Correction: Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274527.].

Interventions to improve primary healthcare in rural settings: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Residents of rural areas have poorer health status, less healthy behaviours and higher mortality than urban dwellers, issues which are commonly addressed in primary care. Strengthening primary care may be an important tool to improve the health status of rural populations. OBJECTIVE: Synthesize and categorize studies that examine interventions to improve rural primary care. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Experimental or observational studies published between January 1, 1996 and December 2022 that include an historical or concurrent control comparison. SOURCES OF EVIDENCE: Pubmed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase. CHARTING METHODS: We extracted and charted data by broad category (quality, access and efficiency), study design, country of origin, publication year, aim, health condition and type of intervention studied. We assigned multiple categories to a study where relevant. RESULTS: 372 papers met our inclusion criteria, divided among quality (82%), access (20%) and efficiency (13%) categories. A majority of papers were completed in the USA (40%), Australia (15%), China (7%) or Canada (6%). 35 (9%) papers came from countries in Africa. The most common study design was an uncontrolled before-and-after comparison (32%) and only 24% of studies used randomized designs. The number of publications each year has increased markedly over the study period from 1-2/year in 1997-99 to a peak of 49 papers in 2017. CONCLUSIONS: Despite substantial inequity in health outcomes associated with rural living, very little attention is paid to rural primary care in the scientific literature. Very few studies of rural primary care use randomized designs.

Audit and feedback to change diagnostic image ordering practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Up to 30% of diagnostic imaging (DI) tests may be unnecessary, leading to increased healthcare costs and the possibility of patient harm. The primary objective of this systematic review was to assess the effect of audit and feedback (AF) interventions directed at healthcare providers on reducing image ordering. The secondary objective was to examine the effect of AF on the appropriateness of DI ordering. METHODS: Studies were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and ClinicalTrials.gov registry on December 22nd, 2022. Studies were included if they were randomized control trials (RCTs), targeted healthcare professionals, and studied AF as the sole intervention or as the core component of a multi-faceted intervention. Risk of bias for each study was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analyses were completed using RevMan software and results were displayed in forest plots. RESULTS: Eleven RCTs enrolling 4311 clinicians or practices were included. AF interventions resulted in 1.5 fewer image test orders per 1000 patients seen than control interventions (95% confidence interval (CI) for the difference -2.6 to -0.4, p-value = 0.009). The effect of AF on appropriateness was not statistically significant, with a 3.2% (95% CI -1.5 to 7.7%, p-value = 0.18) greater likelihood of test orders being considered appropriate with AF vs control interventions. The strength of evidence was rated as moderate for the primary objective but was very low for the appropriateness outcome because of risk of bias, inconsistency in findings, indirectness, and imprecision. CONCLUSION: AF interventions are associated with a modest reduction in total DI ordering with moderate certainty, suggesting some benefit of AF. Individual studies document effects of AF on image order appropriateness ranging from a non-significant trend toward worsening to a highly significant improvement, but the weighted average effect size from the meta-analysis is not statistically significant with very low certainty.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Guidelines recommend patient education materials (PEMs) for low back pain (LBP), but no systematic review has assessed PEMs on their own. We investigated the effectiveness of PEMs on process, clinical, and health system outcomes for LBP and sciatica. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus, trial registries and grey literature through OpenGrey. We included randomized controlled trials of PEMs for LBP. Data extraction, risk of bias, and quality of evidence gradings were performed independently by two reviewers. Standardized mean differences or risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were calculated, and effect sizes pooled using random-effects models. Analyses of acute/subacute LBP were performed separately from chronic LBP at immediate, short, medium, and long-term (6, 12, 24, and 52 weeks, respectively). RESULTS: 27 studies were identified. Compared to usual care for chronic LBP, we found moderate to low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain intensity at immediate (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.29, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.44 [95% CI: -0.88, 0.00]), medium (SMD = -0.53 [95% CI: -1.01, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.01]), medium-term disability (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.03]), quality of life at short (SMD = -0.17 [95% CI: -0.30, -0.04]) and medium-term (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.04]) and very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved global improvement ratings at immediate (SMD = -0.40 [95% CI: -0.58, -0.21]), short (SMD = -0.42 [95% CI: -0.60, -0.24]), medium (SMD = -0.46 [95% CI: -0.65, -0.28]), and long-term (SMD = -0.43 [95% CI: -0.61, -0.24]). We found very low-quality evidence that PEMs improved pain self-efficacy at immediate (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]), short (SMD = -0.25 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]), medium (SMD = -0.23 [95% CI: -0.41, -0.05]), and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.50, -0.13]), and reduced medium-term fear-avoidance beliefs (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.43, -0.06]) and long-term stress (SMD = -0.21 [95% CI: -0.39, -0.03]). Compared to usual care for acute LBP, we found high to moderate-quality evidence that PEMs improved short-term pain intensity (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.06]) and immediate-term quality of life (SMD = -0.24 [95% CI: -0.42, -0.07]). We found low to very low-quality evidence that PEMs increased knowledge at immediate (SMD = -0.51 [95% CI: -0.72, -0.31]), short (SMD = -0.48 [95% CI: -0.90, -0.05]), and long-term (RR = 1.28 [95% CI: 1.10, 1.49]) and pain self-efficacy at short (SMD = -0.78 [95% CI: -0.98, -0.58]) and long-term (SMD = -0.32 [95% CI: -0.52, -0.12]). We found moderate to very low-quality evidence that PEMs reduced short-term days off work (SMD = -0.35 [95% CI: -0.63, -0.08]), long-term imaging referrals (RR = 0.60 [95% CI: 0.41, 0.89]), and long-term physician visits (SMD = -0.16 [95% CI: -0.26, -0.05]). Compared to other interventions (e.g., yoga, Pilates), PEMs had no effect or were less effective for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. CONCLUSIONS: There was a high degree of variability across outcomes and time points, but providing PEMs appears favorable to usual care as we observed many small, positive patient and system impacts for acute/subacute and chronic LBP. PEMs were generally less effective than other interventions; however, no cost effectiveness analyses were performed to weigh the relative benefits of these interventions to the likely less costly PEMs.

Champions for improved adherence to guidelines in long-term care homes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The champion model is increasingly being adopted to improve uptake of guideline-based care in long-term care (LTC). Studies suggest that an on-site champion may improve the quality of care residents' health outcomes. This review assessed the effectiveness of the champion on staff adherence to guidelines and subsequent resident outcomes in LTC homes. METHOD: This was a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies included residents aged 65 or over and nursing staff in LTC homes where there was a stand-alone or multi-component intervention that used a champion to improve staff adherence to guidelines and resident outcomes. The measured outcomes included staff adherence to guidelines, resident health outcomes, quality of life, adverse events, satisfaction with care, or resource use. Study quality was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool; evidence certainty was assessed using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: After screening 4367 citations, we identified 12 articles that included the results of 1 RCT and 11 cluster-RCTs. All included papers evaluated the effects of a champion as part of a multicomponent intervention. We found low certainty evidence that champions as part of multicomponent interventions may improve staff adherence to guidelines. Effect sizes varied in magnitude across studies including unadjusted risk differences (RD) of 4.1% [95% CI: - 3%, 9%] to 44.8% [95% CI: 32%, 61%] for improving pressure ulcer prevention in a bed and a chair, respectively, RD of 44% [95% CI: 17%, 71%] for improving depression identification and RD of 21% [95% CI: 12%, 30%] for improving function-focused care to residents. CONCLUSION: Champions may improve staff adherence to evidence-based guidelines in LTC homes. However, methodological issues and poor reporting creates uncertainty around these findings. It is premature to recommend the widespread use of champions to improve uptake of guideline-based care in LTC without further study of the champion role and its impact on cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019145579 . Registered on 20 August 2019.

Rural health research capacity building: an anchored solution.

Rural physicians face many challenges with providing rural health care, which often leads to innovative solutions. Despite their creativity with overcoming barriers, there is a lack of support for rural health research - an area of health care where research makes great impacts on small communities. Rural research capacity building (RRCB) is essential to support rural physicians so that they can conduct relevant research, but RRCB programs are sparse. Thus, our team at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Canada, has created an RRCB ecosystem through the 6for6 and Rural360 programs, which outline a pathway for rural physicians to make meaningful contributions to their communities through research. This article describes the RRCB ecosystem and explains how the 6for6 and Rural360 programs address the need for RRCB. Designed to train six rural physicians over six sessions per year, 6for6 fosters learning of research practices through a conceptual framework that envelops complexity science, systems thinking, and anchored instruction. The use of this framework allows the learning to be grounded in issues that are locally relevant for each participant and follows guiding principles that enable many types of learning. Rural360 continues the pathway by providing an in-house funding opportunity with an iterative review process that allows participants to continue developing their research skills and, ultimately, secure funding for their project. This anchored delivery model of RRCB programming is made possible through many support systems including staff, librarians, instructors, the university, and other stakeholders. It has successfully helped form communities of practice, promotes collaboration both between learners and with third parties, encourages self-organization with flexibility for learners outside of the in-house sessions, and ultimately drives social accountability in addressing local healthcare issues.

Patient education materials for non-specific low back pain and sciatica: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Low back pain accounts for more disability than any other musculoskeletal condition and is associated with severe economic burden. Patients commonly present with negative beliefs about low back pain and this can have detrimental effects on their health outcomes. Providing evidence-based, patient-centred education that meets patient needs could help address these negative beliefs and alleviate the substantial low back pain burden. The primary aim of this review is to investigate the effectiveness of patient education materials on immediate process, clinical and health system outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The search strategy was developed in collaboration with a librarian and systematic searches will be performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and SPORTDiscus. We will also search trial registries and grey literature through the OpenGrey database. Study selection will include a title and abstract scan and full-text review by two authors. Only randomised controlled trials will be included in this review. Trials must include patients with low back pain or sciatica and investigate educational interventions with at least one of the following contrasts: (1) education alone versus no intervention; (2) education alone versus another intervention; (3) education in addition to another intervention versus the same intervention with no education. Data extraction, risk of bias and grading of the quality of evidence will be performed independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale, and the quality of evidence will be assessed with the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A random-effects model will be used for each contrast, and results will be pooled if the participants, interventions, and outcomes are homogeneous. If heterogeneity is high (I2 >75%), we will evaluate the magnitude and direction of the differences in effect sizes across studies to determine if it remains reasonable to pool the results. Analyses of acute and subacute low back pain (less than 12 weeks duration) will be performed separately from chronic low back pain (12 weeks or greater duration). Likewise, analyses of short-term (less than 6 months) and long-term (6 months or greater) follow-up will be performed separately. Subgroup analyses will be performed on non-specific low back pain, sciatica and mixed populations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. This study, along with its results, will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Using theatre as an arts-based knowledge translation strategy for health-related information: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Substantial delays in translating evidence to practice mean that many beneficial and vital advances in medical care are not being used in a timely manner. Traditional knowledge translation (KT) strategies have tended to target academics by disseminating findings in academic journals and at scientific conferences. Alternative strategies, such as theatre-based KT, appear to be effective at targeting broader audiences. The purpose of this scoping review is to collate and understand the current state of science on the use of theatre as a KT strategy. This will allow us to identify gaps in literature, determine the need for a systematic review and develop additional research questions to advance the field. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will follow established scoping review methods outlined by Arksey and O'Malley in conjunction with enhanced recommendations made by Levac et al. The search strategy, guided by an experienced librarian, will be conducted in PubMed, CINHAL and OVID. Study selection will consist of three stages: (1) initial title and abstract scan by one author to remove irrelevant articles and create a shortlist for double screening, (2) title and abstract scan by two authors, and (3) full-text review by two authors. Included studies will report specifically on the use of theatre as means of KT of health-related information to any target population. Two reviewers will independently extract and chart the data using a standardised data extraction form. Descriptive statistics will be used to produce numerical summaries related to study characteristics, KT strategy characteristics and evaluation characteristics. For those studies that included an evaluation of the theatre production as a KT strategy, we will synthesise the data according to outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was not required for this study. Results will be published in relevant journals, presented at conferences and distributed via social media.