Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance-A mixed-methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance.

The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) first released interim guidance in March 2020 to support authors in conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess the adherence and investigate authors' understanding of the RRMG guidance. We identified all documents citing the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance up to February 17, 2022 and performed an exploratory adherence analysis. We interviewed 20 RR authors to assess the recommendations' comprehensibility and reasons for any deviations. Further, we surveyed nine authors of COVID-19-related Cochrane reviews for their reasons for not conducting a RR. We analyzed 128 RRs (111 non-Cochrane, 17 Cochrane) that cited the RRMG guidance. Several recommendations were not followed by a large proportion of RR authors such as stepwise approach to study design inclusion or peer review of search strategies, whereas others were exceeded, for example, dual independent screening of abstracts/full texts. The most reported reasons for deviating from the guidance were time constraints, unclarities in the recommended approach, or inapplicability to the specific RR. Overall, the guidance was viewed as user-friendly; however, without pre-existing knowledge of systematic review (SR) conduct, the application was perceived as difficult. The main reasons for conducting a full SR over a RR were late availability of the guidance, preset mandate to conduct a SR, uncertainty regarding methodological distinctions between SR and RR, and inapplicability to the evidence base. Clarifications are warranted throughout the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance to ensure that users with various experience levels can understand and apply its recommendations accordingly.

The effectiveness of interventions to prevent loneliness and social isolation in the community-dwelling and old population: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness and social isolation have comparable health effects to widely acknowledged and established risk factors. Although old people are particularly affected, the effectiveness of interventions to prevent and/or mitigate social isolation and loneliness in the community-dwelling older adults is unclear. The aim of this review of reviews was to pool the findings of systematic reviews (SRs) addressing the question of effectiveness. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE®, Health Evidence, Epistemonikos and Global Health (EBSCO) were searched from January 2017 to November 2021. Two reviewers independently assessed each SR in two consecutive steps based on previously defined eligibility criteria and appraised the methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess SRs 2, AMSTAR 2. One author extracted data from both SRs and eligible studies; another checked this. We conducted meta-analyses to pool the study results. We report the results of the random-effects and common-effect models. RESULTS: We identified five SRs containing a total of 30 eligible studies, 16 with a low or moderate risk of bias. Our random-effects meta-analysis indicates an overall SMD effect of 0.63 [95% confidence interval (CI): -0.10 to 1.36] for loneliness and was unable to detect an overall effect of the interventions on social support [SMD: 0.00; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.12]. DISCUSSION: The results show interventions can potentially reduce loneliness in the non-institutionalized, community-dwelling and older population living at home. As confidence in the evidence is low, rigorous evaluation is recommended. REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of SRs (PROSPERO): Registration number: CRD42021255625.

Perceived barriers to vegetable intake among urban adolescents from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds: A qualitative study from the perspective of youth workers and teachers.

Eating habits established during adolescence have been shown to track into adulthood. Adolescents from lower socioeconomic status groups tend to have lower intakes of vegetables as compared with their more affluent peers. However, there is limited evidence about the determinants of vegetable intake in this population group. Therefore, this study aimed to explore the barriers to vegetable intake in adolescents living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas through the perspective of school teachers and youth workers. A total of 20 semi-structured interviews were conducted with post-primary school teachers and youth workers from disadvantaged areas in Dublin, Ireland. Thematic analysis was applied to analyze the data. Eleven themes were identified and fitted within the Socioecological Model of Health: adolescent's food preferences, lack of early exposure and familiarity with vegetables, lack of interest, knowledge and skills at the individual and family level, parenting practices around nutrition, living difficulties, peers' influence and social norms around nutrition, dual role of social media, lack of resources and support to promote healthy eating, competition between unhealthy food vs. vegetables, lack of adequate approaches & initiatives at the community and at the public policy levels, and lack of State support to promote healthy eating. Although several actions could be taken at the personal and interpersonal levels, more efforts are needed at the organizational, community and public policy levels to improve dietary choices and vegetable intake among adolescents in socioeconomically deprived areas. These findings will inform the development of tailored intervention strategies and policies for these vulnerable youths.