Systemic antibiotics for symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess in adults.

BACKGROUND: Dental pain can have a considerable detrimental effect on an individual's quality of life. Symptomatic apical periodontitis and acute apical abscess are common causes of dental pain and arise from an inflamed or necrotic dental pulp, or infection of the pulpless root canal system. Clinical guidelines recommend that the first-line treatment for teeth with symptomatic apical periodontitis or an acute apical abscess should be removal of the source of inflammation or infection by local, operative measures, and that systemic antibiotics are currently only recommended for situations where there is evidence of spreading infection (cellulitis, lymph node involvement, diffuse swelling) or systemic involvement (fever, malaise). Despite this, there is evidence that dentists continue to prescribe antibiotics for these conditions. There is concern that this could contribute to the development of antibiotic-resistant bacterial colonies both within the individual and within the community as a whole. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of systemic antibiotics provided with or without surgical intervention (such as extraction, incision and drainage of a swelling or endodontic treatment), with or without analgesics, for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 1 October 2013); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 1 October 2013); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 1 October 2013) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 1 October 2013). We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Trials Registry Platform and the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) on 1 October 2013 to identify ongoing trials. We searched for grey literature using OpenGrey (to 1 October 2013) and ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 1 October 2013). We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of systemic antibiotics in adults with a clinical diagnosis of symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess, with or without surgical intervention (considered in this situation to be extraction, incision and drainage or endodontic treatment) and with or without analgesics. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MD) (standardised mean difference (SMD) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for continuous data and, where results were meta-analysed, we used a fixed-effect model as there were fewer than four studies. We contacted study authors to obtain missing information. MAIN RESULTS: We included two trials in this review, with 62 participants included in the analyses. Both trials were conducted in university dental schools in the USA and compared the effects of oral penicillin V potassium (penicillin VK) versus a matched placebo given in conjunction with a surgical intervention (total or partial pulpectomy) and analgesics to adults with acute apical abscess or symptomatic necrotic tooth (no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement (fever, malaise)). We assessed one study as having a high risk of bias and the other study as having unclear risk of bias.The primary outcome variables presented were participant-reported pain and swelling (one trial also reported participant-reported percussion pain). One study reported the type and number of analgesics taken by participants. One study recorded the incidence of postoperative endodontic flare-ups (people who returned with symptoms that necessitated further treatment). Adverse effects as reported in one study were diarrhoea (one participant, placebo group) and fatigue and reduced energy postoperatively (one participant, antibiotic group). No studies reporting quality of life measurements were suitable for inclusion. Objective 1: systemic antibiotics versus placebo with surgical intervention and analgesics for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess. Two studies provided data for the comparison between systemic antibiotics (penicillin VK) and a matched placebo for adults with acute apical abscess or a symptomatic necrotic tooth. Participants in one study all underwent a total pulpectomy of the affected tooth while participants in the other study had their tooth treated by either partial or total pulpectomy. Participants in both trials received oral analgesics. There were no statistically significant differences in participant-reported measures of pain or swelling at any of the time points assessed within the review. The MD for pain (short ordinal numerical scale 0 to 3) was -0.03 (95% CI -0.53 to 0.47) at 24 hours; 0.32 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.86) at 48 hours and 0.08 (95% CI -0.38 to 0.54) at 72 hours. The SMD for swelling was 0.27 (95% CI -0.23 to 0.78) at 24 hours; 0.04 (95% CI -0.47 to 0.55) at 48 hours and 0.02 (95% CI -0.49 to 0.52) at 72 hours. The body of evidence was assessed as at very low quality. Objective 2: systemic antibiotics without surgical intervention for adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess. We found no studies that compared the effects of systemic antibiotics with a matched placebo delivered without a surgical intervention for symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess in adults. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very low quality evidence that is insufficient to determine the effects of systemic antibiotics on adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis or acute apical abscess.

Interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures.

BACKGROUND: Achieving informed consent is a core clinical procedure and is required before any surgical or invasive procedure is undertaken.  However, it is a complex process which requires patients be provided with information which they can understand and retain, opportunity to consider their options, and to be able to express their opinions and ask questions.  There is evidence that at present some patients undergo procedures without informed consent being achieved. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on patients, clinicians and the healthcare system of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare treatments and procedures. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases using keywords and medical subject headings: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 5, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to July 2011), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1980 to July 2011) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to July 2011). We applied no language or date restrictions within the search. We also searched reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and cluster randomised trials of interventions to promote informed consent for patients undergoing surgical and other invasive healthcare procedures. We considered an intervention to be intended to promote informed consent when information delivery about the procedure was enhanced (either by providing more information or through, for example, using new written materials), or if more opportunity to consider or deliberate on the information was provided. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors assessed the search output independently to identify potentially-relevant studies, selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data. We conducted a narrative synthesis of the included trials, and meta-analyses of outcomes where there were sufficient data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 65 randomised controlled trials from 12 countries involving patients undergoing a variety of procedures in hospitals. Nine thousand and twenty one patients were randomised and entered into these studies. Interventions used various designs and formats but the main data for results were from studies using written materials, audio-visual materials and decision aids. Some interventions were delivered before admission to hospital for the procedure while others were delivered on admission.Only one study attempted to measure the primary outcome, which was informed consent as a unified concept, but this study was at high risk of bias.  More commonly, studies measured secondary outcomes which were individual components of informed consent such as knowledge, anxiety, and satisfaction with the consent process.  Important but less commonly-measured outcomes were deliberation, decisional conflict, uptake of procedures and length of consultation.Meta-analyses showed statistically-significant improvements in knowledge when measured immediately after interventions (SMD 0.53 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) I(2) 73%), shortly afterwards (between 24 hours and 14 days) (SMD 0.68 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.93) I(2) 85%) and at a later date (15 days or more) (SMD 0.78 (95% CI 0.50 to 1.06) I(2) 82%). Satisfaction with decision making was also increased (SMD 2.25 (95% CI 1.36 to 3.15) I(2) 99%) and decisional conflict was reduced (SMD -1.80 (95% CI -3.46 to -0.14) I(2) 99%). No statistically-significant differences were found for generalised anxiety (SMD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) I(2) 82%), anxiety with the consent process (SMD 0.01 (95% CI -0.21 to 0.23) I(2) 70%) and satisfaction with the consent process (SMD 0.12 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.32) I(2) 76%). Consultation length was increased in those studies with continuous data (mean increase 1.66 minutes (95% CI 0.82 to 2.50) I(2) 0%) and in the one study with non-parametric data (control 8.0 minutes versus intervention 11.9 minutes, interquartile range (IQR) of 4 to 11.9 and 7.2 to 15.0 respectively). There were limited data for other outcomes.In general, sensitivity analyses removing studies at high risk of bias made little difference to the overall results.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Informed consent is an important ethical and practical part of patient care.  We have identified efforts by researchers to investigate interventions which seek to improve information delivery and consideration of information to enhance informed consent.  The interventions used consistently improve patient knowledge, an important prerequisite for informed consent.  This is encouraging and these measures could be widely employed although we are not able to say with confidence which types of interventions are preferable. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the high levels of heterogeneity associated with many of the main analyses although we believe there is broad evidence of beneficial outcomes for patients with the pragmatic application of interventions. Only one study attempted to measure informed consent as a unified concept.

Exploring the effect of case management in homelessness per components: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation, with meta-analysis and thematic synthesis.

Background: Adequate housing is a basic human right. The many millions of people experiencing homelessness (PEH) have a lower life expectancy and more physical and mental health problems. Practical and effective interventions to provide appropriate housing are a public health priority. Objectives: To summarise the best available evidence relating to the components of case-management interventions for PEH via a mixed methods review that explored both the effectiveness of interventions and factors that may influence its impact. Search Methods: We searched 10 bibliographic databases from 1990 to March 2021. We also included studies from Campbell Collaboration Evidence and Gap Maps and searched 28 web sites. Reference lists of included papers and systematic reviews were examined and experts contacted for additional studies. Selection Criteria: We included all randomised and non-randomised study designs exploring case management interventions where a comparison group was used. The primary outcome of interest was homelessness. Secondary outcomes included health, wellbeing, employment and costs. We also included all studies where data were collected on views and experiences that may impact on implementation. Data Collection and Analysis: We assessed risk of bias using tools developed by the Campbell Collaboration. We conducted meta-analyses of the intervention studies where possible and carried out a framework synthesis of a set of implementation studies identified by purposive sampling to represent the most 'rich' and 'thick' data. Main Results: We included 64 intervention studies and 41 implementation studies. The evidence base was dominated by studies from the USA and Canada. Participants were largely (though not exclusively) people who were literally homeless, that is, living on the streets or in shelters, and who had additional support needs. Many studies were assessed as having a medium or high risk of bias. However, there was some consistency in outcomes across studies that improved confidence in the main findings. Case Management and Housing Outcomes: Case management of any description was superior to usual care for homelessness outcomes (standardised mean difference [SMD] = -0.51 [95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.71, -0.30]; p < 0.01). For studies included in the meta-analyses, Housing First had the largest observed impact, followed by Assertive Community Treatment, Critical Time Intervention and Intensive Case Management. The only statistically significant difference was between Housing First and Intensive Case Management (SMD = -0.6 [-1.1, -0.1]; p = 0.03) at ≥12 months. There was not enough evidence to compare the above approaches with standard case management within the meta-analyses. A narrative comparison across all studies was inconclusive, though suggestive of a trend in favour of more intensive approaches. Case Management and Mental Health Outcomes: The overall evidence suggested that case management of any description was not more or less effective compared to usual care for an individual's mental health (SMD = 0.02 [-0.15, 0.18]; p = 0.817). Case Management and Other Outcomes: Based on meta-analyses, case management was superior to usual care for capability and wellbeing outcomes up to 1 year (an improvement of around one-third of an SMD; p < 0.01) but was not statistically significantly different for substance use outcomes, physical health, and employment. Case Management Components: For homelessness outcomes, there was a non-significant trend for benefits to be greater in the medium term (≤3 years) compared to long term (>3 years) (SMD = -0.64 [-1.04, -0.24] vs. -0.27 [-0.53, 0]; p = 0.16) and for in-person meetings in comparison to mixed (in-person and remote) approaches (SMD = -0.73 [-1.25,-0.21]) versus -0.26 [-0.5,-0.02]; p = 0.13). There was no evidence from meta-analyses to suggest that an individual case manager led to better outcomes then a team, and interventions with no dedicated case manager may have better outcomes than those with a named case manager (SMD = -0.36 [-0.55, -0.18] vs. -1.00 [-2.00, 0.00]; p = 0.02). There was not enough evidence from meta-analysis to assess whether the case manager should have a professional qualification, or if frequency of contact, case manager availability or conditionality (barriers due to conditions attached to service provision) influenced outcomes. However, the main theme from implementation studies concerned barriers where conditions were attached to services. Characteristics of Persons Experiencing Homelessness: No conclusions could be drawn from meta-analysis other than a trend for greater reductions in homelessness for persons with high complexity of need (two or more support needs in addition to homelessness) as compared to those with medium complexity of need (one additional support need); effect sizes were SMD = -0.61 [-0.91, -0.31] versus -0.36 [-0.68, -0.05]; p = 0.3. The Broader Context of Delivery of Case Management Programmes: Other major themes from the implementation studies included the importance of interagency partnership; provision for non-housing support and training needs of PEH (such as independent living skills), intensive community support following the move to new housing; emotional support and training needs of case managers; and an emphasis on housing safety, security and choice. Cost Effectiveness: The 12 studies with cost data provided contrasting results and no clear conclusions. Some case management costs may be largely off-set by reductions in the use of other services. Cost estimates from three North American studies were $45-52 for each additional day housed. Authors' Conclusions: Case management interventions improve housing outcomes for PEH with one or more additional support needs, with more intense interventions leading to greater benefits. Those with greater support needs may gain greater benefit. There is also evidence for improvements to capabilities and wellbeing. Current approaches do not appear to lead to mental health benefits. In terms of case management components, there is evidence in support of a team approach and in-person meetings and, from the implementation evidence, that conditions associated with service provision should be minimised. The approach within Housing First could explain the finding that overall benefits may be greater than for other types of case management. Four of its principles were identified as key themes within the implementation studies: No conditionality, offer choice, provide an individualised approach and support community building. Recommendations for further research include an expansion of the research base outside North America and further exploration of case management components and intervention cost-effectiveness.

Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally developed partnerships which target changes in health outcomes and behaviours. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes in any population or age group. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, AMED, ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DoPHER, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, IBSS, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, OpenGrey, PsycINFO, Rehabdata, Social Care Online, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI and Web of Science from 1966 through to January 2012. 'Snowballing' methods were used, including expert contact, citation tracking, website searching and reference list follow-up. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported individual health outcomes arising from interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies compared to standard care. Studies were selected independently in duplicate, with no restriction on population subgroup or disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study. MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified (28,212 participants). Only two were considered to be at low risk of bias. Eleven studies contributed data to the meta-analyses but a narrative synthesis was undertaken for all 16 studies. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one showed health benefit, four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured but no clear overall health gain, and one showed no evidence of health gain. Four studies considered lifestyle improvements, of which one showed some limited short-term improvements, two failed to show health gains for the intervention population, and one showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies considered chronic disease management and all failed to demonstrate health gains. Three studies considered environmental improvements and adjustments, of which two showed some health improvements and one did not.Meta-analysis of three studies exploring the effect of collaboration on mortality showed no effect (pooled relative risk of 1.04 in favour of control, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Analysis of five studies (with high heterogeneity) looking at the effect of collaboration on mental health resulted in a standardised mean difference of -0.28, a small effect favouring the intervention (95% CI -0.51 to -0.06). From two studies, there was a statistically significant but clinically modest improvement in the global assessment of function symptoms score scale, with a pooled mean difference (on a scale of 1 to 100) of -2.63 favouring the intervention (95% CI -5.16 to -0.10).For physical health (6 studies) and quality of life (4 studies) the results were not statistically significant, the standardised mean differences were -0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.07) and -0.08 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.27), respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.

PROTOCOL: Exploring the effect of case management in homelessness per components: A systematic review of effectiveness and implementation, with meta-analysis and thematic synthesis.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The objectives are as follows: To carry out a mixed methods review to summarise current evidence relating to the components of case-management interventions for people experiencing homelessness.

Collaboration between local health and local government agencies for health improvement.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced in order to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally-developed partnerships which target changes in individual health outcomes and behaviours. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: Twenty-five databases were searched using a highly sensitive search strategy. 'Snowballing' methods were also used, including expert contact, website searching and reference list follow up. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported on interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies. Studies were selected independently in duplicate by two of five authors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: From the team of five review authors, two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven studies were identified, presenting information on a total of 26,686 participants. Owing to the heterogeneity between studies a narrative synthesis was undertaken. The included studies covered a range of topics. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one study showed health benefit; four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured, but no clear overall health gain; and one study showed no evidence of health gain. Two studies were related to lifestyle improvements of which one failed to show health gains for the intervention population, while the other showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies were related to chronic disease management and all three failed to demonstrate health gains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that inter­agency collaboration, compared to standard services, leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, methodological flaws in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these flaws are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programs, using more robust designs, with integrated process evaluations and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why.When updating this review, we will analyse any partnership or process evaluations of our included studies to try to identify markers of success in local collaborative partnerships that could inform policy developments in the future.

Modification of the home environment for the reduction of injuries.

BACKGROUND: Injury in the home is common, accounting for approximately a third of all injuries. The majority of injuries to children under five and people aged 75 and older occur at home. Multifactorial injury prevention interventions have been shown to reduce injuries in the home. However, few studies have focused specifically on the impact of physical adaptations to the home environment and the effectiveness of such interventions needs to be ascertained. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of modifications to the home environment on the reduction of injuries due to environmental hazards. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE and other specialised databases. We also scanned conference proceedings and reference lists. We contacted the first author of all included randomised controlled trials. The searches were last updated to the end of December 2009, and were not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors screened all abstracts for relevance, outcome and design. Two authors independently assessed methodological quality and extracted data from each eligible study. We performed meta-analysis to combine effect measures, using a random-effects model. We assessed heterogeneity using an I(2) statistic and a Chi(2) test. MAIN RESULTS: We found 28 published studies and one unpublished study. Only two studies were sufficiently similar to allow pooling of data for statistical analyses. Studies were divided into three groups; children, older people and the general population/mixed age group. None of the studies focusing on children or older people demonstrated a reduction in injuries that were a direct result of environmental modification in the home. One study in older people demonstrated a reduction in falls and one a reduction in falls and injurious falls that may have been due to hazard reduction. One meta-analysis was performed which examined the effects on falls of multifactorial interventions consisting of home hazard assessment and modification, medication review, health and bone assessment and exercise (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.23). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to determine whether interventions focused on modifying environmental home hazards reduce injuries. Further interventions to reduce hazards in the home should be evaluated by adequately designed randomised controlled trials measuring injury outcomes. Recruitment of large study samples to measure effect must be a major consideration for future trials. Researchers should also consider using factorial designs to allow the evaluation of individual components of multifactorial interventions.

Characteristics of child dental neglect: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Neglect of a child's oral health can lead to pain, poor growth and impaired quality of life. In populations where there is a high prevalence of dental caries, the determination of which children are experiencing dental neglect is challenging. This systematic review aims to identify the features of oral neglect in children. METHODS: Fifteen databases spanning 1947-2012 were searched; these were supplemented by hand searching of 4 specialist journals, 5 websites and references of full texts. Included: studies of children 0-18 years with confirmed oral neglect undergoing a standardised dental examination; excluded: physical/sexual abuse. All relevant studies underwent two independent reviews (+/- 3rd review) using standardised critical appraisal. RESULTS: Of 3863 potential studies screened, 83 studies were reviewed and 9 included (representing 1595 children). Features included: failure or delay in seeking dental treatment; failure to comply with/complete treatment; failure to provide basic oral care; co-existent adverse impact on the child e.g. pain and swelling. Two studies developed and implemented 'dental neglect' screening tools with success. The importance of Quality of Life tools to identify impact of neglected dental care are also highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: A small body of literature addresses this topic, using varying definitions of neglect, and standards of oral examination. While failure/delay in seeking care with adverse dental consequences were highlighted, differentiating dental caries from dental neglect is difficult, and there is a paucity of data on precise clinical features to aid in this distinction. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Diagnosing dental neglect can be challenging, influencing a reluctance to report cases. Published evidence does exist to support these referrals when conditions as above are described, although further quality case control studies defining distinguishing patterns of dental caries would be welcome.

The most effective way of delivering a train-the-trainers program: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Previous literature has shown that multifaceted, interactive interventions may be the most effective way to train health and social care professionals. A Train-the-Trainer (TTT) model could incorporate all these components. We conducted a systematic review to determine the overall effectiveness and optimal delivery of TTT programs. METHODS: We searched 15 databases. Reference lists and online resources were also screened. Studies with an objective follow-up measure collected over 1 week after the intervention were included. The intervention had to be based on a TTT model for health and social care professionals. RESULTS: Eighteen studies met the inclusion criteria. TTT interventions varied greatly, ranging from didactic presentations to group discussions and role-plays. The heterogeneity of the studies and limited data prevented meta-analysis. A narrative review found that the TTT programs in 13 studies helped to increase knowledge, improve clinical behavior, or produce better patient outcomes. One study showed no effect. Three studies showed possible effect and one study showed that a CD-ROM training method was more effective than a TTT training method in improving participants' knowledge. Ratings of the studies' methodologies suggested moderate risk of bias, which limits interpretation of the results. DISCUSSION: There is evidence that using a blended learning approach to deliver TTT programs--combining different techniques such as interactive, multifaceted methods and accompanying learning materials--can help to effectively disseminate and implement guidelines and curricula to health and social care professionals. However, further research is needed to determine the optimum "blend" of techniques.