scholarly journals Effectiveness of health-oriented leadership interventions for improving health and wellbeing of employees: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indra Dannheim ◽  
Helena Ludwig-Walz ◽  
Anette E. Buyken ◽  
Valerie Grimm ◽  
Anja Kroke
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Sickness Absence ◽  
Leadership Training ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mindfulness Practices ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Aim To identify and summarize the evidence for the effect of health-oriented leadership interventions on health and well-being outcomes at the employee level following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (Moher et al. 2009). Subject and Methods A systematic search of relevant studies was conducted in multiple databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) and controlled before–after studies (CBAs) were included based on the following criteria: interventions that addressed supervisors, to raise awareness for the importance of health issues, teach mindfulness practices for conscious awareness, reduce stress and promote resources at the level of individual behavior, and evaluated the effect on at least one outcome of psychomental stress, absenteeism and well-being on the employee level. Results Of 6126 publications retrieved, ten studies were identified for analysis. Significant effects of leadership training were reported on exhaustion tendency, self-reported sickness absence, work-related sickness absence and job satisfaction in studies comparing health-oriented training programs to no intervention. Studies comparing health-oriented leadership training to other training did not report significant effects. Risk of bias was judged to be high in seven studies and unclear in three studies. Conclusion Evidence for the effectiveness of health-oriented leadership interventions on employees’ stress, absenteeism or well-being is judged to be low, clearly indicating the need for more and higher-quality research.

scholarly journals Pre-Procedural Lumbar Neuraxial Ultrasound—A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials and Meta-Analysis

Healthcare ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 479
Author(s):  
Tatiana Sidiropoulou ◽  
Kalliopi Christodoulaki ◽  
Charalampos Siristatidis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Success Rate ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Technical Failure ◽  
Obese Patients ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

A pre-procedural ultrasound of the lumbar spine is frequently used to facilitate neuraxial procedures. The aim of this review is to examine the evidence sustaining the utilization of pre-procedural neuraxial ultrasound compared to conventional methods. We perform a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with meta-analyses. We search the electronic databases Medline, Cochrane Central, Science Direct and Scopus up to 1 June 2019. We include trials comparing a pre-procedural lumbar spine ultrasound to a non-ultrasound-assisted method. The primary endpoints are technical failure rate, first-attempt success rate, number of needle redirections and procedure time. We retrieve 32 trials (3439 patients) comparing pre-procedural lumbar ultrasounds to palpations for neuraxial procedures in various clinical settings. Pre-procedural ultrasounds decrease the overall risk of technical failure (Risk Ratio (RR) 0.69 (99% CI, 0.43 to 1.10), p = 0.04) but not in obese and difficult spinal patients (RR 0.53, p = 0.06) and increase the first-attempt success rate (RR 1.5 (99% CI, 1.22 to 1.86), p < 0.0001, NNT = 5). In difficult spines and obese patients, the RR is 1.84 (99% CI, 1.44 to 2.3; p < 0.0001, NNT = 3). The number of needle redirections is lower with pre-procedural ultrasounds (SMD = −0.55 (99% CI, −0.81 to −0.29), p < 0.0001), as is the case in difficult spines and obese patients (SMD = −0.85 (99% CI, −1.08 to −0.61), p < 0.0001). No differences are observed in procedural times. Ιn conclusion, a pre-procedural ultrasound provides significant benefit in terms of technical failure, number of needle redirections and first attempt-success rate. Τhe effect of pre-procedural ultrasound scanning of the lumbar spine is more significant in a subgroup analysis of difficult spines and obese patients.

scholarly journals A guide to do randomized controlled trials in the field of otolaryngology

2021 ◽  
Vol 37 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sameh M. Zamzam ◽  
Mosaad Abdel-Aziz ◽  
Ahmed Atef ◽  
Usama Abdel-Naseer ◽  
Mostafa Hamoda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Groups ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Main Body ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
New Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

Abstract Background Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are prospective comparative studies in which study groups are allocated randomly to intervention or serve as controls. RCT is the mainstay to achieve evidence in the literature in clinical research. A RCT is the main research design to study the effect of an intervention and the only way to confirm the value of a new treatment. Main body RCT also gives the way to generate meta-analyses and systematic reviews giving a stronger evidence for clinical practice. Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is crucial for safe, effective, and standardized patient care. Although there is an agreement on the importance of performing RCT, it can be challenging to do it efficiently including different aspects like study design, funding, randomization, blinding, follow-up, data analysis, statistics, generalization of results, and reporting of quality of the studies. Conclusion In this article, we gave a comprehensive review for RCT in otolaryngology discussing their importance, advantages, and drawbacks, types, steps, challenges, reporting their quality and their prevalence in the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document