Cardiovascular disease risk communication and prevention: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Knowledge of quantifiable cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk may improve health outcomes and trigger behavioural change in patients or clinicians. This review aimed to investigate the impact of CVD risk communication on patient-perceived CVD risk and changes in CVD risk factors. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched from inception to 6 June 2023, supplemented by citation analysis. Randomized trials that compared any CVD risk communication strategy versus usual care were included. Paired reviewers independently screened the identified records and extracted the data; disagreements were resolved by a third author. The primary outcome was the accuracy of risk perception. Secondary outcomes were clinician-reported changes in CVD risk, psychological responses, intention to modify lifestyle, and self-reported changes in risk factors and clinician prescribing of preventive medicines. RESULTS: Sixty-two trials were included. Accuracy of risk perception was higher among intervention participants (odds ratio = 2.31, 95% confidence interval = 1.63 to 3.27). A statistically significant improvement in overall CVD risk scores was found at 6-12 months (mean difference = -0.27, 95% confidence interval = -0.45 to -0.09). For primary prevention, risk communication significantly increased self-reported dietary modification (odds ratio = 1.50, 95% confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.86) with no increase in intention or actual changes in smoking cessation or physical activity. A significant impact on patients' intention to start preventive medication was found for primary and secondary prevention, with changes at follow-up for the primary prevention group. CONCLUSIONS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, communicating CVD risk information, regardless of the method, reduced the overall risk factors and enhanced patients' self-perceived risk. Communication of CVD risk to patients should be considered in routine consultations.

The 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) method was successfully blind-replicated by another team: a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the replicability of a 2-week systematic review (index 2weekSR) created with the assistance of automation tools using the fidelity method. METHODS: A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses compliant SR protocol was developed based on the published information of the index 2weekSR study. The replication team consisted of three reviewers. Two reviewers blocked off time during the replication. The total time to complete tasks and the meta-analysis results were compared with the index 2weekSR study. Review process fidelity scores (FSs) were calculated for review methods and outcomes. Barriers to completing the replication were identified. RESULTS: The review was completed over 63 person-hours (11 workdays/15 calendar days). A FS of 0.95 was achieved for the methods, with 3 (of 8) tasks only partially replicated, and an FS of 0.63 for the outcomes, with 6 (of 7) only partially replicated and one task was not replicated. Nonreplication was mainly caused by missing information in the index 2weekSR study that was not required in standard reporting guidelines. The replication arrived at the same conclusions as the original study. CONCLUSION: A 2weekSR study was replicated by a small team of three reviewers supported by automation tools. Including additional information when reporting SRs should improve their replicability.

Comparison of Telephone and Video Telehealth Consultations: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Telehealth has been used for health care delivery for decades, but the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the uptake of telehealth in many care settings globally. However, few studies have carried out a direct comparison among different telehealth modalities, with very few studies having compared the effectiveness of telephone and video telehealth modalities. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to identify and synthesize randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing synchronous telehealth consultations delivered by telephone and those conducted by video with outcomes such as clinical effectiveness, patient safety, cost-effectiveness, and patient and clinician satisfaction with care. METHODS: PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, and CENTRAL were searched via the Cochrane Library from inception until February 10, 2023, for RCTs without any language restriction. Forward and backward citation searches were conducted on included RCTs. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. We included studies carried out in any health setting-involving all types of outpatient cohorts and all types of health care providers-that compared synchronous video consultations directly with telephone consultations and reported outcomes specified in the objective. We excluded studies of clinician-to-clinician telehealth consults, hospitalized patients, and asynchronous consultations. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs-10 in the United States, 3 in the United Kingdom, 2 in Canada, and 1 in Australia involving 1719 participants-were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. Most of the telehealth interventions were for hospital-based outpatient follow-ups, monitoring, and rehabilitation (n=13). The 3 studies that were conducted in the community all focused on smoking cessation. In half of the studies, nurses delivered the care (n=8). Almost all included studies had high or unclear risk of bias, mainly due to bias in the randomization process and selection of reported results. The trials found no substantial differences between telephone and video telehealth consultations with regard to clinical effectiveness, patient satisfaction, and health care use (cost-effectiveness) outcomes. None of the studies reported on patient safety or adverse events. We did not find any study on telehealth interventions for diagnosis, initiating new treatment, or those conducted in a primary care setting. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a small set of diverse trials, we found no notable differences between telephone and video consultations for the management of patients with an established diagnosis. There is also a significant lack of telehealth research in primary care settings despite its high uptake.

Telehealth versus face-to-face delivery of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of the delivery of care to patients with insomnia via telehealth to its delivery face-to-face. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to 11 January 2023, and conducted a citation analysis on 13 June 2023. No language restrictions were imposed. We included randomised controlled trials. Where feasible, mean differences were calculated; we used a random effects model. RESULTS: Four trials (239 patients) were included. There were no significant differences between telehealth and face-to-face for insomnia severity scores shortly post-intervention (MD 1.13, 95% CI -0.29-2.55) or at 3 months (mean difference (MD) 1.79, 95% CI -0.01-3.59). There were no differences in Short Form-36 physical and mental scores, Work and Social Adjustment scores, and sleep quality components. Depression scores did not differ post-intervention or at 3 months (MD 0.42, 95% CI -2.42-3.26). Functioning likewise did not differ post-intervention or at 3 months (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% CI -0.37-0.67, P = 0.58). Treatment satisfaction did not differ (one trial) or favoured the face-to-face group (one trial). CONCLUSIONS: Telehealth may be a viable alternative to the face-to-face provision of cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia to patients with insomnia. However, the volume of the existing evidence is limited, therefore additional trials are needed, evaluating cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia and other therapies for individuals for whom cognitive behavioural therapy for insomnia is not effective, and conducted with a wider range of populations, providers and settings.

Misdiagnosis of Uncomplicated Cellulitis: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cellulitis is a clinical diagnosis with several mimics and no gold standard diagnostic criteria. Misdiagnosis is common. This review aims to quantify the proportion of cellulitis misdiagnosis in primary or unscheduled care settings based on a second clinical assessment and describe the proportion and types of alternative diagnoses. METHODS: Electronic searches of Medline, Embase and Cochrane library (including CENTRAL) using MeSH and other subject terms identified 887 randomised and non-randomised clinical trials, and cohort studies. Included articles assessed the proportion of cellulitis misdiagnosis in primary or unscheduled care settings through a second clinical assessment up to 14 days post initial diagnosis of uncomplicated cellulitis. Studies on infants and patients with (peri-)orbital, purulent and severe or complex cellulitis were excluded. Screening and data extraction was conducted independently in pairs. Risk of bias was assessed using a modified risk of bias tool from Hoy et al. Meta-analyses were undertaken where ≥ 3 studies reported the same outcome. RESULTS: Nine studies conducted in the USA, UK and Canada, including a total of 1600 participants, were eligible for inclusion. Six studies were conducted in the inpatient setting; three were in outpatient clinics. All nine included studies provided estimates of the proportion cellulitis misdiagnosis, with a range from 19 to 83%. The mean proportion misdiagnosed was 41% (95% CI 28 to 56% for random effects model). Heterogeneity between studies was very high both statistically (I2 96%, p-value for heterogeneity < 0.001) and clinically. Of the misdiagnoses, 54% were attributed to three conditions (stasis dermatitis, eczematous dermatitis and edema/lymphedema). DISCUSSION: The proportion of cellulitis misdiagnosis when reviewed within 14 days was substantial though highly variable, with the majority attributable to three diagnoses. This highlights the need for timely clinical reassessment and system initiatives to improve diagnostic accuracy of cellulitis and its most common mimics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/9zt72 ).

We extended the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology to larger, more complex systematic reviews: A case series.

OBJECTIVES: In 2019 we invented the 2-week systematic review (2weekSR) methodology, to complete full, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-compliant systematic reviews in approximately 2 weeks. Since then we have continued to develop and adapt the 2weekSR methodology for completing larger and more complex systematic reviews, including less experienced or inexperienced team members. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: For ten 2weekSRs, we collected data on (1) systematic review characteristics; (2) systematic review teams; and (3) time to completion and publication. We have also continued to develop new tools and integrate them into the 2weekSR processes. RESULTS: The 10 2weekSRs addressed intervention, prevalence, and utilization questions, and included a mix of randomized and observational studies. Reviews involved screening from 458 to 5,471 references, and included between 5 and 81 studies. The median team size was 6. Most reviews (7/10) included team members with limited systematic review experience; three included team members with no prior experience. Reviews required a median of 11 workdays (range: 5-20) and 17 calendar days (range: 5-84) to complete; time from journal submission to publication ranged from 99 to 260 days. CONCLUSION: The 2weekSR methodology scales with review size and complexity, offering a considerable time-saving over traditionally conducted systematic reviews without relying on methodological shortcuts associated with "rapid reviews."

Co-designing nutrition interventions with consumers: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: There is little known about nutrition intervention research involving consumer co-design. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and synthesise the existing evidence on the current use and extent of consumer co-design in nutrition interventions. METHODS: This scoping review is in line with the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute using an adapted 2weekSR approach. We searched Medline, EMBASE, PsycInfo, CINAHL and Cochrane. Only studies that included consumers in the co-design and met the 'Collaborate' or 'Empower' levels of the International Association of Public Participation's Public Participation Spectrum were included. Studies were synthesised according to two main concepts: (1) co-design for (2) nutrition interventions. RESULTS: The initial search yielded 8157 articles, of which 19 studies were included (comprising 29 articles). The studies represented a range of intervention types and participants from seven countries. Sixteen studies were published in the past 5 years. Co-design was most often used for intervention development, and only two studies reported a partnership with consumers across all stages of research. Overall, consumer involvement was not well documented. No preferred co-design framework or approach was reported across the various studies. CONCLUSIONS: Consumer co-design for nutrition interventions has become more frequent in recent years, but genuine partnerships with consumers across all stages of nutrition intervention research remain uncommon. There is an opportunity to improve the reporting of consumer involvement in co-design and enable equal partnerships with consumers in nutrition research.

Patient and public involvement in the development of clinical practice guidelines: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: Organisations that develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) encourage involvement of patients and the publics in their development, however, there are no standard methodologies for doing so. To examine how CPGs report patient and public involvement (PPI), we conducted a scoping review of the evidence addressing the following four questions: (1) who are the patients and publics involved in developing the CPG?; (2) from where and how are the patients and publics recruited?; (3) at what stage in the CPG development process are the patients and publics involved? and (4) how do the patients and publics contribute their views? We also extracted data on the use of PPI reporting checklists by the included studies. DESIGN: We used the methodology developed by Arksey and O'Malley and refined by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO, websites of national guideline bodies from the UK, Canada, Australia and the USA, and conducted a forward citation search. No language, date or participant demographics restrictions were applied. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: We included 47 studies addressing 1 or more of the 4 questions. All included studies reported who the patient and publics involved (PPI members) were, and several studies reported PPI members from different groups. Patients were reported in 43/47 studies, advocates were reported in 22/47 studies, patients and advocates reported in 17/47 studies, and general public reported in 2/47 studies. Thirty-four studies reported from where the patients and publics were recruited, with patient groups being the most common (20/34). Stage of involvement was reported by 42/47 studies, most commonly at question identification (26/42) and draft review (18/42) stages. Forty-two studies reported how the patients contributed, most commonly via group meetings (18/42) or individual interviews. Ten studies cited or used a reporting checklist to report findings. CONCLUSIONS: Our scoping review has revealed knowledge gaps to inform future research in several ways: replication, terminology and inclusion. First, no standard approach to PPI in CPG development could be inferred from the research. Second, inconsistent terminology to describe patients and publics reduces clarity around which patients and publics have been involved in developing CPGs. Finally, the under-representation of research describing PPI in the development of screening, as opposed to treatment, CPGs warrants further attention.

Telehealth v. face-to-face provision of care to patients with depression: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ensuring continuity of care for patients with major depressive disorders poses multiple challenges. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials comparing real-time telehealth to face-to-face therapy for individuals with depression. We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (to November 2020), conducted a citation analysis (January 2021), and searched clinical trial registries (March 2021). We included randomised controlled trials comparing similar or identical care, delivered via real-time telehealth (phone, video) to face-to-face. Outcomes included: depression severity, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, and care satisfaction. Where data were sufficient, mean differences were calculated. Nine trials (1268 patients) were included. There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for depression severity at post-treatment (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.13, p = 0.67) or at other time points, except at 9 months post-treatment (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.75 to -0.02, p = 0.04). One trial reported no differences in quality-of-life scores at 3- or 12-months post-treatment. One trial found no differences in therapeutic alliance at weeks 4 and 14 of treatment. There were no differences in treatment satisfaction between telehealth and face-to-face immediately post-treatment (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.56 to 0.28, p = 0.51) or at 3 or 12-months. Evidence suggests that for patients with depression or depression symptoms, the provision of care via telehealth may be a viable alternative to the provision of care face-to-face. However, additional trials are needed with longer follow-up, conducted in a wider range of settings, and with younger patients.

Antibiotics versus no treatment for asymptomatic bacteriuria in residents of aged care facilities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Asymptomatic bacteriuria (ASB) is common among residents of residential aged care facilities (RACFs). However, differentiating between an established urinary tract infection and ASB in older adults is difficult. As a result, the overuse of dipstick urinalysis, as well as the subsequent initiation of antibiotics, is common in RACFs. AIM: To find, appraise, and synthesise studies that reported the effectiveness, harms, and adverse events associated with antibiotic treatment for older patients with ASB residing in RACFs. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review using standard Cochrane methods of RACF residents with ASB using antibiotics against placebo, or no treatment. METHOD: Three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL), clinical trial registries, and forward-backward reference checks of included studies were searched. RESULTS: Nine randomised controlled trials, comprising 1391 participants were included; two of which used a placebo comparator, and the remaining seven used no therapy control groups. There was a relatively small number of studies assessed per outcome and an overall moderate risk of bias. Outcomes related to mortality, development of ASB, and complications were comparable between the two groups. Antibiotic therapy was associated with a higher number of adverse effects (four studies; 303 participants; risk ratio [RR] 5.62, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.07 to 29.55, P = 0.04) and bacteriological cure (nine studies; 888 participants; RR 1.89, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.32, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: Overall, although antibiotic treatment was associated with bacteriological cure, it was also associated with significantly more adverse effects. The harms and lack of clinical benefit of antibiotic use for older patients in RACFs may outweigh the benefits.

Real-Time Telehealth Versus Face-to-Face Management for Patients With PTSD in Primary Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing real-time telehealth (video, phone) with face-to-face therapy delivery to individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), by primary or allied health care practitioners.Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central (inception to November 18, 2020); conducted a citation analysis on included studies (January 7, 2021) in Web of Science; and searched ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP (March 25, 2021). No language or publication date restrictions were used.Study Selection: From 4,651 individual records screened, 13 trials (27 references) met the inclusion criteria.Data Extraction: Data on PTSD severity, depression severity, quality of life, therapeutic alliance, and treatment satisfaction outcomes were extracted.Results: There were no differences between telehealth and face-to-face for PTSD severity (at 6 months: standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.11; 95% CI, -0.28 to 0.06), depression severity (at 6 months: SMD = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.22; P = .87), therapeutic alliance (at 3 months: SMD = 0.04; 95% CI, -0.51 to 0.59; P = .90), or treatment satisfaction (at 3 months: mean difference = 3.09; 95% CI, -7.76 to 13.94; P = .58). One trial reported similar changes in quality of life in telehealth and face-to-face.Conclusions: Telehealth appears to be a viable alternative for care provision to patients with PTSD. Trials evaluating therapy provision by telephone, and in populations other than veterans, are warranted.

The impact of antibiotics on clinical response over time in uncomplicated cellulitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Antibiotic treatment of uncomplicated cellulitis is highly variable with respect to agent, dose, and route of administration. As there is uncertainty about optimal/appropriate time to reassess, we aimed to assess time to clinical response. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials reporting clinical response of uncomplicated cellulitis to antibiotic treatment over multiple timepoints. PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP, and clinicaltrials.gov were searched from inception to June 2021 without language restrictions. The primary outcome was time to clinical response. Other outcomes were components of clinical response (pain, severity score, redness, edema measured at ≥ 2 timepoints) and the proportion of patients with treatment failure. We performed a pooled estimate of the average time to clinical response together with 95% confidence intervals using a random effects model. RESULTS: We included 32 randomized controlled trials (n = 13,576 participants). The mean time to clinical response was 1.68 days (95%CI 1.48-1.88; I2 = 76%). The response to treatment for specific components was as follows: ~ 50% reduction of pain and severity score by day 5, a ~ 33% reduction in area of redness by day 2-3, and a 30-50% reduction of proportion of patients with edema by day 2-4. Treatment failure was variably defined with an overall failure rate of 12% (95%CI 9-16%). CONCLUSION: The best available data suggest the optimal time to clinical reassessment is between 2 and 4 days, but this must be interpreted with caution due to considerable heterogeneity and small number of included studies.

Evaluation of the Incremental Value of a Coronary Artery Calcium Score Beyond Traditional Cardiovascular Risk Assessment: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Coronary artery calcium scores (CACS) are used to help assess patients' cardiovascular status and risk. However, their best use in risk assessment beyond traditional cardiovascular factors in primary prevention is uncertain. Objective: To find, assess, and synthesize all cohort studies that assessed the incremental gain from the addition of a CACS to a standard cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk calculator (or CVD risk factors for a standard calculator), that is, comparing CVD risk score plus CACS with CVD risk score alone. Evidence Review: Eligible studies needed to be cohort studies in primary prevention populations that used 1 of the CVD risk calculators recommended by national guidelines (Framingham Risk Score, QRISK, pooled cohort equation, NZ PREDICT, NORRISK, or SCORE) and assessed and reported incremental discrimination with CACS for estimating the risk of a future cardiovascular event. Findings: From 2772 records screened, 6 eligible cohort studies were identified (with 1043 CVD events in 17 961 unique participants) from the US (n = 3), the Netherlands (n = 1), Germany (n = 1), and South Korea (n = 1). Studies varied in size from 470 to 5185 participants (range of mean [SD] ages, 50 [10] to 75.1 [7.3] years; 38.4%-59.4% were women). The C statistic for the CVD risk models without CACS ranged from 0.693 (95% CI, 0.661-0.726) to 0.80. The pooled gain in C statistic from adding CACS was 0.036 (95% CI, 0.020-0.052). Among participants classified as being at low risk by the risk score and reclassified as at intermediate or high risk by CACS, 85.5% (65 of 76) to 96.4% (349 of 362) did not have a CVD event during follow-up (range, 5.1-10.0 years). Among participants classified as being at high risk by the risk score and reclassified as being at low risk by CACS, 91.4% (202 of 221) to 99.2% (502 of 506) did not have a CVD event during follow-up. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review and meta-analysis found that the CACS appears to add some further discrimination to the traditional CVD risk assessment equations used in these studies, which appears to be relatively consistent across studies. However, the modest gain may often be outweighed by costs, rates of incidental findings, and radiation risks. Although the CACS may have a role for refining risk assessment in selected patients, which patients would benefit remains unclear. At present, no evidence suggests that adding CACS to traditional risk scores provides clinical benefit.

Occupational therapy for cognitive impairment in stroke patients.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke and can impact on a person's ability to perform everyday activities. Occupational therapists use a range of interventions when working with people who have cognitive impairment poststroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of occupational therapy on activities of daily living (ADL), both basic and instrumental, global cognitive function, and specific cognitive abilities in people who have cognitive impairment following a stroke. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases (all last searched September 2020), trial registries, and reference lists. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated an intervention for adults with clinically defined stroke and confirmed cognitive impairment. The intervention needed either to be provided by an occupational therapist or considered within the scope of occupational therapy practice as defined in the review. We excluded studies focusing on apraxia or perceptual impairments or virtual reality interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews. The primary outcome was basic activities of daily living (BADL) such as dressing, feeding, and bathing. Secondary outcomes were instrumental ADL (IADL) (e.g. shopping and meal preparation), community integration and participation, global cognitive function and specific cognitive abilities (including attention, memory, executive function, or a combination of these), and subdomains of these abilities. We included both observed and self-reported outcome measures. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence. A third review author moderated disagreements if consensus was not reached. We contacted trial authors for additional information and data, where available. We assessed the certainty of key outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials from 11 countries involving 1142 (analysed) participants (two weeks to eight years since stroke onset). This update includes 23 new trials in addition to the one study included in the previous version. Most were parallel randomised controlled trials except for one cross-over trial and one with a two-by-two factorial design. Most studies had sample sizes under 50 participants. Twenty studies involved a remediation approach to cognitive rehabilitation, particularly using computer-based interventions. The other four involved a compensatory and adaptive approach. The length of interventions ranged from 10 days to 18 weeks, with a mean total length of 19 hours. Control groups mostly received usual rehabilitation or occupational therapy care, with a few receiving an attention control that was comparable to usual care; two had no intervention (i.e. a waiting list). Apart from high risk of performance bias for all but one of the studies, the risk of bias for other aspects was mostly low or unclear.  For the primary outcome of BADL, meta-analysis found a small effect on completion of the intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 2.26 on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 4.22; P = 0.03, I2 = 0%; 6 studies, 336 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therefore, on average, BADL improved by 2.26 points on the FIM that ranges from 18 (total assist) to 126 (complete independence). On follow-up, there was insufficient evidence of an effect at three months (MD 10.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 20.55; P = 0.06, I2 = 53%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), but evidence of an effect at six months (MD 11.38, 95% CI 1.62 to 21.14, I2 = 12%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). These differences are below 22 points which is the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the FIM for people with stroke. For IADL, the evidence is very uncertain about an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; P = 0.0005, I2 = 98%; 2 studies, 88 participants). For community integration, we found insufficient evidence of an effect (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.54; P = 0.68, I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 78 participants). There was an improvement of clinical importance in global cognitive functional performance after the intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54; P = 0.0004, I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.63 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52), which exceeds the anchor-based MCID of the MoCA for stroke rehabilitation patients of 1.22. We found some effect for attention overall (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; P = 0.0002, I2 = 20%; 13 studies, 620 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to a difference of 17.31 seconds (95% CI 8.38 to 26.24), and for executive functional performance overall (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.00001, I2 = 74%; 11 studies, 550 participants; very low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.41 points on the Frontal Assessment Battery (range: 0-18). Of the cognitive subdomains, we found evidence of effect of possible clinical importance, immediately after intervention, for sustained visual attention (moderate certainty) equating to 15.63 seconds, for working memory (low certainty) equating to 59.9 seconds, and thinking flexibly (low certainty), compared to control. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment poststroke remains unclear. Occupational therapy may result in little to no clinical difference in BADL immediately after intervention and at three and six months' follow-up. Occupational therapy may slightly improve global cognitive performance of a clinically important difference immediately after intervention, likely improves sustained visual attention slightly, and may slightly increase working memory and flexible thinking after intervention. There is evidence of low or very low certainty or insufficient evidence for effect on other cognitive domains, IADL, and community integration and participation.  Given the low certainty of much of the evidence in our review, more research is needed to support or refute the effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment after stroke. Future trials need improved methodology to address issues including risk of bias and to better report the outcome measures and interventions used.

Telehealth Versus Face-to-face Psychotherapy for Less Common Mental Health Conditions: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are a leading cause of distress and disability worldwide. To meet patient demand, there is a need for increased access to high-quality, evidence-based mental health care. Telehealth has become well established in the treatment of illnesses, including mental health conditions. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to conduct a robust evidence synthesis to assess whether there is evidence of differences between telehealth and face-to-face care for the management of less common mental and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. METHODS: In this systematic review, we included randomized controlled trials comparing telehealth (telephone, video, or both) versus the face-to-face delivery of psychotherapy for less common mental health conditions and physical health conditions requiring psychotherapy. The psychotherapy delivered had to be comparable between the telehealth and face-to-face groups, and it had to be delivered by general practitioners, primary care nurses, or allied health staff (such as psychologists and counselors). Patient (symptom severity, overall improvement in psychological symptoms, and function), process (working alliance and client satisfaction), and financial (cost) outcomes were included. RESULTS: A total of 12 randomized controlled trials were included, with 931 patients in aggregate; therapies included cognitive behavioral and family therapies delivered in populations encompassing addiction disorders, eating disorders, childhood mental health problems, and chronic conditions. Telehealth was delivered by video in 7 trials, by telephone in 3 trials, and by both in 1 trial, and the delivery mode was unclear in 1 trial. The risk of bias for the 12 trials was low or unclear for most domains, except for the lack of the blinding of participants, owing to the nature of the comparison. There were no significant differences in symptom severity between telehealth and face-to-face therapy immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.27) or at any other follow-up time point. Similarly, there were no significant differences immediately after treatment between telehealth and face-to-face care delivery on any of the other outcomes meta-analyzed, including overall improvement (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.40 to 0.39), function (SMD 0.13, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.42), working alliance client (SMD 0.11, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.57), working alliance therapist (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.91 to 0.59), and client satisfaction (SMD 0.12, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.53), or at any other time point (3, 6, and 12 months). CONCLUSIONS: With regard to effectively treating less common mental health conditions and physical conditions requiring psychological support, there is insufficient evidence of a difference between psychotherapy delivered via telehealth and the same therapy delivered face-to-face. However, there was no includable evidence in this review for some serious mental health conditions, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorders, and further high-quality research is needed to determine whether telehealth is a viable, equivalent treatment option for these conditions.

'I was prepared to become infected as a frontline medical staff': A survey of Australian emergency department staff experiences during COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: To identify challenges faced by Australian hospital healthcare staff during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We conducted an online survey (30 June-15 August 2020) of healthcare staff from Australian emergency and infectious disease departments. Participants were contacted via professional organisations and asked about preparedness, personal protective equipment (PPE), information flow, patient care, infection concerns, workload and mental health. We calculated the proportion of answers to yes/no and Likert-style questions; free-text responses were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Respondents (n = 162) were 23-67 years old, 98% worked in EDs, 68% were female, 87% from Queensland, and most worked as nurses (46%) or specialists (31%). Respondents felt their workplace was prepared for the pandemic (79%), had sufficient information about PPE (83%); none were sent home because of PPE shortages. Eighty-five percent received sufficient information from official bodies and 50% were aware of the National COVID-19 Clinical Evidence Taskforce guidelines. Most (83%) had sufficient information to provide optimal patient care, but 24% experienced unfair/abusive patient behaviour. Most (76%) were concerned about becoming infected by patients, 67% about infecting patients, and 78% about infecting someone at home. Workload decreased for 82% but 42% looked after more patients. Fifty-seven percent experienced additional work-related stress: 60% reporting experiencing anxiety and 53% experiencing burnout, with 36% and 46% continuing to experience these, respectively. Key challenges included: emotional, workplace/organisational, family/loved ones and PPE factors. CONCLUSION: The Australian system provided sufficient information and PPE. Staff experienced considerable stress, infection concerns and emotional challenges, which merit consideration in preparing for the future.

Comparing public attitudes, knowledge, beliefs and behaviours towards antibiotics and antimicrobial resistance in Australia, United Kingdom, and Sweden (2010-2021): A systematic review, meta-analysis, and comparative policy analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social and behavioural drivers of inappropriate antibiotic use contribute to antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Recent reports indicate the Australian community consumes more than twice the defined daily doses (DDD) of antibiotics per 1000 population than in Sweden, and about 20% more than in the United Kingdom (UK). We compare measures of public knowledge, attitudes and practices (KAP) surrounding AMR in Australia, the UK and Sweden against the policy approaches taken in these settings to address inappropriate antibiotic use. METHODS: National antimicrobial stewardship policies in Australia, Sweden, and the UK were reviewed, supplemented by empirical studies of their effectiveness. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases for primary studies of the general public's KAP around antibiotic use and AMR in each setting (January 1 2011 until July 30 2021). Where feasible, we meta-analysed data on the proportion of participants agreeing with identical or very similar survey questions, using a random effects model. RESULTS: Policies in Sweden enact tighter control of community antibiotic use; reducing antibiotic use through public awareness raising is not a priority. Policies in the UK and Australia are more reliant on practitioner and public education to encourage appropriate antibiotic use. 26 KAP were included in the review and 16 were meta-analysable. KAP respondents in Australia and the UK are consistently more likely to report beliefs and behaviours that are not aligned with appropriate antibiotic use, compared to participants in similar studies conducted in Sweden. CONCLUSIONS: Interactions between public knowledge, attitudes and their impacts on behaviours surrounding community use of antibiotics are complex and contingent. Despite a greater focus on raising public awareness in Australia and the UK, neither antibiotic consumption nor community knowledge and attitudes are changing significantly. Clearly public education campaigns can contribute to mitigating AMR. However, the relative success of policy approaches taken in Sweden suggests that practice level interventions may also be required to activate prescribers and the communities they serve to make substantive reductions in inappropriate antibiotic use.

COVI-Prim international: Similarities and discrepancies in the way general practices from seven different countries coped with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives: General practitioners (GPs) are frequently patients' first point of contact with the healthcare system and play an important role in identifying, managing and monitoring cases. This study investigated the experiences of GPs from seven different countries in the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design: International cross-sectional online survey. Setting: General practitioners from Australia, Austria, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Slovenia and Switzerland. Participants: Overall, 1,642 GPs completed the survey. Main outcome measures: We focused on how well-prepared GPs were, their self-confidence and concerns, efforts to control the spread of the disease, patient contacts, information flow, testing procedures and protection of staff. Results: GPs gave high ratings to their self-confidence (7.3, 95% CI 7.1-7.5) and their efforts to control the spread of the disease (7.2, 95% CI 7.0-7.3). A decrease in the number of patient contacts (5.7, 95% CI 5.4-5.9), the perception of risk (5.3 95% CI 4.9-5.6), the provision of information to GPs (4.9, 95% CI 4.6-5.2), their testing of suspected cases (3.7, 95% CI 3.4-3.9) and their preparedness to face a pandemic (mean: 3.5; 95% CI 3.2-3.7) were rated as moderate. GPs gave low ratings to their ability to protect staff (2.2 95% CI 1.9-2.4). Differences were identified in all dimensions except protection of staff, which was consistently low in all surveyed GPs and countries. Conclusion: Although GPs in the different countries were confronted with the same pandemic, its impact on specific aspects differed. This partly reflected differences in health care systems and experience of recent pandemics. However, it also showed that the development of structured care plans in case of future infectious diseases requires the early involvement of primary care representatives.

Soap versus sanitiser for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections in the community: a systematic review with meta-analysis and dose-response analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of hand hygiene using alcohol-based hand sanitiser to soap and water for preventing the transmission of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and to assess the relationship between the dose of hand hygiene and the number of ARI, influenza-like illness (ILI) or influenza events. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and trial registries were searched in April 2020. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials that compared a community-based hand hygiene intervention (soap and water, or sanitiser) with a control, or trials that compared sanitiser with soap and water, and measured outcomes of ARI, ILI or laboratory-confirmed influenza or related consequences. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts for inclusion and extracted data. RESULTS: Eighteen trials were included. When meta-analysed, three trials of soap and water versus control found a non-significant increase in ARI events (risk ratio (RR) 1.23, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.93); six trials of sanitiser versus control found a significant reduction in ARI events (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.89). When hand hygiene dose was plotted against ARI relative risk, no clear dose-response relationship was observable. Four trials were head-to-head comparisons of sanitiser and soap and water but too heterogeneous to pool: two found a significantly greater reduction in the sanitiser group compared with the soap group and two found no significant difference between the intervention arms. CONCLUSIONS: Adequately performed hand hygiene, with either soap or sanitiser, reduces the risk of ARI virus transmission; however, direct and indirect evidence suggest sanitiser might be more effective in practice.