Influence of lack of blinding on the estimation of medication-related harms: a retrospective cohort study of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Empirical evidence suggests that lack of blinding may be associated with biased estimates of treatment benefit in randomized controlled trials, but the influence on medication-related harms is not well-recognized. We aimed to investigate the association between blinding and clinical trial estimates of medication-related harms. METHODS: We searched PubMed from January 1, 2015, till January 1, 2020, for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of medication-related harms. Eligible meta-analyses must have contained trials both with and without blinding. Potential covariates that may confound effect estimates were addressed by restricting trials within the comparison or by hierarchical analysis of harmonized groups of meta-analyses (therefore harmonizing drug type, control, dosage, and registration status) across eligible meta-analyses. The weighted hierarchical linear regression was then used to estimate the differences in harm estimates (odds ratio, OR) between trials that lacked blinding and those that were blinded. The results were reported as the ratio of OR (ROR) with its 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS: We identified 629 meta-analyses of harms with 10,069 trials. We estimated a weighted average ROR of 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.88, P < 0.01) among 82 trials in 20 meta-analyses where blinding of participants was lacking. With regard to lack of blinding of healthcare providers or outcomes assessors, the RORs were 0.68 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.87, P < 0.01 from 81 trials in 22 meta-analyses) and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.94 to 1.07, P = 0.94 from 858 trials among 155 meta-analyses) respectively. Sensitivity analyses indicate that these findings are applicable to both objective and subjective outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Lack of blinding of participants and health care providers in randomized controlled trials may underestimate medication-related harms. Adequate blinding in randomized trials, when feasible, may help safeguard against potential bias in estimating the effects of harms.

Mind-body internet and mobile-based interventions for depression and anxiety in adults with chronic physical conditions: A systematic review of RCTs.

This review summarizes the effectiveness of scalable mind-body internet and mobile-based interventions (IMIs) on depression and anxiety symptoms in adults living with chronic physical conditions. Six databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, EMBASE, CINAHL, and CENTRAL) were searched for randomized controlled trials published from database inception to March 2023. Mind-body IMIs included cognitive behavioral therapy, breathwork, meditation, mindfulness, yoga or Tai-chi. To focus on interventions with a greater potential for scale, the intervention delivery needed to be online with no or limited facilitation by study personnel. The primary outcome was mean change scores for anxiety and depression (Hedges' g). In subgroup analyses, random-effects models were used to calculate pooled effect size estimates based on personnel support level, intervention techniques, chronic physical condition, and survey type. Meta-regression was conducted on age and intervention length. Fifty-six studies met inclusion criteria (sample size 7691, mean age of participants 43 years, 58% female): 30% (n = 17) neurological conditions, 12% (n = 7) cardiovascular conditions, 11% cancer (n = 6), 43% other chronic physical conditions (n = 24), and 4% (n = 2) multiple chronic conditions. Mind-body IMIs demonstrated statistically significant pooled reductions in depression (SMD = -0.33 [-0.40, -0.26], p<0.001) and anxiety (SMD = -0.26 [-0.36, -0.17], p<0.001). Heterogeneity was moderate. Scalable mind-body IMIs hold promise as interventions for managing anxiety and depression symptoms in adults with chronic physical conditions without differences seen with age or intervention length. While modest, the effect sizes are comparable to those seen with pharmacological therapy. The field would benefit from detailed reporting of participant demographics including those related to technological proficiency, as well as further evaluation of non-CBT interventions. Registration: The study is registered with PROSPERO ID #CRD42022375606.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials.

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

Measuring the impact of zero-cases studies in evidence synthesis practice using the harms index and benefits index (Hi-Bi).

OBJECTIVES: In evidence synthesis practice, dealing with studies with no cases in both arms has been a tough problem, for which there is no consensus in the research community. In this study, we propose a method to measure the potential impact of studies with no cases for meta-analysis results which we define as harms index (Hi) and benefits index (Bi) as an alternative solution for deciding how to deal with such studies. METHODS: Hi and Bi are defined by the minimal number of cases added to the treatment arm (Hi) or control arm (Bi) of studies with no cases in a meta-analysis that lead to a change of the direction of the estimates or its statistical significance. Both exact and approximating methods are available to calculate Hi and Bi. We developed the "hibi" module in Stata so that researchers can easily implement the method. A real-world investigation of meta-analyses from Cochrane reviews was employed to evaluate the proposed method. RESULTS: Based on Hi and Bi, our results suggested that 21.53% (Hi) to 26.55% (Bi) of Cochrane meta-analyses may be potentially impacted by studies with no cases, for which studies with no cases could not be excluded from the synthesis. The approximating method shows excellent specificity (100%) for both Hi and Bi, moderate sensitivity (68.25%) for Bi, and high sensitivity (80.61%) for Hi compared to the exact method. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed method is practical and useful for systematic reviewers to measure whether studies with no cases impact the results of meta-analyses and may act as an alternative solution for review authors to decide whether to include studies with no events for the synthesis or not.

Preexisting mental health disorders and risk of opioid use disorder in young people: A case-control study.

AIM: Opioid use disorder (OUD) is a leading cause of preventable mortality amongst young people worldwide. Early identification and intervention of modifiable risk factors may reduce future OUD risk. The aim of this study was to explore whether the onset of OUD is associated with preexisting mental health conditions such as anxiety and depressive disorders in young people. METHODS: A retrospective, population-based case-control study was conducted from 31 March 2018 until 01 January 2002. Provincial administrative health data were collected from Alberta, Canada. CASES: Individuals 18-25 years on 01 April 2018, with a previous record of OUD. CONTROLS: Individuals without OUD were matched to cases, on age/sex/index date. Conditional logistic regression analysis was used to control for additional covariates (e.g., alcohol-related disorders, psychotropic medications, opioid analgesics, and social/material deprivation). RESULTS: We identified N = 1848 cases and N = 7392 matched controls. After adjustment, OUD was associated with the following preexisting mental health conditions: Anxiety disorders, aOR = 2.53 (95% CI = 2.16-2.96); depressive disorders, aOR = 2.20 (95% CI = 1.80-2.70); alcohol-related disorders, aOR = 6.08 (95% CI, 4.86-7.61); anxiety and depressive disorders, aOR = 1.94 (95% CI = 1.56-2.40); anxiety and alcohol-related disorders, aOR = 5.22 (95% CI = 4.03-6.77); depressive and alcohol-related disorders, aOR = 6.47 (95% CI = 4.73-8.84); anxiety, depressive and alcohol-related disorders, aOR = 6.09 (95% CI = 4.41-8.42). DISCUSSION: Preexisting mental health conditions such as anxiety and depressive disorders are risk factors for future OUD in young people. Preexisting alcohol-related disorders showed the strongest association with future OUD and demonstrated an additive risk when concurrent with anxiety/depression. As not all plausible risk factors could be examined, more research is still needed.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Reports: The CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Clinicians, patients, and policy makers rely on published results from clinical trials to help make evidence-informed decisions. To critically evaluate and use trial results, readers require complete and transparent information regarding what was planned, done, and found. Specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be reported in publications of clinical trials is needed to reduce deficient reporting practices that obscure issues with outcome selection, assessment, and analysis. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for reporting outcomes in clinical trial reports through integration with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for the reporting of outcomes in clinical trial reports. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 128 recommendations relevant to reporting outcomes in trial reports, the majority (83%) of which were not included in the CONSORT 2010 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 64 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 30 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 17 items that elaborate on the CONSORT 2010 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the trial outcomes, including how and when they were assessed (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 6a), defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups during sample size calculations (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 7a), describing the statistical methods used to compare groups for the primary and secondary outcomes (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 12a), and describing the prespecified analyses and any outcome analyses not prespecified (CONSORT 2010 statement checklist item 18). Conclusions and Relevance: This CONSORT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement provides 17 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all published clinical trial reports and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Guidelines for Reporting Outcomes in Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 Extension.

Importance: Complete information in a trial protocol regarding study outcomes is crucial for obtaining regulatory approvals, ensuring standardized trial conduct, reducing research waste, and providing transparency of methods to facilitate trial replication, critical appraisal, accurate reporting and interpretation of trial results, and knowledge synthesis. However, recommendations on what outcome-specific information should be included are diverse and inconsistent. To improve reporting practices promoting transparent and reproducible outcome selection, assessment, and analysis, a need for specific and harmonized guidance as to what outcome-specific information should be addressed in clinical trial protocols exists. Objective: To develop harmonized, evidence- and consensus-based standards for describing outcomes in clinical trial protocols through integration with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 statement. Evidence Review: Using the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework, the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement was developed by (1) generation and evaluation of candidate outcome reporting items via consultation with experts and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting trial outcomes (published within the 10 years prior to March 19, 2018) identified through expert solicitation, electronic database searches of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register, gray literature searches, and reference list searches; (2) a 3-round international Delphi voting process (November 2018-February 2019) completed by 124 panelists from 22 countries to rate and identify additional items; and (3) an in-person consensus meeting (April 9-10, 2019) attended by 25 panelists to identify essential items for outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in clinical trial protocols. Findings: The scoping review and consultation with experts identified 108 recommendations relevant to outcome-specific reporting to be addressed in trial protocols, the majority (72%) of which were not included in the SPIRIT 2013 statement. All recommendations were consolidated into 56 items for Delphi voting; after the Delphi survey process, 19 items met criteria for further evaluation at the consensus meeting and possible inclusion in the SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension. The discussions during and after the consensus meeting yielded 9 items that elaborate on the SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist items and are related to completely defining and justifying the choice of primary, secondary, and other outcomes (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 12) prospectively in the trial protocol, defining and justifying the target difference between treatment groups for the primary outcome used in the sample size calculations (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 14), describing the responsiveness of the study instruments used to assess the outcome and providing details on the outcome assessors (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 18a), and describing any planned methods to account for multiplicity relating to the analyses or interpretation of the results (SPIRIT 2013 statement checklist item 20a). Conclusions and Relevance: This SPIRIT-Outcomes 2022 extension of the SPIRIT 2013 statement provides 9 outcome-specific items that should be addressed in all trial protocols and may help increase trial utility, replicability, and transparency and may minimize the risk of selective nonreporting of trial results.

Outcomes and outcome measurement instruments reported in randomised controlled trials of anxiety disorder treatments in children and adolescents: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Paediatric anxiety disorders (AD) are prevalent and persistent mental health conditions worldwide affecting between 10% and 20% of children and adolescents. Despite the high prevalence of paediatric AD, there is limited understanding of which treatments work best. Outcome heterogeneity across paediatric mental health trials has been a significant factor in hindering the ability to compare results and assess the efficacy of such trials. This scoping review will help to identify and synthesise the outcomes reported in paediatric AD trials to date. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology, a comprehensive electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL) strategy will be applied to identify articles examining interventions for children diagnosed with an AD. Articles will be eligible for inclusion if they assess at least one AD intervention (eg, psychological), in children 4-18 years of age inclusive. Initial title and abstract screening will be completed by two trained reviewers independently and in duplicate. Full-text screening of each included article will be completed independently and in duplicate by two of three trained reviewers. Identified outcomes will be mapped to a standard outcome taxonomy developed for core outcome sets. Trial and outcome characteristics will be synthesised using quantitative metrics (counts and frequencies). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a scoping review of the literature and patient information or records were not accessed, institutional ethics approval was not required. Results of this scoping review will be disseminated to clinicians, researchers inclusive of trialists and other stakeholders invested in outcome selection, measurement and reporting in paediatric AD trials. In addition, scoping review results will inform the development of a Core Outcome Set for paediatric AD trials-a minimum set of outcomes that should be measured across trials in an area of health, without precluding the inclusion of other outcomes.

Validity of data extraction in evidence synthesis practice of adverse events: reproducibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the validity of data extraction in systematic reviews of adverse events, the effect of data extraction errors on the results, and to develop a classification framework for data extraction errors to support further methodological research. DESIGN: Reproducibility study. DATA SOURCES: PubMed was searched for eligible systematic reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 1 January 2020. Metadata from the randomised controlled trials were extracted from the systematic reviews by four authors. The original data sources (eg, full text and ClinicalTrials.gov) were then referred to by the same authors to reproduce the data used in these meta-analyses. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Systematic reviews were included when based on randomised controlled trials for healthcare interventions that reported safety as the exclusive outcome, with at least one pair meta-analysis that included five or more randomised controlled trials and with a 2×2 table of data for event counts and sample sizes in intervention and control arms available for each trial in the meta-analysis. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was data extraction errors summarised at three levels: study level, meta-analysis level, and systematic review level. The potential effect of such errors on the results was further investigated. RESULTS: 201 systematic reviews and 829 pairwise meta-analyses involving 10 386 randomised controlled trials were included. Data extraction could not be reproduced in 1762 (17.0%) of 10 386 trials. In 554 (66.8%) of 829 meta-analyses, at least one randomised controlled trial had data extraction errors; 171 (85.1%) of 201 systematic reviews had at least one meta-analysis with data extraction errors. The most common types of data extraction errors were numerical errors (49.2%, 867/1762) and ambiguous errors (29.9%, 526/1762), mainly caused by ambiguous definitions of the outcomes. These categories were followed by three others: zero assumption errors, misidentification, and mismatching errors. The impact of these errors were analysed on 288 meta-analyses. Data extraction errors led to 10 (3.5%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the direction of the effect and 19 (6.6%) of 288 meta-analyses changing the significance of the P value. Meta-analyses that had two or more different types of errors were more susceptible to these changes than those with only one type of error (for moderate changes, 11 (28.2%) of 39 v 26 (10.4%) 249, P=0.002; for large changes, 5 (12.8%) of 39 v 8 (3.2%) of 249, P=0.01). CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of adverse events potentially have serious issues in terms of the reproducibility of the data extraction, and these errors can mislead the conclusions. Implementation guidelines are urgently required to help authors of future systematic reviews improve the validity of data extraction.

N-of-1 Trials, Their Reporting Guidelines, and the Advancement of Open Science Principles.

N-of-1 trials are multiple crossover trials done over time within a single person; they can also be done with a series of individuals. Their focus on the individual as the unit of analysis maintains statistical power while accommodating greater differences between patients than most standard clinical trials. This makes them particularly useful in rare diseases, while also being applicable across many health conditions and populations. Best practices recommend the use of reporting guidelines to publish research in a standardized and transparent fashion. N-of-1 trials have the SPIRIT extension for N-of-1 protocols (SPENT) and the CONSORT extension for N-of-1 trials (CENT). Open science is a recent movement focused on making scientific knowledge fully available to anyone, increasing collaboration, and sharing of scientific efforts. Open science goals increase research transparency, rigor, and reproducibility, and reduce research waste. Many organizations and articles focus on specific aspects of open science, for example, open access publishing. Throughout the trajectory of research (idea, development, running a trial, analysis, publication, dissemination, knowledge translation/reflection), many open science ideals are addressed by the individual-focused nature of N-of-1 trials, including issues such as patient perspectives in research development, personalization, and publications, enhanced equity from the broader inclusion criteria possible, and easier remote trials options. However, N-of-1 trials also help us understand areas of caution, such as monitoring of post hoc analyses and the nuances of confidentiality for rare diseases in open data sharing. The N-of-1 reporting guidelines encourage rigor and transparency of N-of-1 considerations for key aspects of the research trajectory.

Study of natural product adverse events in adult HIV-infected patients in Canada.

INTRODUCTION: Many individuals living with HIV use natural health products (NHPs) in an effort to decrease medication side effects and to enhance overall well-being. METHODS: An active surveillance study of adult patients (≥ 18 years) with HIV was conducted between 2012 and 2014 to detect prescription drug and NHP use and associated adverse events (AEs) in the last month. RESULTS: Of the 167 participants, 85 (50.9%) took prescription medications only, three (1.8%) took NHPs only, 75 (44.9%) took NHPs and prescription medications concurrently, and four (2.4%) took neither. Patients who used both prescription drugs and NHPs concurrently were more than three times more likely to experience an AE compared with those who used prescription drugs only (OR, P = 0.003, 95% CI: 1.47-6.91). CONCLUSIONS: Increased AEs are reported in patients with HIV who combine NHPs and prescription medications, and no serious AEs were reported. Active surveillance was found to be feasible in this clinical setting.

Toward integrated pediatric medicine: Key learnings from the pediatric integrative medicine trial.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to explore the facilitators to integrating complementary therapies in conventional pediatric hospital practice based on the experiences of parents, healthcare providers, and complementary therapy providers. DESIGN: This study is part of a larger research study that examined the introduction of a pediatric integrative medicine service in an acute care children's hospital in Canada. A qualitative descriptive study was conducted using semi-structured one-on-one telephone and in-person interviews with a sample of parents of children, as well as healthcare providers and complementary therapy providers. RESULTS: A total of 50 individuals, from key-stakeholder groups, were interviewed between May 2014 and January 2016. This study identified the following facilitators for the integration of complementary therapies within conventional care: 1) stakeholders' open-mindedness and familiarity with care practices outside of their experiences; 2) stakeholders' open communication, respect for eachothers' roles in the process of care, and appreciation for the role of complementary therapies within conventional medicine; and 3) stakeholders' receptiveness to redefining the meaning of a 'positive outcome' in the context of hospital care. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study demonstrate that some of the existing barriers to the integration of complementary therapies in conventional hospital care could be mediated by creating an environment where the fundamental value of commitment to patient wellbeing is equally shared by all stakeholders.

Exploring patient centredness, communication and shared decision-making under a new model of care: Community rehabilitation in canada.

Patient-centred care and patient engagement in healthcare and health research are widely mandated by funders, health systems and institutions. Increasingly, shared decision-making (SDM) is recognised as promoting patient-centred care. We explore this relationship by studying SDM in the context of integrating novel patient-centred policies in community rehabilitation. There is little research on SDM in rehabilitation, and less so in the critical community context. Patient co-investigators led study co-design. We aimed to describe how patients and providers experience SDM at community rehabilitation sites that adopted a novel, patient-centred Rehabilitation Model of Care (RMoC). Guided by focused ethnography, we conducted focus groups and interviews. Patient and professional participants were recruited from 10 RMoC early-adopter community rehabilitation sites. Sites varied in geography, patient population and provider disciplines. Patient and community engagement researchers used a set-collect-reflect method to document patient perspectives. Researchers captured provider perspectives using a semi-structured question guide. We completed 11 focus groups and 18 interviews (n = 45 providers, n = 17 patients). We found that most early-adopter providers spoke in a shared, patient-first language that focused on patient readiness, barriers and active listening. Congruent patient perceptions reflected inclusion in decision-making, goal setting and positive relationships. Many patients queried how care would become and remain accessible before and after community rehabilitation care respectively. Remaining connected while in the community was described as important to patients. Providers identified barriers like time, team dynamics and lack of clarity on the RMoC aims, which challenged the initiative's long-term sustainability. Policy innovations can promote SDM and communication through multiple strategies and training to facilitate candid, encouraging conversations. Sustainability of SDM gains is paramount. Most providers moved beyond tokenistic engagement, but competing responsibilities and team member resistance could thwart continuity. Further research is needed to empirically assess respectful and compassionate communication and SDM in community rehabilitation long term.

Treatment options and shared decision-making in the treatment of opioid use disorder: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision-making (SDM) is an approach to clinical decision-making that includes patients' values and preferences during health-related decisions. Previous research suggests that SDM may be beneficial in the treatment of substance use disorders; however, the impact of SDM in the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To identify relevant peer-reviewed literature related to SDM in the treatment of adults with OUD, and to summarize the main findings according to patient outcomes. METHODS: The research team conducted a scoping review. The team searched five electronic health databases from database inception until September 2019 using MeSH and keywords related to SDM. The team included only peer-reviewed studies where adults (≥18 years) with OUD were provided a choice and/or allowed input into their treatment plan. Two independent reviewers screened, extracted, and assessed the quality of included studies. RESULTS: Fourteen studies (n = 1748 participants) met inclusion criteria, including seven randomized controlled trials, three non-randomized controlled trials, two observational studies, and one qualitative study. Treatment options included: patient regulated methadone dosing vs. fixed dosing (n = 4 studies), optional vs. mandatory counseling (n = 4 studies), home vs. office buprenorphine inductions (n = 2 studies), and inpatient vs. outpatient treatment (n = 1 study). None of the studies measured SDM with a validated instrument. Seven of 14 studies reported at least one improved patient outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The review found few studies that explored whether providing treatment options and/or encouraging participation in decision-making are beneficial for adults with OUD. Preliminary evidence suggests that SDM may be promising for this population. However, the field needs more research on person-centered care and SDM.

"Doing our best for patient safety": An international and interprofessional qualitative study with spinal manipulative therapy providers in community-based settings.

BACKGROUND: Patient safety research is expanding from hospitals to community-based healthcare settings. Knowledge gaps persist among manual therapy professions that may impede patient safety initiatives within musculoskeletal care settings. OBJECTIVES: To describe perceptions of patient safety among chiropractors and physiotherapists who provide spinal manipulation therapy (SMT). DESIGN: Qualitative descriptive study. METHOD: Cross-sectional data were collected using the SafetyNET Survey to Support Quality Improvement. SMT providers (n = 705) in 3 countries completed surveys, with 84 providing written responses to an open-ended question about patient safety. Qualitative thematic analysis described providers' perceptions about patient safety within their practice. RESULTS: SMT providers' perceptions were influenced by professional, patient, and practice setting factors. Five themes and 10 supporting categories were developed. Doing Our Best for Patient Safety concerned Avoiding Mistakes and Prioritizing Safety.Putting Patients First focused on Developing Relationships and Individualizing Care.Working and Learning Together advocated for Interprofessional Communication and Collaborative Learning. Organizing Practice Processes emphasized Standardizing Procedures and Benchmarking Progress.Considering Practitioner Identity highlighted how Recognizing Difference among SMT providers and Challenging Fears of other healthcare professionals and patients about SMT were important for enhancing patient safety. CONCLUSION: Findings align with World Health Organization guiding principles that the nature of healthcare settings influence patient safety strategies. Most responses focused on individual strategies to prevent adverse events. However, this approach may overlook the benefits of identifying and documenting adverse events, setting time to discuss adverse events with clinic members, standardizing clinical practices, and building transparent patient safety cultures across healthcare professions and settings.

Systematic Review of Mind-Body Interventions to Treat Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Background and Objectives: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a chronic condition distinguished by disabling fatigue associated with post-exertional malaise, as well as changes to sleep, autonomic functioning, and cognition. Mind-body interventions (MBIs) utilize the ongoing interaction between the mind and body to improve health and wellbeing. Purpose: To systematically review studies using MBIs for the treatment of ME/CFS symptoms. Materials and Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched (inception to September 2020). Interventional studies on adults diagnosed with ME/CFS, using one of the MBIs in comparison with any placebo, standard of care treatment or waitlist control, and measuring outcomes relevant to the signs and symptoms of ME/CFS and quality of life were assessed for inclusion. Characteristics and findings of the included studies were summarized using a descriptive approach. Results: 12 out of 382 retrieved references were included. Seven studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with one including three reports (1 RCT, 2 single-arms); others were single-arm trials. Interventions included mindfulness-based stress reduction, mindfulness-based cognitive therapy, relaxation, Qigong, cognitive-behavioral stress management, acceptance and commitment therapy and isometric yoga. The outcomes measured most often were fatigue severity, anxiety/depression, and quality of life. Fatigue severity and symptoms of anxiety/depression were improved in nine and eight studies respectively, and three studies found that MBIs improved quality of life. Conclusions: Fatigue severity, anxiety/depression and physical and mental functioning were shown to be improved in patients receiving MBIs. However, small sample sizes, heterogeneous diagnostic criteria, and a high risk of bias may challenge this result. Further research using standardized outcomes would help advance the field.

Study of Natural Products Adverse Reactions (SONAR) in Adults with Mental Health Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Mental illness is a leading cause of non-fatal disease burden worldwide. Natural health products (NHPs) are sought by patients with mental health conditions as a safer and more 'natural' option than conventional pharmacotherapy; however, the possible adverse events (AE) and interactions between NHPs and prescription medicines are not fully known. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine (i) the prevalence of adult patients with mental health conditions taking prescription medications only, NHPs only, NHPs and prescription medications concurrently, or neither, (ii) which prescription medications and NHPs are most commonly used, (iii) AEs (serious and non-serious) experienced in the last 30 days for each product use group. METHODS: Mental health clinics in Alberta and Ontario, Canada, were included in an active surveillance study investigating NHP-drug interactions. On their first clinic visit, adult mental health patients were provided with a form inquiring about prescription drug use, NHP use, and any undesirable health events experienced in the last month. Healthcare professionals were also asked to report AEs. RESULTS: A total of 3079 patients were screened at 11 mental health clinics in Alberta and Ontario. In total, 620 AEs were reported in 447 patients (14.9%). The majority of adverse events were seen in patients using both NHPs and prescription medicines (58.8%), followed by patients taking only prescription medicines (37.1%), NHPs only (3.4%) and neither (0.67%). Combining NHPs and prescription medications increases the likelihood of experiencing AEs (OR 2.1; p < 0.001; 95% CI 1.7-2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Adult patients with mental health conditions who are taking both prescription medications and NHPs are more likely to report an adverse event than patients taking prescription drugs or NHPs alone. Polypharmacy increases the likelihood of an adverse event. Active surveillance is feasible and could contribute to enhanced pharmacovigilance.