Prospective randomised placebo-controlled trial assessing the efficacy of silver dressings to enhance healing of acute diabetes-related foot ulcers.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Silver dressings are used for their antimicrobial properties but there is limited evidence of clinical benefit when managing diabetes-related foot ulcers (DFUs). We aimed to assess whether silver dressings in acute DFUs increased the proportion of ulcers healed compared with non-silver dressings. METHODS: In this open-labelled, randomised controlled trial, consecutive individuals who presented to a tertiary multidisciplinary diabetic foot service with a DFU without osteomyelitis or tendon on view of <6 weeks' duration were randomised 1:1 via a computer-generated randomisation process to receive Acticoat (Smith & Nephew, England) dressing (silver group) or dressing without silver (control group) in addition to standard care. Stratified randomisation was performed to ensure that the presence of peripheral arterial disease and infection were equally managed within the two groups. The primary outcome was the proportion of ulcers healed at 12 weeks. Secondary outcomes included time to heal and to 50% ulcer reduction, rates of osteomyelitis and amputation, and need for and duration of antibiotics. RESULTS: Seventy-six ulcers (55 participants) in the control group and 91 ulcers (63 participants) in the silver group were included. There was no difference in the proportion of ulcers healed by 12 weeks in the control vs silver group (75% vs 69%, p=0.49). After adjustment for presence of peripheral arterial disease, infection and initial ulcer size, silver dressing was not associated with odds of healing (OR 0.92; CI 0.26, 3.22; p=0.53). There was no difference in time to healing, progression to osteomyelitis, need for amputation, or duration of or need for antibiotic treatment. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: In individuals with acute DFUs without osteomyelitis or tendon on view, Acticoat silver dressings did not improve wound healing or reduce need for antibiotics compared with non-silver dressings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614001234606 FUNDING: Australian Diabetes Society-unrestricted research award.

Mental health promotion and protection relating to key life events and transitions in adulthood: a rapid systematic review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: During the decades representing working-age adulthood, most people will experience one or several significant life events or transitions. These may present a challenge to mental health. AIM: The primary aim of this rapid systematic review of systematic reviews was to summarise available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions to promote and protect mental health relating to four key life events and transitions: pregnancy and early parenthood, bereavement, unemployment, and housing problems. This review was conducted to inform UK national policy on mental health support. METHODS: We searched key databases for systematic reviews of interventions for working-age adults (19 to 64 years old) who had experienced or were at risk of experiencing one of four key life events. Titles and abstracts were screened by two reviewers in duplicate, as were full-text manuscripts of relevant records. We assessed the quality of included reviews and extracted data on the characteristics of each literature review. We prioritised high quality, recent systematic reviews for more detailed data extraction and synthesis. RESULTS: The search and screening of 3997 titles/abstracts and 239 full-text papers resulted in 134 relevant studies, 68 of which were included in a narrative synthesis. Evidence was strongest and of the highest quality for interventions to support women during pregnancy and after childbirth. For example, we found benefits of physical activity and psychological therapy for outcomes relating to mental health after birth. There was high quality evidence of positive effects of online bereavement interventions and psychological interventions on symptoms of grief, post-traumatic stress, and depression. Evidence was inconclusive and of lower quality for a range of other bereavement interventions, unemployment support interventions, and housing interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst evidence based mental health prevention and promotion is available during pregnancy and early parenthood and for bereavement, it is unclear how best to support adults experiencing job loss, unemployment, and housing problems.

Mental health among healthcare workers and other vulnerable groups during the COVID-19 pandemic and other coronavirus outbreaks: A rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Although most countries and healthcare systems worldwide have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, some groups of the population may be more vulnerable to detrimental effects of the pandemic on mental health than others. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise evidence currently available from systematic reviews on the impact of COVID-19 and other coronavirus outbreaks on mental health for groups of the population thought to be at increased risk of detrimental mental health impacts. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of reviews on adults and children residing in a country affected by a coronavirus outbreak and belonging to a group considered to be at risk of experiencing mental health inequalities. Data were collected on symptoms or diagnoses of any mental health condition, quality of life, suicide or attempted suicide. The protocol for this systematic review was registered in the online PROSPERO database prior to commencing the review (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=194264). RESULTS: We included 25 systematic reviews. Most reviews included primary studies of hospital workers from multiple countries. Reviews reported variable estimates for the burden of symptoms of mental health problems among acute healthcare workers, COVID-19 patients with physical comorbidities, and children and adolescents. No evaluations of interventions were identified. Risk- and protective factors, mostly for healthcare workers, showed the importance of personal factors, the work environment, and social networks for mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This review of reviews based on primary studies conducted in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic shows a lack of evidence on mental health interventions and mental health impacts on vulnerable groups in the population.

Mental health in the pandemic: a repeated cross-sectional mixed-method study protocol to investigate the mental health impacts of the coronavirus pandemic in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: The WHO declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020. Since then, the world has been firmly in the grip of the COVID-19. To date, more than 211 730 035 million confirmed cases and more than 4 430 697 million people have died. While controlling the virus and implementing vaccines are the main priorities, the population mental health impacts of the pandemic are expected to be longer term and are less obvious than the physical health ones. Lockdown restrictions, physical distancing, social isolation, as well as the loss of a loved one, working in a frontline capacity and loss of economic security may have negative effects on and increase the mental health challenges in populations around the world. There is a major demand for long-term research examining the mental health experiences and needs of people in order to design adequate policies and interventions for sustained action to respond to individual and population mental health needs both during and after the pandemic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This repeated cross-sectional mixed-method study conducts regular self-administered representative surveys, and targeted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with adults in the UK, as well as validation of gathered evidence through citizens' juries for contextualisation (for the UK as a whole and for its four devolved nations) to ensure that emerging mental health problems are identified early on and are properly understood, and that appropriate policies and interventions are developed and implemented across the UK and within devolved contexts. STATA and NVIVO will be used to carry out quantitative and qualitative analysis, respectively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval for this study has been granted by the Cambridge Psychology Research Ethics Committee of the University of Cambridge, UK (PRE 2020.050) and by the Health and Life Sciences Research Ethics Committee of De Montfort University, UK (REF 422991). While unlikely, participants completing the self-administered surveys or participating in the virtual focus groups, semi-structured interviews and citizens' juries might experience distress triggered by questions or conversations. However, appropriate mitigating measures have been adopted and signposting to services and helplines will be available at all times. Furthermore, a dedicated member of staff will also be at hand to debrief following participation in the research and personalised thank-you notes will be sent to everyone taking part in the qualitative research.Study findings will be disseminated in scientific journals, at research conferences, local research symposia and seminars. Evidence-based open access briefings, articles and reports will be available on our study website for everyone to access. Rapid policy briefings targeting issues emerging from the data will also be disseminated to inform policy and practice. These briefings will position the findings within UK public policy and devolved nations policy and socioeconomic contexts in order to develop specific, timely policy recommendations. Additional dissemination will be done through traditional and social media. Our data will be contextualised in view of existing policies, and changes over time as-and-when policies change.