Digital undergraduate medical education and patient and carer involvement: a rapid systematic review of current practice.

BACKGROUND: Involving patients and carers in medical students' learning aims to centralise the perspective of healthcare users and supports our future medical workforce in the development of key skills. Medical schools are increasingly using digital technology for teaching and it is timely to understand how to maintain patient and carer involvement in this context. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and medRxiv were searched in October 2020 and reference lists of key articles were hand searched. Eligible studies reported authentic patient or carer involvement in undergraduate medical education where technology was also used. Study quality was assessed by the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Levels of patient or carer involvement were assessed using Towle et al.'s (2010) taxonomy, from Level 1 (lowest level) to Level 6 (highest level). RESULTS: Twenty studies were included in this systematic review. In 70% of studies, patients and carers featured in video or web-based case scenarios with no interaction between healthcare users and students. The remaining 30% of studies reported real-time interactions between students and patients via remote clinical encounters. Digital teaching sessions involving patients or carers were perceived to be valuable by students and educators, and increased student engagement, patient-centred attitudes, clinical knowledge, and communication skills. No studies reported the perspective of patients or carers. DISCUSSION: Digital technology has not yet driven higher levels of patient and carer involvement in medical training. "Live" interactions between students and patients are becoming more common but challenges need addressing to ensure positive experiences for all involved. Future teaching should enhance the role of patients and carers in medical education and support them to overcome any potential barriers to doing so remotely.

Defining acceptable data collection and reuse standards for queer artificial intelligence research in mental health: protocol for the online PARQAIR-MH Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: For artificial intelligence (AI) to help improve mental healthcare, the design of data-driven technologies needs to be fair, safe, and inclusive. Participatory design can play a critical role in empowering marginalised communities to take an active role in constructing research agendas and outputs. Given the unmet needs of the LGBTQI+ (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Intersex) community in mental healthcare, there is a pressing need for participatory research to include a range of diverse queer perspectives on issues of data collection and use (in routine clinical care as well as for research) as well as AI design. Here we propose a protocol for a Delphi consensus process for the development of PARticipatory Queer AI Research for Mental Health (PARQAIR-MH) practices, aimed at informing digital health practices and policy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The development of PARQAIR-MH is comprised of four stages. In stage 1, a review of recent literature and fact-finding consultation with stakeholder organisations will be conducted to define a terms-of-reference for stage 2, the Delphi process. Our Delphi process consists of three rounds, where the first two rounds will iterate and identify items to be included in the final Delphi survey for consensus ratings. Stage 3 consists of consensus meetings to review and aggregate the Delphi survey responses, leading to stage 4 where we will produce a reusable toolkit to facilitate participatory development of future bespoke LGBTQI+-adapted data collection, harmonisation, and use for data-driven AI applications specifically in mental healthcare settings. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PARQAIR-MH aims to deliver a toolkit that will help to ensure that the specific needs of LGBTQI+ communities are accounted for in mental health applications of data-driven technologies. The study is expected to run from June 2024 through January 2025, with the final outputs delivered in mid-2025. Participants in the Delphi process will be recruited by snowball and opportunistic sampling via professional networks and social media (but not by direct approach to healthcare service users, patients, specific clinical services, or via clinicians' caseloads). Participants will not be required to share personal narratives and experiences of healthcare or treatment for any condition. Before agreeing to participate, people will be given information about the issues considered to be in-scope for the Delphi (eg, developing best practices and methods for collecting and harmonising sensitive characteristics data; developing guidelines for data use/reuse) alongside specific risks of unintended harm from participating that can be reasonably anticipated. Outputs will be made available in open-access peer-reviewed publications, blogs, social media, and on a dedicated project website for future reuse.

Collaborative and integrated working between general practice and community pharmacies: A realist review of what works, for whom, and in which contexts.

OBJECTIVES: Collaborative and integrated (C + I) working between general practice and community pharmacies has the potential to increase accessibility to services, improve service efficiency and quality of care, and reduce health care expenditures. Many existing studies report challenges and complexities inherent in establishing effective C + I ways of working. The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between General Practitioners (GP) and Community Pharmacists (CP) can provide the conditions necessary for effective communication, decision-making, and C + I working. METHODS: We conducted a realist review to explore the key contextual factors and mechanisms through which GP-CP C + I working may be achieved. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, HMIC, Web of Science, IBSS, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Sociology Database and the King's Fund Library Database were searched for articles and grey literature published between January 2000 and April 2022. RESULTS: A total of 136 documents were included in the final synthesis. Our findings highlight the importance of mutually beneficial remuneration models to support effective integration of services; supportive organisational cultures and values; flexible and agile IT systems/technologies; adequate physical infrastructure and space design to support multidisciplinary teamworking; the importance of establishing patient's trust in collaborative processes between GP-CP; and the need to acknowledge, support and utilise effective triadic relationships. CONCLUSIONS: Our research generates new insights regarding how, why and in which contexts C + I working can be achieved between GPs and CPs. The findings of our review can be used to inform future policy, research and clinical practice guidelines for designing and delivering C + I care.

Community pharmacy and general practice collaborative and integrated working: a realist review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing collaborative and integrated working between General practice (GP) and Community pharmacy (CP) is a key priority of the UK National Health Service and has been proposed as a solution to reducing health system fragmentation, improving synergies and coordination of care. However, there is limited understanding regarding how and under which circumstances collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP can be achieved in practice and how regulatory, organisational and systemic barriers can be overcome. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The aim of our review is to understand how, when and why working arrangements between GP and CP can provide the conditions necessary for optimal communication, decision-making, and collaborative and integrated working. A realist review approach will be used to synthesise the evidence to make sense of the complexities inherent in the working relationships between GP and CP. Our review will follow Pawson's five iterative stages: (1) finding existing theories; (2) searching for evidence (our main searches were conducted in April 2022); (3) article selection; (4) data extraction and (5) synthesising evidence and drawing conclusions. We will synthesise evidence from grey literature, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods research. The research team will work closely with key stakeholders and include patient and public involvement and engagement throughout the review process to refine the focus of the review and the programme theory. Collectively, our refined programme theory will explain how collaborative and integrated working between GP and CP works (or not), for whom, how and under which circumstances. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Formal ethical approval is not required for this review as it draws on secondary data from published articles and grey literature. Findings will be widely disseminated through: publication in peer-reviewed journals, seminars, international conference presentations, patients' association channels, social media, symposia and user-friendly summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022314280.

Cognitive-behavioural therapy for a variety of conditions: an overview of systematic reviews and panoramic meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioural therapy aims to increase quality of life by changing cognitive and behavioural factors that maintain problematic symptoms. A previous overview of cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic reviews suggested that cognitive-behavioural therapy was effective for many conditions. However, few of the included reviews synthesised randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: This project was undertaken to map the quality and gaps in the cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic review of randomised controlled trial evidence base. Panoramic meta-analyses were also conducted to identify any across-condition general effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy. DATA SOURCES: The overview was designed with cognitive-behavioural therapy patients, clinicians and researchers. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and OpenGrey databases were searched from 1992 to January 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) fulfil the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination criteria; (2) intervention reported as cognitive-behavioural therapy or including one cognitive and one behavioural element; (3) include a synthesis of cognitive-behavioural therapy trials; (4) include either health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety or pain outcome; and (5) available in English. Review quality was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. Reviews were quality assessed and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent researchers, and then mapped according to condition, population, context and quality. The effects from high-quality reviews were pooled within condition groups, using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I2 < 75%, we pooled across conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, delivery format, comparator type and length of follow-up, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for quality. RESULTS: A total of 494 reviews were mapped, representing 68% (27/40) of the categories of the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Most reviews (71%, 351/494) were of lower quality. Research on older adults, using cognitive-behavioural therapy preventatively, ethnic minorities and people living outside Europe, North America or Australasia was limited. Out of 494 reviews, 71 were included in the primary panoramic meta-analyses. A modest effect was found in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50, I2 = 32%), anxiety (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.88, I2 = 62%) and pain (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.74, I2 = 64%) outcomes. All condition, subgroup and sensitivity effect estimates remained consistent with the general effect. A statistically significant interaction effect was evident between the active and non-active comparator groups for the health-related quality-of-life outcome. A general effect for depression outcomes was not produced as a result of considerable heterogeneity across reviews and conditions. LIMITATIONS: Data extraction and analysis were conducted at the review level, rather than returning to the individual trial data. This meant that the risk of bias of the individual trials could not be accounted for, but only the quality of the systematic reviews that synthesised them. CONCLUSION: Owing to the consistency and homogeneity of the highest-quality evidence, it is proposed that cognitive-behavioural therapy can produce a modest general, across-condition benefit in health-related quality-of-life, anxiety and pain outcomes. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on how the modest effect sizes seen with cognitive-behavioural therapy can be increased, for example identifying alternative delivery formats to increase adherence and reduce dropout, and pursuing novel methods to assess intervention fidelity and quality. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017078690. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

This report is a summary of research examining if a psychological therapy called cognitive­behavioural therapy can improve the quality of life of people living with physical and/or mental conditions. Cognitive­behavioural therapy uses a set of techniques that help individuals to identify and change problematic thoughts or behaviour patterns that might contribute to and maintain their physical or mental symptoms. It can be delivered face to face or through mediums such as the internet. We aimed to understand if cognitive­behavioural therapy helps patients with specific conditions only, or if it can help patients with any condition. We searched relevant databases to find articles that combine the results from multiple trials testing cognitive­behavioural therapy. These are known as systematic reviews. We graded these reviews as providing good- or poor-quality evidence. We identified the conditions for which we had good-quality evidence on whether or not cognitive­behavioural therapy was helpful. From each review, we took numerical data that told us if cognitive­behavioural therapy improved quality of life for that specific condition. Next, we combined all the numerical data together, across all the conditions, to see if there was a consistent benefit of cognitive­behavioural therapy. The statistical analyses found that cognitive­behavioural therapy consistently improved quality of life across all the conditions where it has been tested. We have evidence that it can help children, adolescents and adults, of either sex, who are living in Europe, North America and Australasia. We are unsure if it will help older adults or people living in Africa, Asia or South America, nor do we know if cognitive­behavioural therapy is equally effective across different ethnic groups. It is recommended that future research should prioritise understanding how cognitive­behavioural therapy works, why some people do not want to use cognitive­behavioural therapy and why some patients do not benefit from it.

Effectiveness of cognitive-behavioural therapy: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) is a psychological therapy that has been used to improve patient well-being across multiple mental and physical health problems. Its effectiveness has been examined in thousands of randomised control trials that have been synthesised into hundreds of systematic reviews. The aim of this overview is to map, synthesise and assess the reliability of evidence generated from these systematic reviews of the effectiveness of CBT across all health conditions, patient groups and settings. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will run our search strategy, to identify systematic reviews of CBT, within the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Child Development and Adolescent Studies, and OpenGrey between January 1992 and 25 April 2018. Independent reviewers will sift, perform data extraction in duplicate and assess the quality of the reviews using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (V.2) tool. The outcomes of interest include: health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety, psychosis and physical/physiological outcomes prioritised in the individual reviews. The evidence will be mapped and synthesised where appropriate by health problem, patient subgroups, intervention type, context and outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as this is an overview of published systematic reviews. We plan to publish results in peer-reviewed journals and present at international and national academic, clinical and patient conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017078690.