Discovering Common Elements of Empirically Supported Self-Help Interventions for Depression in Primary Care: a Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naoaki Kuroda ◽  
Matthew D. Burkey ◽  
Lawrence S. Wissow
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Common Elements ◽  
Empirically Supported ◽  
Self Help

The effectiveness of four empirically supported psychotherapies for primary care depression and anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 245 ◽  
pp. 1168-1186 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anao Zhang ◽  
Cynthia Franklin ◽  
Shijie Jing ◽  
Lindsay A. Bornheimer ◽  
Audrey Hang Hai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Empirically Supported

WikiRecs primary care: developing rapid recommendations for primary care through effective collaboration between systematic review and guideline teams

2018 ◽  
Vol 68 (suppl 1) ◽  
pp. bjgp18X697085
Author(s):  
Trudy Bekkering ◽  
Bert Aertgeerts ◽  
Ton Kuijpers ◽  
Mieke Vermandere ◽  
Jako Burgers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Urinary Stones ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Supporting Evidence ◽  
Supervised Exercise ◽  
Review Team ◽  
New Evidence

BackgroundThe WikiRecs evidence summaries and recommendations for clinical practice are developed using trustworthy methods. The process is triggered by studies that may potentially change practice, aiming at implementing new evidence into practice fast.AimTo share our first experiences developing WikiRecs for primary care and to reflect on the possibilities and pitfalls of this method.MethodIn March 2017, we started developing WikiRecs for primary health care to speed up the process of making potentially practice-changing evidence in clinical practice. Based on a well-structured question a systematic review team summarises the evidence using the GRADE approach. Subsequently, an international panel of primary care physicians, methodological experts and patients formulates recommendations for clinical practice. The patient representatives are involved as full guideline panel members. The final recommendations and supporting evidence are disseminated using various platforms, including MAGICapp and scientific journals.ResultsWe are developing WikiRecs on two topics: alpha-blockers for urinary stones and supervised exercise therapy for intermittent claudication. We did not face major problems but will reflect on issues we had to solve so far. We anticipate having the first WikiRecs for primary care available at the end of 2017.ConclusionThe WikiRecs process is a promising method — that is still evolving — to rapidly synthesise and bring new evidence into primary care practice, while adhering to high quality standards.

scholarly journals Approaches for combining primary care electronic health record data from multiple sources: a systematic review of observational studies

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037405
Author(s):  
Daniel Dedman ◽  
Melissa Cabecinha ◽  
Rachael Williams ◽  
Stephen J W Evans ◽  
Krishnan Bhaskaran ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Electronic Health Record ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Data Sources ◽  
Health Record ◽  
Two Stage ◽  
One Stage ◽  
Electronic Health

ObjectiveTo identify observational studies which used data from more than one primary care electronic health record (EHR) database, and summarise key characteristics including: objective and rationale for using multiple data sources; methods used to manage, analyse and (where applicable) combine data; and approaches used to assess and report heterogeneity between data sources.DesignA systematic review of published studies.Data sourcesPubmed and Embase databases were searched using list of named primary care EHR databases; supplementary hand searches of reference list of studies were retained after initial screening.Study selectionObservational studies published between January 2000 and May 2018 were selected, which included at least two different primary care EHR databases.Results6054 studies were identified from database and hand searches, and 109 were included in the final review, the majority published between 2014 and 2018. Included studies used 38 different primary care EHR data sources. Forty-seven studies (44%) were descriptive or methodological. Of 62 analytical studies, 22 (36%) presented separate results from each database, with no attempt to combine them; 29 (48%) combined individual patient data in a one-stage meta-analysis and 21 (34%) combined estimates from each database using two-stage meta-analysis. Discussion and exploration of heterogeneity was inconsistent across studies.ConclusionsComparing patterns and trends in different populations, or in different primary care EHR databases from the same populations, is important and a common objective for multi-database studies. When combining results from several databases using meta-analysis, provision of separate results from each database is helpful for interpretation. We found that these were often missing, particularly for studies using one-stage approaches, which also often lacked details of any statistical adjustment for heterogeneity and/or clustering. For two-stage meta-analysis, a clear rationale should be provided for choice of fixed effect and/or random effects or other models.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document