Barriers to and facilitators of living guidelines use in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Living guidelines provide reliable, ongoing evidence surveillance and regularly updated recommendations for healthcare decision-making. As a relatively new concept, most of the initial application of living approaches has been undertaken in high-income countries. However, in this scoping review, we looked at what is currently known about how living guidelines were developed, used and applied in low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: Searches for published literature were conducted in Medline, Global Health, Cochrane Library and Embase. Grey literature was identified using Google Scholar and the WHO website. In addition, the reference lists of included studies were checked for missing studies. Studies were included if they described or reflected on the development, application or utility of living guideline approaches for low-income and middle-income countries. RESULTS: After a full-text review, 21 studies were included in the review, reporting on the development and application of living recommendations in low-income and middle-income countries. Most studies reported living guideline activities conducted by the WHO (15, 71.4%), followed by China (4, 19%), Chile (1, 4.8%) and Lebanon (1, 4.8%). All studies based on WHO reports relate to living COVID-19 management guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the studies in this review were WHO-reported studies focusing solely on COVID-19 disease treatment living guidelines. However, there was no clear explanation of how living guidelines were used nor information on the prospects for and obstacles to the implementation of living guidelines in low-income and middle-income countries.

Exploring the use and impact of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: where to from here?

OBJECTIVES: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce has been developing, maintaining, and disseminating living guidelines and decision support tools (clinical flowcharts) for the care of people with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 since 2020. Living guidelines, a form of living evidence, are a relatively new approach; hence, more work is required to determine how to optimize their use to inform practice, policy, and decision-making and to explore implementation, uptake, and impact implications. An update of an earlier impact evaluation was conducted to understand sustained awareness and use of the guidelines; the factors that facilitate the widespread adoption of the guidelines and to explore the perceived strengths and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A mixed-methods impact evaluation was conducted. Surveys collected both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Participants included Australian healthcare practitioners providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and people involved in policy-making. Data were collected on awareness, use, impact, strengths, and opportunities for improvement of the guidelines and flow charts. RESULTS: A total of 148 participants completed the survey and 21 people were interviewed between January and March 2022. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and more than 75% of participants reported that the guidelines were used within their workplace. Participants described the Taskforce website and guidelines as trustworthy, valuable, and reliable sources of up-to-date evidence-based information. The evaluation highlighted the varied ways the guidelines were being used across a range of settings and the diverse impacts they have from those at a clinical level to impacts at a policy level. Barriers to and enablers of impact and uptake of the guideline were explored. CONCLUSION: This evaluation highlights the value of living guidelines during a pandemic when the evidence base is rapidly changing and expanding. It presents useful understanding of the ways clinicians and others use living evidence to inform their clinical practice and decision-making and the diverse impacts the guidelines are having around Australia.

Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?

BACKGROUND: While there has been widespread global acceptance of the importance of evidence-informed policy, many opportunities to inform health policy with research are missed, often because of a mismatch between when and where reliable evidence is needed, and when and where it is available. 'Living evidence' is an approach where systematic evidence syntheses (e.g. living reviews, living guidelines, living policy briefs, etc.) are continually updated to incorporate new relevant evidence as it becomes available. Living evidence approaches have the potential to overcome a major barrier to evidence-informed policy, making up-to-date systematic summaries of policy-relevant research available at any time that policy-makers need them. These approaches are likely to be particularly beneficial given increasing calls for policy that is responsive, and rapidly adaptive to changes in the policy context. We describe the opportunities presented by living evidence for evidence-informed policy-making and highlight areas for further exploration. DISCUSSION: There are several elements of living approaches to evidence synthesis that might support increased and improved use of evidence to inform policy. Reviews are explicitly prioritised to be 'living' by partnerships between policy-makers and researchers based on relevance to decision-making, as well as uncertainty of existing evidence, and likelihood that new evidence will arise. The ongoing nature of the work means evidence synthesis teams can be dynamic and engage with policy-makers in a variety of ways over time; and synthesis topics, questions and methods can be adapted as policy interests or contextual factors shift. Policy-makers can sign-up to be notified when relevant new evidence is found, and can be confident that living syntheses are up-to-date and contain all research whenever they access them. The always up-to-date nature of living evidence syntheses means producers can rapidly demonstrate availability of relevant, reliable evidence when it is needed, addressing a frequently cited barrier to evidence-informed policymaking. CONCLUSIONS: While there are challenges to be overcome, living evidence provides opportunities to enable policy-makers to access up-to-date evidence whenever they need it and also enable researchers to respond to the issues of the day with up-to-date research; and update policy-makers on changes in the evidence base as they arise. It also provides an opportunity to build flexible partnerships between researchers and policy-makers to ensure that evidence syntheses reflect the changing needs of policy-makers.

Which clinical research questions are the most important? Development and preliminary validation of the Australia & New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT).

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: High quality clinical research that addresses important questions requires significant resources. In resource-constrained environments, projects will therefore need to be prioritized. The Australia and New Zealand Musculoskeletal (ANZMUSC) Clinical Trials Network aimed to develop a stakeholder-based, transparent, easily implementable tool that provides a score for the 'importance' of a research question which could be used to rank research projects in order of importance. METHODS: Using a mixed-methods, multi-stage approach that included a Delphi survey, consensus workshop, inter-rater reliability testing, validity testing and calibration using a discrete-choice methodology, the Research Question Importance Tool (ANZMUSC-RQIT) was developed. The tool incorporated broad stakeholder opinion, including consumers, at each stage and is designed for scoring by committee consensus. RESULTS: The ANZMUSC-RQIT tool consists of 5 dimensions (compared to 6 dimensions for an earlier version of RQIT): (1) extent of stakeholder consensus, (2) social burden of health condition, (3) patient burden of health condition, (4) anticipated effectiveness of proposed intervention, and (5) extent to which health equity is addressed by the research. Each dimension is assessed by defining ordered levels of a relevant attribute and by assigning a score to each level. The scores for the dimensions are then summed to obtain an overall ANZMUSC-RQIT score, which represents the importance of the research question. The result is a score on an interval scale with an arbitrary unit, ranging from 0 (minimal importance) to 1000. The ANZMUSC-RQIT dimensions can be reliably ordered by committee consensus (ICC 0.73-0.93) and the overall score is positively associated with citation count (standardised regression coefficient 0.33, p<0.001) and journal impact factor group (OR 6.78, 95% CI 3.17 to 14.50 for 3rd tertile compared to 1st tertile of ANZMUSC-RQIT scores) for 200 published musculoskeletal clinical trials. CONCLUSION: We propose that the ANZMUSC-RQIT is a useful tool for prioritising the importance of a research question.

Utility of phosphatidylethanol testing as an objective measure of alcohol use during the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery.

BACKGROUND: The risk of alcohol use disorder increases after bariatric surgery. Preoperative alcohol use is a risk factor, and this is evaluated during the routine preoperative psychosocial evaluation. However, it is not clear whether patients accurately report their alcohol use. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an objective measure of alcohol use, phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing, offers utility beyond self-reported alcohol use during the preoperative evaluation for bariatric surgery. SETTING: Single healthcare system. METHODS: PEth testing was included as part of the routine laboratory work for 139 patients undergoing evaluation for bariatric surgery. PEth testing results were compared with self-reported alcohol use and scores on the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test-Concise (AUDIT-C) questionnaire obtained during the preoperative psychosocial evaluation. PEth testing results were categorized into abstinent, light use, moderate use, or heavy use. There were 85 patients who completed both PEth testing and a preoperative psychosocial evaluation. RESULTS: There were 25 participants (29.4%) who had a positive PEth test; about half had moderate or heavy use values (15.3% of the total sample). The majority of participants with a positive PEth test (82.6%) denied recent alcohol use. Of those with PEth values indicating moderate or heavy use, 61.5% did not have an elevated AUDIT-C score. CONCLUSIONS: Patients appeared to underreport their alcohol use during the preoperative psychosocial evaluation. There appears to be utility for routine PEth testing as part of the evaluation process to identify those with risky drinking patterns. Patients with preoperative risky drinking could be educated about their risk and/or referred to programs to mitigate the development of preoperative alcohol misuse.

ANDA-Evaluating Facilitated Feedback Enhancement - a Cluster randomised Trial (ANDA-EFFECT): protocol for a cluster randomised trial of audit feedback augmented with education and support, compared to feedback alone, on acceptability, utility and health outcomes in diabetes centres in Australia.

BACKGROUND: People living with diabetes must manage a range of factors for optimal control of glycaemia and to minimise the risk of diabetes-related complications. Diabetes practitioners are expected to follow guidelines for the key process of care and clinical outcomes, to help people living with diabetes achieve clinical targets. In Australia, the performance of diabetes centres against guidelines is evaluated by the Australian National Diabetes Audit, an annual clinical audit and feedback activity. Previous work has identified areas for improvement in the feedback provided to participating diabetes centres and suggested additional educational and support resources to assist in using audit feedback for the development of quality improvement activities. This cluster randomised trial will test the acceptability, utility and impact on selected clinical outcomes of the developed study intervention (audit feedback and a tailored educational and peer support cointervention). METHODS: Two-armed cluster randomised trial with Australian Diabetes Centres that participated in the Australian National Diabetes Audit in 2021 as the clusters, stratified by location and type of centre. We aim to recruit 35 diabetes centres in each arm. Both the intervention and control arms will receive an augmented feedback report, accompanied by a partially pre-populated slide deck. In addition, the intervention arm will receive a tailored theory-based intervention designed to address identified, modifiable barriers to utilising and implementing the recommendations from diabetes audit feedback. The co-primary outcomes are (1) HbA1c at the patient level, measured at 6 months after delivery of the intervention, and (2) the acceptability and utility of the augmented feedback and cointerventions at the practitioner level, measured at 3 months after delivery of the intervention. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to test the effects of systematic development and implementation of theory and evidence-informed changes to the audit feedback delivered to diabetes centres participating in an established national clinical diabetes audit. Potential benefits of improved audit feedback include more optimal engagement with the feedback by end clinical users which, ultimately, may lead to improvements in care for people living with diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000765820. Prospectively registered on June 21, 2021.

Early-onset neonatal sepsis and antibiotic use in Indonesia: a descriptive, cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis and prompt antibiotic treatment are crucial to reducing morbidity and mortality of early-onset sepsis (EOS) in neonates. However, this strategy remains challenging due to non-specific clinical findings and limited facilities. Inappropriate antibiotics use is associated with ineffective therapy and adverse outcomes. This study aims to determine the characteristics of EOS and use of antibiotics in the neonatal-intensive care units (NICUs) in Indonesia, informing efforts to drive improvements in the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of EOS. METHODS: A descriptive study was conducted based on pre-intervention data of the South East Asia-Using Research for Change in Hospital-acquired Infection in Neonates project. Our study population consisted of neonates admitted within 72 h of life to the three participating NICUs. Neonates who presented with three or more clinical signs or laboratory results consistent with sepsis and who received antibiotics for 5 consecutive days were considered to have EOS. Culture-proven EOS was defined as positive blood or cerebrospinal fluid culture. Type and duration of antibiotics used were also documented. RESULTS: Of 2,509 neonates, 242 cases were suspected of having EOS (9.6%) with culture-proven sepsis in 83 cases (5.0% of neonatal admissions in hospitals with culture facilities). The causative organisms were mostly gram-negative bacteria (85/94; 90.4%). Ampicillin / amoxicillin and amikacin were the most frequently prescribed antibiotics in hospitals with culture facilities, while a third-generation cephalosporin was mostly administered in hospital without culture facilities. The median durations of antibiotic therapy were 19 and 9 days in culture-proven and culture-negative EOS groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of EOS and culture-proven EOS was high in Indonesia, with diverse and prolonged use of antibiotics. Prospective antibiotic surveillance and stewardship interventions are required.

Making the most of audit and feedback to improve diabetes care: a qualitative study of the perspectives of Australian Diabetes Centres.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has high burden on the health system and the individual, and many people living with diabetes struggle to optimally manage their condition. In Australia, people living with diabetes attend a mixture of primary, secondary and tertiary care centres. Many of these Diabetes Centres participate in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA), a quality improvement (QI) activity that collects clinical information (audit) and feeds back collated information to participating sites (feedback). Despite receiving this feedback, many process and care outcomes for Diabetes Centres continue to show room for improvement. The purpose of this qualitative study was to inform improvement of the ANDA feedback, identify the needs of those receiving feedback and elicit the barriers to and enablers of optimal feedback use. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of Australian Diabetes Centres, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). De-identified transcripts were analysed thematically, underpinned by the domains and constructs of the CFIR. RESULTS: Representatives from 14 Diabetes centres participated in this study, including a diverse range of staff typical of the Diabetes Centres who take part in ANDA. In general, participants wanted a shorter report with a more engaging, simplified data visualisation style. Identified barriers to use of feedback were time or resource constraints, as well as access to knowledge about how to use the data provided to inform the development of QI activities. Enablers included leadership engagement, peer mentoring and support, and external policy and incentives. Potential cointerventions to support use include exemplars from clinical change champions and peer leaders, and educational resources to help facilitate change. CONCLUSIONS: This qualitative study supported our contention that the format of ANDA feedback presentation can be improved. Healthcare professionals suggested actionable changes to current feedback to optimise engagement and potential implementation of QI activities. These results will inform redesign of the ANDA feedback to consider the needs and preferences of end users and to provide feedback and other supportive cointerventions to improve care, and so health outcomes for people with diabetes. A subsequent cluster randomised trial will enable us to evaluate the impact of these changes.

Exploring HbA1c variation between Australian diabetes centres: The impact of centre-level and patient-level factors.

BACKGROUND: Increasing global diabetes incidence has profound implications for health systems and for people living with diabetes. Guidelines have established clinical targets but there may be variation in clinical outcomes including HbA1c, based on location and practice size. Investigating this variation may help identify factors amenable to systemic improvement interventions. The aims of this study were to identify centre-specific and patient-specific factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels and to determine how these associations contribute to variation in performance across diabetes centres. METHODS: This cross-sectional study analysed data for 5,872 people with type 1 (n = 1,729) or type 2 (n = 4,143) diabetes mellitus collected through the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA). A linear mixed-effects model examined centre-level and patient-level factors associated with variation in HbA1c levels. RESULTS: Mean age was: 43±17 years (type 1), 64±13 (type 2); median disease duration: 18 years (10,29) (type 1), 12 years (6,20) (type 2); female: 52% (type 1), 45% (type 2). For people with type 1 diabetes, volume of patients was associated with increases in HbA1c (p = 0.019). For people with type 2 diabetes, type of centre was associated with reduction in HbA1c (p <0.001), but location and patient volume were not. Associated patient-level factors associated with increases in HbA1c included past hyperglycaemic emergencies (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001) and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status (type 2, p<0.001). Being a non-smoker was associated with reductions in HbA1c (type 1 and type 2, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Centre-level and patient-level factors were associated with variation in HbA1c, but patient-level factors had greater impact. Interventions targeting patient-level factors conducted at a centre level including sick-day management, smoking cessation programs and culturally appropriate diabetes education for and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples may be more important for improving glycaemic control than targeting factors related to the Centre itself.

Improving adherence to acute low back pain guideline recommendations with chiropractors and physiotherapists: the ALIGN cluster randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors' and physiotherapists' adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective. METHODS: Physiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months). RESULTS: A total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI - 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI - 0.48, 1.21, scale 0-24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74). CONCLUSIONS: Intervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009.

The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn't and why, a mixed methods process evaluation.

INTRODUCTION: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is producing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19 which are updated each week. To continually improve the process and outputs of the Taskforce, and inform future living guideline development, we undertook a concurrent process evaluation examining Taskforce activities and experience of team members and stakeholders during the first 5 months of the project. METHODS: The mixed-methods process evaluation consisted of activity and progress audits, an online survey of all Taskforce participants; and semi-structured interviews with key contributors. Data were collected through five, prospective 4-weekly timepoints (beginning first week of May 2020) and three, fortnightly retrospective timepoints (March 23, April 6 and 20). We collected and analysed quantitative and qualitative data. RESULTS: An updated version of the guidelines was successfully published every week during the process evaluation. The Taskforce formed in March 2020, with a nominal start date of March 23. The first version of the guideline was published two weeks later and included 10 recommendations. By August 24, in the final round of the process evaluation, the team of 11 staff, working with seven guideline panels and over 200 health decision-makers, had developed 66 recommendations addressing 58 topics. The Taskforce website had received over 200,000 page views. Satisfaction with the work of the Taskforce remained very high (>90% extremely or somewhat satisfied) throughout. Several key strengths, challenges and methods questions for the work of the Taskforce were identified. CONCLUSIONS: In just over 5 months of activity, the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce published 20 weekly updates to the evidence-based national treatment guidelines for COVID-19. This process evaluation identified several factors that enabled this achievement (e.g. an extant skill base in evidence review and convening), along with challenges that needed to be overcome (e.g. managing workloads, structure and governance) and methods questions (pace of updating, and thresholds for inclusion of evidence) which may be useful considerations for other living guidelines projects. An impact evaluation is also being conducted separately to examine awareness, acceptance and use of the guidelines.

Awareness, value and use of the Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: an impact evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Australian National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce is developing living, evidence-based, national guidelines for treatment of people with COVID-19. These living guidelines are updated each week. We undertook an impact evaluation to understand the extent to which health professionals providing treatment to people with COVID 19 were aware of, valued and used the guidelines, and the factors that enabled or hampered this. METHODS: A mixed methods approach was used for the evaluation. Surveys were conducted to collect both quantitative and qualitative data and were supplemented with qualitative interviews. Australian healthcare practitioners potentially providing care to individuals with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were invited to participate. Data were collected on guideline awareness, relevance, ease of use, trustworthiness, value, importance of updating, use, and strengths and opportunities for improvement. RESULTS: A total of 287 people completed the surveys and 10 interviews were conducted during November 2020. Awareness of the work of the Taskforce was high and the vast majority of respondents reported that the guidelines were very or extremely relevant, easy to use, trustworthy and valuable. More than 50% of respondents had used the guidelines to support their own clinical decision-making; and 30% were aware of other examples of the guidelines being used. Qualitative data revealed that amongst an overwhelming morass of evidence and opinions during the COVID-19 pandemic, the guidelines have been a reliable, united source of evidence-based advice; participants felt the guidelines built confidence and provided reassurance in clinical decision-making. Opportunities to improve awareness and accessibility to the guidelines were also explored. CONCLUSIONS: As of June 2021, the guidelines have been published and updated more than 40 times, include more than 140 recommendations and are being used to inform clinical decisions. The findings of this impact evaluation will be used to improve processes and outputs of the Taskforce and guidelines project, and to inform future living guideline projects.

Mindfulness-based psychological interventions for improving mental well-being in medical students and junior doctors.

BACKGROUND: Mindfulness interventions are increasingly popular as an approach to improve mental well-being. To date, no Cochrane Review examines the effectiveness of mindfulness in medical students and junior doctors. Thus, questions remain regarding the efficacy of mindfulness interventions as a preventative mechanism in this population, which is at high risk for poor mental health.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of psychological interventions with a primary focus on mindfulness on the mental well-being and academic performance of medical students and junior doctors. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase and five other databases (to October 2021) and conducted grey literature searches.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of mindfulness that involved medical students of any year level and junior doctors in postgraduate years one, two or three. We included any psychological intervention with a primary focus on teaching the fundamentals of mindfulness as a preventative intervention. Our primary outcomes were anxiety and depression, and our secondary outcomes included stress, burnout, academic performance, suicidal ideation and quality of life.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methods as recommended by Cochrane, including Cochrane's risk of bias 2 tool (RoB2).  MAIN RESULTS: We included 10 studies involving 731 participants in quantitative analysis.  Compared with waiting-list control or no intervention, mindfulness interventions did not result in a substantial difference immediately post-intervention for anxiety (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.09, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.52; P = 0.67, I2 = 57%; 4 studies, 255 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to the Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale 21-item self-report questionnaire (DASS-21) showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. Similarly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for depression (SMD 0.06, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.31; P = 0.62, I2 = 0%; 4 studies, 250 participants; low-certainty evidence). Converting the SMD back to DASS-21 showed an estimated effect size which is unlikely to be clinically important. No studies reported longer-term assessment of the impact of mindfulness interventions on these outcomes.  For the secondary outcomes, the meta-analysis showed a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for stress, favouring the mindfulness intervention (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P < 0.05, I2 = 33%; 8 studies, 474 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. The meta-analysis found no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for burnout (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.00; P = 0.05, I² = 0%; 3 studies, 91 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The meta-analysis found a small, substantial difference immediately post-intervention for academic performance (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -1.05 to -0.14; P < 0.05, I² = 0%; 2 studies, 79 participants; very low-certainty evidence); however, this difference is unlikely to be clinically important. Lastly, there was no substantial difference immediately post-intervention for quality of life (mean difference (MD) 0.02, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.32; 1 study, 167 participants; low-certainty evidence). There were no data available for three pre-specified outcomes of this review: deliberate self-harm, suicidal ideation and suicidal behaviour. We assessed the certainty of evidence to range from low to very low across all outcomes. Across most outcomes, we most frequently judged the risk of bias as having 'some concerns'. There were no studies with a low risk of bias across all domains.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of mindfulness in our target population remains unconfirmed. There have been relatively few studies of mindfulness interventions for junior doctors and medical students. The available studies are small, and we have some concerns about their risk of bias. Thus, there is not much evidence on which to draw conclusions on effects of mindfulness interventions in this population. There was no evidence to determine the effects of mindfulness in the long term.

Understanding implementability in clinical trials: a pragmatic review and concept map.

BACKGROUND: The translation of evidence from clinical trials into practice is complex. One approach to facilitating this translation is to consider the 'implementability' of trials as they are designed and conducted. Implementability of trials refers to characteristics of the design, execution and reporting of a late-phase clinical trial that can influence the capacity for the evidence generated by that trial to be implemented. On behalf of the Australian Clinical Trials Alliance (ACTA), the national peak body representing networks of clinician researchers conducting investigator-initiated clinical trials, we conducted a pragmatic literature review to develop a concept map of implementability. METHODS: Documents were included in the review if they related to the design, conduct and reporting of late-phase clinical trials; described factors that increased or decreased the capacity of trials to be implemented; and were published after 2009 in English. Eligible documents included systematic reviews, guidance documents, tools or primary studies (if other designs were not available). With an expert reference group, we developed a preliminary concept map and conducted a snowballing search based on known relevant papers and websites of key organisations in May 2019. RESULTS: Sixty-five resources were included. A final map of 38 concepts was developed covering the domains of validity, relevance and usability across the design, conduct and reporting of a trial. The concepts drew on literature relating to implementation science, consumer engagement, pragmatic trials, reporting, research waste and other fields. No single resource addressed more than ten of the 38 concepts in the map. CONCLUSIONS: The concept map provides trialists with a tool to think through a range of areas in which practical action could enhance the implementability of their trials. Future work could validate the strength of the associations between the concepts identified and implementability of trials and investigate the effectiveness of steps to address each concept. ACTA will use this concept map to develop guidance for trialists in Australia. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This review did not include health-related outcomes and was therefore not eligible for registration in the PROSPERO register.

Prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing in people with tetraplegia-a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. OBJECTIVES: To determine the prevalence of sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) in people with tetraplegia and to identify the characteristics associated with SDB. METHODS: A systematic literature search using Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and grey literature sources was conducted using a combination of spinal cord injury (SCI) and SDB related terms. Articles were restricted to publication dates between 1/1/2000 and 4/9/2020 and with objectively measured SDB with an overnight sleep study. The frequency of SDB stratified by the apnoea hypopnea index (AHI) was extracted and weighted averages, using a random effects model, were calculated with 95% confidence intervals. Sub-group analyses were performed where possible. RESULTS: Twelve articles were included in the review; of these nine were included in meta-analysis (combined sample = 630). Sample sizes and case detection methods varied. Reported SDB prevalence rates ranged from 46 to 97%. The prevalence of at least mild (AHI ≥ 5), moderate (AHI ≥ 15) and severe (AHI ≥ 30) SDB were 83% (95% CI = 73-91), 59% (46-71) and 36% (26-46), respectively. Sub-group analyses found that prevalence increased with age (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences in SDB prevalence by sex (p = 0.06), complete/incomplete SCI (p = 0.06), body mass index (p = 0.07), acute/chronic SCI (p = 0.73) or high/low level of cervical SCI (p = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Our results confirm that SDB is highly prevalent in people with tetraplegia, and prevalence increases with age. The high prevalence suggests that routine screening and subsequent treatment should be considered in both acute and community care.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of multidisciplinary team meetings: a qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines recommend discussion by a multidisciplinary team (MDT) to review and plan the management of patients for a variety of cancers. However, not all patients diagnosed with cancer are presented at an MDT. OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify the factors (barriers and enablers) influencing presentation of all patients to, and the perceived value of, MDT meetings in the management of patients with pancreatic cancer and; (2) to identify potential interventions that could overcome modifiable barriers and enhance enablers using the theoretical domains framework (TDF). METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, medical and radiation oncologists, gastroenterologists, palliative care specialists and nurse specialists based in New South Wales and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via videoconferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, deidentified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the TDF. Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. RESULTS: In total, 29 specialists were interviewed over a 4-month period. Twenty-two themes and 40 belief statements relevant to all the TDF domains were generated. Key enablers influencing MDT practices included a strong organisational focus (social/professional role and identity), beliefs about the benefits of an MDT discussion (beliefs about consequences), the use of technology, for example, videoconferencing (environmental context and resources), the motivation to provide good quality care (motivation and goals) and collegiality (social influences). Barriers included: absence of palliative care representation (skills), the number of MDT meetings (environmental context and resources), the cumulative cost of staff time (beliefs about consequences), the lack of capacity to discuss all patients within the allotted time (beliefs about capabilities) and reduced confidence to participate in discussions (social influences). CONCLUSIONS: The internal and external organisational structures surrounding MDT meetings ideally need to be strengthened with the development of agreed evidence-based protocols and referral pathways, a focus on resource allocation and capabilities, and a culture that fosters widespread collaboration for all stages of pancreatic cancer.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of protocol-based imaging in pancreatic cancer: A qualitative study using the theoretical domains framework.

BACKGROUND: Accurate pre-operative imaging plays a vital role in patient selection for surgery and in allocating stage-appropriate therapies to patients diagnosed with pancreatic cancer (PC). This study aims to: (1) understand the current diagnosis and staging practices for PC; and (2) explore the factors (barriers and enablers) that influence the use of a pancreatic protocol computed tomography (PPCT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to confirm diagnosis and/or accurately stage PC. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with radiologists, surgeons, gastroenterologists, medical and radiation oncologists from the states of New South Wales (NSW) and Victoria, Australia. Interviews were conducted either in person or via video conferencing. All interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, de-identified and data were thematically coded according to the 12 domains explored within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). Common belief statements were generated to compare the variation between participant responses. FINDINGS: In total, 21 clinicians (5 radiologists, 10 surgeons, 2 gastroenterologists, 4 medical and radiation oncologists) were interviewed over a four-month-period. Belief statements relevant to the TDF domains were generated. Across the 11 relevant domains, 20 themes and 30 specific beliefs were identified. All TDF domains, with the exception of social influences were identified by participants as relevant to protocol-based imaging using either a PPCT or MRI, with the domains of knowledge, skills and environmental context and resources being offered by most participants as being relevant in influencing their decisions. CONCLUSIONS: To maximise outcomes and personalise therapy it is imperative that diagnosis and staging investigations using the most appropriate imaging modalities are conducted in a timely, efficient and effective manner. The results provide an understanding of specialists' opinion and behaviour in relation to a PPCT or MRI and should be used to inform the design of future interventions to improve compliance with this practice.

Proof of concept of participant informed, psycho-educational, community-based intervention for people with severe mental illness in rural Vietnam.

BACKGROUND: There is a lack of an intervention model that empowers people with severe mental illness (SMI) and their families and addresses the mental health gap in low- and middle-income countries. There is a significant gap in care for people with SMI in rural Vietnam due to the low quality of care in the formal mental health system and the lack of access to an evidence-informed informal approach to care. OBJECTIVES: To assess acceptability, feasibility, preliminary evidence of impact and potential cost savings of a mental health support group intervention for people with SMI in the community. METHODS: The proof of concept used a pre-post design with qualitative assessment, impact evaluation and cost analysis. RESULTS: A mental health support group intervention facilitated by Women's Union staff using a positive deviance approach was conducted among 68 people with SMI. Qualitative evaluation showed that the approach was highly acceptable and feasible. There was a significant improvement in personal functioning and a reduction in stigma and discrimination experienced by intervention participants. The intervention was found to reduce significantly the financial burden on the families having members with SMI. CONCLUSION: The proof of concept of the mental health support group intervention delivered by informal community care providers for people with SMI provides promising evidence to address the mental health gap with high acceptability, feasibility and low-cost for low- and middle-income countries.