Healthcare aide-focused interventions to improve pain management in long-term care homes: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is common in long-term care residents. We examined the effectiveness of interventions involving healthcare aides that aim to manage pain for these residents. DESIGN: A systematic review which follows PRISMA reporting guidelines. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: We examined controlled trials and intervention studies that included long-term care residents aged ≥60 years who received interventions to reduce chronic pain. Interventions were either delivered by healthcare aides at the resident level or were directed at healthcare aides to improve their pain management practices for residents. METHODS: We searched 7 databases to identify relevant studies. After screening 400 articles, we reviewed 131 full-text articles and included them if they reported a pain management intervention and measured pain with a standardized pain scale. Data were synthesized narratively. Risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Assessment Tool. RESULTS: In total, 9 studies were examined in the narrative review. Six studies described pain interventions involving education, new pain protocols and/or new assessment tools delivered to healthcare aides. Three studies described pain interventions delivered by healthcare aides to residents, which included a new incontinence care routine, light touch massage, and a bathing intervention. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Interventions involving healthcare aides may be beneficial to pain management for long-term care residents as they have the potential to reduce residents' pain and improve both pain assessment and reporting practices. Further research is warranted on specific elements that contribute to an improvement in residents' pain and to the overall role of healthcare aides care of residents.

Management of Chronic Pain in Long-Term Care: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Pain, a complex subjective experience, is common in care home residents. Despite advances in pain management, optimal pain control remains a challenge. In this updated systematic review, we examined effectiveness of interventions for treating chronic pain in care home residents. DESIGN: A Cochrane-style systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA guidelines. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials and intervention studies included care home residents aged ≥60 years receiving interventions to reduce chronic pain. METHODS: Six databases were searched to identify relevant studies. After duplicate removal, articles were screened by title and abstract. Full-text articles were reviewed and included if they implemented a pain management intervention and measured pain with a standardized quantitative pain scale. Meta-analyses calculated standardized mean differences (SMDs) using random-effect models. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool 2.0. RESULTS: We included 42 trials in the meta-analysis and described 13 more studies narratively. Studies included 26 nondrug alternative treatments, 8 education interventions, 7 system modifications, 3 nonanalgesic drug treatments, 2 analgesic treatments, and 9 combined interventions. Pooled results at trial completion revealed that, except for nonanalgesic drugs and health system modification interventions, all interventions were at least moderately effective in reducing pain. Analgesic treatments (SMD -0.80; 95% CI -1.47 to -0.12; P = .02) showed the greatest treatment effect, followed by nondrug alternative treatments (SMD -0.70; 95% CI -0.95 to -0.45; P < .001), combined interventions (SMD -0.37; 95% CI -0.60 to -0.13; P = .002), and education interventions (SMD -0.31; 95% CI -0.48 to -0.15; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Our findings suggest that analgesic drugs and nondrug alternative pain management strategies are the most effective in reducing pain among care home residents. Clinicians should also consider implementing nondrug alternative therapies in care homes, rather than relying solely on analgesic drug options.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.

BACKGROUND: We conducted systematic reviews on the benefits and harms of screening compared with no screening or alternative screening approaches for Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) in non-pregnant sexually active individuals, and on the relative importance patients' place on the relevant outcomes. Findings will inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. METHODS: We searched five databases (to January 24, 2020), trial registries, conference proceedings, and reference lists for English and French literature published since 1996. Screening, study selection, and risk of bias assessments were independently undertaken by two reviewers, with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. Meta-analysis was conducted where appropriate. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. The Task Force and content experts provided input on determining thresholds for important effect sizes and on interpretation of findings. RESULTS: Of 41 included studies, 17 and 11 reported on benefits and harms of screening, respectively, and 14 reported on patient preferences. Universal screening for CT in general populations 16 to 29 years of age, using population-based or opportunistic approaches achieving low screening rates, may make little-to-no difference for a female's risk of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) (2 RCTs, n=141,362; 0.3 more in 1000 [7.6 fewer to 11 more]) or ectopic pregnancy (1 RCT, n=15,459; 0.20 more per 1000 [2.2 fewer to 3.9 more]). It may also not make a difference for CT transmission (3 RCTs, n=41,709; 3 fewer per 1000 [11.5 fewer to 6.9 more]). However, benefits may be achieved for reducing PID if screening rates are increased (2 trials, n=30,652; 5.7 fewer per 1000 [10.8 fewer to 1.1 more]), and for reducing CT and NG transmission when intensely screening high-prevalence female populations (2 trials, n=6127; 34.3 fewer per 1000 [4 to 58 fewer]; NNS 29 [17 to 250]). Evidence on infertility in females from CT screening and on transmission of NG in males and both sexes from screening for CT and NG is very uncertain. No evidence was found for cervicitis, chronic pelvic pain, or infertility in males from CT screening, or on any clinical outcomes from NG screening. Undergoing screening, or having a diagnosis of CT, may cause a small-to-moderate number of people to experience some degree of harm, mainly due to feelings of stigmatization and anxiety about future infertility risk. The number of individuals affected in the entire screening-eligible population is likely smaller. Screening may make little-to-no difference for general anxiety, self-esteem, or relationship break-up. Evidence on transmission from studies comparing home versus clinic screening is very uncertain. Four studies on patient preferences found that although utility values for the different consequences of CT and NG infections are probably quite similar, when considering the duration of the health state experiences, infertility and chronic pelvic pain are probably valued much more than PID, ectopic pregnancy, and cervicitis. How patients weigh the potential benefits versus harms of screening is very uncertain (1 survey, 10 qualitative studies); risks to reproductive health and transmission appear to be more important than the (often transient) psychosocial harms. DISCUSSION: Most of the evidence on screening for CT and/or NG offers low or very low certainty about the benefits and harms. Indirectness from use of comparison groups receiving some screening, incomplete outcome ascertainment, and use of outreach settings was a major contributor to uncertainty. Patient preferences indicate that the potential benefits from screening appear to outweigh the possible harms. Direct evidence about which screening strategies and intervals to use, which age to start and stop screening, and whether screening males in addition to females is necessary to prevent clinical outcomes is scarce, and further research in these areas would be informative. Apart from the evidence in this review, information on factors related to equity, acceptability, implementation, cost/resources, and feasibility will support recommendations made by the Task Force. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733 .

A systematic review of factors that influence the acceptability of vaccines among Canadians.

BACKGROUND: Canada's National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) provides guidance on the use of vaccines in Canada. To support the expansion of its mandate to include considerations for vaccine acceptability when making recommendations, the NACI Secretariat developed a matrix of factors that influence acceptability. To inform and validate the matrix, we systematically reviewed evidence for factors that influence vaccine acceptability, and for interventions aimed at improving acceptability. METHODS: On 10-11 October 2018 we searched four bibliographic databases, the Theses Canada Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov. Two reviewers agreed on the included studies. From each study, we extracted information about the participants, intervention or exposure, comparator, and relevant outcomes. Due to heterogeneity in the reported factors and acceptability indicators we synthesized the findings narratively. We appraised the certainty of evidence using GRADE. For each vaccine-preventable disease we populated a matrix of factors for which there was evidence of an influence on acceptability. RESULTS: One hundred studies (>1 million participants) contributed data relevant to the public, 16 (6191 participants) to healthcare providers, and three (84 participants) to policymakers. There were 43 intervention studies (~2 million participants). Across vaccines, we identified low certainty evidence for 70 factors relevant to the general population, 56 to high-risk groups, and 30 to healthcare providers. The perceived safety and importance of the vaccine, vaccination history, and receiving a recommendation from a healthcare provider were common influential factors. We found low certainty evidence that reminders for childhood vaccines and policies or delivery models for rotavirus vaccines could improve uptake and coverage. Evidence for other interventions was of very low certainty. CONCLUSIONS: The NACI vaccine acceptability matrix is useful for categorizing acceptability factors for the general public. Reminder systems may improve the uptake of childhood vaccines. Policies that make the rotavirus vaccine universally available and easily accessible may improve coverage. FUNDING: This systematic review was completed under contract to the Public Health Agency of Canada, Contract #4600001536.

Digital Technology Distraction for Acute Pain in Children: A Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Digital distraction is being integrated into pediatric pain care, but its efficacy is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of digital technology distraction on pain and distress in children experiencing acutely painful conditions or procedures. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Ei Compendex, Web of Science, and gray literature sources. STUDY SELECTION: Quantitative studies of digital technology distraction for acutely painful conditions or procedures in children. DATA EXTRACTION: Performed by 1 reviewer with verification. Outcomes were child pain and distress. RESULTS: There were 106 studies (n = 7820) that reported on digital technology distractors (eg, virtual reality and video games) used during common procedures (eg, venipuncture, dental, and burn treatments). No studies reported on painful conditions. For painful procedures, digital distraction resulted in a modest but clinically important reduction in self-reported pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.48; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.66 to -0.29; 46 randomized controlled trials [RCTs]; n = 3200), observer-reported pain (SMD -0.68; 95% CI -0.91 to -0.45; 17 RCTs; n = 1199), behavioral pain (SMD -0.57; 95% CI -0.94 to -0.19; 19 RCTs; n = 1173), self-reported distress (SMD -0.49; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.27; 19 RCTs; n = 1818), observer-reported distress (SMD -0.47; 95% CI -0.77 to -0.17; 10 RCTs; n = 826), and behavioral distress (SMD -0.35; 95% CI -0.59 to -0.12; 17 RCTs; n = 1264) compared with usual care. LIMITATIONS: Few studies directly compared different distractors or provided subgroup data to inform applicability. CONCLUSIONS: Digital distraction provides modest pain and distress reduction for children undergoing painful procedures; its superiority over nondigital distractors is not established. Context, preferences, and availability should inform the choice of distractor.

Parent experiences and information needs related to bronchiolitis: A mixed studies systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To inform evidence-based knowledge products (i.e., infographics, videos, eBooks) of relevance to parents, we systematically reviewed evidence on parent experiences and information needs related to bronchiolitis. METHODS: We searched Medline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global, and scanned reference lists for studies published post-2000. We appraised quality in duplicate using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT) and synthesized findings narratively. RESULTS: We retrieved 797 records and included 29; 14 (48%) met >50% of MMAT criteria. Studies predominantly enrolled mothers. Most reported quantitatively on hospitalization experiences (n = 9, 31%), treatments (n = 5, 17%), or respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) prophylaxis (n = 9, 31%). Ten (34%) studies reported on information needs; 3 contributed qualitative data. Parents could not always identify bronchiolitis symptoms. During hospitalization, parents endured guilt and anxiety. Mothers wanted to take an active role in their child's care but often felt uninvolved. Barriers to RSV prophylaxis included transportation, scheduling, and insurance issues. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence focused primarily on hospitalization, which parents found frightening. More information is needed on home care experiences and information preferences. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Timely education and support from healthcare providers may help to alleviate parents' fears and enhance involvement in their child's care.

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders. METHODS: We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.

Harms of Antipsychotics in Children and Young Adults: A Systematic Review Update.

OBJECTIVE: To update and extend our previous systematic review on first- (FGAs) and second-generation antipsychotics (SGAs) for treatment of psychiatric and behavioral conditions in children, adolescents, and young adults (aged ≤24 years). This article focuses on the evidence for harms. METHOD: We searched (to April 2016) 8 databases, gray literature, trial registries, Food and Drug Administration reports, and reference lists. Two reviewers conducted study screening and selection independently, with consensus for selection. One reviewer extracted and another verified all data; 2 reviewers independently assessed risk of bias. We conducted meta-analyses when appropriate and network meta-analysis across conditions for changes in body composition. Two reviewers reached consensus for ratings on the strength of evidence for prespecified outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 135 studies (95 trials and 40 observational) were included, and 126 reported on harms. FGAs caused slightly less weight gain and more extrapyramidal symptoms than SGAs. SGAs as a class caused adverse effects, including weight gain, high triglyceride levels, extrapyramidal symptoms, sedation, and somnolence. They appeared to increase the risk for high cholesterol levels and type 2 diabetes. Many outcomes for individual drug comparisons were of low or insufficient strength of evidence. Olanzapine caused more short-term gains in weight and body mass index than several other SGAs. The dose of SGAs may not make a difference over the short term for some outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians need to weigh carefully the benefit-to-harm ratio when using antipsychotics, especially when treatment alternatives exist. More evidence is needed on the comparative harms between antipsychotics over the longer term.

Leadership styles and outcome patterns for the nursing workforce and work environment: a systematic review.

CONTEXT: Numerous policy and research reports call for leadership to build quality work environments, implement new models of care, and bring health and wellbeing to an exhausted and stretched nursing workforce. Rarely do they indicate how leadership should be enacted, or examine whether some forms of leadership may lead to negative outcomes. We aimed to examine the relationships between various styles of leadership and outcomes for the nursing workforce and their work environments. METHODS: The search strategy of this multidisciplinary systematic review included 10 electronic databases. Published, quantitative studies that examined leadership behaviours and outcomes for nurses and organizations were included. Quality assessments, data extractions and analysis were completed on all included studies. FINDINGS: 34,664 titles and abstracts were screened resulting in 53 included studies. Using content analysis, 64 outcomes were grouped into five categories: staffsatisfaction with work, role and pay, staff relationships with work, staff health and wellbeing, work environment factors, and productivity and effectiveness. Distinctive patterns between relational and task focused leadership styles and their outcomes for nurses and their work environments emerged from our analysis. For example, 24 studies reported that leadership styles focused on people and relationships (transformational, resonant, supportive, and consideration) were associated with higher nurse job satisfaction, whereas 10 studies found that leadership styles focused on tasks (dissonant, instrumental and management by exception) were associated with lower nurse job satisfaction. Similar trends were found for each category of outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our results document evidence of various forms of leadership and their differential effects on the nursing workforce and work environments. Leadership focused on task completion alone is not sufficient to achieve optimum outcomes for the nursing workforce. Efforts by organizations and individuals to encourage and develop transformational and relational leadership are needed to enhance nurse satisfaction, recruitment, retention, and healthy work environments, particularly in this current and worsening nursing shortage.

Factors contributing to nursing leadership: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: Leadership practices of health care managers can positively or negatively influence outcomes for organizations, providers and, ultimately, patients. Understanding the factors that contribute to nursing leadership is fundamental to ensuring a future supply of nursing leaders who can positively influence outcomes for health care providers and patients. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the multidisciplinary literature to examine the factors that contribute to nursing leadership and the effectiveness of educational interventions in developing leadership behaviours among nurses. METHODS: The search strategy began with 10 electronic databases (e.g. CINAHL, Medline). Published quantitative studies were included that examined the factors that contribute to leadership or the development of leadership behaviours in nurse leaders. Quality assessments, data extraction and analysis were completed on all included studies. RESULTS: A total of 27,717 titles/abstracts were screened resulting in 26 included manuscripts reporting on 24 studies. Twenty leadership factors were examined and categorized into four groups - behaviours and practices of individual leaders, traits and characteristics of individual leaders, influences of context and practice settings, and leader participation in educational activities. Specific behaviours and practices of individual leaders, such as taking on or practising leadership styles, skills and roles, were reported as significantly influencing leadership in eight studies. Traits and characteristics of individual leaders were examined in six studies with previous leadership experience (three studies) and education levels (two of three studies) having positive effects on observed leadership. Context and practice settings had a moderate influence on leadership effectiveness (three of five studies). Nine studies that examined participation in leadership development programs all reported significant positive influences on observed leadership. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that leadership can be developed through specific educational activities, and by modelling and practising leadership competencies. However, the relatively weak study designs provide limited evidence for specific factors that could increase the effectiveness of current nursing leadership or guide the identification of future nurse leaders. Robust theory and research on interventions to develop and promote viable nursing leadership for the future are needed to achieve the goal of developing healthy work environments for health care providers and optimizing care for patients.