Do patient decision aids help people who are facing decisions about solid organ transplantation? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Decisions about solid organ transplantation are complex. Patient decision aids (PDAs) enhance traditional education, by improving knowledge and supporting patients to align their values with treatments. There are increasing numbers of transplantation PDAs, however, it is unclear whether these are effective. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the impact of PDA use in transplantation. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases from database inception to October 26, 2020. We included primary studies of solid organ transplantation PDAs defined by the International Patient Decision Aids Standards. All comparators and reported outcomes were included. Mean difference in knowledge (before vs. after) was standardized on a 100-point scale. Pooled-effect for PDAs was calculated and compared to the standard of care for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyzed using random effects. Analysis of all other outcomes was limited due to heterogeneity (PROSPERO registration, CRD42020215940). RESULTS: Seven thousand four hundred and sixty-three studies were screened, 163 underwent full-text review, and 15 studies with 4278 participants were included. Nine studies were RCTs. Seven RCTs assessed knowledge; all demonstrated increased knowledge with PDA use (mean difference, 8.01;95%CI 4.69-11.34, p < .00001). There were many other outcomes, including behavior and acceptability, but these were too heterogenous and infrequently assessed for meaningful synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: This review found that PDAs increase knowledge compared to standard education, though the effect size is small. PDAs are mostly considered acceptable; however, it is difficult to determine whether they improve other decision-making components due to the limited evidence about non-knowledge-based outcomes.

Risk factors associated with unintentional house fire incidents, injuries and deaths in high-income countries: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the distinguishing risk factors associated with unintentional house fire incidents, injuries and deaths. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: A range of bibliographical databases and grey literature were searched from their earliest records to January 2016. To ensure the magnitude of risk could be quantified, only those study types which contained a control group, and undertook appropriate statistical analyses were included. A best evidence synthesis was conducted instead of a meta-analysis due to study heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eleven studies investigating a variety of risk factors and outcomes were identified. Studies ranged from medium to low quality with no high quality studies identified. Characteristics commonly associated with increased risk of house fire incidents, injuries and fatalities included: higher numbers of residents, male, children under the age of 5 years, non-working households, smoking, low income, non-privately owned properties, apartments and buildings in poor condition. Several risk factors were only associated with one outcome (eg, living alone was only associated with increased risk of injurious fires), and households with older residents were at increased risk of injurious fires, but significantly less likely to experience a house fire in the first place. CONCLUSIONS: This best evidence synthesis indicates that several resident and property characteristics are associated with risk of experiencing house fire incidents, injuries or death. These findings should be considered by the Fire and Rescue Services and others with a role in fire prevention. Future research should adopt robust, standardised study designs to permit meta-analyses and enable stronger conclusions to be drawn.

Adherence to exercise referral schemes by participants - what do providers and commissioners need to know? A systematic review of barriers and facilitators.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity levels are rising worldwide with major implications for the health of the population and the prevalence of non-communicable diseases. Exercise referral schemes (ERS) continue to be a popular intervention utilised by healthcare practitioners to increase physical activity. We undertook a systematic review of views studies in order to inform guidance from the UK National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on exercise referral schemes to promote physical activity. This paper reports on the participant views identified, to inform those seeking to refine schemes to increase attendance and adherence. METHODS: Fifteen databases and a wide range of websites and grey literature sources were searched systematically for publications from 1995 to June 2013. In addition, a range of supplementary methods including, a call for evidence by NICE, contacting authors, reference list checking and citation tracking were utilised to identify additional research. Studies were included where they detailed schemes for adults aged 19 years or older who were 'inactive' (i.e. they are not currently meeting UK physical activity guidelines). Study selection was conducted independently in duplicate. Quality assessment was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second, with 20 % of papers being considered independently in duplicate. Papers were coded in qualitative data analysis software Atlas.ti. This review was reported in accordance with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement). RESULTS: Evidence from 33 UK-relevant studies identified that support from providers, other attendees and family was an important facilitator of adherence and 'making exercise a habit' post programme, as was the variety and personalised nature of sessions offered. Barriers to attendance included the inconvenient timing of sessions, their cost and location. An intimidating gym atmosphere, a dislike of the music and TV and a lack of confidence in operating gym equipment were frequently reported. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide valuable insights that commissioners and providers should consider. The main themes were consistent across a large number of studies and further research should concentrate on programmes that reflect these findings.

Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Segment of the Cochrane Register of Studies,The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PsycINFO, ASSIA, the British Nursing Index, Chinese CNKI databases, EPPI Centre (DoPHER, TRoPHI), ERIC, HMIC, Sociological Abstracts, SPORT Discus, Transport Database and Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index). We also scanned websites of the EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; Health-Evidence.org; the International Union for Health Promotion and Education; the NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology (NCCHTA); the US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and NICE and SIGN guidelines. Reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews, guidelines and primary studies were searched and we contacted experts in the field. The searches were updated to 16 January 2014, unrestricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster randomised controlled trials, randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental designs which used a control population for comparison, interrupted time-series studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies were included. Only studies with a minimum six-month follow up from the start of the intervention to measurement of outcomes were included. Community wide interventions had to comprise at least two broad strategies aimed at physical activity for the whole population. Studies which randomised individuals from the same community were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias. Each study was assessed for the setting, the number of included components and their intensity. The primary outcome measures were grouped according to whether they were dichotomous (per cent physically active, per cent physically active during leisure time, and per cent physically inactive) or continuous (leisure time physical activity time (time spent)), walking (time spent), energy expenditure (as metabolic equivalents or METS)). For dichotomous measures we calculated the unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. For continuous measures we calculated percentage change from baseline, unadjusted and adjusted. MAIN RESULTS: After the selection process had been completed, 33 studies were included. A total of 267 communities were included in the review (populations between 500 and 1.9 million). Of the included studies, 25 were set in high income countries and eight were in low income countries. The interventions varied by the number of strategies included and their intensity. Almost all of the interventions included a component of building partnerships with local governments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (29 studies). None of the studies provided results by socio-economic disadvantage or other markers of equity. However, of those included studies undertaken in high income countries, 14 studies were described as being provided to deprived, disadvantaged or low socio-economic communities. Nineteen studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 10 studies were unclear, and four studies had a low risk of bias. Selection bias was a major concern with these studies, with only five studies using randomisation to allocate communities. Four studies were judged as being at low risk of selection bias although 19 studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Twelve studies had a high risk of detection bias, 13 an unclear risk and four a low risk of bias. Generally, the better designed studies showed no improvement in the primary outcome measure of physical activity at a population level.All four of the newly included, and judged to be at low risk of bias, studies (conducted in Japan, United Kingdom and USA) used randomisation to allocate the intervention to the communities. Three studies used a cluster randomised design and one study used a stepped wedge design. The approach to measuring the primary outcome of physical activity was better in these four studies than in many of the earlier studies. One study obtained objective population representative measurements of physical activity by accelerometers, while the remaining three low-risk studies used validated self-reported measures. The study using accelerometry, conducted in low income, high crime communities of USA, emphasised social marketing, partnership with police and environmental improvements. No change in the seven-day average daily minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity was observed during the two years of operation. Some program level effect was observed with more people walking in the intervention community, however this result was not evident in the whole community. Similarly, the two studies conducted in the United Kingdom (one in rural villages and the other in urban London; both using communication, partnership and environmental strategies) found no improvement in the mean levels of energy expenditure per person per week, measured from one to four years from baseline. None of the three low risk studies reporting a dichotomous outcome of physical activity found improvements associated with the intervention.Overall, there was a noticeable absence of reporting of benefit in physical activity for community wide interventions in the included studies. However, as a group, the interventions undertaken in China appeared to have the greatest possibility of success with high participation rates reported. Reporting bias was evident with two studies failing to report physical activity measured at follow up. No adverse events were reported.The data pertaining to cost and sustainability of the interventions were limited and varied. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous studies have been undertaken, there is a noticeable inconsistency of the findings in the available studies and this is confounded by serious methodological issues within the included studies. The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that the multi-component community wide interventions studied effectively increased physical activity for the population, although some studies with environmental components observed more people walking.

Respecting living kidney donor autonomy: an argument for liberalising living kidney donor acceptance criteria.

Doctors routinely refuse donation offers from prospective living kidney donors with certain comorbidities such as diabetes or obesity out of concern for donor wellbeing. This refusal occurs despite the ongoing shortage of kidney transplants and the superior performance of living donor kidney transplants compared to those from deceased donors. In this paper, we argue that this paternalistic refusal by doctors is unjustified and that, within limits, there should be greater acceptance of such donations. We begin by describing possible weak and strong paternalistic justifications of current conservative donor acceptance guidelines and practices. We then justify our position by outlining the frequently under-recognised benefits and the routinely overestimated harms of such donation, before discussing the need to respect the autonomy of willing donors with certain comorbidities. Finally, we respond to a number of possible objections to our proposal for more liberal kidney donor acceptance criteria. We use the situation in Australia as our case study, but our argument is applicable to comparable situations around the world.

Patients' and Healthcare Professionals' Experiences and Views of Recurrent Urinary Tract Infections in Women: Qualitative Evidence Synthesis and Meta-Ethnography.

BACKGROUND: Urinary tract infections (UTIs) are a common and significant problem for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. Recurrent UTIs (rUTIs) are common, with a 3% prevalence in the UK. Although acute UTIs have a significant negative impact on the lives of patients, evidence of the impact of rUTIs is limited. To enhance shared decision-making around rUTI management, it is important to understand both the patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives. The objective of this qualitative evidence synthesis is to understand patients' and HCPs' experiences and views in the management of rUTIs. METHODS: A qualitative evidence synthesis (QES) was performed that included primary qualitative studies involving patients with rUTIs or primary care HCPs who manage patients with rUTIs, up to June 2022. The following databases were searched: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, ASSIA, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials, OpenGrey, and the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC). The QES was prospectively registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022295662). Reciprocal translation was conducted and developed into a line of argument synthesis. We appraised the confidence in our review findings by using GRADE-CERQual. RESULTS: Twelve studies were included in the final review; ten of those included patients, and three included HCPs (one study included both). Our review demonstrates that women with rUTIs have a unique experience, but it is generally of a chronic condition with significant impacts on numerous aspects of their lives. Antibiotics can be "transformative", but patients have serious concerns about their use and feel non-antibiotic options need further research and discussion. HCPs share similar views about the impacts of rUTIs and concerns about antibiotic use and find the management of rUTIs to be complex and challenging. Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessment of the review findings, we have moderate confidence in those related to patients and low confidence in those related to HCPs. New conceptual models for both patients and HCPs are presented. CONCLUSIONS: This review has significant clinical implications. Patients require information on antibiotic alternative acute and preventative treatments for rUTIs, and this is not currently being addressed. There are communication gaps around the impact of rUTIs on patients, their perceived expectation for antibiotics, and the reasons for treatment failure. Further development of current clinical guidance and a patient decision aid would help address these issues.

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.

Change in alcohol outlet density and alcohol-related harm to population health (CHALICE).

BACKGROUND: Excess alcohol consumption has serious adverse effects on health and violence-related harm. In the UK around 37% of men and 29% of women drink to excess and 20% and 13% report binge drinking. The potential impact on population health from a reduction in consumption is considerable. One proposed method to reduce consumption is to reduce availability through controls on alcohol outlet density. In this study we investigate the impact of a change in the density of alcohol outlets on alcohol consumption and alcohol-related harms to health in the community. METHODS/DESIGN: A natural experiment of the effect of change in outlet density between 2005-09, in Wales, UK; population 2.4 million aged 16 years and over. Data on outlets are held by the 22 local authorities in Wales under The Licensing Act 2003. The study outcomes are change in (1) alcohol consumption using data from annual Welsh Health Surveys, (2) alcohol-related hospital admissions using the Patient Episode Database for Wales, (3) Accident & Emergency department attendances between midnight-6am, and (4) alcohol-related violent crime against the person, using Police data. The data will be anonymously record-linked within the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank at individual and 2001 Census Lower Super Output Area levels. New methods of network analysis will be used to estimate outlet density. Longitudinal statistical analysis will use (1) multilevel ordinal models of consumption and logistic models of admissions and Accident & Emergency attendance as a function of change in individual outlet exposure, adjusting for confounding variables, and (2) spatial models of the change in counts/rates of each outcome measure and outlet density. We will assess the impact on health inequalities and will correct for population migration. DISCUSSION: This inter-disciplinary study requires expertise in epidemiology and public health, health informatics, medical statistics, geographical information science, and research into alcohol-related violence. Information governance requirements for the use of record-linked data have been approved together with formal data access agreements for the use of the Welsh Health Survey and Police data. The dissemination strategy will include policy makers in national and local government. Public engagement will be through the Clinical Research Collaboration-Cymru "Involving People" network, which will provide input into the implementation of the research.

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.

A scoping review of system-level mechanisms to prevent children being in out-of-home care.

Identifying which approaches can effectively reduce the need for out-of-home care for children is critically important. Despite the proliferation of different interventions and approaches globally, evidence summaries on this topic are limited. This study is a scoping review using a realist framework to explore what research evidence exists about reducing the number of children and young people in care. Searches of databases and websites were used to identify studies evaluating intervention effect on at least one of the following outcomes: reduction in initial entry to care; increase in family reunification post care. Data extracted from papers included type of study, outcome, type and level of intervention, effect, mechanism and moderator, implementation issues and economic (EMMIE) considerations. Data were coded by: primary outcome; level of intervention (community, policy, organisation, family or child); and type of evidence, using the realist EMMIE framework. This is the first example of a scoping review on any topic using this framework. Evaluated interventions were grouped and analysed according to system-level mechanism. We present the spread of evidence across system-level mechanisms and an overview of how each system-level mechanism might reduce the number of children in care. Implications and gaps are identified.

Community wide interventions for increasing physical activity.

BACKGROUND: Multi-strategic community wide interventions for physical activity are increasingly popular but their ability to achieve population level improvements is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of community wide, multi-strategic interventions upon population levels of physical activity. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE, CINAHL, LILACS, PsycINFO, ASSIA, The British Nursing Index, Chinese CNKI databases, EPPI Centre (DoPHER, TRoPHI), ERIC, HMIC, Sociological Abstracts, SPORTDiscus, Transport Database and Web of Science (Science Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index). We also scanned websites of the EU Platform on Diet, Physical Activity and Health; Health-Evidence.ca; the International Union for Health Promotion and Education; the NIHR Coordinating Centre for Health Technology (NCCHTA) and NICE and SIGN guidelines. Reference lists of all relevant systematic reviews, guidelines and primary studies were followed up. We contacted experts in the field from the National Obesity Observatory Oxford, Oxford University; Queensland Health, Queensland University of Technology, the University of Central Queensland; the University of Tennessee and Washington University; and handsearched six relevant journals. The searches were last updated to the end of November 2009 and were not restricted by language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cluster randomised controlled trials, randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-experimental designs which used a control population for comparison, interrupted time-series (ITS) studies, and prospective controlled cohort studies (PCCS) were included. Only studies with a minimum six-month follow up from the start of the intervention to measurement of outcomes were included. Community wide interventions had to comprise at least two broad strategies aimed at physical activity for the whole population. Studies which randomised individuals from the same community were excluded. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the risk of bias of each included study. Non-English language papers were reviewed with the assistance of an epidemiologist interpreter. Each study was assessed for the setting, the number of included components and their intensity. Outcome measures were grouped according to whether they were dichotomous (physically active, physically active during leisure time and sedentary or physically inactive) or continuous (leisure time physical activity, walking, energy expenditure). For dichotomous measures we calculated the unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. For continuous measures we calculated net percentage change from baseline, unadjusted and adjusted risk difference, and the unadjusted and adjusted relative risk. MAIN RESULTS: After the selection process had been completed 25 studies were included in the review. Of the included studies, 19 were set in high income countries, using the World Bank economic classification, and the remaining six were in low income countries. The interventions varied by the number of strategies included and their intensity. Almost all of the interventions included a component of building partnerships with local governments or non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (22 studies). None of the studies provided results by socio-economic disadvantage or other markers of equity consideration. However of those included studies undertaken in high income countries, 11 studies were described by the authors as being provided to deprived, disadvantaged, or low socio-economic communities.Fifteen studies were identified as having a high risk of bias, 10 studies were unclear, and no studies had a low risk of bias. Selection bias was a major concern with these studies, with only one study using randomisation to allocate communities (Simon 2008). No studies were judged as being at low risk of selection bias although 16 studies were considered to have an unclear risk of bias. Eleven studies had a high risk of detection bias, 10 with an unclear risk and four with no risk. Assessment of detection bias included an assessment of the validity of the measurement tools and quality of outcome measures. The effects reported were inconsistent across the studies and the measures. Some of the better designed studies showed no improvement in measures of physical activity. Publication bias was evident. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although numerous studies have been undertaken, there is a noticeable inconsistency of the findings of the available studies and this is confounded by serious methodological issues within the included studies. The body of evidence in this review does not support the hypothesis that multi-component community wide interventions effectively increase population levels of physical activity. There is a clear need for well-designed intervention studies and such studies should focus on the quality of the measurement of physical activity, the frequency of measurement and the allocation to intervention and control communities.

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.

Aspirin and cancer survival: a systematic review and meta-analyses of 118 observational studies of aspirin and 18 cancers.

BACKGROUND: Despite the accumulation of research papers on aspirin and cancer, there is doubt as to whether or not aspirin is an acceptable and effective adjunct treatment of cancer. The results of several randomised trials are awaited, and these should give clear evidence on three common cancers: colon, breast and prostate. The biological effects of aspirin appear likely however to be of relevance to cancer generally, and to metastatic spread, rather than just to one or a few cancers, and there is already a lot of evidence, mainly from observational studies, on the association between aspirin and survival in a wide range of cancers. AIMS: In order to test the hypothesis that aspirin taking is associated with an increase in the survival of patients with cancer, we conducted a series of systematic literature searches to identify clinical studies of patients with cancer, some of whom took aspirin after having received a diagnosis of cancer. RESULTS: Three literature searches identified 118 published observational studies in patients with 18 different cancers. Eighty-one studies report on aspirin and cancer mortality and 63 studies report on all-cause mortality. Within a total of about a quarter of a million patients with cancer who reported taking aspirin, representing 20%-25% of the total cohort, we found aspirin to be associated with a reduction of about 20% in cancer deaths (pooled hazard ratio (HR): 0.79; 95% confidence intervals: 0.73, 0.84 in 70 reports and a pooled odds ratio (OR): 0.67; 0.45, 1.00 in 11 reports) with similar reductions in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.80; 0.74, 0.86 in 56 studies and OR: 0.57; 0.36, 0.89 in seven studies). The relative safety of aspirin taking was examined in the studies and the corresponding author of every paper was written to asking for additional information on bleeding. As expected, the frequency of bleeding increased in the patients taking aspirin, but fatal bleeding was rare and no author reported a significant excess in fatal bleeds associated with aspirin. No author mentioned cerebral bleeding in the patients they had followed. CONCLUSIONS: There is a considerable body of evidence suggestive of about a 20% reduction in mortality in patients with cancer who take aspirin, and the benefit appears not to be restricted to one or a few cancers. Aspirin, therefore, appears to deserve serious consideration as an adjuvant treatment of cancer, and patients with cancer, and their carers, have a right to be informed of the available evidence.

Musculoskeletal care pathways for adults with hip and knee pain referred for specialist opinion: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Musculoskeletal care pathways are variable and inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the evidence for the clinical and/or cost effectiveness of current care pathways for adults with hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Electronic database searches were carried out in MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, PEDro, PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central and Health Management Information Consortium without language restriction from 1990 onwards. Websites were reviewed for grey literature. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All study designs and documents that considered care pathways for adults with musculoskeletal hip and/or knee pain referred for specialist opinion were screened by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed using The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for randomised controlled trials and the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction and quality assessment were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Findings are reported narratively. RESULTS: The titles and abstracts of 1248 articles were screened and 140 full-text articles retrieved. 19 papers reporting 17 studies met the study inclusion criteria. Quality was low due to study design and methodological flaws. Most of the outcomes relate to organisational process at the 'meso' level of a whole systems approach. CONCLUSION: It can be concluded that the pathway is not linear, containing variations and activity loops. The available evidence suggests that, from the point of referral for specialist opinion, a model is required that integrates the skills of all the different healthcare professionals and streamlining is required to ensure that individuals are seen by the healthcare professional that best meets their needs. There is very limited evidence of patient experience informing knee and hip care pathways. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016035510.

Mapping the evidence about what works to safely reduce the entry of children and young people into statutory care: a systematic scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The increasing number of children and young people entering statutory care in the UK is a significant social, health and educational priority. Development of effective approaches to safely reduce this number remains a complex but critical issue. Despite a proliferation in interventions, evidence summaries are limited. The present protocol outlines a scoping review of research evidence to identify what works in safely reducing the number of children and young people (aged ≤18 years) entering statutory social care. The mapping of evidence gaps, clusters and uncertainties will inform the research programme of the newly funded Department for Education's What Works Centre for Children's Social Care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The review uses Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology. Electronic database and website searches will identify studies targeting reduction of care entry, reduction of care re-entry and increase in post-care reunification. Supplementary searching techniques will include international expert consultation. Abstracts and full-text studies will be independently screened by two reviewers. Ten per cent of data abstraction will be independently conducted by two reviewers, with the remainder being extracted and then verified by a second reviewer. Descriptive numerical summaries and a thematic qualitative synthesis will be generated. Evidence will be synthesised according to primary outcome, intervention point (mapped across socioecological domains) and the realist EMMIE categorisation of evidence type (Effectiveness; Mechanisms of change; Moderators; Implementation; Economic evaluation). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Outputs will be a conceptual evidence map, a descriptive table quantitatively summarising evidence and a qualitative narrative summary. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations, the What Works Centre website, and knowledge translation events with policy-makers and practitioners. Findings will inform the primary research programme of the What Works Centre for Children's Social Care and the subsequent suite of systematic reviews to be conducted by the Centre in this substantive area.

Systematic review update of observational studies further supports aspirin role in cancer treatment: Time to share evidence and decision-making with patients?

BACKGROUND: Evidence is growing that low-dose aspirin used as an adjuvant treatment of cancer is associated with an increased survival and a reduction in metastatic spread. We therefore extended up to August 2017 an earlier systematic search and meta-analyses of published studies of low-dose aspirin taken by patients with a diagnosis of cancer. METHODS: Searches were completed in Medline and Embase to August 2017 using a pre-defined search strategy to identify reports of relevant studies. References in all the selected papers were scanned. Two reviewers independently applied pre-determined eligibility criteria and extracted data on cause-specific cancer deaths, overall mortality and the occurrence of metastatic spread. Meta-analyses were then conducted for different cancers and heterogeneity and publication bias assessed. Sensitivity analyses and attempts to reduce heterogeneity were conducted. RESULTS: Analyses of 29 studies reported since an earlier review up to April 2015 are presented in this report, and these are then pooled with the 42 studies in our earlier publication. Overall meta-analyses of the 71 studies are presented, based on a total of over 120 thousand patients taking aspirin. Ten of the studies also give evidence on the incidence of metastatic cancer spread. There are now twenty-nine observational studies describing colorectal cancer (CRC) and post-diagnostic aspirin. Pooling the estimates of reduction by aspirin which are reported as hazard ratios (HR), gives an overall HR for aspirin and CRC mortality 0.72 (95% CI 0.64-0.80). Fourteen observational studies have reported on aspirin and breast cancer mortality and pooling those that report the association with aspirin as a hazard ratio gives HR 0.69 (0.53-0.90). Sixteen studies report on aspirin and prostate cancer mortality and a pooled estimate yields an HR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.73-1.05). Data from 12 reports relating to other cancers are also listed. Ten studies give evidence of a reduction in metastatic spread; four give a pooled HR 0.31 (95% CI 0.18, 0.54) and five studies which reported odds ratio of metastatic spread give OR 0.79 (0.66 to 0.95). CONCLUSION: Being almost entirely from observational studies, the evidence of benefit from aspirin is limited. There is heterogeneity between studies and the results are subject to important biases, only some of which can be identified. Nevertheless, the evidence would seem to merit wide discussion regarding whether or not it is adequate to justify the recommendation of low-dose therapeutic aspirin, and if it is, for which cancers?