Virtual wards for people with frailty: what works, for whom, how and why-a rapid realist review.

BACKGROUND: Virtual wards (VWs) deliver multidisciplinary care at home to people with frailty who are at high risk of a crisis or in crisis, aiming to mitigate the risk of acute hospital admission. Different VW models exist, and evidence of effectiveness is inconsistent. AIM: We conducted a rapid realist review to identify different VW models and to develop explanations for how and why VWs could deliver effective frailty management. METHODS: We searched published and grey literature to identify evidence on multidisciplinary VWs. Information on how and why VWs might 'work' was extracted and synthesised into context-mechanism-outcome configurations with input from clinicians and patient/public contributors. RESULTS: We included 17 peer-reviewed and 11 grey literature documents. VWs could be short-term and acute (1-21 days), or longer-term and preventative (typically 3-7 months). Effective VW operation requires common standards agreements, information sharing processes, an appropriate multidisciplinary team that plans patient care remotely, and good co-ordination. VWs may enable delivery of frailty interventions through appropriate selection of patients, comprehensive assessment including medication review, integrated case management and proactive care. Important components for patients and caregivers are good communication with the VW, their experience of care at home, and feeling involved, safe and empowered to manage their condition. CONCLUSIONS: Insights gained from this review could inform implementation or evaluation of VWs for frailty. A combination of acute and longer-term VWs may be needed within a whole system approach. Proactive care is recommended to avoid frailty-related crises.

Quality of reporting and risk of bias: a review of randomised trials in occupational health.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the reporting quality of randomisation and allocation methods in occupational health and safety (OHS) trials in relation to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) requirements of journals, risk of bias (RoB) and publication year. METHODS: We systematically searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PubMed between 2010 and May 2019 in 18 OHS journals. We measured reporting quality as percentage compliance with the CONSORT 2010 checklist (items 8-10) and RoB with the ROB V.2.0 tool (first domain). We tested the mean difference (MD) in % in reporting quality between CONSORT-requiring and non-requiring journals, trials with low, some concern and high RoB and publications before and after 2015. RESULTS: In 135 articles reporting on 129 RCTs, average reporting quality was at 37.4% compliance (95% CI 31.9% to 43.0%), with 10% of articles reaching 100% compliance. Reporting quality was significantly better in CONSORT-requiring journals than non-requiring journals (MD 31.0% (95% CI 21.4% to 40.7%)), for studies at low RoB than high RoB (MD 33.1% (95% CI 16.1% to 50.2%)) and with RoB of some concern (MD 39.8% (95% CI 30.0% to 49.7%)). Reporting quality did not improve over time (MD -5.7% (95% CI -16.8% to 5.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Articles in CONSORT-requiring journals and of low RoB studies show better reporting quality. Low reporting quality is linked to unclear RoB judgements (some concern). Reporting quality did not improve over the last 10 years and CONSORT is insufficiently implemented. Concerted efforts by editors and authors are needed to improve CONSORT implementation.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants), people with a long gown had less contamination than those with a coverall, and coveralls were more difficult to doff (low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort, and may therefore even lead to more contamination. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), or coronavirus (COVID-19), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk by covering exposed body parts. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to put PPE on (i.e. donning) or to remove PPE (i.e. doffing), and how to train HCWs to use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full-body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to 20 March 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that evaluated the effect of full-body PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in included trials. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses were appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: Earlier versions of this review were published in 2016 and 2019. In this update, we included 24 studies with 2278 participants, of which 14 were randomised controlled trials (RCT), one was a quasi-RCT and nine had a non-randomised design. Eight studies compared types of PPE. Six studies evaluated adapted PPE. Eight studies compared donning and doffing processes and three studies evaluated types of training. Eighteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless microbes. In simulation studies, median contamination rates were 25% for the intervention and 67% for the control groups. Evidence for all outcomes is of very low certainty unless otherwise stated because it is based on one or two studies, the indirectness of the evidence in simulation studies and because of risk of bias. Types of PPE The use of a powered, air-purifying respirator with coverall may protect against the risk of contamination better than a N95 mask and gown (risk ratio (RR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 0.43) but was more difficult to don (non-compliance: RR 7.5, 95% CI 1.81 to 31.1). In one RCT (59 participants) coveralls were more difficult to doff than isolation gowns (very low-certainty evidence). Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (small patches: mean difference (MD) -10.28, 95% CI -14.77 to -5.79). PPE made of more breathable material may lead to a similar number of spots on the trunk (MD 1.60, 95% CI -0.15 to 3.35) compared to more water-repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5). According to three studies that tested more recently introduced full-body PPE ensembles, there may be no difference in contamination. Modified PPE versus standard PPE The following modifications to PPE design may lead to less contamination compared to standard PPE: sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55), a better cover of the gown-wrist interface (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.78, low-certainty evidence), added tabs to grab to facilitate doffing of masks (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31). Donning and doffing Using Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (small patches: MD -5.44, 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45). One-step removal of gloves and gown may lead to less bacterial contamination (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.77) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28) than separate removal. Double-gloving may lead to less viral or bacterial contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.34, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.66) but not to less fluorescent contamination (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.28). Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4) and to fewer contamination spots (MD -5, 95% CI -8.08 to -1.92). Extra sanitation of gloves before doffing with quaternary ammonium or bleach may decrease contamination, but not alcohol-based hand rub. Training The use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7). A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70, 95% CI 20.14 to 41.26) than a traditional lecture. Face-to-face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (odds ratio 0.45, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that covering more parts of the body leads to better protection but usually comes at the cost of more difficult donning or doffing and less user comfort. More breathable types of PPE may lead to similar contamination but may have greater user satisfaction. Modifications to PPE design, such as tabs to grab, may decrease the risk of contamination. For donning and doffing procedures, following CDC doffing guidance, a one-step glove and gown removal, double-gloving, spoken instructions during doffing, and using glove disinfection may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than folder-based training. We still need RCTs of training with long-term follow-up. We need simulation studies with more participants to find out which combinations of PPE and which doffing procedure protects best. Consensus on simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. We also need more real-life evidence. Therefore, the use of PPE of HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should be registered and the HCW should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Pharmacological interventions for treatment-resistant depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Although antidepressants are often a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe depression, many people do not respond adequately to medication, and are said to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Little evidence exists to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for these people. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of standard pharmacological treatments for adults with TRD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (CCMDCTR) (March 2016), CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science (31 December 2018), the World Health Organization trials portal and ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished and ongoing studies, and screened bibliographies of included studies and relevant systematic reviews without date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years with unipolar depression (based on criteria from DSM-IV-TR or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria or Research Diagnostic Criteria) who had not responded to a minimum of four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. Interventions were: (1) increasing the dose of antidepressant monotherapy; (2) switching to a different antidepressant monotherapy; (3) augmenting treatment with another antidepressant; (4) augmenting treatment with a non-antidepressant. All were compared with continuing antidepressant monotherapy. We excluded studies of non-standard pharmacological treatments (e.g. sex hormones, vitamins, herbal medicines and food supplements). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers used standard Cochrane methods to extract data, assess risk of bias, and resolve disagreements. We analysed continuous outcomes with mean difference (MD) or standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). For dichotomous outcomes, we calculated a relative risk (RR) and 95% CI. Where sufficient data existed, we conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 RCTs (2731 participants). Nine were conducted in outpatient settings and one in both in- and outpatients. Mean age of participants ranged from 42 - 50.2 years, and most were female. One study investigated switching to, or augmenting current antidepressant treatment with, another antidepressant (mianserin). Another augmented current antidepressant treatment with the antidepressant mirtazapine. Eight studies augmented current antidepressant treatment with a non-antidepressant (either an anxiolytic (buspirone) or an antipsychotic (cariprazine; olanzapine; quetiapine (3 studies); or ziprasidone (2 studies)). We judged most studies to be at a low or unclear risk of bias. Only one of the included studies was not industry-sponsored. There was no evidence of a difference in depression severity when current treatment was switched to mianserin (MD on Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAM-D) = -1.8, 95% CI -5.22 to 1.62, low-quality evidence)) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. Nor was there evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out of treatment (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.94 to 4.59, low-quality evidence; dropouts 38% in the mianserin switch group; 18% in the control). Augmenting current antidepressant treatment with mianserin was associated with an improvement in depression symptoms severity scores from baseline (MD on HAM-D -4.8, 95% CI -8.18 to -1.42; moderate-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference in numbers dropping out (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.72; low-quality evidence; 19% dropouts in the mianserin-augmented group; 38% in the control). When current antidepressant treatment was augmented with mirtazapine, there was little difference in depressive symptoms (MD on Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) -1.7, 95% CI -4.03 to 0.63; high-quality evidence) and no evidence of a difference in dropout numbers (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.62; dropouts 2% in mirtazapine-augmented group; 3% in the control). Augmentation with buspirone provided no evidence of a benefit in terms of a reduction in depressive symptoms (MD on Montgomery and Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) -0.30, 95% CI -9.48 to 8.88; low-quality evidence) or numbers of drop-outs (RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.53; low-quality evidence; dropouts 11% in buspirone-augmented group; 19% in the control). Severity of depressive symptoms reduced when current treatment was augmented with cariprazine (MD on MADRS -1.50, 95% CI -2.74 to -0.25; high-quality evidence), olanzapine (MD on HAM-D -7.9, 95% CI -16.76 to 0.96; low-quality evidence; MD on MADRS -12.4, 95% CI -22.44 to -2.36; low-quality evidence), quetiapine (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.46 to -0.18; I2 = 6%, high-quality evidence), or ziprasidone (MD on HAM-D -2.73, 95% CI -4.53 to -0.93; I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence) compared with continuing on antidepressant monotherapy. However, a greater number of participants dropped out when antidepressant monotherapy was augmented with an antipsychotic (cariprazine RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.41; quetiapine RR 1.57, 95% CI: 1.14 to 2.17; ziprasidone RR 1.60, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.55) compared with antidepressant monotherapy, although estimates for olanzapine augmentation were imprecise (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.04 to 2.69). Dropout rates ranged from 10% to 39% in the groups augmented with an antipsychotic, and from 12% to 23% in the comparison groups. The most common reasons for dropping out were side effects or adverse events. We also summarised data about response and remission rates (based on changes in depressive symptoms) for included studies, along with data on social adjustment and social functioning, quality of life, economic outcomes and adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A small body of evidence shows that augmenting current antidepressant therapy with mianserin or with an antipsychotic (cariprazine, olanzapine, quetiapine or ziprasidone) improves depressive symptoms over the short-term (8 to 12 weeks). However, this evidence is mostly of low or moderate quality due to imprecision of the estimates of effects. Improvements with antipsychotics need to be balanced against the increased likelihood of dropping out of treatment or experiencing an adverse event. Augmentation of current antidepressant therapy with a second antidepressant, mirtazapine, does not produce a clinically important benefit in reduction of depressive symptoms (high-quality evidence). The evidence regarding the effects of augmenting current antidepressant therapy with buspirone or switching current antidepressant treatment to mianserin is currently insufficient. Further trials are needed to increase the certainty of these findings and to examine long-term effects of treatment, as well as the effectiveness of other pharmacological treatment strategies.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCW use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type of full body PPE and which method of donning or doffing PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCW, and which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 15 July 2018), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 18 June 2019), Scopus (Scopus 18 June 2019), CINAHL (EBSCOhost 31 July 2018), and OSH-Update (up to 31 December 2018). We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all controlled studies that compared the effects of PPE used by HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as Ebola or SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that used simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or doffing PPE, and the effects of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We planned to perform meta-analyses but did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 studies with 1950 participants evaluating 21 interventions. Ten studies are Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs), one is a quasi RCT and six have a non-randomised controlled design. Two studies are awaiting assessment.Ten studies compared types of PPE but only six of these reported sufficient data. Six studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated different types of training. Fifteen studies used simulated exposure with fluorescent markers or harmless viruses. In simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 10% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study HCW were exposed to Ebola and in another to SARS.Evidence for all outcomes is based on single studies and is very low quality.Different types of PPEPPE made of more breathable material may not lead to more contamination spots on the trunk (Mean Difference (MD) 1.60 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.15 to 3.35) than more water repellent material but may have greater user satisfaction (MD -0.46; 95% CI -0.84 to -0.08, scale of 1 to 5).Gowns may protect better against contamination than aprons (MD large patches -1.36 95% CI -1.78 to -0.94).The use of a powered air-purifying respirator may protect better than a simple ensemble of PPE without such respirator (Relative Risk (RR) 0.27; 95% CI 0.17 to 0.43).Five different PPE ensembles (such as gown vs. coverall, boots with or without covers, hood vs. cap, length and number of gloves) were evaluated in one study, but there were no event data available for compared groups.Alterations to PPE design may lead to less contamination such as added tabs to grab masks (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.80) or gloves (RR 0.22 95% CI 0.15 to 0.31), a sealed gown and glove combination (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.09 to 0.78), or a better fitting gown around the neck, wrists and hands (RR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.55) compared to standard PPE.Different methods of donning and doffing proceduresDouble gloving may lead to less contamination compared to single gloving (RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78).Following CDC recommendations for doffing may lead to less contamination compared to no guidance (MD small patches -5.44; 95% CI -7.43 to -3.45).Alcohol-based hand rub used during the doffing process may not lead to less contamination than the use of a hypochlorite based solution (MD 4.00; 95% CI 0.47 to 34.24).Additional spoken instruction may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4).Different types of trainingThe use of additional computer simulation may lead to fewer errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7).A video lecture on donning PPE may lead to better skills scores (MD 30.70; 95% CI 20.14,41.26) than a traditional lecture.Face to face instruction may reduce noncompliance with doffing guidance more (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98) than providing folders or videos only.There were no studies on effects of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence is very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in all studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. Alterations to PPE, such as tabs to grab may decrease contamination. Double gloving, following CDC doffing guidance, and spoken instructions during doffing may reduce contamination and increase compliance. Face-to-face training in PPE use may reduce errors more than video or folder based training. Because data come from single small studies with high risk of bias, we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We still need randomised controlled trials to find out which training works best in the long term. We need better simulation studies conducted with several dozen participants to find out which PPE protects best, and what is the safest way to remove PPE. Consensus on the best way to conduct simulation of exposure and assessment of outcome is urgently needed. HCW exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection in the field.

Interventions for preventing obesity in children.

BACKGROUND: Prevention of childhood obesity is an international public health priority given the significant impact of obesity on acute and chronic diseases, general health, development and well-being. The international evidence base for strategies to prevent obesity is very large and is accumulating rapidly. This is an update of a previous review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of a range of interventions that include diet or physical activity components, or both, designed to prevent obesity in children. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsychINFO and CINAHL in June 2015. We re-ran the search from June 2015 to January 2018 and included a search of trial registers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of diet or physical activity interventions, or combined diet and physical activity interventions, for preventing overweight or obesity in children (0-17 years) that reported outcomes at a minimum of 12 weeks from baseline. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data, assessed risk-of-bias and evaluated overall certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We extracted data on adiposity outcomes, sociodemographic characteristics, adverse events, intervention process and costs. We meta-analysed data as guided by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and presented separate meta-analyses by age group for child 0 to 5 years, 6 to 12 years, and 13 to 18 years for zBMI and BMI. MAIN RESULTS: We included 153 RCTs, mostly from the USA or Europe. Thirteen studies were based in upper-middle-income countries (UMIC: Brazil, Ecuador, Lebanon, Mexico, Thailand, Turkey, US-Mexico border), and one was based in a lower middle-income country (LMIC: Egypt). The majority (85) targeted children aged 6 to 12 years.Children aged 0-5 years: There is moderate-certainty evidence from 16 RCTs (n = 6261) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced BMI (mean difference (MD) -0.07 kg/m2, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to -0.01), and had a similar effect (11 RCTs, n = 5536) on zBMI (MD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.01). Neither diet (moderate-certainty evidence) nor physical activity interventions alone (high-certainty evidence) compared with control reduced BMI (physical activity alone: MD -0.22 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.01) or zBMI (diet alone: MD -0.14, 95% CI -0.32 to 0.04; physical activity alone: MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.13) in children aged 0-5 years.Children aged 6 to 12 years: There is moderate-certainty evidence from 14 RCTs (n = 16,410) that physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced BMI (MD -0.10 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.05). However, there is moderate-certainty evidence that they had little or no effect on zBMI (MD -0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.02). There is low-certainty evidence from 20 RCTs (n = 24,043) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, reduced zBMI (MD -0.05 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to -0.01). There is high-certainty evidence that diet interventions, compared with control, had little impact on zBMI (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.01) or BMI (-0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.06).Children aged 13 to 18 years: There is very low-certainty evidence that physical activity interventions, compared with control reduced BMI (MD -1.53 kg/m2, 95% CI -2.67 to -0.39; 4 RCTs; n = 720); and low-certainty evidence for a reduction in zBMI (MD -0.2, 95% CI -0.3 to -0.1; 1 RCT; n = 100). There is low-certainty evidence from eight RCTs (n = 16,583) that diet combined with physical activity interventions, compared with control, had no effect on BMI (MD -0.02 kg/m2, 95% CI -0.10 to 0.05); or zBMI (MD 0.01, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.07; 6 RCTs; n = 16,543). Evidence from two RCTs (low-certainty evidence; n = 294) found no effect of diet interventions on BMI.Direct comparisons of interventions: Two RCTs reported data directly comparing diet with either physical activity or diet combined with physical activity interventions for children aged 6 to 12 years and reported no differences.Heterogeneity was apparent in the results from all three age groups, which could not be entirely explained by setting or duration of the interventions. Where reported, interventions did not appear to result in adverse effects (16 RCTs) or increase health inequalities (gender: 30 RCTs; socioeconomic status: 18 RCTs), although relatively few studies examined these factors.Re-running the searches in January 2018 identified 315 records with potential relevance to this review, which will be synthesised in the next update. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Interventions that include diet combined with physical activity interventions can reduce the risk of obesity (zBMI and BMI) in young children aged 0 to 5 years. There is weaker evidence from a single study that dietary interventions may be beneficial.However, interventions that focus only on physical activity do not appear to be effective in children of this age. In contrast, interventions that only focus on physical activity can reduce the risk of obesity (BMI) in children aged 6 to 12 years, and adolescents aged 13 to 18 years. In these age groups, there is no evidence that interventions that only focus on diet are effective, and some evidence that diet combined with physical activity interventions may be effective. Importantly, this updated review also suggests that interventions to prevent childhood obesity do not appear to result in adverse effects or health inequalities.The review will not be updated in its current form. To manage the growth in RCTs of child obesity prevention interventions, in future, this review will be split into three separate reviews based on child age.

Interventions for preventing or treating malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Excessive drinking leads to poor absorption of nutrients and homeless problem-drinkers often have nutritionally inadequate diets. Depletion of nutrients such as vitamin B1 can lead to cognitive impairment, which can hinder efforts to reduce drinking or engage with services. This review aimed to assess effectiveness of interventions designed to prevent or treat malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers. METHODS: We systematically searched nine electronic databases and 13 grey literature sources for studies evaluating interventions to improve nutrition in homeless populations, without regional or language restrictions. Screening for inclusion was done in duplicate. One reviewer extracted data and assessed risk of bias, and another checked the extractions. Primary outcomes were nutrition status/deficiency, liver damage, and cognitive function. Secondary outcomes included abstinence, comorbidities, resource use, acceptability and engagement with intervention. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We included 25 studies (2 Randomised Controlled Trials; 15 uncontrolled before and after; 7 surveys; 1 case-control). Nine studies evaluated educational and support interventions, five food provision, and three supplement provision. Eight studies evaluated a combination of these interventions. No two interventions were the same, and all studies were at high risk of bias. Nutritional status (intake/ deficiency) were reported in 11 studies and liver function in one. Fruit and vegetable intake improved with some education and support interventions (n = 4 studies) but not others (n = 2). Vitamin supplements appeared to improve vitamin deficiency levels in the blood (n = 2). Free or subsidised meals (n = 4) and food packs (n = 1) did not always fulfil dietary needs, but were usually considered acceptable by users. Some multicomponent interventions improved nutrition (n = 3) but acceptability varied (n = 3). No study reported cost effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for any one intervention for improving malnutrition in homeless problem-drinkers was based on single studies at high risk of bias. Various food and supplement provision interventions appear effective in changing nutritional status in single studies. Educational and multicomponent interventions show improved nutritional behaviour in some studies but not others. Further better quality evidence is required before these interventions can be recommended for implementation. Any future studies should seek the end user input in their design and conduct. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered with PROSPERO: CRD42015024247 .

Antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: There is conflicting evidence on the association between antipsychotic polypharmacy and metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia. We conducted a review of published systematic reviews to evaluate evidence on the association between metabolic syndrome (diabetes, hypertension, and hyperlipidaemia) and exposure to antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia. METHODS: We searched five electronic databases, complemented by reference screening, to find systematic reviews that investigated the association of antipsychotic polypharmacy in schizophrenia with hypertension, diabetes, or hyperlipidaemia. Selection of reviews, data extraction and review quality were conducted independently by two people and disagreements resolved by discussion. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We included 12 systematic reviews, which reported heterogeneous results, mostly with narrative syntheses and without pooled data. The evidence was rated as low quality. There was some indication of a possible protective effect of drug combinations including aripiprazole for diabetes and hyperlipidaemias, compared to other combinations and/or monotherapy. Only one review reported the association between APP and hypertension. The most frequently reported combinations of medication included clozapine, possibly representing a sample of patients with treatment resistant illness. No included review reported results separately by setting (primary or secondary care). CONCLUSIONS: Further robust studies are needed to elucidate the possible protective effect of aripiprazole. Long-term prospective studies are required for accurate appraisal of diabetes risk, hypertension and hyperlipidaemia in patients exposed to antipsychotic polypharmacy.

Psychological therapies for treatment-resistant depression in adults.

BACKGROUND: Antidepressants are a first-line treatment for adults with moderate to severe major depression. However, many people prescribed antidepressants for depression don't respond fully to such medication, and little evidence is available to inform the most appropriate 'next step' treatment for such patients, who may be referred to as having treatment-resistant depression (TRD). National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance suggests that the 'next step' for those who do not respond to antidepressants may include a change in the dose or type of antidepressant medication, the addition of another medication, or the start of psychotherapy. Different types of psychotherapies may be used for TRD; evidence on these treatments is available but has not been collated to date.Along with the sister review of pharmacological therapies for TRD, this review summarises available evidence for the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults (18 to 74 years) with TRD with the goal of establishing the best 'next step' for this group. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of psychotherapies for adults with TRD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Controlled Trials Register (until May 2016), along with CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO via OVID (until 16 May 2017). We also searched the World Health Organization (WHO) trials portal (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify unpublished and ongoing studies. There were no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with participants aged 18 to 74 years diagnosed with unipolar depression that had not responded to minimum four weeks of antidepressant treatment at a recommended dose. We excluded studies of drug intolerance. Acceptable diagnoses of unipolar depression were based onthe Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV-TR) or earlier versions, International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-10, Feighner criteria, or Research Diagnostic Criteria. We included the following comparisons.1. Any psychological therapy versus antidepressant treatment alone, or another psychological therapy.2. Any psychological therapy given in addition to antidepressant medication versus antidepressant treatment alone, or a psychological therapy alone.Primary outcomes required were change in depressive symptoms and number of dropouts from study or treatment (as a measure of acceptability). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data, assessed risk of bias in duplicate, and resolved disagreements through discussion or consultation with a third person. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses when appropriate. We summarised continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), and dichotomous outcomes using risk ratios (RRs). MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials (n = 698; most participants were women approximately 40 years of age). All studies evaluated psychotherapy plus usual care (with antidepressants) versus usual care (with antidepressants). Three studies addressed the addition of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) to usual care (n = 522), and one each evaluated intensive short-term dynamic psychotherapy (ISTDP) (n = 60), interpersonal therapy (IPT) (n = 34), or group dialectical behavioural therapy (DBT) (n = 19) as the intervention. Most studies were small (except one trial of CBT was large), and all studies were at high risk of detection bias for the main outcome of self-reported depressive symptoms.A random-effects meta-analysis of five trials (n = 575) showed that psychotherapy given in addition to usual care (vs usual care alone) produced improvement in self-reported depressive symptoms (MD -4.07 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) -7.07 to -1.07 on the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) scale) over the short term (up to six months). Effects were similar when data from all six studies were combined for self-reported depressive symptoms (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.14; n = 635). The quality of this evidence was moderate. Similar moderate-quality evidence of benefit was seen on the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Scale (PHQ-9) from two studies (MD -4.66, 95% CI 8.72 to -0.59; n = 482) and on the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) from four studies (MD -3.28, 95% CI -5.71 to -0.85; n = 193).High-quality evidence shows no differential dropout (a measure of acceptability) between intervention and comparator groups over the short term (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.24; six studies; n = 698).Moderate-quality evidence for remission from six studies (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.46 to 2.52; n = 635) and low-quality evidence for response from four studies (RR 1.80, 95% CI 1.2 to 2.7; n = 556) indicate that psychotherapy was beneficial as an adjunct to usual care over the short term.With the addition of CBT, low-quality evidence suggests lower depression scores on the BDI scale over the medium term (12 months) (RR -3.40, 95% CI -7.21 to 0.40; two studies; n = 475) and over the long term (46 months) (RR -1.90, 95% CI -3.22 to -0.58; one study; n = 248). Moderate-quality evidence for adjunctive CBT suggests no difference in acceptability (dropout) over the medium term (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.47; two studies; n = 549) and lower dropout over long term (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97; one study; n = 248).Two studies reported serious adverse events (one suicide, two hospitalisations, and two exacerbations of depression) in 4.2% of the total sample, which occurred only in the usual care group (no events in the intervention group).An economic analysis (conducted as part of an included study) from the UK healthcare perspective (National Health Service (NHS)) revealed that adjunctive CBT was cost-effective over nearly four years. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence shows that psychotherapy added to usual care (with antidepressants) is beneficial for depressive symptoms and for response and remission rates over the short term for patients with TRD. Medium- and long-term effects seem similarly beneficial, although most evidence was derived from a single large trial. Psychotherapy added to usual care seems as acceptable as usual care alone.Further evidence is needed on the effectiveness of different types of psychotherapies for patients with TRD. No evidence currently shows whether switching to a psychotherapy is more beneficial for this patient group than continuing an antidepressant medication regimen. Addressing this evidence gap is an important goal for researchers.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -14 minutes per day, 95% CI -39 to 10, three studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: A large number of people are employed in sedentary occupations. Physical inactivity and excessive sitting at workplaces have been linked to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, obesity, and all-cause mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 9 August 2017. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over RCTs, cluster-randomised controlled trials (cluster-RCTs), and quasi-RCTs of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or measured using devices such as an accelerometer-inclinometer and duration and number of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more. We considered energy expenditure, total time spent sitting (including sitting at and outside work), time spent standing at work, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 studies - including two cross-over RCTs, 17 RCTs, seven cluster-RCTs, and eight controlled before-and-after studies - with a total of 3,397 participants, all from high-income countries. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (16 studies), workplace policy changes (four studies), information and counselling (11 studies), and multi-component interventions (four studies). One study included both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that specifically investigated the effects of standing meetings or walking meetings on sitting time.Physical workplace changesInterventions using sit-stand desks, either alone or in combination with information and counselling, reduced sitting time at work on average by 100 minutes per workday at short-term follow-up (up to three months) compared to sit-desks (95% confidence interval (CI) -116 to -84, 10 studies, low-quality evidence). The pooled effect of two studies showed sit-stand desks reduced sitting time at medium-term follow-up (3 to 12 months) by an average of 57 minutes per day (95% CI -99 to -15) compared to sit-desks. Total sitting time (including sitting at and outside work) also decreased with sit-stand desks compared to sit-desks (mean difference (MD) -82 minutes/day, 95% CI -124 to -39, two studies) as did the duration of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -53 minutes/day, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, very low-quality evidence).We found no significant difference between the effects of standing desks and sit-stand desks on reducing sitting at work. Active workstations, such as treadmill desks or cycling desks, had unclear or inconsistent effects on sitting time.Workplace policy changesWe found no significant effects for implementing walking strategies on workplace sitting time at short-term (MD -15 minutes per day, 95% CI -50 to 19, low-quality evidence, one study) and medium-term (MD -17 minutes/day, 95% CI -61 to 28, one study) follow-up. Short breaks (one to two minutes every half hour) reduced time spent sitting at work on average by 40 minutes per day (95% CI -66 to -15, one study, low-quality evidence) compared to long breaks (two 15-minute breaks per workday) at short-term follow-up.Information and counsellingProviding information, feedback, counselling, or all of these resulted in no significant change in time spent sitting at work at short-term follow-up (MD -19 minutes per day, 95% CI -57 to 19, two studies, low-quality evidence). However, the reduction was significant at medium-term follow-up (MD -28 minutes per day, 95% CI -51 to -5, two studies, low-quality evidence).Computer prompts combined with information resulted in no significant change in sitting time at work at short-term follow-up (MD -10 minutes per day, 95% CI -45 to 24, two studies, low-quality evidence), but at medium-term follow-up they produced a significant reduction (MD -55 minutes per day, 95% CI -96 to -14, one study). Furthermore, computer prompting resulted in a significant decrease in the average number (MD -1.1, 95% CI -1.9 to -0.3, one study) and duration (MD -74 minutes per day, 95% CI -124 to -24, one study) of sitting bouts lasting 30 minutes or more.Computer prompts with instruction to stand reduced sitting at work on average by 14 minutes per day (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) more than computer prompts with instruction to walk at least 100 steps at short-term follow-up.We found no significant reduction in workplace sitting time at medium-term follow-up following mindfulness training (MD -23 minutes per day, 95% CI -63 to 17, one study, low-quality evidence). Similarly a single study reported no change in sitting time at work following provision of highly personalised or contextualised information and less personalised or contextualised information. One study found no significant effects of activity trackers on sitting time at work.Multi-component interventions Combining multiple interventions had significant but heterogeneous effects on sitting time at work (573 participants, three studies, very low-quality evidence) and on time spent in prolonged sitting bouts (two studies, very low-quality evidence) at short-term follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is low-quality evidence that the use of sit-stand desks reduce workplace sitting at short-term and medium-term follow-ups. However, there is no evidence on their effects on sitting over longer follow-up periods. Effects of other types of interventions, including workplace policy changes, provision of information and counselling, and multi-component interventions, are mostly inconsistent. The quality of evidence is low to very low for most interventions, mainly because of limitations in study protocols and small sample sizes. There is a need for larger cluster-RCTs with longer-term follow-ups to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce sitting time at work.

Nutritional deficiencies in homeless persons with problematic drinking: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A significant proportion of homeless people drink alcohol excessively and this can lead to malnutrition and consequent medical problems. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence on the range of nutritional deficiencies in the homeless problem-drinking populations. METHODS: We conducted a comprehensive search of nine scientific literature databases and 13 grey literature sources. We included studies of any design that included homeless population with problem-drinking and reported measures of nutritional deficiencies in urine or blood. Study selection and data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by another. Data on malnutrition profile were summarized narratively. RESULTS: We found nine studies reporting nutritional deficiencies in homeless populations with problem-drinking. The oldest study was from the 1950s and the most recent from 2013. The following nutrients were reported across studies: vitamins B1, B2, B6, B9, B12, C, A, and E; haemoglobin; and albumin. The most common deficiencies reported were of vitamin B1 (prevalence of deficiency was 0, 2, 6, 45, and 51% in five studies) and vitamin C (29, 84, and 95% in three studies). None of the studies were assessed to be at a low risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: The limited, low quality and relatively old evidence suggests that homeless people who drink heavily may be deficient in vitamin C, thiamine, and other nutrients. New, well conducted studies are needed in order to optimally inform public health interventions aimed at improving deficiencies in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015024247.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: Office work has changed considerably over the previous couple of decades and has become sedentary in nature. Physical inactivity at workplaces and particularly increased sitting has been linked to increase in cardiovascular disease, obesity and overall mortality. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal up to 2 June, 2015. We also screened reference lists of articles and contacted authors to find more studies to include. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer-inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 studies, two cross-over RCTs, 11 RCTs, three cRCTs and four CBAs, with a total of 2180 participants from high income nations. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (nine studies), policy changes (two studies), information and counselling (seven studies) and interventions from multiple categories (two studies). One study had both physical workplace changes and information and counselling components. We did not find any studies that had investigated the effect of periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. Physical workplace changesA sit-stand desk alone compared to no intervention reduced sitting time at work per workday with between thirty minutes to two hours at short term (up to three months) follow-up (six studies, 218 participants, very low quality evidence). In two studies, sit-stand desks with additional counselling reduced sitting time at work in the same range at short-term follow-up (61 participants, very low quality evidence). One study found a reduction at six months' follow-up of -56 minutes (95% CI -101 to -12, very low quality evidence) compared to no intervention. Also total sitting time at work and outside work decreased with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -31, one study) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies). This is considerably less than the two to four hours recommended by experts. Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance, musculoskeletal symptoms or sick leave. It remains unclear if standing can repair the harms of sitting because there is hardly any extra energy expenditure.The effects of active workstations were inconsistent. Treadmill desks combined with counselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -29 minutes, 95% CI -55 to -2, one study) compared to no intervention at 12 weeks' follow-up. Pedalling workstations combined with information did not reduce inactive sitting at work considerably (MD -12 minutes, 95% CI -24 to 1, one study) compared to information alone at 16 weeks' follow-up. The quality of evidence was low for active workstations. Policy changesTwo studies with 443 participants provided low quality evidence that walking strategies did not have a considerable effect on workplace sitting time at 10 weeks' (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23) or 21 weeks' (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -58 to 25) follow-up respectively. Information and counsellingCounselling reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -52 to -5, two studies, low quality evidence) at medium term (three months to 12 months) follow-up. Mindfulness training did not considerably reduce workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, low quality evidence). There was no considerable increase in work engagement with counselling.There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -17 minutes, 95% CI -48 to 14, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompts to stand reduced sitting at work by 14 minutes more (95% CI 10 to 19, one study) compared to computer prompts to step at six days' follow-up. Computer prompts did not change the number of sitting episodes that last 30 minutes or longer. Interventions from multiple categories Interventions combining multiple categories had an inconsistent effect on sitting time at work, with a reduction in sitting time at 12 weeks' (25 participants, very low quality evidence) and six months' (294 participants, low quality evidence) follow-up in two studies but no considerable effect at 12 months' follow-up in one study (MD -47.98, 95% CI -103 to 7, 294 participants, low quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is very low to low quality evidence that sit-stand desks may decrease workplace sitting between thirty minutes to two hours per day without having adverse effects at the short or medium term. There is no evidence on the effects in the long term. There were no considerable or inconsistent effects of other interventions such as changing work organisation or information and counselling. There is a need for cluster-randomised trials with a sufficient sample size and long term follow-up to determine the effectiveness of different types of interventions to reduce objectively measured sitting time at work.

Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

BACKGROUND: In epidemics of highly infectious diseases, such as Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) or SARS, healthcare workers (HCW) are at much greater risk of infection than the general population, due to their contact with patients' contaminated body fluids. Contact precautions by means of personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce the risk. It is unclear which type of PPE protects best, what is the best way to remove PPE, and how to make sure HCWs use PPE as instructed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate which type or component of full-body PPE and which method of donning or removing (doffing) PPE have the least risk of self-contamination or infection for HCWs, and which training methods most increase compliance with PPE protocols. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed up to 8 January 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Trials (CENTRAL up to 20 January 2016), EMBASE (embase.com up to 8 January 2016), CINAHL (EBSCOhost up to 20 January 2016), and OSH-Update up to 8 January 2016. We also screened reference lists of included trials and relevant reviews, and contacted NGOs and manufacturers of PPE. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all eligible controlled studies that compared the effect of types or components of PPE in HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases with serious consequences, such as EVD and SARS, on the risk of infection, contamination, or noncompliance with protocols. This included studies that simulated contamination with fluorescent markers or a non-pathogenic virus.We also included studies that compared the effect of various ways of donning or removing PPE, and the effects of various types of training in PPE use on the same outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included trials. We intended to perform meta-analyses but we did not find sufficiently similar studies to combine their results. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies with 1200 participants evaluating ten interventions. Of these, eight trials simulated the exposure with a fluorescent marker or virus or bacteria containing fluids. Five studies evaluated different types of PPE against each other but two did not report sufficient data. Another two studies compared different types of donning and doffing and three studies evaluated the effect of different types of training.None of the included studies reported a standardised classification of the protective properties against viral penetration of the PPE, and only one reported the brand of PPE used. None of the studies were conducted with HCWs exposed to EVD but in one study participants were exposed to SARS. Different types of PPE versus each otherIn simulation studies, contamination rates varied from 25% to 100% of participants for all types of PPE. In one study, PPE made of more breathable material did not lead to a statistically significantly different number of spots with contamination but did have greater user satisfaction (Mean Difference (MD) -0.46 (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.84 to -0.08, range 1 to 5, very low quality evidence). In another study, gowns protected better than aprons. In yet another study, the use of a powered air-purifying respirator protected better than a now outdated form of PPE. There were no studies on goggles versus face shields, on long- versus short-sleeved gloves, or on the use of taping PPE parts together. Different methods of donning and doffing procedures versus each otherTwo cross-over simulation studies (one RCT, one CCT) compared different methods for donning and doffing against each other. Double gloving led to less contamination compared to single gloving (Relative Risk (RR) 0.36; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.78, very low quality evidence) in one simulation study, but not to more noncompliance with guidance (RR 1.08; 95% CI 0.70 to 1.67, very low quality evidence). Following CDC recommendations for doffing led to less contamination in another study (very low quality evidence). There were no studies on the use of disinfectants while doffing. Different types of training versus each otherIn one study, the use of additional computer simulation led to less errors in doffing (MD -1.2, 95% CI -1.6 to -0.7) and in another study additional spoken instruction led to less errors (MD -0.9, 95% CI -1.4 to -0.4). One retrospective cohort study assessed the effect of active training - defined as face-to-face instruction - versus passive training - defined as folders or videos - on noncompliance with PPE use and on noncompliance with doffing guidance. Active training did not considerably reduce noncompliance in PPE use (Odds Ratio (OR) 0.63; 95% CI 0.31 to 1.30) but reduced noncompliance with doffing procedures (OR 0.45; 95% CI 0.21 to 0.98, very low quality evidence). There were no studies on how to retain the results of training in the long term or on resource use.The quality of the evidence was very low for all comparisons because of high risk of bias in studies, indirectness of evidence, and small numbers of participants. This means that it is likely that the true effect can be substantially different from the one reported here. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that more breathable types of PPE may not lead to more contamination, but may have greater user satisfaction. We also found very low quality evidence that double gloving and CDC doffing guidance appear to decrease the risk of contamination and that more active training in PPE use may reduce PPE and doffing errors more than passive training. However, the data all come from single studies with high risk of bias and we are uncertain about the estimates of effects.We need simulation studies conducted with several dozens of participants, preferably using a non-pathogenic virus, to find out which type and combination of PPE protects best, and what is the best way to remove PPE. We also need randomised controlled studies of the effects of one type of training versus another to find out which training works best in the long term. HCWs exposed to highly infectious diseases should have their use of PPE registered and should be prospectively followed for their risk of infection.

Workplace interventions for reducing sitting at work.

BACKGROUND: The number of people working whilst seated at a desk keeps increasing worldwide. As sitting increases, occupational physical strain declines at the same time. This has contributed to increases in cardiovascular disease, obesity and diabetes. Therefore, reducing and breaking up the time that people spend sitting while at work is important for health. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of workplace interventions to reduce sitting at work compared to no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, OSH UPDATE, PsycINFO, Clinical trials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) search trial portal up to 14 February, 2014. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), cluster-randomised controlled trials (cRCTs), and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions to reduce sitting at work. For changes of workplace arrangements, we also included controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) with a concurrent control group. The primary outcome was time spent sitting at work per day, either self-reported or objectively measured by means of an accelerometer coupled with an inclinometer. We considered energy expenditure, duration and number of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more, work productivity and adverse events as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full-text articles for study eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We contacted authors for additional data where required. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight studies, four RCTs, three CBAs and one cRCT, with a total of 1125 participants. The studies evaluated physical workplace changes (three studies), policy changes (one study) and information and counselling (four studies). No studies investigated the effect of treadmill desks, stepping devices, periodic breaks or standing or walking meetings. All the studies were at high risk of bias. The quality of the evidence was very low to low. Half of the studies were from Australia and the other half from Europe, with none from low- or middle-income countries. Physical workplace changesWe found very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks with or without additional counselling reduced sitting time at work per workday at one week follow-up (MD -143 minutes (95% CI -184 to -102, one study, 31 participants) and at three months' follow-up (MD - 113 minutes, 95% CI -143 to -84, two studies, 61 participants) compared to no intervention. Total sitting time during the whole day decreased also with sit-stand desks compared to no intervention (MD -78 minutes, 95% CI -125 to -30, one study, 31 participants) as did the duration of sitting episodes lasting 30 minutes or more (MD -52 minutes, 95% CI -79 to -26, two studies, 74 participants). Sit-stand desks did not have a considerable effect on work performance and had an inconsistent effect on musculoskeletal symptoms and sick leave. Policy changesWalking strategies had no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -54 to 23, one study, 179 participants, low quality evidence). Information and counsellingGuideline-based counselling by occupational physicians reduced sitting time at work (MD -28 minutes, 95% CI -54 to -2, one study, 396 participants, low quality evidence). There was no considerable effect on reduction in total sitting time during the whole day.Mindfulness training induced a non-significant reduction in workplace sitting time (MD -2 minutes, 95% CI -22 to 18) at six months' follow-up and at 12 months' follow-up (MD -16 minutes, 95% CI -45 to 12, one study, 257 participants, low quality evidence).There was an inconsistent effect of computer prompting on sitting time at work. One study found no considerable effect on sitting at work (MD -18 minutes, 95% CI -53 to 17, 28 participants, low quality evidence) at 10 days' follow-up, while another study reported a significant reduction in sitting at work (MD -55 minutes, 95% CI -96 to -14, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. Computer prompting software also led to a non-significant increase in energy expenditure at work (MD 278 calories/workday, 95% CI 0 to 556, one study, 34 participants, low quality evidence) at 13 weeks' follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present there is very low quality evidence that sit-stand desks can reduce sitting time at work, but the effects of policy changes and information and counselling are inconsistent. There is a need for high quality cluster-randomised trials to assess the effects of different types of interventions on objectively measured sitting time. There are many ongoing trials that might change these conclusions in the near future.

Low quality evidence for effectiveness of fluoridated milk.

DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Oral Health Groups Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, the U.S. National Institutes of Health Trials Register and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials with an intervention and follow-up period of at least two years, comparing fluoridated milk with non-fluoridated milk. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: Only one unpublished trial was included. It involved 180 children aged three years at study commencement and was considered to be at high risk of bias. After three years permanent teeth had a caries reduction (mean difference (MD) -0.13, 95% CI -0.24 to -0.02) and primary teeth a caries reduction (MD -1.14, 95% CI -1.86 to -0.42). For primary teeth this is a substantial reduction, equivalent to a prevented fraction of 31%. For permanent teeth,the disease level was very low in the study, resulting in a small absolute effect size. CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence to suggest fluoridated milk may be beneficial to schoolchildren, contributing to a substantial reduction in dental caries in primary teeth. Due to the low quality of the evidence, further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. There was only one relatively small study, which had important methodological limitations on the data for the effectiveness in reducing caries. Furthermore, there was no information about the potential harms of the intervention. Additional RCTs of high quality are needed before we can draw definitive conclusions about the benefits of milk fluoridation.

Gloves, extra gloves or special types of gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure injuries in healthcare personnel.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers are at risk of acquiring viral diseases such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV through exposure to contaminated blood and body fluids at work. Most often infection occurs when a healthcare worker inadvertently punctures the skin of their hand with a sharp implement that has been used in the treatment of an infected patient, thus bringing the patient's blood into contact with their own. Such occurrences are commonly known as percutaneous exposure incidents. OBJECTIVES: To determine the benefits and harms of extra gloves for preventing percutaneous exposure incidents among healthcare workers versus no intervention or alternative interventions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, NHSEED, Science Citation Index Expanded, CINAHL, NIOSHTIC, CISDOC, PsycINFO and LILACS until 26 June 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with healthcare workers as the majority of participants, extra gloves or special types of gloves as the intervention, and exposure to blood or bodily fluids as the outcome. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed study eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted data. We performed meta-analyses for seven different comparisons. MAIN RESULTS: We found 34 RCTs that included 6890 person-operations as participating units and reported on 46 intervention-control group comparisons. We grouped interventions as follows: increased layers of standard gloves, gloves manufactured with special protective materials or thicker gloves, and gloves with puncture indicator systems. Indicator gloves show a coloured spot when they are perforated. Participants were surgeons in all studies and they used at least one pair of standard gloves as the control intervention. Twenty-seven studies also included other surgical staff (e.g. nurses). All but one study used perforations in gloves as an indication of exposure. The median control group rate was 18.5 perforations per 100 person-operations. Seven studies reported blood stains on the skin and two studies reported self reported needlestick injuries. Six studies reported dexterity as visual analogue scale scores for the comparison double versus single gloves, 13 studies reported outer glove perforations. We judged the included studies to have a moderate to high risk of bias.We found moderate-quality evidence that double gloves compared to single gloves reduce the risk of glove perforation (rate ratio (RR) 0.29, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 0.37) and the risk of blood stains on the skin (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.70). Two studies with a high risk of bias also reported the effect of double compared to single gloves on needlestick injuries (RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.62).We found low-quality evidence in one small study that the use of three gloves compared to two gloves reduces the risk of perforation further (RR 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.52). There was similar low-quality evidence that the use of one fabric glove over one normal glove reduces perforations compared to two normal gloves (RR 0.24, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.93). There was moderate-quality evidence that this effect was similar for the use of one special material glove between two normal material gloves. Thicker gloves did not perform better than thinner gloves.There was moderate to low-quality evidence in two studies that an indicator system does not reduce the total number of perforations during an operation even though it reduces the number of perforations per glove used.There was moderate-quality evidence that double gloves have a similar number of outer glove perforations as single gloves, indicating that there is no loss of dexterity with double gloves (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.31). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate-quality evidence that double gloving compared to single gloving during surgery reduces perforations and blood stains on the skin, indicating a decrease in percutaneous exposure incidents. There is low-quality evidence that triple gloving and the use of special gloves can further reduce the risk of glove perforations compared to double gloving with normal material gloves. The preventive effect of double gloves on percutaneous exposure incidents in surgery does not need further research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of special material gloves and triple gloves, and of gloves in other occupational groups.

Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review.

Background: Disciplinary behaviour management strategies are implemented in schools to manage pupil behaviour. There is limited evidence of their intended impact on behaviour but there is growing concern around the potential negative impacts on pupil wellbeing. Methods: We carried out a systematic review to examine the impact of these strategies on psychosocial outcomes in pupils (PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021285427). We searched multiple sources and double-screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were done by one reviewer and checked by another. Results were narratively synthesised. Results: We included 14 studies, from 5375 citations, assessing temporary suspension (n=10), verbal reprimand (n=2), and mixed strategies (n=2). Depression was the most common outcome (n=7), followed by academic grades (n=4) and behaviour in class (n=4). All except one study were at high risk of bias. We found a recurring pattern in the evidence of disciplinary strategies associated with poor mental wellbeing and behaviour in pupils. The effect on academic attainment was unclear. Conclusions: Disciplinary behaviour management strategies may have negative impact on pupil mental wellbeing and class behaviour. These important consequences should be assessed in better designed studies before these strategies are implemented.

How does school discipline affect pupil mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review In England, a variety of approaches are used in schools to manage pupils' behaviour. There isn't much evidence about their impact on behaviour, but there's growing concern they might negatively affect pupils' wellbeing. We systematically reviewed the published research to understand the impact of these behaviour management strategies on pupils' wellbeing. We searched multiple sources and two people looked at titles, abstracts and full papers. One reviewer extracted the data and assessed the studies for risk of bias, while another checked this work. Results from all studies were combined together in text and tables. We included 14 studies from the 5,375 papers that we looked at. Included studies explored at a range of strategies, including temporary suspension (10 studies), verbal reprimand or being told off (2 studies), and a combination of strategies (2 studies). Seven studies looked at whether these strategies led to depression, four looked at the impact on exam grades and four on behaviour in class. All except one study were at high risk of bias, meaning we can't fully trust their findings. Many of the studies showed these disciplinary strategies were linked to poor mental wellbeing and behaviour in pupils. The effect on exam results wasn't clear. It appears pupil mental wellbeing and class behaviour was made worse by these strategies. These are important impacts and should be researched in high quality studies before these strategies are used further.

Physical activity interventions in European primary schools: a scoping review to create a framework for the design of tailored interventions in European countries.

Introduction: Schools provide a unique environment to facilitate physical activity for children. However, many school-based physical activity interventions have not been effective. We propose a new approach, which allows schools to tailor interventions to their specific context. This scoping review aimed to identify intervention components from previous school-based physical activity interventions to form the basis of a tailored approach in a European setting. Methods: Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines for conducting scoping reviews were followed. European school-based intervention studies aimed at increasing physical activity in children aged 7-11 years published in English since 2015 were included. Databases searched were Ovid Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science Social Sciences Citation Index, ERIC and British Education Index. Data was extracted on intervention components, context-related factors (geographical location, school size, child socioeconomic status and ethnicity), feasibility, acceptability and cost-effectiveness. A data-driven framework was developed to summarize the identified intervention components. Results: 79 articles were included, constituting 45 intervention studies. We identified 177 intervention components, which were synthesized into a framework of 60 intervention component types across 11 activity opportunities: six within the school day, three within the extended school day and two within the wider school environment. Interventions most frequently targeted physical education (21%), active and outdoor learning (16%), active breaks (15%), and school-level environmewnt (12%). Of the intervention components, 41% were delivered by school staff, 31% by the research team, and 24% by external organizations. Only 19% of intervention studies reported geographical location and only 10% reported school size. Participant ethnicity and socioeconomic information was reported by 15% and 25%, respectively. Intervention acceptability was reported in 51% of studies, feasibility in 49%, and cost effectiveness in 2%. Discussion: This review offers a first step in developing a future framework to help schools to develop context-specific, tailored interventions. However, there was a lack of reporting of contextual factors within the included studies, making it difficult to understand the role of context. Future research should seek to measure and report contextual factors, and to better understand the important aspects of context within school-based physical activity.