reported. Interventions ranged from viewing gardens, taking part in gardening or undertaking therapeutic activities. The findings demonstrated links between gardens and improved mental well-being, increased physical activity and a reduction in social isolation enabling the development of 2 logic models. CONCLUSIONS: Gardens and gardening can improve the health and well-being for people with a range of health and social needs. The benefits of gardens and gardening could be used as a 'social prescription' globally, for people with long-term conditions (LTCs). Our logic models provide an evidence-based illustration that can guide health strategy decision making about the referral of people with LTCs to socially prescribed, non-medical interventions involving gardens and gardening.

The challenge of conducting qualitative research to understand the factors that influence equity in medical education: A scoping review.

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Introduction There are national and international concerns about equity in basic and postgraduate medical education, especially about differential rates of access and attainment across groups of learners. Qualitative research has been increasingly used to understand the factors that influence equity but there are potential limitations to this understanding related to how the research has been conducted. The aim of the scoping review was to identify how qualitative research exploring the factors that influence equity in basic and postgraduate medical education has been conducted. The intention was to inform future research. Methods The electronic databases British Education Index, Campbell Library, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, ERIC, Google Scholar, Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC), MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and medical education journals were searched to identify relevant published articles between 2008 and April 2019. Results Among 19,523 articles identified from the literature search, 72 full text articles were included in the review. Most studies had a focus on only one background characteristic and only two studies had a strengths-based focus on individuals. Recommendations for change was at the 'policy level' in ten studies and four studies had learner recommendations for change. No studies with a participatory approach were identified. Conclusion The approach to conducting previous qualitative research appears to limit greater understanding of the complexity of factors that influence equity. In response to this challenge, we recommend that future research widen the focus to consider the experiences and strengths of individual learners in addition to those identified by background characteristics. Future qualitative research is recommended to have a broad focus on both the 'policy level' and 'local level', especially from multiple perspectives. We also recommend greater collaboration of participants with researchers throughout the research process.

Toward a theory-led metaframework for considering socioeconomic health inequalities within systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a theory-led framework to inform reviewers' understanding of what, how, and why health care interventions may lead to differential effects across socioeconomic groups. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A metaframework approach combined two theoretical perspectives (socioeconomic health inequalities and complex interventions) into a single framework to inform socioeconomic health inequality considerations in systematic reviews. RESULTS: Four theories relating to complexity within systematic reviews and 16 health inequalities intervention theories informed the development of a metaframework. Factors relating to the type of intervention, implementation, context, participant response, and mechanisms associated with differential effects across socioeconomic groups were identified. The metaframework can inform; reviewer discussions around how socioeconomic status (SES) can moderate intervention effectiveness during question formulation, approaches to data extraction and help identify a priori analysis considerations. CONCLUSION: The metaframework offers a transparent, practical, theory-led approach to inform a program theory for what, how, and why interventions work for different SES groups in systematic reviews. It can enhance existing guidance on conducting systematic reviews that consider health inequalities, increase awareness of how SES can moderate intervention effectiveness, and encourage a greater engagement with theory throughout the review process.

Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.

BACKGROUND: Systematic review guidance recommends the use of programme theory to inform considerations of if and how healthcare interventions may work differently across socio-economic status (SES) groups. This study aimed to address the lack of detail on how reviewers operationalise this in practice. METHODS: A methodological systematic review was undertaken to assess if, how and the extent to which systematic reviewers operationalise the guidance on the use of programme theory in considerations of socio-economic inequalities in health. Multiple databases were searched from January 2013 to May 2016. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of an intervention and included data on SES. Two reviewers independently screened all studies, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. A narrative approach to synthesis was adopted. RESULTS: A total of 37 systematic reviews were included, 10 of which were explicit in the use of terminology for 'programme theory'. Twenty-nine studies used programme theory to inform both their a priori assumptions and explain their review findings. Of these, 22 incorporated considerations of both what and how interventions do/do not work in SES groups to both predict and explain their review findings. Thirteen studies acknowledged 24 unique theoretical references to support their assumptions of what or how interventions may have different effects in SES groups. Most reviewers used supplementary evidence to support their considerations of differential effectiveness. The majority of authors outlined a programme theory in the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections of the review to inform their assumptions or provide explanations of what or how interventions may result in differential effects within or across SES groups. About a third of reviews used programme theory to inform the review analysis and/or synthesis. Few authors used programme theory to inform their inclusion criteria, data extraction or quality assessment. Twenty-one studies tested their a priori programme theory. CONCLUSIONS: The use of programme theory to inform considerations of if, what and how interventions lead to differential effects on health in different SES groups in the systematic review process is not yet widely adopted, is used implicitly, is often fragmented and is not implemented in a systematic way.

An assessment of the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities: a systematic literature review.

This review assessed evidence of disparities in benefits of pharmacogenomics related to 'model performance' in subgroups of patients and studies which reported impact on health inequalities. 'Model performance' refers to the ability of algorithms including clinical, environmental and genetic information to guide treatment. A total of 4978 abstracts were screened by one reviewer and 30% (1494) were double screened by a second independent reviewer, after which data extraction was performed. Additional forward and backward citation searching of reference lists was conducted. Investigators independently double rated study quality and applicability of included studies. Only five individual studies were identified which met our inclusion criteria, but were contradictory in their conclusions. While three studies of genotype-guided dosing of warfarin reported that ethnic disparities in healthcare may widen, two other studies (one reporting on warfarin and reporting on clopidogrel) suggested that disparities in healthcare may reduce. There is a paucity of studies which evaluates the impact of pharmacogenomics on health disparities. Further work is required not only to evaluate health disparities between ethnic groups and countries but also within ethnic groups in the same country and solutions need to be identified to overcome these disparities.

Managing Faecal INcontinence in people with advanced dementia resident in Care Homes (FINCH) study: a realist synthesis of the evidence.

BACKGROUND: Eighty per cent of care home residents in the UK are living with dementia. The prevalence of faecal incontinence (FI) in care homes is estimated to range from 30% to 50%. There is limited evidence of what is effective in the reduction and management of FI in care homes. OBJECTIVE: To provide a theory-driven explanation of the effectiveness of programmes that aim to improve FI in people with advanced dementia in care homes. DESIGN: A realist synthesis. This was an iterative approach that involved scoping of the literature and consultation with five stakeholder groups, a systematic search and analysis of published and unpublished evidence, and a validation of programme theories with relevant stakeholders. DATA SOURCES: The databases searched included PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, SocAbs, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, BiblioMap, Sirius, OpenGrey, Social Care Online and the National Research Register. RESULTS: The scoping identified six programme theories with related context-mechanism-outcome configurations for testing. These addressed (1) clinician-led support, assessment and review, (2) the contribution of teaching and support for care home staff on how to reduce and manage FI, (3) the causes and prevention of constipation, (4) how the cognitive and physical capacity of the resident affect outcomes, (5) how the potential for recovery, reduction and management of FI is understood by those involved and (6) how the care of people living with dementia and FI is integral to the work patterns of the care home and its staff. Data extraction was completed on 62 core papers with iterative searches of linked literature. Dementia was a known risk factor for FI, but its affect on the uptake of different interventions and the dementia-specific continence and toileting skills staff required was not addressed. Most care home residents with FI will be doubly incontinent and, therefore, there is limited value in focusing solely on FI or on single causes of FI such as constipation. Clinical assessment, knowledge of the causes of FI and strategies that recognise the individuals' preferences are necessary contextual factors. Valuing the intimate and personal care work that care home staff provide to people living with dementia and addressing the dementia-related challenges when providing continence care within the daily work routines are key to helping to reduce and manage FI in this population. LIMITATIONS: The synthesis was constrained by limited evidence specific to FI and people with dementia in care homes and by the lack of dementia-specific evidence on continence aids. CONCLUSIONS: This realist synthesis provides a theory-driven understanding of the conditions under which improvement in care for care home residents living with dementia and FI is likely to be successful. FUTURE WORK: Future multicomponent interventions need to take account of how the presence of dementia affects the behaviours and choices of those delivering and receiving continence care within a care home environment. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009902. FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance.

BACKGROUND: Given that we know that interventions shown to be effective in improving the health of a population may actually widen the health inequalities gap while others reduce it, it is imperative that all systematic reviewers consider how the findings of their reviews may impact (reduce or increase) on the health inequality gap. This study reviewed existing guidance on incorporating considerations of health inequalities in systematic reviews in order to examine the extent to which they can help reviewers to incorporate such issues. METHODS: A mapping review was undertaken to identify guidance documents that purported to inform reviewers on whether and how to incorporate considerations of health inequalities. Searches were undertaken in Medline, CINAHL and The Cochrane Library Methodology Register. Review guidance manuals prepared by international organisations engaged in undertaking systematic reviews, and their associated websites were scanned. Studies were included if they provided an overview or discussed the development and testing of guidance for dealing with the incorporation of considerations of health inequalities in evidence synthesis. Results are summarised in narrative and tabular forms. RESULTS: Twenty guidance documents published between 2009 and 2016 were included. Guidance has been produced to inform considerations of health inequalities at different stages of the systematic review process. The Campbell and Cochrane Equity Group have been instrumental in developing and promoting such guidance. Definitions of health inequalities and guidance differed across the included studies. All but one guidance document were transparent in their method of production. Formal methods of evaluation were reported for six guidance documents. Most of the guidance was operationalised in the form of examples taken from published systematic reviews. The number of guidance items to operationalise ranges from 3 up to 26 with a considerable overlap noted. CONCLUSIONS: Adhering to the guidance will require more work for the reviewers. It requires a deeper understanding of how reviewers can operationalise the guidance taking into consideration the barriers and facilitators involved. This has implications not only for understanding the usefulness and burden of the guidance but also for the uptake of guidance and its ultimate goal of improving health inequalities considerations in systematic reviews.

The impact of clinical librarian services on patients and health care organisations.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have found limited evidence of effectiveness and impact of clinical librarians (CLs) due to the poor quality of reporting, scale and design of previous studies. OBJECTIVES: To measure specific CL impact on organisational and patient outcomes using a robust approach that helps CLs develop research skills. METHODS: Questionnaire and interviews. RESULTS: Clinical librarians contribute to a wide range of outcomes in the short and longer term reflecting organisational priorities and objectives. These include direct contributions to choice of intervention (36%) diagnosis (26%) quality of life (25%), increased patient involvement in decision making (26%) and cost savings and risk management including avoiding tests, referrals, readmissions and reducing length of stay (28%). DISCUSSION: Interventions provided by CL's are complex and each contributes to multiple outcomes of importance to health care organisations. CONCLUSION: This study is unique in taking a wide view of potential and specific impacts to which CLs contribute across health care organisations. It is the largest UK evaluation of CL services to date and demonstrates CLs affect direct patient care, improve quality and save money. Future researchers are urged to use the tools presented to collect data on the same outcomes to build a significant and comprehensive international evidence base about the effectiveness and impact of clinical librarian services.

Systematic review of systematic reviews for the management of urinary incontinence and promotion of continence using conservative behavioural approaches in older people in care homes.

AIM: To synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the management of urinary incontinence and promotion of continence using conservative/behavioural approaches in older people in care homes to inform clinical practice, guidelines and research. BACKGROUND: Incontinence is highly prevalent in older people in care home populations. DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews with narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Electronic searches of published systematic reviews in English using MEDLINE and CINAHL with no date restrictions up to September 2013. Searches supplemented by hand searching and electronic searching of Cochrane Library and PROSPERO. REVIEW METHODS: PRISMA statement was followed, as were established methods for systematic review of systematic reviews. RESULTS: Five systematic reviews of high quality were included, three specific to intervention studies and two reviewed descriptive studies. Urinary incontinence was the primary outcome in three reviews with factors associated with the management of urinary incontinence the primary outcome for the other reviews. CONCLUSION: Toileting programmes, in particular prompted voiding, with use of incontinence pads are the main conservative behavioural approach for the management of incontinence and promotion of continence in this population with evidence of effectiveness in the short term. Evidence from associated factors; exercise, mobility, comorbidities, hydration, skin care, staff perspectives, policies and older people's experiences and preference are limited. The majority of evidence of effectiveness are from studies from one country which may or may not be transferable to other care home populations. Future international studies are warranted of complex combined interventions using mixed methods to provide evidence of effectiveness, context of implementation and economic evaluation.