Racial and Ethnic Disparities in COVID-19-Related Infections, Hospitalizations, and Deaths : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Data suggest that the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) differ among U.S. racial/ethnic groups. PURPOSE: To evaluate racial/ethnic disparities in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection rates and COVID-19 outcomes, factors contributing to disparities, and interventions to reduce them. DATA SOURCES: English-language articles in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus, searched from inception through 31 August 2020. Gray literature sources were searched through 2 November 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies examining SARS-CoV-2 infections, hospitalizations, or deaths by race/ethnicity in U.S. settings. DATA EXTRACTION: Single-reviewer abstraction confirmed by a second reviewer; independent dual-reviewer assessment of quality and strength of evidence. DATA SYNTHESIS: 37 mostly fair-quality cohort and cross-sectional studies, 15 mostly good-quality ecological studies, and data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and APM Research Lab were included. African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection, hospitalization, and COVID-19-related mortality compared with non-Hispanic White populations, but not higher case-fatality rates (mostly reported as in-hospital mortality) (moderate- to high-strength evidence). Asian populations experience similar outcomes to non-Hispanic White populations (low-strength evidence). Outcomes for other racial/ethnic groups have been insufficiently studied. Health care access and exposure factors may underlie the observed disparities more than susceptibility due to comorbid conditions (low-strength evidence). LIMITATIONS: Selection bias, missing race/ethnicity data, and incomplete outcome assessments in cohort and cross-sectional studies must be considered. In addition, adjustment for key demographic covariates was lacking in ecological studies. CONCLUSION: African American/Black and Hispanic populations experience disproportionately higher rates of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related mortality but similar rates of case fatality. Differences in health care access and exposure risk may be driving higher infection and mortality rates. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Department of Veterans Affairs, Veterans Health Administration, Health Services Research & Development. (PROSPERO: CRD42020187078).

Barriers and Facilitators to the Use of Medications for Opioid Use Disorder: a Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence that medications to treat opioid use disorder (OUD) are effective, most people who could benefit from this treatment do not receive it. This rapid review synthesizes evidence on current barriers and facilitators to buprenorphine/naloxone and naltrexone at the patient, provider, and system levels to inform future interventions aimed at expanding treatment. METHODS: We systematically searched numerous bibliographic databases through May 2020 and selected studies published since 2014. Study selection, data abstraction, coding of barriers and facilitators, and quality assessment were first completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. RESULTS: We included 40 studies of buprenorphine (5 also discussed naltrexone). Four types of patient and provider-level barriers to OUD medication use emerged-stigma related to OUD medications, treatment experiences and beliefs (positive or negative), logistical issues (time and costs as well as insurance and regulatory requirements), and knowledge (high or low) of OUD and the role of medications. Stigma was the most common barrier among patients, while logistical issues were the most common barriers among providers. Facilitators for both patients and providers included peer supports. Most administrator-identified or system-level barriers and facilitators fit into the category of logistical issues. We have moderate confidence in buprenorphine findings but low confidence in naltrexone findings due to the small number of studies. DISCUSSION: Stigma, treatment experiences, logistical issues, and knowledge gaps are the main barriers associated with low utilization of OUD medications. These barriers can overlap and mutually reinforce each other, but given that, it is plausible that reducing one barrier may lead to reductions in others. The highest priority for future research is to evaluate interventions to reduce stigma. Other priorities for future research include better identification of barriers and facilitators for specific populations, such as those with OUD related to prescription opioids, and for naltrexone use. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO; CRD42019133394.

Benefits and Harms of Long-term Opioid Dose Reduction or Discontinuation in Patients with Chronic Pain: a Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: Many clinicians are reevaluating the use of long-term opioid therapy (LTOT) for chronic pain in response to the opioid crisis and calls from organizations including the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention to limit prescribing of high-dose opioids. However, this practice change is occurring largely in the absence of data regarding patient outcomes. A 2017 systematic review found inconclusive evidence on the impact of LTOT dose reduction and discontinuation on pain severity and function, quality of life, withdrawal symptoms, substance abuse, and adverse effects. This rapid systematic review provides an updated evidence synthesis of patient outcomes following LTOT dose reduction including serious harms such as overdose and suicide. METHODS: We systematically searched numerous bibliographic databases from January 2017 (the end search date of the 2017 systematic review) through May 2020. One reviewer used prespecified criteria to assess articles for inclusion, evaluate study quality, abstract data, and grade strength of evidence, with a second reviewer checking. RESULTS: We included 49 studies-1 systematic review, 34 studies included in that systematic review, and 14 new studies. We prioritized evidence synthesis of 19 studies with the most applicability to the Veteran population and outpatient settings. Among these studies, improvements in mean pain scores were common among patients tapering opioids while participating in intensive multimodal pain interventions and mostly unchanged with less intensive or nonspecific co-interventions. Our confidence in these findings is low due to methodological limitations of the studies. Observational data suggests that serious harms such as opioid overdose and suicidal ideation can occur following opioid dose reduction or discontinuation, but the incidence of these harms at the population level is unknown. DISCUSSION: The net balance of benefits and harms of LTOT dose reduction for patients with chronic pain is unclear. Clinicians should closely monitor patients during the tapering process given the potential for harm.

Association Between Traumatic Brain Injury and Dementia in Veterans: A Rapid Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the prevalence of dementia in Veterans versus civilians and the association between previous traumatic brain injuries (TBIs) and the risk and timing of dementia onset in Veterans. DESIGN: We systematically searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from database inception to October 2018. One reviewer assessed articles for inclusion, evaluated study quality, graded strength of evidence, and extracted data, with second reviewer checking. RESULTS: Forty articles were included, among which 10 presented the best evidence. Evidence suggests that dementia rates are likely similar between Veterans and civilians (10.7% vs 8.8%-11.6%, respectively). Dementia prevalence is likely higher in those with TBI (6%-16%) than in those without (3%-10%), with a possible dose-response relationship between the two. There may also be an association between TBI and early-onset dementia, although this evidence has important limitations. No studies evaluated whether dementia prevalence varied on the basis of combat deployment history or era of conflict. CONCLUSION: Dementia prevalence is likely similar in Veteran and civilian populations, and the risk of dementia is likely increased by TBI. To inform development of screening, prevention, and rehabilitation efforts, research is still needed addressing the mechanism of association and timing of dementia onset. PROTOCOL: PROSPERO; CRD42018107926.

"It Would've Been Nice if They Interpreted the Data a Little Bit. It Didn't Really Say Much, and It Didn't Really Help Us.": A Qualitative Study of VA Health System Evidence Needs.

BACKGROUND: Patient health outcomes improve when learning health care systems use evidence to implement promising services and allocate resources effectively. Here, we examine the unique environment in which Veterans Health Administration (VHA) leadership use evidence and the facilitators and barriers to using evidence synthesis products in decision-making. We end by describing the steps researchers can take to better support the needs of health system leadership. METHODS: We conducted 20 semistructured phone interviews with individuals in VHA leadership positions. We used an inductive approach to identify themes observed across key informant interviews. RESULTS: Key informants identified several factors that fostered the use of evidence including, timeliness, lack of bias, flexible approaches, and concise reports with a clear bottom line. Barriers included lack of relevant evidence and lack of information on how to translate evidence into practice, resistance to change among providers and within the larger health system, and political pressures to implement therapies or technologies with little evidence or uncertainty. Researchers can foster evidence uptake by developing a review scope and key questions that are important to multiple stakeholders, including frontline clinicians and health system leadership. CONCLUSIONS: The VHA's evidence needs resemble other health systems, but evidence synthesis products should include a translational component to enhance implementation. Resistance to change and political pressures can further hinder the uptake of evidence within VHA.

"Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Evidence use within learning health care systems can improve patient health outcomes. Embedded in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) since 2007, the Veterans Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides tailored evidence synthesis services to support VHA's learning health care system goals. As part of the ESP's ongoing quality improvement efforts, we have been surveying our users since 2016. METHODS: We reviewed data from a survey of end-users received between September 5, 2016, and June 10, 2019. The survey assessed: (1) nature of decision-making needs; (2) actions resulting from the report's findings; (3) implementation timeframe; and (4) overall perception of report content. RESULTS: Feedback was received from 66 of the 138 operational partners requesting ESP products during the fiscal year 2015 through 2018. Requests commonly informed clinical guidance (58%), identified future research needs (58%), and determined VHA-specific implementation strategy (47%). A total of 91% of responders used reports, typically within 3 months after completion (82%). Use was typically for VHA publications and/or presentations to inform VHA policy or guidance (26%), to inform intervention/strategy adoption decisions (23%) and for medical device and therapy procurement decisions (21%). Over half (53%) of respondents indicated that it would be useful for ESP reports to include more guidance on implementing findings. CONCLUSION: Our survey of learning health system decision-makers' actual patterns and timing of evidence use provides valuable new information that can further support development of other health system and evidence producer partnerships and identifies key needs for better supporting health systems' uptake of evidence.

Health Care Coordination Theoretical Frameworks: a Systematic Scoping Review to Increase Their Understanding and Use in Practice.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination is crucial to avoid potential risks of care fragmentation in people with complex care needs. While there are many empirical and conceptual approaches to measuring and improving care coordination, use of theory is limited by its complexity and the wide variability of available frameworks. We systematically identified and categorized existing care coordination theoretical frameworks in new ways to make the theory-to-practice link more accessible. METHODS: To identify relevant frameworks, we searched MEDLINE®, Cochrane, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX from 2010 to May 2018, and various other nonbibliographic sources. We summarized framework characteristics and organized them using categories from the Sustainable intEgrated chronic care modeLs for multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing, and performancE (SELFIE) framework. Based on expert input, we then categorized available frameworks on consideration of whether they addressed contextual factors, what locus they addressed, and their design elements. We used predefined criteria for study selection and data abstraction. RESULTS: Among 4389 citations, we identified 37 widely diverse frameworks, including 16 recent frameworks unidentified by previous reviews. Few led to development of measures (39%) or initiatives (6%). We identified 5 that are most relevant to primary care. The 2018 framework by Weaver et al., describing relationships between a wide range of primary care-specific domains, may be the most useful to those investigating the effectiveness of primary care coordination approaches. We also identified 3 frameworks focused on locus and design features of implementation that could prove especially useful to those responsible for implementing care coordination. DISCUSSION: This review identified the most comprehensive frameworks and their main emphases for several general practice-relevant applications. Greater application of these frameworks in the design and evaluation of coordination approaches may increase their consistent implementation and measurement. Future research should emphasize implementation-focused frameworks that better identify factors and mechanisms through which an initiative achieves impact.

Effectiveness of Intradialytic Parenteral Nutrition in Treating Protein-Energy Wasting in Hemodialysis: A Rapid Systematic Review.

Intradialytic parenteral nutrition (IDPN) is commonly requested before recommended therapies in malnourished patients on hemodialysis. This review provides updated critical synthesis of the evidence on the use of IDPN in patients on hemodialysis. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, and other sources to identify evidence. Two reviewers sequentially selected studies, abstracted data, rated study quality, and synthesized evidence using predefined criteria. IDPN did not improve clinically relevant outcomes compared with dietary counseling or oral supplementation and had varied results compared with usual care in 12 studies. Data are limited on adverse events or cost-effectiveness of IDPN. Important limitations of the evidence, including limited measurement of clinically important outcomes, methodological concerns, and heterogeneity between studies, weaken our confidence in these findings. IDPN may be a reasonable treatment option for patients who fail to respond or cannot receive recommended treatments, but the broad usage of IDPN before recommended treatment options does not appear warranted.

Effectiveness of Models Used to Deliver Multimodal Care for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain: a Rapid Evidence Review.

BACKGROUND: Primary care providers (PCPs) face many system- and patient-level challenges in providing multimodal care for patients with complex chronic pain as recommended in some pain management guidelines. Several models have been developed to improve the delivery of multimodal chronic pain care. These models vary in their key components, and work is needed to identify which have the strongest evidence of clinically-important improvements in pain and function. Our objective was to determine which primary care-based multimodal chronic pain care models provide clinically relevant benefits, define key elements of these models, and identify patients who are most likely to benefit. METHODS: To identify studies, we searched MEDLINE® (1996 to October 2016), CINAHL, reference lists, and numerous other sources and consulted with experts. We used predefined criteria for study selection, data abstraction, internal validity assessment, and strength of evidence grading. RESULTS: We identified nine models, evaluated in mostly randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The RCTs included 3816 individuals primarily from the USA. The most common pain location was the back. Five models primarily coupling a decision-support component-most commonly algorithm-guided treatment and/or stepped care-with proactive ongoing treatment monitoring have the best evidence of providing clinically relevant improvement in pain intensity and pain-related function over 9 to 12 months (NNT range, 4 to 13) and variable improvement in quality of life, depression, anxiety, and sleep. The strength of the evidence was generally low, as each model was only supported by a single RCT with imprecise findings. DISCUSSION: Multimodal chronic pain care delivery models coupling decision support with proactive treatment monitoring consistently provide clinically relevant improvement in pain and function. Wider implementation of these models should be accompanied by further evaluation of clinical and implementation effectiveness.

Mortality Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minority Groups in the Veterans Health Administration: An Evidence Review and Map.

BACKGROUND: Continued racial/ethnic health disparities were recently described as "the most serious and shameful health care issue of our time." Although the 2014 US Affordable Care Act-mandated national insurance coverage expansion has led to significant improvements in health care coverage and access, its effects on life expectancy are not yet known. The Veterans Health Administration (VHA), the largest US integrated health care system, has a sustained commitment to health equity that addresses all 3 stages of health disparities research: detection, understanding determinants, and reduction or elimination. Despite this, racial disparities still exist in the VHA across a wide range of clinical areas and service types. OBJECTIVES: To inform the health equity research agenda, we synthesized evidence on racial/ethnic mortality disparities in the VHA. SEARCH METHODS: Our research librarian searched MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials from October 2006 through February 2017 using terms for racial groups and disparities. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies if they compared mortality between any racial/ethnic minority and nonminority veteran groups or between different minority groups in the VHA (PROSPERO# CRD42015015974). We made study selection decisions on the basis of prespecified eligibility criteria. They were first made by 1 reviewer and checked by a second and disagreements were resolved by consensus (sequential review). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers sequentially abstracted data on prespecified population, outcome, setting, and study design characteristics. Two reviewers sequentially graded the strength of evidence using prespecified criteria on the basis of 5 key domains: study limitations (study design and internal validity), consistency, directness, precision of the evidence, and reporting biases. We synthesized the evidence qualitatively by grouping studies first by racial/ethnic minority group and then by clinical area. For areas with multiple studies in the same population and outcome, we pooled their reported hazard ratios (HRs) using random effects models (StatsDirect version 2.8.0; StatsDirect Ltd., Altrincham, England). We created an evidence map using a bubble plot format to represent the evidence base in 5 dimensions: odds ratio or HR of mortality for racial/ethnic minority group versus Whites, clinical area, strength of evidence, statistical significance, and racial group. MAIN RESULTS: From 2840 citations, we included 25 studies. Studies were large (n ≥ 10 000) and involved nationally representative cohorts, and the majority were of fair quality. Most studies compared mortality between Black and White veterans and found similar or lower mortality for Black veterans. However, we found modest mortality disparities (HR or OR = 1.07, 1.52) for Black veterans with stage 4 chronic kidney disease, colon cancer, diabetes, HIV, rectal cancer, or stroke; for American Indian and Alaska Native veterans undergoing noncardiac major surgery; and for Hispanic veterans with HIV or traumatic brain injury (most low strength). AUTHOR'S CONCLUSIONS: Although the VHA's equal access health care system has reduced many racial/ethnic mortality disparities present in the private sector, our review identified mortality disparities that have persisted mainly for Black veterans in several clinical areas. However, because most mortality disparities were supported by single studies with imprecise findings, we could not draw strong conclusions about this evidence. More disparities research is needed for American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian, and Hispanic veterans overall and for more of the largest life expectancy gaps. Public Health Implications. Because of the relatively high prevalence of diabetes in Black veterans, further research to better understand and reduce this mortality disparity may be prioritized as having the greatest potential impact. However, other mortality disparities affect thousands of veterans and cannot be ignored.

Health Disparities in Veterans: A Map of the Evidence.

BACKGROUND: Goals for improving the quality of care for all Veterans and eliminating health disparities are outlined in the Veterans Health Administration Blueprint for Excellence, but the degree to which disparities in utilization, health outcomes, and quality of care affect Veterans is not well understood. OBJECTIVES: To characterize the research on health care disparities in the Veterans Health Administration by means of a map of the evidence. RESEARCH DESIGN: We conducted a systematic search for research studies published from 2006 to February 2016 in MEDLINE and other data sources. We included studies of Veteran populations that examined disparities in 3 outcome categories: utilization, quality of health care, and patient health. MEASURES: We abstracted data on study design, setting, population, clinical area, outcomes, mediators, and presence of disparity for each outcome category. We grouped the data by population characteristics including race, disability status, mental illness, demographics (age, era of service, rural location, and distance from care), sex identity, socioeconomic status, and homelessness, and created maps illustrating the evidence. RESULTS: We reviewed 4249 citations and abstracted data from 351 studies which met inclusion criteria. Studies examining disparities by race/ethnicity comprised by far the vast majority of the literature, followed by studies examining disparities by sex, and mental health condition. Very few studies examined disparities related to lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender identity or homelessness. Disparities findings vary widely by population and outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence maps provide a "lay of the land" and identify important gaps in knowledge about health disparities experienced by different Veteran populations.

Effectiveness of Intensive Primary Care Interventions: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs target complex patients with the goal of preventing hospitalizations, but programs vary, and their effectiveness is not clear. In this study, we systematically reviewed the impact of intensive primary care programs on all-cause mortality, hospitalization, and emergency department use. METHODS: We searched PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Cochrane Database of Reviews of Effects from inception to March 2017. Additional studies were identified from reference lists, hand searching, and consultation with content experts. We included systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and observational studies of multicomponent, interdisciplinary intensive primary care programs targeting complex patients at high risk of hospitalization or death, with a comparison to usual primary care. Two investigators identified studies and abstracted data using a predefined protocol. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: A total of 18 studies (379,745 participants) were included. Three major intensive primary care program types were identified: primary care replacement (home-based; three RCTs, one observational study, N = 367,681), primary care replacement (clinic-based; three RCTs, two observational studies, N = 9561), and primary care augmentation, in which an interdisciplinary team was added to existing primary care (five RCTs, three observational studies, N = 2503). Most studies showed no impact of intensive primary care on mortality or emergency department use, and the effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations varied. There were no adverse effects reported. DISCUSSION: Intensive primary care interventions demonstrated varying effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations, and there was limited evidence that these interventions were associated with changes in mortality. While interventions could be grouped into categories, there was still substantial overlap between intervention approaches. Further work is needed to identify program features that may be associated with improved outcomes.

Rapid Evidence Review of Bariatric Surgery in Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2).

BACKGROUND: Despite accumulating evidence of the important health benefits of bariatric surgery in morbidly obese patients in general, bariatric surgery outcomes are less clear in higher-risk, high-priority populations of patients with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2. To help the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Services Research & Development Service (HSR&D) develop a research agenda, we conducted a rapid evidence review to better understand bariatric surgery outcomes in adults with BMI ≥ 50 kg/m2. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov through June 2016. We included trials and observational studies. We used pre-specified criteria to select studies, abstract data, and rate internal validity and strength of the evidence (PROSPERO registration number CRD42015025348). All decisions were completed by one reviewer and checked by another. RESULTS: Among 1892 citations, we included 23 studies in this rapid review. Compared with usual care, one large retrospective VA study provided limited evidence that bariatric surgery can lead to increased mortality in the first year, but decreased mortality long-term among super obese veterans. Studies that compared different bariatric surgical approaches suggested some differences in weight loss and complications. Laparoscopic gastric bypass generally resulted in greater short-term proportion of excess weight loss than did other procedures. Duodenal switch led to greater long-term weight loss than did gastric bypass, but with more complications. CONCLUSIONS: The published literature that separates the super obese is insufficient for determining the precise balance of benefits and harms of bariatric surgery in this high-risk subgroup. Future studies should evaluate a more complete set of key outcomes with longer follow-up in larger samples of more broadly representative adults.

Characteristics of overweight and obesity at age two and the association with breastfeeding in Hawai'i Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) participants.

Childhood obesity is associated with many adverse health effects during childhood and is linked to an increased risk for obesity in adulthood. The objective of this study was to determine the characteristics of early childhood overweight and obesity and assess the impact of breastfeeding. Data from Hawai'i's Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) were analyzed for children 2 years of age born between 2005 and 2009 and their mothers. Childhood overweight and obesity was examined using a log-binomial regression model to estimate prevalence ratios. In the sample population, 12.5 % of children were overweight and 8.5 % of children were obese. Significant differences in childhood overweight and obesity were seen between breastfeeding duration and other socio-demographic groups. Children who were breastfed for 6 months or more had a lower risk of childhood obesity at age two compared to those who were never breastfed (APR 0.79, 95 % CI 0.69-0.91) with adjustment for child race/ethnicity, maternal age, trimester of prenatal care entry, maternal smoking status, and child birth weight. The prevalence of early childhood overweight and obesity is associated with shorter durations of breastfeeding. Early and continued breastfeeding support and education for mothers in the WIC program that improves duration of breastfeeding may help reduce the risk of early childhood obesity.

Behavioural mental health interventions delivered in the emergency department for suicide, overdose and psychosis: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify and describe evidence on brief emergency department (ED)-delivered behavioural and care process interventions among patients presenting with suicide attempt or acute ideation, substance overdose or psychosis. DESIGN: We employed a scoping review design and searched multiple data sources, clinical trial registries and references lists through March 2023. We included English-language trials and rigorously designed observational studies. In alignment with scoping review guidelines, we did not assess the quality of included studies or rate the strength of evidence of intervention effectiveness. POPULATION: Our population of interest was adults presenting to the ED with suicidality (eg, attempt or acute ideation), any substance overdose or acute psychosis from a primary mental health condition. INTERVENTION: We included studies of brief behavioural or care process interventions delivered in the ED. OUTCOME MEASURES: Health outcomes (eg, symptom reduction), healthcare utilisation and harms. RESULTS: Our search identified 2034 potentially relevant articles. We included 40 studies: 3 systematic reviews and 39 primary studies. Most studies (n=34) examined ED interventions in patients with suicide attempt or suicidal ideation, while eight studies examined interventions in patients with opioid overdose. No studies examined ED interventions in patients with acute psychosis. Most suicide prevention studies reported that brief psychological, psychosocial or screening and triage interventions reduce suicide and suicide attempt following an ED visit. Most clinical trial interventions were multicomponent and included at least one follow-up. All substance overdose studies focused on opioids. These studies often contained medication and referral or consultation components. Multiple studies reported increases in substance use disorder treatment utilisation; evidence on repeat overdose events was limited. CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of multicomponent ED-delivered behavioural health interventions for suicidality and opioid use disorder show short-term improvement on primary outcomes such as suicide reattempt. Few studies on non-opioid substances and psychosis are available.

Implementing High-Reliability Organization Principles Into Practice: A Rapid Evidence Review.

OBJECTIVE: To promote a safety culture and reduce harm, health care systems are adopting high-reliability organization (HRO) principles. This rapid review synthesizes HRO frameworks, metrics, and implementation effects to help inform health systems' efforts toward becoming HROs. METHODS: Bibliographic databases were searched from 2010 to 2019. One reviewer used prespecified criteria to assess articles for inclusion, evaluate study quality, extract data, and grade strength of evidence with second reviewer checking. RESULTS: Twenty-three articles were identified: 8 described frameworks, 9 examined metrics, and 9 evaluated implementation outcomes. Five common strategies for HRO implementation emerged (developing leadership, supporting a culture of safety, providing training and learning, building data systems, and implementing quality improvement interventions). The Joint Commission's and Institute for Healthcare Improvement's frameworks emerged as the most comprehensive and widely applicable. The Joint Commission's Oro 2.0 metric for evaluating HRO progress similarly stood out as it was developed through broad stakeholder input and was validated by external researchers. Multicomponent HRO interventions delivered for at least 2 years were associated with improved process and patient safety outcomes. Because each HRO intervention was only supported by a single poor or fair-quality study-none of which contained a concurrent control group-a causal relationship between any HRO initiative and outcomes could not be established. CONCLUSIONS: Health care system adoption of HRO principles is associated with improved safety outcomes, yet the level of evidence is low. Priorities for future HRO studies include use of concurrent control groups and examination of specific outcomes measurements.

Treatment of Lower Extremity Fractures in Chronic Spinal Cord Injury: A Systematic Review of the Literature.

OBJECTIVE: To review the literature regarding outcomes of surgical and nonsurgical management of lower extremity (LE) fractures in chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). TYPE: Systematic review. LITERATURE SURVEY: Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systemic Reviews, Cochrane Central, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials were searched from January 1, 1966, to March 1, 2019. METHODOLOGY: Search was restricted to English language and adults (age ≥ 18 yr). Titles and abstracts were reviewed for relevance to study topics for inclusion. Case reports, reviews, non-SCI population studies, and studies examining fractures at the time of acute SCI were excluded. References of included articles from the original search and task force and external submissions yielded two additional articles that were included in the review after voting by task force members. Data extraction was performed by four task force members using a data extraction form, glossary, and instructions created in Microsoft Excel. Quality assessment was performed by three methodologists using prespecified criteria. SYNTHESIS: Twenty-three articles were included. Use of surgery to treat LE fractures in chronic SCI has increased, though nonoperative management was still more frequently reported. Regardless of type of management, amputations, nonunion/malunion, and pressure injuries were among the most commonly reported complications. Functional and quality of life outcomes were less frequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support operative versus nonoperative management as best practice for management of LE fracture of SCI. Existing literature was limited by small sample sizes, lack of randomization or matched study designs, significant heterogeneity in populations and treatment strategies studied, and variability in defining and reporting outcomes of interest. The field would benefit from future research to address study design issues and standardization of outcome reporting to facilitate comparison of outcomes of operative versus nonoperative management.

Rapid evidence review of the comparative effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment versus usual care for major depressive disorder.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct an evidence review of the effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness of pharmacogenomics-guided antidepressant treatment for major depressive disorder. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO through February 2017. We used prespecified criteria to select studies, abstract data, and rate internal validity and strength of the evidence (PROSPERO number CRD42016036358). RESULTS: We included two randomized trials (RCT), five controlled cohort studies, and six modeling studies of mostly women in their mid-40s with few comorbidities. CNSDose (ABCB1, ABCC1, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, UGT1A1) is the only pharmacogenomics test that significantly improved remission (one additional remitting patient in 12 weeks per three genotyped, 95% CI 1.7 to 3.5) and reduced intolerability in an RCT. ABCB1 genotyping leads to one additional remitting patient in 5 weeks per three genotyped (95% CI 3 to 20), but tolerability was not reported. In an RCT, GeneSight (CYP2D6, CYPC19, CYP1A2, SLC6A4, HTR2A) did not statistically significantly improve remission, and evidence is inconclusive about its tolerability. Evidence is generally low strength because RCTs were few and underpowered. Cost-effectiveness is unclear due to lack of directly observed cost-effectiveness outcomes. We found no studies that evaluated whether pharmacogenomics shortens time to optimal treatment, whether improvements were due to switches to genetically congruent medication, or whether effectiveness varies based on test and patient characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: Certain pharmacogenomics tools show promise of improving short-term remission rates in women in their mid-40s with few comorbidities. But, important evidence limitations preclude recommending their widespread use and indicate a need for further research.

Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes. RESULTS: Key informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review. CONCLUSIONS: Key informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.

Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.

OBJECTIVES: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.