The impact of school-based creative bibliotherapy interventions on child and adolescent mental health: a systematic review and realist synthesis protocol.

BACKGROUND: There is a need to identify evidence-based interventions to be delivered in schools that can be used to improve child and adolescent mental health and wellbeing. Creative bibliotherapy is one proposed intervention. However, there has been, to date, no comprehensive assessment of the evidence for its impact on mental health and wellbeing. To fill this gap, we will conduct a systematic review and realist synthesis. METHODS: A systematic search of the bibliographic databases APA PsycINFO, Medline (via Ovid), CINAHL, ERIC, Education Research Complete (via EBSCOhost) and Web of Science (SCI, SSCI, AHCI, ESCI) for school-based creative bibliotherapy interventions on child and adolescent mental health. Types of study to be included: cohort studies, non-randomised comparative evaluations, randomised controlled trials. The data from all included studies will be summarised descriptively and strength of evidence appraised. This is a potentially large field of practice, with heterogeneous interventions; we will use methods from intervention components analysis to describe and categorise the range of components and approaches used in included interventions. To understand how interventions work and in which contexts, we will use methods from realist synthesis to develop an exploratory account of mechanisms in different settings and for different young people (contexts). DISCUSSION: Findings will assess the range of evidence for the impact of creative bibliotherapy on child and adolescent mental health and wellbeing, the strength of evidence for the impact identified, and describe potential mechanisms. This review will be useful for a wide range of stakeholders considering implementing or developing interventions using creative bibliotherapy in school-based settings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This protocol was registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ( https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ ), registration number CRD42023410333. This review is funded by Wellcome Trust (221457/Z/20/Z).

Streamlining search methods to update evidence and gap maps: A case study using intergenerational interventions.

Background: Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) should be regularly updated. Running update searches to find new studies for EGMs can be a time-consuming process. Search Summary Tables (SSTs) can help streamline searches by identifying which resources were most lucrative for identifying relevant articles, and which were redundant. The aim of this study was to use an SST to streamline search methods for an EGM of studies about intergenerational activities. Methods: To produce the EGM, 15 databases were searched. 8638 records were screened and 500 studies were included in the final EGM. Using an SST, we determined which databases and search methods were the most efficient in terms of sensitivity and specificity for finding the included studies. We also investigated whether any database performed particularly well for returning particular study types. For the best performing databases we analysed the search terms used to streamline the strategies. Results: No single database returned all of the studies included in the EGM. Out of 500 studies PsycINFO returned 40% (n = 202), CINAHL 39% (n = 194), Ageline 25% (n = 174), MEDLINE 23% (n = 117), ERIC 20% (n = 100) and Embase 19% (n = 98). HMIC database and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science via Web of Science returned no studies that were included in the EGM. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses (PQDT) returned the highest number of unique studies (n = 42), followed by ERIC (n = 33) and Ageline (n = 29). Ageline returned the most randomised controlled trials (42%) followed by CINAHL (34%), MEDLINE (29%) and CENTRAL (29%). CINAHL, Ageline, MEDLINE and PsycINFO performed the best for locating systematic reviews. (62%, 46% and 42% respectively). CINAHL, PsycINFO and Ageline performed best for qualitative studies (41%, 40% and 34%). The Journal of Intergenerational Relationships returned more included studies than any other journal (16%). No combinations of search terms were found to be better in terms of balancing specificity and sensitivity than the original search strategies. However, strategies could be reduced considerably in terms of length without losing key, unique studies. Conclusion: Using SSTs we have developed a method for streamlining update searches for an EGM about intergenerational activities. For future updates we recommend that MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Ageline, CINAHL and PQDT are searched. These searches should be supplemented by hand-searching the Journal of Intergenerational Relationships and carrying out backwards citation chasing on new systematic reviews. Using SSTs to analyse database efficiency could be a useful method to help streamline search updates for other EGMs.

Remote monitoring for long-term physical health conditions: an evidence and gap map.

Background: Remote monitoring involves the measurement of an aspect of a patient's health without that person being seen face to face. It could benefit the individual and aid the efficient provision of health services. However, remote monitoring can be used to monitor different aspects of health in different ways. This evidence map allows users to find evidence on different forms of remote monitoring for different conditions easily to support the commissioning and implementation of interventions. Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness, acceptability and implementation of remote monitoring for adults with long-term physical health conditions. Data sources: We searched MEDLINE, nine further databases and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews published between 2018 and March 2022, PROSPERO for continuing reviews, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Review methods: (Study selection and Study appraisal): Included systematic reviews focused on adult populations with a long-term physical health condition and reported on the effectiveness, acceptability or implementation of remote monitoring. All forms of remote monitoring where data were passed to a healthcare professional as part of the intervention were included. Data were extracted on the characteristics of the remote monitoring intervention and outcomes assessed in the review. AMSTAR 2 was used to assess quality. Results were presented in an interactive evidence and gap map and summarised narratively. Stakeholder and public and patient involvement groups provided feedback throughout the project. Results: We included 72 systematic reviews. Of these, 61 focus on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and 24 on its acceptability and/or implementation, with some reviews reporting on both. The majority contained studies from North America and Europe (38 included studies from the United Kingdom). Patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and respiratory conditions were the most studied populations. Data were collected predominantly using common devices such as blood pressure monitors and transmitted via applications, websites, e-mail or patient portals, feedback provided via telephone call and by nurses. In terms of outcomes, most reviews focused on physical health, mental health and well-being, health service use, acceptability or implementation. Few reviews reported on less common conditions or on the views of carers or healthcare professionals. Most reviews were of low or critically low quality. Limitations: Many terms are used to describe remote monitoring; we searched as widely as possible but may have missed some relevant reviews. Poor reporting of remote monitoring interventions may mean some included reviews contain interventions that do not meet our definition, while relevant reviews might have been excluded. This also made the interpretation of results difficult. Conclusions and future work: The map provides an interactive, visual representation of evidence on the effectiveness of remote monitoring and its acceptability and successful implementation. This evidence could support the commissioning and delivery of remote monitoring interventions, while the limitations and gaps could inform further research and technological development. Future reviews should follow the guidelines for conducting and reporting systematic reviews and investigate the application of remote monitoring in less common conditions. Review registration: A protocol was registered on the OSF registry (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6Q7P4). Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR135450) as part of a series of evidence syntheses under award NIHR130538. For more information, visit https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR135450 and https://fundingawards.nihr.ac.uk/award/NIHR130538. The report is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 11, No. 22. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further project information.

Remote monitoring is when an aspect of a patient's health, such as blood pressure, is measured at home, and this information is passed to a healthcare professional. We created an evidence and gap map for remote monitoring in adults with long-term physical health conditions. The map is presented as an interactive online table, which can be used to find the number and quality of systematic reviews that address specific questions (e.g. remote monitoring in diabetes). The map does not summarise findings from the reviews (e.g. whether remote monitoring works or not). We found 72 reviews investigating whether remote monitoring works and/or how to implement it, including whether it is acceptable to patients, carers and healthcare professionals. Thirty-seven reviews included studies from the United Kingdom. The most common health conditions were heart disease, diabetes and lung conditions. There was little or no evidence for some health conditions (e.g. epilepsy). Data from patients were collected mainly using common devices (e.g. heart rate monitors) and passed to healthcare providers using computer applications, websites and telephone calls. Most feedback received by patients was motivational/educational. There was evidence about the acceptability of remote monitoring for patients, but little for carers and healthcare professionals. Reviews focused on whether remote monitoring affected physical and mental health, health service use, acceptability or implementation. More than half the included reviews were judged to be low quality; however, they may still include high-quality studies. The map could help to design and deliver remote monitoring programmes and guide further research and technology development. Stakeholder and public and patient representatives provided feedback throughout the project. The map contains reviews published between 2018 and March 2022.

Understanding joy amongst older people: A scoping review.

To date there has been little focus on the concept of joy amongst older people in the literature. The objective of this scoping review was to understand the extent and type of evidence about joy and older people. Searches were run in ten databases in January 2022 (re-run January 2023). Eligible studies included people aged 65 and over living in their usual place of residence and described the experience or evaluation of joy. Screening was conducted independently by two reviewers and data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We included 11 papers reporting both qualitative (n = 5) and quantitative (n = 6) studies involving 1,487 participants with a mean age of 81.6 years. Seven of the studies were based in care or nursing homes with four in community settings. Five studies reported the experience of joy, three reported on the assessment of joy, and three examined the association between joy and other factors. Social connections and participation in activities that are meaningful to the individual are important sources of joy. Joy amongst older people has received little attention in the literature despite it being highlighted as being important to older people themselves in relation to their health and wellbeing.

PROTOCOL: Health and social care interventions in the 80 years old and over population: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: identify available systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials on interventions targeting health or social needs of the people aged over 80; identify qualitative studies relating to the experiences of people aged over 80 of interventions that target their health or social needs; identify areas where systematic reviews are needed; identify gaps in evidence where further primary research is needed; assess equity considerations (using the PROGRESS plus criteria) in available systematic reviews, randomised trials and qualitative studies of identified interventions; assess gaps and evidence related to health equity.

What are the effects of animals on the health and wellbeing of residents in care homes? A systematic review of the qualitative and quantitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is some evidence to suggest that animal-assisted interventions can have beneficial impact for residents in long-term care, but the focus of the evidence has largely been on behavioural and psychosocial measured outcomes. Animals, either as companion animals or in the form of pet/animal-assisted therapy, may provide benefits in the form of social contact, as well as opportunities for sensory experiences and meaningful engagement not picked up by outcome tools. This review aimed to create a state-of-knowledge synthesis, bringing together qualitative and quantitative findings, on the impact of animal-human interaction on care home residents and care home staff. METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched from inception to July 2020. Forward and backward citation chasing of included articles was conducted. Screening was undertaken independently by a team of reviewers. Thematic synthesis and meta-analysis were used to synthesise the qualitative and quantitative data. RESULTS: Thirty-four studies, published in 40 articles (20 qualitative and 20 quantitative) were included. Five themes relating to resident wellbeing were identified in the qualitative evidence synthesis. These were animals as 'living beings', reminiscence and storytelling, caring (as 'doing' and 'feeling'), respite (from loneliness, institutionalisation, and illness), and sensory engagement. A sixth theme related to staff perceptions and wellbeing, and a seventh to animal health and wellbeing. Maintaining identity was identified as an overarching theme. The majority of randomised trials had small sample sizes and were rated as low quality, mostly showing no evidence of beneficial effect. There was, however, limited evidence of a positive effect of pet/animal interaction on outcomes of loneliness, anxiety and depression, supporting the themes of respite and sensory engagement. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of animals can significantly impact the health and wellbeing of some care home residents. Residents had meaningful relationships with animals and derived pleasure and comfort from them. Interacting with animals offered residents a way to maintain a sense of self in the care homes, and with support, residents with dementia could also express their identities. Facilitating residents to interact with animals as part of person-centred care may also help residents to feel 'at home' in the care home. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration no: CRD42017058201.

Systematic reviews of convalescent plasma in COVID-19 continue to be poorly conducted and reported: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To suggest possible approaches to combatting the impact of the COVID-19 infodemic to prevent research waste in future health emergencies and in everyday research and practice. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic review. The Epistemonikos database was searched in June 2021 for systematic reviews on the effectiveness of convalescent plasma for COVID-19. Two reviewers independently screened the retrieved references with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data extraction was completed by one reviewer with a proportion checked by a second. We used the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews to assess the quality of conduct and reporting of included reviews. RESULTS: Fifty one systematic reviews are included with 193 individual studies included within the systematic reviews. There was considerable duplication of effort; multiple reviews were conducted at the same time with inconsistencies in the evidence included. The reviews were of low methodological quality, poorly reported, and did not adhere to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis guidance. CONCLUSION: Researchers need to conduct, appraise, interpret, and disseminate systematic reviews better. All in the research community (researchers, peer-reviewers, journal editors, funders, decision makers, clinicians, journalists, and the public) need to work together to facilitate the conduct of robust systematic reviews that are published and communicated in a timely manner, reducing research duplication and waste, increasing transparency and accessibility of all systematic reviews.

Existing evidence on antibiotic resistance exposure and transmission to humans from the environment: a systematic map.

Background: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is predicted to become the leading cause of death by 2050 with antibiotic resistance being an important component. Anthropogenic pollution introduces antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) and antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs) to the natural environment. Currently, there is limited empirical evidence demonstrating whether humans are exposed to environmental AMR and whether this exposure can result in measurable human health outcomes. In recent years there has been increasing interest in the role of the environment and disparate evidence on transmission of AMR to humans has been generated but there has been no systematic attempt to summarise this. We aim to create two systematic maps that will collate the evidence for (1) the transmission of antibiotic resistance from the natural environment to humans on a global scale and (2) the state of antibiotic resistance in the environment in the United Kingdom. Methods: Search strategies were developed for each map. Searches were undertaken in 13 bibliographic databases. Key websites were searched and experts consulted for grey literature. Search results were managed using EndNote X8. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by the full texts. Articles were double screened at a minimum of 10% at both stages with consistency checking and discussion when disagreements arose. Data extraction occurred in Excel with bespoke forms designed. Data extracted from each selected study included: bibliographic information; study site location; exposure source; exposure route; human health outcome (Map 1); prevalence/percentage/abundance of ARB/antibiotic resistance elements (Map 2) and study design. EviAtlas was used to visualise outputs. Results: For Map 1, 40 articles were included, from 11,016 unique articles identified in searches, which investigated transmission of AMR from the environment to humans. Results from Map 1 showed that consumption/ingestion was the most studied transmission route. Exposure (n = 17), infection (n = 16) and colonisation (n = 11) being studied as an outcome a similar number of times, with mortality studied infrequently (n = 2). In addition, E. coli was the most highly studied bacterium (n = 16). For Map 2, we included 62 studies quantifying ARB or resistance elements in the environment in the UK, from 6874 unique articles were identified in the searches. The most highly researched species was mixed communities (n = 32). The most common methodology employed in this research question was phenotypic testing (n = 37). The most commonly reported outcome was the characterisation of ARBs (n = 40), followed by characterisation of ARGs (n = 35). Other genetic elements, such as screening for intI1 (n = 15) (which encodes a Class 1 integron which is used as a proxy for environmental ARGs) and point mutations (n = 1) were less frequently reported. Both maps showed that research was focused towards aquatic environments. Conclusions: Both maps can be used by policy makers to show the global (Map 1) and UK (Map 2) research landscapes and provide an overview of the state of AMR in the environment and human health impacts of interacting with the environment. We have also identified (1) clusters of research which may be used to perform meta-analyses and (2) gaps in the evidence base where future primary research should focus. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13750-022-00262-2.

What is the volume, diversity and nature of recent, robust evidence for the use of peer support in health and social care? An evidence and gap map.

Background: Peer support interventions involve people drawing on shared personal experience to help one another improve their physical or mental health, or reduce social isolation. If effective, they may also lessen the demand on health and social care services, reducing costs. However, the design and delivery of peer support varies greatly, from the targeted problem or need, the setting and mode of delivery, to the number and content of sessions. Robust evidence is essential for policymakers commissioning peer support and practitioners delivering services in health care and community settings. This map draws together evidence on different types of peer support to support the design and delivery of interventions. Objectives: The aim of this map was to provide an overview of the volume, diversity and nature of recent, high quality evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the use of peer support in health and social care. Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, seven further bibliographic databases, and Epistemonikos for systematic reviews (in October 2020), randomised controlled trials (in March 2021) and economic evaluations (in May 2021) on the effectiveness of peer support interventions in health and social care. We also conducted searches of Google Scholar, two trial registers, PROSPERO, and completed citation chasing on included studies. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews, randomised controlled trials and economic evaluations were included in the map. Included studies focused on adult populations with a defined health or social care need, were conducted in high-income countries, and published since 2015. Any measure of effectiveness was included, as was any form of peer support providing the peer had shared experience with the participant and a formalised role. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were extracted on the type of peer support intervention and outcomes assessed in included studies. Standardised tools were used to assess study quality for all studies: assessing the methodological quality of systematic reviews 2 for systematic reviews; Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised controlled trials; and consensus health economic criteria list for economic evaluations. Main Results: We included 91 studies: 32 systematic reviews; 52 randomised controlled trials; and 7 economic evaluations. Whilst most included systematic reviews and economic evaluations were assessed to be of low or medium quality, the majority of randomised controlled trials were of higher quality. There were concentrations of evidence relating to different types of peer support, including education, psychological support, self-care/self-management and social support. Populations with long-term health conditions were most commonly studied. The majority of studies measured health-related indicators as outcomes; few studies assessed cost-effectiveness. Studies were unevenly distributed geographically, with most being conducted in the USA. Several gaps were evident regarding the delivery of peer support, particularly the integration of peers and professionals in delivering support and interventions of longer duration. Authors' Conclusions: Although there is evidence available to inform the commissioning and delivery of peer support in health and social care, there are also clear gaps that need to be addressed to further support provision, particularly regarding cost-effectiveness. The effectiveness of peer support in different countries, with varying health and social care systems, is a priority for future research, as is the integration of peers with professionals in delivering peer support.

Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study.

OBJECTIVE: The academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest. DESIGN AND SETTING: A meta-research: systematic review of reviews. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Abstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted. RISK OF BIAS: For articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods. RESULTS: 2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality. DISCUSSION: This meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods. INTERPRETATION: Flaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as 'systematic reviews', many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in 'real time'. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188822.

Impact of COVID-19 and other infectious conditions requiring isolation on the provision of and adaptations to fundamental nursing care in hospital in terms of overall patient experience, care quality, functional ability, and treatment outcomes: systematic review.

AIM: This systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesizes the evidence on the provision of fundamental nursing care to hospitalized patients with a highly infectious virus and the effectiveness of adaptations to overcome barriers to care. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: In July 2020, we searched Medline, PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), BNI (ProQuest), WHO COVID-19 Database (https://search.bvsalud.org/) MedRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/), bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org/) and also Google Scholar, TRIP database and NICE Evidence, forwards citation searching and reference checking of included papers, from 2016 onwards. REVIEW METHODS: We included quantitative and qualitative research reporting (i) the views, perceptions and experiences of patients who have received fundamental nursing care whilst in hospital with COVID-19, MERS, SARS, H1N1 or EVD or (ii) the views, perceptions and experiences of professional nurses and non-professionally registered care workers who have provided that care. We included review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents. One reviewer performed data extraction and quality appraisal and was checked by another person. RESULTS: Of 3086 references, we included 64 articles; 19 empirical research and 45 review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents spanning five pandemics. Four main themes (and 11 sub-themes) were identified. Barriers to delivering fundamental care were wearing personal protective equipment, adequate staffing, infection control procedures and emotional challenges of care. These barriers were addressed by multiple adaptations to communication, organization of care, staff support and leadership. CONCLUSION: To prepare for continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics, evaluative studies of adaptations to fundamental healthcare delivery must be prioritized to enable evidence-based care to be provided in future. IMPACT: Our review identifies the barriers nurses experience in providing fundamental care during a pandemic, highlights potential adaptations that address barriers and ensure positive healthcare experiences and draws attention to the need for evaluative research on fundamental care practices during pandemics.

COVID-NURSE: evaluation of a fundamental nursing care protocol compared with care as usual on experience of care for noninvasively ventilated patients in hospital with the SARS-CoV-2 virus-protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Patient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse-patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: we aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients' Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Research governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University's FutureLearn web platform. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

What is the evidence documenting the effects of marine or coastal nature conservation or natural resource management activities on human well-being in South East Asia? A systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Conservation activities and natural resource management interventions have often aimed to tackle the dual challenge of improving nature conservation and human well-being. However, there is concern over the extent to which this dual goal has been achieved, and an increasing recognition of trade-offs and synergies within and between aspects of each of the goals. The amount and scope of the available evidence on the success of conservation and management interventions in both arenas has lacked documentation, for a number of reasons, including limited resources for monitoring and evaluation and the difficulty in bringing together a disparate evidence base. This systematic map focuses on the interaction between marine conservation management and the health and well-being of coastal communities in South East Asia. METHOD: We searched bibliographic databases to find published literature, and identified grey literature through institutional and organisational website searches and key stakeholders. Eligibility criteria were applied in two stages, title and abstract and full text, with consistency checks. We extracted meta-data on the design and characteristics of each study, from which we produced an interactive database and map, and a narrative summary. RESULTS: We assessed 42,894 records at title and abstract from the main searches. 1,331 articles were assessed at full text (30 articles were not retrievable). 287 articles (281 studies) were included in the systematic map. Most studies were peer-reviewed publications (90%), and from the Philippines and Indonesia (72%). 31% of studies were solely qualitative, 45% were solely quantitative and 24% included both qualitative and quantitative research. Only 24% (31/127) of quantitative studies included a comparator. We identified knowledge clusters where studies investigated the links between the marine conservation interventions: Site Protection, Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, or Habitat Management, and the human health and well-being outcomes: Economic Living Standards, Governance and Empowerment, or Social Relations. In addition, qualitative research clusters were identified exploring the links between the intervention Habitat Management, and the outcome Governance and Empowerment, and between the intervention Economic or Livelihood Incentives or Alternatives, and the outcomes of Governance and Empowerment, and Social Relations. We identified major knowledge gaps in evidence for the effect of marine conservation interventions on the outcomes Freedom of Choice and Action, Security and Safety, Subjective Well-being, Health, and Culture and Spirituality. There was a lack of studies involving Education, Awareness and Activism interventions that reported any human health and well-being outcomes. CONCLUSION: We present the first updatable, interrogable and comprehensive evidence map on this topic for South East Asia. Our work supports further, detailed investigation of knowledge clusters using systematic review and also serves to identify understudied topic areas. The lack of comparative, quantitative studies suggests that future research should include counterfactuals to strengthen the robustness of evidence base. Users of this systematic map should recognise that much evidence may be national or locally specific, and that we did not undertake an assessment of study quality. Thus, when considering implications for policy and decision-making, users should carefully consider the heterogeneity of available evidence and refer to original research articles to gain a full depth of understanding and context.

Rehabilitation to enable recovery from COVID-19: a rapid systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the evidence for rehabilitation interventions tested in populations of patients admitted to ICU and critical care with severe respiratory illness, and consider whether the evidence is generalizable to patients with COVID-19. METHODS: The authors undertook a rapid systematic review. Medline (via OvidSP), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL (via Wiley), Epistemonikos (via Epistemonikos.org), PEDro (via pedro.org.au) and OTseeker (via otseeker.com) searched to 7 May 2020. The authors included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies involving adults with respiratory illness requiring intensive care who received rehabilitation to enhance or restore resulting physical impairments or function. Data were extracted by one author and checked by a second. TIDier was used to guide intervention descriptions. Study quality was assessed using Critical Skills Appraisal Programme (CASP) tools. RESULTS: Six thousand nine hundred and three titles and abstracts were screened; 24 systematic reviews, 11 RCTs and eight qualitative studies were included. Progressive exercise programmes, early mobilisation and multicomponent interventions delivered in ICU can improve functional independence. Nutritional supplementation in addition to rehabilitation in post-ICU hospital settings may improve performance of activities of daily living. The evidence for rehabilitation after discharge from hospital following an ICU admission is inconclusive. Those receiving rehabilitation valued it, engendering hope and confidence. CONCLUSIONS: Exercise, early mobilisation and multicomponent programmes may improve recovery following ICU admission for severe respiratory illness that could be generalizable to those with COVID-19. Rehabilitation interventions can bring hope and confidence to individuals but there is a need for an individualised approach and the use of behaviour change strategies. Further research is needed in post-ICU settings and with those who have COVID-19. Registration: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/prc2y.

Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods, results, and efficiency.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated. CASE PRESENTATION: This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.

PROTOCOL: Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: An assessment of current methods.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the quality and nature of the search methods and reporting across Campbell systematic reviews. The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of the search methods and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our specific objectives include the following: To examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews. To identify any machine learning or automation methods used, or emerging and less commonly used approaches to web searching. To examine how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA guidelines. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support.

Review of the evidence for oceans and human health relationships in Europe: A systematic map.

BACKGROUND: Globally, there is increasing scientific evidence of critical links between the oceans and human health, with research into issues such as pollution, harmful algal blooms and nutritional contributions. However, Oceans and Human Health (OHH) remains an emerging discipline. As such these links are poorly recognized in policy efforts such as the Sustainable Development Goals, with OHH not included in either marine (SDG14) or health (SDG3) goals. This is arguably short-sighted given recent development strategies such as the EU Blue Growth Agenda. OBJECTIVES: In this systematic map we aim to build on recent efforts to enhance OHH in Europe by setting a baseline of existing evidence, asking: What links have been researched between marine environments and the positive and negative impacts to human health and wellbeing? METHODS: We searched eight bibliographic databases and queried 57 organizations identified through stakeholder consultation. Results include primary research and systematic reviews which were screened double blind against pre-defined inclusion criteria as per a published protocol. Studies were limited to Europe, US, Australia, New Zealand and Canada. Data was extracted according to a stakeholder-defined code book. A narrative synthesis explores the current evidence for relationships between marine exposures and human health outcomes, trends in knowledge gaps and change over time in the OHH research landscape. The resulting database is available on the website of the Seas, Oceans and Public Health in Europe website (https://sophie2020.eu/). RESULTS: A total of 1,542 unique articles were included in the database, including those examined within 56 systematic reviews. Research was dominated by a US focus representing 50.1% of articles. A high number of articles were found to link: marine biotechnology and cardiovascular or immune conditions, consumption of seafood and cardiovascular health, chemical pollution and neurological conditions, microbial pollution and gastrointestinal or respiratory health, and oil industry occupations with mental health. A lack of evidence relates to direct impacts of plastic pollution and work within a number of industries identified as relevant by stakeholders. Research over time is dominated by marine biotechnology, though this is narrow in focus. Pollution, food and disease/injury research follow similar trajectories. Wellbeing and climate change have emerged more recently as key topics but lag behind other categories in volume of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base for OHH of relevance to European policy is growing but remains patchy and poorly co-ordinated. Considerable scope for future evidence synthesis exists to better inform policy-makers, though reviews need to better incorporate complex exposures. Priorities for future research include: proactive assessments of chemical pollutants, measurable impacts arising from climate change, effects of emerging marine industries, and regional and global assessments for OHH interactions. Understanding of synergistic effects across multiple exposures and outcomes using systems approaches is recommended to guide policies within the Blue Growth Strategy. Co-ordination of research across Europe and dedicated centres of research would be effective first steps.

Author Correction: Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them.

Traditional approaches to reviewing literature may be susceptible to bias and result in incorrect decisions. This is of particular concern when reviews address policy- and practice-relevant questions. Systematic reviews have been introduced as a more rigorous approach to synthesizing evidence across studies; they rely on a suite of evidence-based methods aimed at maximizing rigour and minimizing susceptibility to bias. Despite the increasing popularity of systematic reviews in the environmental field, evidence synthesis methods continue to be poorly applied in practice, resulting in the publication of syntheses that are highly susceptible to bias. Recognizing the constraints that researchers can sometimes feel when attempting to plan, conduct and publish rigorous and comprehensive evidence syntheses, we aim here to identify major pitfalls in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews, making use of recent examples from across the field. Adopting a 'critical friend' role in supporting would-be systematic reviews and avoiding individual responses to police use of the 'systematic review' label, we go on to identify methodological solutions to mitigate these pitfalls. We then highlight existing support available to avoid these issues and call on the entire community, including systematic review specialists, to work towards better evidence syntheses for better evidence and better decisions.

What is the research evidence for antibiotic resistance exposure and transmission to humans from the environment? A systematic map protocol.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a public health crisis that is predicted to cause 10 million deaths per year by 2050. The environment has been implicated as a reservoir of AMR and is suggested to play a role in the dissemination of antibiotic resistance genes (ARGs). Currently, most research has focused on measuring concentrations of antibiotics and characterising the abundance and diversity of ARGs and antibiotic resistant bacteria (ARB) in the environment. To date, there has been limited empirical research on whether humans are exposed to this, and whether exposure can lead to measureable impacts on human health. Therefore, the objective of this work is to produce two linked systematic maps to investigate previous research on exposure and transmission of AMR to humans from the environment. The first map will investigate the available research relating to exposure and transmission of ARB/ARGs from the environment to humans on a global scale and the second will investigate the prevalence of ARB/ARGs in various environments in the UK. These two maps will be useful for policy makers and research funders to identify where there are significant gluts and gaps in the current research, and where more primary and synthesis research needs to be undertaken. METHODS: Separate search strategies will be developed for the two maps. Searches will be run in 13 databases, and grey literature will be sought from key websites and engagement with experts. Hits will be managed in EndNote and screened in two stages (title/abstract then full text) against predefined inclusion criteria. A minimum of 10% will be double screened with ongoing consistency checking. All included studies will have data extracted into a bespoke form designed and piloted for each map. Data to be extracted will include bibliographic details, study design, location, exposure source, exposure route, health outcome (Map 1); and prevalence/percentage of ARB/ARG (Map 2). No validity appraisal will be undertaken. Results will be tabulated and presented narratively, together with graphics showing the types and areas of research that has been undertaken and heatmaps for key exposure-health outcomes (Map 1) and exposure-prevalence (Map 2).