Self-Management Programs for Chronic Non-Cancer Pain: A Rapid Review of Randomized Trials.

BACKGROUND: The body of evidence regarding self-management programs (SMPs) for adult chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily growing, and regular updates are needed for effective decision-making. OBJECTIVES: To systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SMPs for CNCP. METHODS: We searched relevant databases from 2009 to August 2021 and included English-language RCT publications of SMPs compared with usual care for CNCP among adults (18+ years old). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model and calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) and statistical heterogeneity using the I2 statistic. RESULTS: From 8538 citations, we included 28 RCTs with varying patient populations, standards for SMPs, and usual care. No RCTs were classified as having a low risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement in overall HR-QoL, irrespective of pain type, immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.24; I2 57%; 11 RCTs; 979 participants), 1-4 months post-intervention (SMD 0.02, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.20; I2 48.7%; 12 RCTs; 1160 participants), and 6-12 months post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95%CI -0.06 to 0.21; I2 26.1%; 9 RCTs; 1404 participants). Similar findings were made for physical and mental HR-QoL, and for specific QoL assessment scales (e.g., SF-36). CONCLUSIONS: There is a lack of evidence that SMPs are efficacious for CNCP compared with usual care. Standardization of SMPs for CNCP and better planned/conducted RCTs are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are infrequently used by health care managers (HCMs) and policy-makers (PMs) in decision-making. HCMs and PMs co-developed and tested novel systematic review of effects formats to increase their use. METHODS: A three-phased approach was used to evaluate the determinants to uptake of systematic reviews of effects and the usability of an innovative and a traditional systematic review of effects format. In phase 1, survey and interviews were conducted with HCMs and PMs in four Canadian provinces to determine perceptions of a traditional systematic review format. In phase 2, systematic review format prototypes were created by HCMs and PMs via Conceptboard©. In phase 3, prototypes underwent usability testing by HCMs and PMs. RESULTS: Two hundred two participants (80 HCMs, 122 PMs) completed the phase 1 survey. Respondents reported that inadequate format (Mdn = 4; IQR = 4; range = 1-7) and content (Mdn = 4; IQR = 3; range = 1-7) influenced their use of systematic reviews. Most respondents (76%; n = 136/180) reported they would be more likely to use systematic reviews if the format was modified. Findings from 11 interviews (5 HCMs, 6 PMs) revealed that participants preferred systematic reviews of effects that were easy to access and read and provided more information on intervention effectiveness and less information on review methodology. The mean System Usability Scale (SUS) score was 55.7 (standard deviation [SD] 17.2) for the traditional format; a SUS score < 68 is below average usability. In phase 2, 14 HCMs and 20 PMs co-created prototypes, one for HCMs and one for PMs. HCMs preferred a traditional information order (i.e., methods, study flow diagram, forest plots) whereas PMs preferred an alternative order (i.e., background and key messages on one page; methods and limitations on another). In phase 3, the prototypes underwent usability testing with 5 HCMs and 7 PMs, 11 out of 12 participants co-created the prototypes (mean SUS score 86 [SD 9.3]). CONCLUSIONS: HCMs and PMs co-created prototypes for systematic review of effects formats based on their needs. The prototypes will be compared to a traditional format in a randomized trial.

Creating a rapid-learning health system in Ontario

Ontario has both a health system and a research system that are increasingly putting patients and rapid learning and improvement at their centre. For the health system, a recent notable example of such efforts was the Patients First Act 2016 which, among other things, mandated the creation of Patient and Family Advisory Councils at multiple levels in the health system,(4) the formalization of LHIN sub-regions as the focal point for local improvements to the patient experience, and the preparation of annual Quality Improvement Plans by many health organizations. For the research system, a notable example is the efforts by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MoHLTC) and the Ontario SPOR SUPPORT Unit (OSSU) to support the conduct and use of patient-oriented research.

Caesarean or vaginal delivery for preterm very-low-birth weight (< or =1,250 g) infant: experience from a district general hospital in UK.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether delivery by caesarean is associated with a better neuro-developmental outcome at two years for preterm infants born weighing 1,250 g or less. SETTING: District General Hospital, United Kingdom. DESIGN: All inborn infants weighing <1,250 g born at St Helier University Hospital between January 1995 and December 2003 were identified from contemporaneously collected computer database. All hospital records were retrieved. Details of the mother, delivery route, Apgar score, details of resuscitation and details of the baby, neonatal progress and neuro-developmental status at two years was transcribed on a pre-designed proforma. Neuro-developmental status assessment at two years of age was carried out by an independent neurodevelopmental paediatrician. Neuro-developmental status was classified as normal, severe, moderate or mild disability. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Analysis was done by creating a simple two by two table. Statistical significance was set at p = 0.05. Multivariate and univariate analysis was carried out for a number of confounding variables. SAMPLE: Total of 411 babies were identified from the data-base. Of these 59 were still born and fourteen though born alive died in the delivery suit. 125 (37%) were excluded from analysis as they were returned to their referring hospitals prior to discharge from hospital. Information about their two-year follow-up was either incomplete or not robust enough to be included in the analysis. Analysis was carried out on 213(63%) for whom we had complete data set at two years of age (103 infants born via vaginal delivery and 110 infants were born by caesarean section). OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome measure was to compare survival at discharge and neurodevelopmental status at two years of age of this cohort. Secondary outcome included determining the incidence of grade III or IV intraventricular haemorrhage (IVH), chronic lung disease and necrotising enterocolitis (NEC). RESULTS: The overall caesarean delivery rate for this cohort was 51.6% while the overall caesarean rate for all births at our hospital during the study period varied between 20 and 23%. Neonatal mortality for those delivered by caesarean was 12.7% compared to 14.5% for those delivered vaginally (p = ns). Overall incidence of any neuro-disability at two years of age was 46.8% for those delivered by caesarean compared to 47.7% for those delivered vaginally (p = ns). There was no difference in those with severe (23.5% vs. 25.0%), moderate (10.4% vs. 9%) or mild (12.5% vs. 13.6%) neuro-disability between the groups nor was there any difference in the number of babies with IVH, chronic lung disease and NEC. Neuro-disability was equally greater in both groups for babies born weighing 750 grams or less and/or born at 26 weeks or less gestation. CONCLUSION: Despite the increasing tendency to deliver extremely preterm babies by caesarean, we did not find that it was associated with either reduced mortality or neuro-disability at two years of age. Therefore the method of delivery of very-low-birth weight premature infants should be based on obstetric or maternal indications rather than the perceived outcome of the baby.

Evaluation of training on the use of Graseby syringe drivers for rural nonspecialist nurses.

AIM: to assess the impact of a training programme on nurse confidence in: setting up the Graseby syringe driver (GSD); explaining the GSD to patient and family; setting the rate on the GSD; putting appropriate type and dose of drugs in the GSD. STUDY DESIGN: training programme with pre-training, post-training and follow-up questionnaires. SAMPLE AND SETTING: palliative care nurse consultants presented half-day training sessions to 270 non-specialist nurses throughout the rural Grampians Health Region of Victoria, Australia. Nurses were from rural acute and sub-acute care settings, aged care facilities, and district nursing and nurse education services. MEASUREMENTS: demographic details of participants, previous experience and training with GSDs, comparative analyses of the four confidence parameters and participants' assessment of interest, new knowledge and usefulness of the training programme. RESULTS: increases in confidence levels were found in participating nurses in relation to each of the four confidence parameters. A follow-up survey tested residual benefit three months after the training programme. Statistically significant variations were found in nurses' confidence levels in relation to frequency of use. CONCLUSIONS: regular use of, and/or refresher sessions about the GSD are recommended to maintain optimum confidence, effective and safe nursing use of the GSD in palliative care.