What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews.

Background: In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work-related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH-trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi-disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return-to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi-disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work-related outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work-related outcomes. Search Methods: In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi-disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non-clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level. Data Collection and Analysis: Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI-Mapper software to create an EGM. Stakeholder Involvement: We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it. Main Results: We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically-Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work-related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review. Authors' Conclusions: This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary, workplace-based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.

Experiences of interventions to reduce hospital stay for older adults following elective treatment: Qualitative evidence-synthesis.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Hospitals streamline treatment pathways to reduce the length of time older adults admitted for planned procedures spend in hospital. However patient perspectives have been poorly evaluated. This systematic review aimed to understand the experiences of older patients, carers, families and staff of multi-component interventions intended to improve recovery following elective treatment. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Bibliographic databases searched in June 2021 included MEDLINE ALL, HMIC, CENTRAL, CINAHL, AMED and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. We conducted citation searching and examined reference lists of reviews. Two reviewers independently undertook screening and data extraction, resolving disagreements through discussion. We used an adapted Wallace checklist for quality appraisal and meta-ethnography to synthesise data. Clinician, carer and patient views were incorporated throughout the review. RESULTS: Thirty-five papers were included in the synthesis. Thirteen studies were conducted in the UK, with patient views the most frequently represented. We identified six overarching constructs: 'Home as preferred environment for recovery', 'Feeling safe', 'Individualisation of structured programme', 'Taking responsibility', 'Essential care at home' and 'Outcomes'. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS: Findings explore the support patients, families and carers need throughout hospital admission, and may inform commissioning of services to ensure patients and carers receive appropriate follow-up support after hospital discharge. The findings may help hospital and community-based health and social care staff provide person-centred care based upon assessments of emotional and physical wellbeing of patients and family/carers. Research is needed to establish a core-set of patient-reported outcome measures which capture aspects of recovery which are meaningful to patients.

What is the quantity, quality and type of systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensives? A systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to map the systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensive medication. DESIGN: Systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map (EGM). DATA SOURCES: Eight bibliographic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Science Citation Index) were searched from 2010 to 11 August 2020. Update searches conducted in MEDLINE ALL 2 August 2022. We searched relevant websites and conducted backwards citation chasing. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We sought systematic reviews of quantitative or qualitative research where adults 16 years+ were currently receiving, or being considered for, a prescription of statin or antihypertensive medication. Eligibility criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each article independently by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Quality appraisal was completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Review characteristics were tabulated and incorporated into an EGM based on a patient care pathway. Patients with lived experience provided feedback on our research questions and EGM. RESULTS: Eighty reviews were included within the EGM. The highest quantity of evidence focused on evaluating interventions to promote patient adherence to antihypertensive medication. Key gaps included a lack of reviews synthesising evidence on experiences of specific interventions to promote patient adherence or improve prescribing practice. The evidence was predominantly of low quality, limiting confidence in the findings from individual reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This EGM provides an interactive, accessible format for policy developers, service commissioners and clinicians to view the systematic review evidence available relevant to optimising the prescribing of statin and antihypertensive medication. To address the paucity of high-quality research, future reviews should be conducted and reported according to existing guidelines and address the evidence gaps identified above.

Impact of interventions to improve recovery of older adults following planned hospital admission on quality-of-life following discharge: linked-evidence synthesis.

Objectives: To understand the impact of multicomponent interventions to improve recovery of older adults following planned hospital treatment, we conducted two systematic reviews, one of quantitative and one of qualitative evidence, and an overarching synthesis. These aimed to: • understand the effect of multicomponent interventions which aim to enhance recovery and/or reduce length of stay on patient-reported outcomes and health and social care utilisation • understand the experiences of patients, carers and staff involved in the delivery of interventions • understand how different aspects of the content and delivery of interventions may influence patient outcomes. Review methods: We searched bibliographic databases including MEDLINE ALL, Embase and the Health Management Information Consortium, CENTRAL, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, conducted forward and backward citation searching and examined reference lists of topically similar qualitative reviews. Bibliographic database searches were completed in May/June 2021 and updated in April 2022. We sought primary research from high-income countries regarding hospital inpatients with a mean/median age of minimum 60 years, undergoing planned surgery. Patients experienced any multicomponent hospital-based intervention to reduce length of stay or improve recovery. Quantitative outcomes included length of stay and any patient-reported outcome or experience or service utilisation measure. Qualitative research focused on the experiences of patients, carers/family and staff of interventions received. Quality appraisal was undertaken using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool or an adapted version of the Wallace checklist. We used random-effects meta-analysis to synthesise quantitative data where appropriate, meta-ethnography for qualitative studies and qualitative comparative analysis for the overarching synthesis. Results: Quantitative review: Included 125 papers. Forty-nine studies met criteria for further synthesis. Enhanced recovery protocols resulted in improvements to length of stay, without detriment to other outcomes, with minimal improvement in patient-reported outcome measures for patients admitted for lower-limb or colorectal surgery. Qualitative review: Included 43 papers, 35 of which were prioritised for synthesis. We identified six themes: 'Home as preferred environment for recovery', 'Feeling safe', 'Individualisation of structured programme', 'Taking responsibility', 'Essential care at home' and 'Outcomes'. Overarching synthesis: Intervention components which trigger successful interventions represent individualised approaches that allow patients to understand their treatment, ask questions and build supportive relationships and strategies to help patients monitor their progress and challenge themselves through early mobilisation. Discussion: Interventions to reduce hospital length of stay for older adults following planned surgery are effective, without detriment to other patient outcomes. Findings highlight the need to reconsider how to evaluate patient recovery from the perspective of the patient. Trials did not routinely evaluate patient mid- to long-term outcomes. Furthermore, when they did evaluate patient outcomes, reporting is often incomplete or conducted using a narrow range of patient-reported outcome measures or limited through asking the wrong people the wrong questions, with lack of longer-term evaluation. Findings from the qualitative and overarching synthesis will inform policy-making regarding commissioning and delivering services to support patients, carers and families before, during and after planned admission to hospital. Study registration: This trial is registered as PROSPERO registration number CRD42021230620. Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: 130576) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 23. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

More patients aged 60 or over need planned surgery. These patients are more likely to experience difficulties, such as urinary infections or falls, whilst in hospital, so should not spend more time in hospital than necessary. Hospitals use strategies that shorten hospital stay, but we do not know how older patients, or carers, feel about these, or whether they help patients recover in the long term. We wanted to know: how leaving hospital sooner affects how older patients feel and recover after planned surgery; how older patients, carers and staff feel about strategies designed to support older patients to go home earlier; which parts of these hospital care strategies work best? We brought together research about hospital care strategies that shorten the length of time older patients spend in hospital. We looked at patient questionnaires and interviews with patients, carers and hospital staff. Patients and carers helped us plan our research, understand our findings and consider who to share these with. hospital strategies to reduce hospital stay achieve this, without increasing risk of complications; information and follow-up care for patients and carers after discharge are essential; strategies which consider the individual needs of patients and help them understand their treatment, focus on their recovery goals and develop supportive relationships with staff were linked to better outcomes; lots of studies were excluded because they did not use patient questionnaires. Studies using questionnaires often focused on aspects of care delivered whilst patients were in hospital. Carers' voices were often overlooked. Research is needed to develop patient questionnaires to more fully capture the experiences of patients and carers and support hospitals to develop care strategies focused on the needs of individual patients and carers.