Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions.

BACKGROUND: Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. METHODS: Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). INFORMATION SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database's inception to March 2020. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. RESULTS: We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [- 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [- 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I2 = 25%; St George's Respiratory Questionnaire: MD - 2.12, 95% CI [- 3.72, - 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I2 = 21%). CONCLUSIONS: KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Rapid antigen-based and rapid molecular tests for the detection of SARS-CoV-2: a rapid review with network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies.

BACKGROUND: The global spread of COVID-19 created an explosion in rapid tests with results in < 1 hour, but their relative performance characteristics are not fully understood yet. Our aim was to determine the most sensitive and specific rapid test for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: Design: Rapid review and diagnostic test accuracy network meta-analysis (DTA-NMA). ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing rapid antigen and/or rapid molecular test(s) to detect SARS-CoV-2 in participants of any age, suspected or not with SARS-CoV-2 infection. INFORMATION SOURCES: Embase, MEDLINE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, up to September 12, 2021. OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity and specificity of rapid antigen and molecular tests suitable for detecting SARS-CoV-2. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment: Screening of literature search results was conducted by one reviewer; data abstraction was completed by one reviewer and independently verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias was not assessed in the included studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis and DTA-NMA. RESULTS: We included 93 studies (reported in 88 articles) relating to 36 rapid antigen tests in 104,961 participants and 23 rapid molecular tests in 10,449 participants. Overall, rapid antigen tests had a sensitivity of 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.70-0.79) and specificity of 0.99 (0.98-0.99). Rapid antigen test sensitivity was higher when nasal or combined samples (e.g., combinations of nose, throat, mouth, or saliva samples) were used, but lower when nasopharyngeal samples were used, and in those classified as asymptomatic at the time of testing. Rapid molecular tests may result in fewer false negatives than rapid antigen tests (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.88-0.96; specificity: 0.98, 0.97-0.99). The tests with the highest sensitivity and specificity estimates were the Xpert Xpress rapid molecular test by Cepheid (sensitivity: 0.99, 0.83-1.00; specificity: 0.97, 0.69-1.00) among the 23 commercial rapid molecular tests and the COVID-VIRO test by AAZ-LMB (sensitivity: 0.93, 0.48-0.99; specificity: 0.98, 0.44-1.00) among the 36 rapid antigen tests we examined. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid molecular tests were associated with both high sensitivity and specificity, while rapid antigen tests were mainly associated with high specificity, according to the minimum performance requirements by WHO and Health Canada. Our rapid review was limited to English, peer-reviewed published results of commercial tests, and study risk of bias was not assessed. A full systematic review is required. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021289712.

Implemented machine learning tools to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify ML tools in hospital settings and how they were implemented to inform decision-making for patient care through a scoping review. We investigated the following research questions: What ML interventions have been used to inform decision-making for patient care in hospital settings? What strategies have been used to implement these ML interventions? DESIGN: A scoping review was undertaken. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) were searched from 2009 until June 2021. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts, full-text articles, and charted data independently. Conflicts were resolved by another reviewer. Data were summarised descriptively using simple content analysis. SETTING: Hospital setting. PARTICIPANT: Any type of clinician caring for any type of patient. INTERVENTION: Machine learning tools used by clinicians to inform decision-making for patient care, such as AI-based computerised decision support systems or "'model-based'" decision support systems. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Patient and study characteristics, as well as intervention characteristics including the type of machine learning tool, implementation strategies, target population. Equity issues were examined with PROGRESS-PLUS criteria. RESULTS: After screening 17 386 citations and 3474 full-text articles, 20 unique studies and 1 companion report were included. The included articles totalled 82 656 patients and 915 clinicians. Seven studies reported gender and four studies reported PROGRESS-PLUS criteria (race, health insurance, rural/urban). Common implementation strategies for the tools were clinician reminders that integrated ML predictions (44.4%), facilitated relay of clinical information (17.8%) and staff education (15.6%). Common barriers to successful implementation of ML tools were time (11.1%) and reliability (11.1%), and common facilitators were time/efficiency (13.6%) and perceived usefulness (13.6%). CONCLUSIONS: We found limited evidence related to the implementation of ML tools to assist clinicians with patient healthcare decisions in hospital settings. Future research should examine other approaches to integrating ML into hospital clinician decisions related to patient care, and report on PROGRESS-PLUS items. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Foundation grant awarded to SES and the CIHR Strategy for Patient Oriented-Research Initiative (GSR-154442). SCOPING REVIEW REGISTRATION: https://osf.io/e2mna.

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research.

BACKGROUND: Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research. METHODS: A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted. RESULTS: The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is "good enough" or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach. CONCLUSIONS: Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness.

Reporting of health equity considerations in cluster and individually randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: The randomized controlled trial (RCT) is considered the gold standard study design to inform decisions about the effectiveness of interventions. However, a common limitation is inadequate reporting of the applicability of the intervention and trial results for people who are "socially disadvantaged" and this can affect policy-makers' decisions. We previously developed a framework for identifying health-equity-relevant trials, along with a reporting guideline for transparent reporting. In this study, we provide a descriptive assessment of health-equity considerations in 200 randomly sampled equity-relevant trials. METHODS: We developed a search strategy to identify health-equity-relevant trials published between 2013 and 2015. We randomly sorted the 4316 records identified by the search and screened studies until 100 individually randomized (RCTs) and 100 cluster randomized controlled trials (CRTs) were identified. We developed and pilot-tested a data extraction form based on our initial work, to inform the development of our reporting guideline for equity-relevant randomized trials. RESULTS: In total, 39 trials (20%) were conducted in a low- and middle-income country and 157 trials (79%) in a high-income country focused on socially disadvantaged populations (78% CRTs, 79% RCTs). Seventy-four trials (37%) reported a subgroup analysis across a population characteristic associated with disadvantage (25% CRT, 49% RCTs), with 19% of included studies reporting subgroup analyses across sex, 9% across race/ethnicity/culture, and 4% across socioeconomic status. No subgroup analyses were reported for place of residence, occupation, religion, education, or social capital. One hundred and forty-one trials (71%) discussed the applicability of their results to one or more socially disadvantaged populations (68% of CRT, 73% of RCT). DISCUSSION: In this set of trials, selected for their relevance to health equity, data that were disaggregated for socially disadvantaged populations were rarely reported. We found that even when the data are available, opportunities to analyze health-equity considerations are frequently missed. The recently published equity extension of the Consolidated Reporting Standards for Randomized Trials (CONSORT-Equity) may help improve delineation of hypotheses related to socially disadvantaged populations, and transparency and completeness of reporting of health-equity considerations in RCTs. This study can serve as a baseline assessment of the reporting of equity considerations.

A programme to improve quality of care for patients with chronic diseases, Kazakhstan.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a disease management programme in Kazakhstan on quality indicators for patients with hypertension, diabetes and chronic heart failure. METHODS: A supportive, interdisciplinary, quality improvement programme was implemented between November 2014 and November 2015 at seven polyclinics in Pavlodar and Petropavlovsk. Quality improvement teams were established at each clinic and quality improvement tools were introduced, including patient flowsheets, decision support tools, patient registries, a patient recall process, support for patient self-management and patient follow-up with intensity adjusted for level of disease control. Clinic teams met for four 3-day interactive learning sessions within 1 year, with additional coaching visits. Implementation was managed by five local coordinators and consultants trained by international consultants. National and regional steering committees monitored progress. FINDINGS: Between July and October 2015, the proportion of hypertensive patients with the recommended blood pressure increased from 24% (101/424) to 56% (228/409). Among patients with diabetes, the proportion who recently underwent eye examinations increased from 26% (101/391) to 71% (308/433); the proportion who had their low-density lipoprotein cholesterol measured increased from 57% (221/391) to 85% (369/433); and the proportion who had their albumin : creatinine ratio measured increased from 11% (44/391) to 49% (212/433). The proportion of chronic heart failure patients who underwent echocardiography rose from 91% (128/140) to 99% (157/158). All patients set themselves self-management goals. CONCLUSION: This intensive, supportive, multifaceted programme was associated with significant improvements in quality of care for patients with chronic disease. Further investment in coaching capacity is needed to extend the programme nationally.

Deworming in non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The impact of deworming on parasite load, nutritional status and other health outcomes of non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women is uncertain. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Food and Technology Abstracts databases were searched until 24 September 2018. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after studies or interrupted time studies comparing deworming with no intervention or placebo in non-pregnant adolescent girls and women 10 to 49 years old. Outcomes of interest included parasite load, reinfection, anaemia, severe anaemia, iron deficiency, diarrhoea or all-cause morbidity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: We included four RCTs of mass deworming involving 1086 participants, in the analyses. Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of roundworm infection (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.62; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of hookworm infection (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.59; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of whipworm infection (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence) compared to the control group. Deworming may make little or no difference in prevalence of anaemia (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 3 studies, 683 participants, low certainty evidence) and prevalence of iron-deficiency (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, 1 study, 186 participants, low certainty evidence) compared to control. We are uncertain whether deworming reduces the prevalence of severe anaemia compared to control as the certainty of evidence was very low. None of the included studies assessed screen and treat deworming or reported reinfection, diarrhoea or adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections but may have little or no effect on anaemia and iron-deficiency in adolescent girls and non-pregnant women in comparison to no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on severe anaemia. These results are limited by sparse data and the moderate to very low quality of evidence available. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016039557 ).  Primary source of funding: Evidence and Programme Guidance unit, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization (WHO).

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Sustaining knowledge translation interventions for chronic disease management in older adults: protocol for a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Failure to sustain knowledge translation (KT) interventions impacts patients and health systems, diminishing confidence in future implementation. Sustaining KT interventions used to implement chronic disease management (CDM) interventions is of critical importance given the proportion of older adults with chronic diseases and their need for ongoing care. Our objectives are to (1) complete a systematic review and network meta-analysis of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of sustainability of KT interventions that target CDM for end-users including older patients, clinicians, public health officials, health services managers and policy-makers on health care outcomes beyond 1 year after implementation or the termination of initial project funding and (2) use the results of this review to complete an economic analysis of the interventions identified to be effective. METHODS: For objective 1, comprehensive searches of relevant electronic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), websites of health care provider organisations and funding agencies will be conducted. We will include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the impact of a KT intervention targeting CDM in adults aged 65 years and older. To examine cost, economic studies (e.g. cost, cost-effectiveness analyses) will be included. Our primary outcome will be the sustainability of the delivery of the KT intervention beyond 1 year after implementation or termination of study funding. Secondary outcomes will include behaviour changes at the level of the patient (e.g. symptom management) and clinician (e.g. physician test ordering) and health system (e.g. cost, hospital admissions). Article screening, data abstraction and risk of bias assessment will be completed independently by two reviewers. Using established methods, if the assumption of transitivity is valid and the evidence forms a connected network, Bayesian random-effects pairwise and network meta-analysis will be conducted. For objective 2, we will build a decision analytic model comparing effective interventions to estimate an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio. DISCUSSION: Our results will inform knowledge users (e.g. patients, clinicians, policy-makers) regarding the sustainability of KT interventions for CDM. Dissemination plan of our results will be tailored to end-users and include passive (e.g. publications, website posting) and interactive (e.g. knowledge exchange events with stakeholders) strategies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct a scoping review of knowledge translation (KT) theories, models, and frameworks that have been used to guide dissemination or implementation of evidence-based interventions targeted to prevention and/or management of cancer or other chronic diseases. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a comprehensive multistage search process from 2000 to 2016, which included traditional bibliographic database searching, searching using names of theories, models and frameworks, and cited reference searching. Two reviewers independently screened the literature and abstracted the data. RESULTS: We found 596 studies reporting on the use of 159 KT theories, models, or frameworks. A majority (87%) of the identified theories, models, or frameworks were used in five or fewer studies, with 60% used once. The theories, models, and frameworks were most commonly used to inform planning/design, implementation and evaluation activities, and least commonly used to inform dissemination and sustainability/scalability activities. Twenty-six were used across the full implementation spectrum (from planning/design to sustainability/scalability) either within or across studies. All were used for at least individual-level behavior change, whereas 48% were used for organization-level, 33% for community-level, and 17% for system-level change. CONCLUSION: We found a significant number of KT theories, models, and frameworks with a limited evidence base describing their use.