Facilitating knowledge transfer to policy makers and front-line workers during a pandemic: Implementation, impact and lessons learned.

BACKGROUND: Stakeholders working on the COVID-19 pandemic response needed access to evidence, requiring a systematic approach to identify and disseminate relevant research. OBJECTIVES: Outline the stages of development of a COVID-19 Literature Digest; demonstrate the impact the Digest had on decision-making and knowledge gain; identify the lessons learned. METHODS: A standardised process was developed to identify and select papers. The main sources for content were PubMed, bioRxiv and medRxiv. A shared EndNote library was used to deduplicate and organise papers. Three user surveys obtained feedback from subscribers to determine if the Digest remained valuable, and explore the benefits to individuals. RESULTS: 40-60 papers were summarised each week. 211 Digests were produced from March 2020 to March 2022, with around 10,000 papers included altogether. Survey results suggest benefits of the Digest were gaining new knowledge, saving time and contributing to evidence-based decision making. DISCUSSION: Digest procedures constantly evolved and were adapted in response to survey feedback. Lessons identified: learn from failure, communication is key, measure your impact, work collaboratively, reflect and be flexible. CONCLUSION: The Digest was successfully produced within the limits of available resource. The learning from this Digest will inform evidence monitoring, selection and dissemination for future health crises.

Assessment of global antimicrobial resistance campaigns conducted to improve public awareness and antimicrobial use behaviours: a rapid systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Public health campaigns with a well-defined outcome behaviour have been shown to successfully alter behaviour. However, the complex nature of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) creates challenges when evaluating campaigns aimed at raising awareness and changing behaviour. AIMS: To determine what campaigns have been conducted and which reported being effective at improving awareness of antimicrobial resistance and changing behaviour around antimicrobial use in members of the public. It also sought to determine the outcome measures studies have used to assess campaign effectiveness. METHODS: A systematic search of Ovid MEDLINE and Embase, was conducted in October 2022 using a predefined search strategy. Studies which were published between 2010 and September 2022 that outlined a campaign or invention aimed at the public and focusing on AMR or antibiotic usage were eligible for inclusion and studies which solely targeted healthcare professionals (HCP) were excluded. RESULTS: Literature searches retrieved 6961 results. De-duplication and screening removed 6925 articles, five articles from grey literature and reference screening were included, giving a total of 41 studies and 30 unique interventions. There was a distribution of campaigns globally with the majority run in Europe (n = 15) with most campaigns were conducted nationally (n = 14). Campaigns tended to focus on adult members of the public (n = 14) or targeted resources towards both the public and HCPs (n = 13) and predominately assessed changes in knowledge of and/or attitudes towards AMR (n = 16). Campaigns where an improvement was seen in their primary outcome measure tended to use mass media to disseminate information, targeted messaging towards a specific infection, and including the use of HCP-patient interactions. DISCUSSION: This review provides some evidence that campaigns can significantly improve outcome measures relating to AMR and antibiotic usage. Despite a lack of homogeneity between studies some common themes emerged between campaigns reported as being effective. However, the frequent use of observational study designs makes it difficult to establish causation between the campaign and changes seen in the studies outcome measures. It is important that clear evaluation processes are embedded as part of the design process for future campaigns; a campaign evaluation framework for use by campaign developers may facilitate this.

Staphylococcus capitis: Review of Its Role in Infections and Outbreaks.

In June 2021, a national incident team was formed due to an increased detection of Staphylococcus capitis in samples from hospitalised infants. Staphylococcus capitis has been known to cause outbreaks in neonatal units across the globe, but the extent of the UK spread was unclear. A literature review was undertaken to support case identification, clinical management and environmental infection control. A literature search was undertaken on multiple databases from inception to 24 May 2021, using keywords such as "Staphylococcus capitis", "NRCS-A", "S. capitis", "neonate", "newborn" and "neonatal intensive care unit" (NICU). After screening, 223 articles of relevance were included. Results show incidences of S. capitis outbreaks have frequently been associated with the outbreak clone (NRCS-A) and environmental sources. The NRCS-A harbours a multidrug resistance profile that includes resistance to beta-lactam antibiotics and aminoglycosides, with several papers noting resistance or heteroresistance to vancomycin. The NRCS-A clone also harbours a novel SCCmec-SCCcad/ars/cop composite island and increased vancomycin resistance. The S. capitis NRCS-A clone has been detected for decades, but the reasons for the potentially increased frequency are unclear, as are the most effective interventions to manage outbreaks associated with this clone. This supports the need for improvements in environmental control and decontamination strategies to prevent transmission.

Critical appraisal in rapid systematic reviews of COVID-19 studies: implementation of the Quality Criteria Checklist (QCC).

In this letter, we briefly describe how we selected and implemented the quality criteria checklist (QCC) as a critical appraisal tool in rapid systematic reviews conducted to inform public health advice, guidance and policy during the COVID-19 pandemic. As these rapid reviews usually included a range of study designs, it was key to identify a single tool that would allow for reliable critical appraisal across most experimental and observational study designs and applicable to a range of topics. After carefully considering a number of existing tools, the QCC was selected as it had good interrater agreement between three reviewers (Fleiss kappa coefficient 0.639) and was found to be easy and fast to apply once familiar with the tool. The QCC consists of 10 questions, with sub-questions to specify how it should be applied to a specific study design. Four of these questions are considered as critical (on selection bias, group comparability, intervention/exposure assessment and outcome assessment) and the rating of a study (high, moderate or low methodological quality) depends on the responses to these four critical questions. Our results suggest that the QCC is an appropriate critical appraisal tool to assess experimental and observational studies within COVID-19 rapid reviews. This study was done at pace during the COVID-19 pandemic; further reliability analyses should be conducted, and more research is needed to validate the QCC across a range of public health topics.

Long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2: rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the potential for long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in indoor community settings and to investigate factors that might influence transmission. DESIGN: Rapid systematic review and narrative synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, medRxiv, Arxiv, and WHO COVID-19 Research Database for studies published from 27 July 2020 to 19 January 2022; existing relevant rapid systematic review for studies published from 1 January 2020 to 27 July 2020; and citation analysis in Web of Science and Cocites. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Observational studies reporting on transmission events in indoor community (non-healthcare) settings in which long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 was the most likely route. Studies such as those of household transmission where the main transmission route was likely to be close contact or fomite transmission were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data extraction was done by one reviewer and independently checked by a second reviewer. Primary outcomes were SARS-CoV-2 infections through long distance airborne transmission (>2 m) and any modifying factors. Methodological quality of included studies was rated using the quality criteria checklist, and certainty of primary outcomes was determined using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Narrative synthesis was themed by setting. RESULTS: 22 reports relating to 18 studies were identified (methodological quality was high in three, medium in five, and low in 10); all the studies were outbreak investigations. Long distance airborne transmission was likely to have occurred for some or all transmission events in 16 studies and was unclear in two studies (GRADE: very low certainty). In the 16 studies, one or more factors plausibly increased the likelihood of long distance airborne transmission, particularly insufficient air replacement (very low certainty), directional air flow (very low certainty), and activities associated with increased emission of aerosols, such as singing or speaking loudly (very low certainty). In 13 studies, the primary cases were reported as being asymptomatic, presymptomatic, or around symptom onset at the time of transmission. Although some of the included studies were well conducted outbreak investigations, they remain at risk of bias owing to study design and do not always provide the level of detail needed to fully assess transmission routes. CONCLUSION: This rapid systematic review found evidence suggesting that long distance airborne transmission of SARS-CoV-2 might occur in indoor settings such as restaurants, workplaces, and venues for choirs, and identified factors such as insufficient air replacement that probably contributed to transmission. These results strengthen the need for mitigation measures in indoor settings, particularly the use of adequate ventilation. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021236762.

National or population level interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health - an umbrella review.

BACKGROUND: Social circumstances in which people live and work impact the population's mental health. We aimed to synthesise evidence identifying effective interventions and policies that influence the social determinants of mental health at national or scaled population level. We searched five databases (Cochrane Library, Global Health, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO) between Jan 1st 2000 and July 23rd 2019 to identify systematic reviews of population-level interventions or policies addressing a recognised social determinant of mental health and collected mental health outcomes. There were no restrictions on country, sub-population or age. A narrative overview of results is provided. Quality assessment was conducted using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42019140198). RESULTS: We identified 20 reviews for inclusion. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Primary studies were mostly observational and from higher income settings. Higher quality evidence indicates more generous welfare benefits may reduce socioeconomic inequalities in mental health outcomes. Lower quality evidence suggests unemployment insurance, warm housing interventions, neighbourhood renewal, paid parental leave, gender equality policies, community-based parenting programmes, and less restrictive migration policies are associated with improved mental health outcomes. Low quality evidence suggests restriction of access to lethal means and multi-component suicide prevention programmes are associated with reduced suicide risk. CONCLUSION: This umbrella review has identified a small and overall low-quality evidence base for population level interventions addressing the social determinants of mental health. There are significant gaps in the evidence base for key policy areas, which limit ability of national policymakers to understand how to effectively improve population mental health.

Risk factors for gambling and problem gambling: a protocol for a rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

BACKGROUND: Gambling and problem gambling are increasingly being viewed as a public health issue. European surveys have reported a high prevalence of gambling, and according to the Gambling Commission, in 2018, almost half of the general population aged 16 and over in England had participated in gambling in the 4 weeks prior to being surveyed. The potential harms associated with gambling and problem are broad, including harms to individuals, their friends and family, and society. There is a need to better understand the nature of this issue, including its risk factors. The purpose of this study is to identify and examine the risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling. METHODS: An umbrella review will be conducted, where systematic approaches will be used to identify, appraise and synthesise systematic reviews and meta-analyses of risk factors for gambling and problem gambling. The review will include systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2019, in English language, focused on any population and any risk factor, and of quantitative or qualitative studies. Electronic searches will be conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid PsycInfo, NICE Evidence and SocIndex via EBSCO, and a range of websites will be searched for grey literature. Reference lists will be scanned for additional papers and experts will be contacted. Screening, quality assessment and data extraction will be conducted in duplicate, and quality assessment will be conducted using AMSTAR-2. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the results. DISCUSSION: The results of this review will provide a comprehensive and up-to-date understanding of the risk factors associated with gambling and problem gambling. It will be used by Public Health England as part of a broader evidence review of gambling-related harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019151520.

Harms associated with gambling: abbreviated systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: According to the Gambling Commission, in 2018, almost half of the general population aged 16 and over had participated in gambling in the 4 weeks before being surveyed. Such surveys suggest that the proportion of people who are classed as 'problem' gamblers is relatively small; however, this may be related to the ways data are collected and gambling behaviour is classified. Concern about the harms associated with gambling is rising, and in response, Public Health England (PHE) has initiated this review to identify the harms associated with this activity. Harms to the gambler, their close associates and the wider society will all be included. METHODS: Abbreviated systematic review processes will be employed. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Ovid Psycinfo, NICE Evidence and EBSCO SocIndex; a range of websites (for grey literature); and reference lists of included studies will be searched. Experts will be asked to identify other relevant literature. Literature published in years 2005-2019, published in English, from a country within the Organisation for Economic Development (OECD) and following an observational, qualitative or systematic review design will be included. AMSTAR2 (systematic reviews), the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (observational studies) and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) qualitative checklist (qualitative studies) will be used to assess the risk of bias. A narrative synthesis will be used to summarise the results. The body of evidence will also be assessed according to the principles laid out in the CERQual approach. DISCUSSION: This protocol provides details of the framework that has been set up to guide this systematic review. The results of this review will provide an extensive assessment of the breadth and magnitude of harms associated with gambling. This will be one of the most comprehensive reviews of gambling-related harms undertaken to date. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019154757.

A journal club is an effective tool for assisting librarians in the practice of evidence-based librarianship: a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To establish a journal club for librarians, which aimed to develop appraisal skills and assist in the application of research to practice. METHODS: Fourteen health librarians were invited to attend a journal club. Each month a librarian was responsible for preparing a scenario, choosing a research paper, and selecting a checklist. The paper was appraised by the club, and a critically appraised topic (CAT) prepared. Six months later, a questionnaire was sent to all librarians. RESULTS: Six out of 14 librarians attended the journal club and five out of six returned the questionnaire. All five agreed that attending the journal club helped them develop appraisal skills, write a CAT and be more critical of research. Four agreed they always identified a research paper first, then formulated a question. One librarian agreed that applying results to their own practice was difficult, one disagreed and three were neutral. CONCLUSION: Journal clubs can be effective at developing appraisal skills and writing a CAT, as well as increasing the reading of library research. Librarians still need assistance in identifying and using questions directly from their own practice. The journal club has helped some librarians to apply evidence to practice, but others find the research is not always directly relevant.