A systematic review of systematic reviews of secondary health conditions, health promotion, and employment of people with intellectual disabilities

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Kanako Iwanaga ◽  
Jia Rung Wu ◽  
Fong Chan ◽  
Phillip Rumrill ◽  
Paul Wehman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
People With Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Health Promotion Interventions

Abstract This is a systematic review of systematic reviews of secondary health conditions, health promotion interventions, and employment in people with intellectual disabilities. Articles were included if they reported a systematic review of health and employment, secondary health conditions, and health promotion interventions for people with intellectual disabilities. The methodological quality of the included reviews was reviewed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews quality rating system, a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews. Twenty-five systematic reviews were included. There was evidence that people with intellectual disabilities (ID) were at elevated risk for secondary health conditions, health promotion interventions can improve physical and mental health conditions, and employment is associated with better health-related quality of life. Health promotion intervention to help people with ID engage in health promoting behaviors can improve health and their ability to find and maintain employment.

scholarly journals Health outcomes associated with Zika virus infection in humans: a systematic review of systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (11) ◽  
pp. e032275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphael Ximenes ◽  
Lauren C Ramsay ◽  
Rafael Neves Miranda ◽  
Shaun K Morris ◽  
Kellie Murphy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Zika Virus ◽  
Policy Decision ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
New Research ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveWith the emergence of Zika virus (ZIKV) disease in Central and South America in the mid-2010s and recognition of the teratogenic effects of congenital exposure to ZIKV, there has been a substantial increase in new research published on ZIKV. Our objective is to synthesise the literature on health outcomes associated with ZIKV infection in humans.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review (SR) of SRs following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane and LILACS (Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde) databases from inception to 22 July 2019, and included SRs that reported ZIKV-associated health outcomes. Three independent reviewers selected eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the quality of included SRs using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2) tool. Conflicts were resolved by consensus or consultation with a third reviewer.ResultsThe search yielded 1382 unique articles, of which 21 SRs met our inclusion criteria. The 21 SRs ranged from descriptive to quantitative data synthesis, including four meta-analyses. The most commonly reported ZIKV-associated manifestations and health outcomes were microcephaly, congenital abnormalities, brain abnormalities, neonatal death and Guillain-Barré syndrome. The included reviews were highly heterogeneous. The overall quality of the SRs was critically low with all studies having more than one critical weakness.ConclusionThe evolving nature of the literature on ZIKV-associated health outcomes, together with the critically low quality of existing SRs, demonstrates the need for high-quality SRs to guide patient care and inform policy decision making.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018091087.

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals A systematic review and synthesis of outcome domains for use within forensic services for people with intellectual disabilities

BJPsych Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-56 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catrin Morrissey ◽  
Peter E. Langdon ◽  
Nicole Geach ◽  
Verity Chester ◽  
Michael Ferriter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Treatment Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Service Level ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
People With Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Forensic Psychiatric

BackgroundThere is limited empirical information on service-level outcome domains and indicators for the large number of people with intellectual disabilities being treated in forensic psychiatric hospitals.AimsThis study identified and developed the domains that should be used to measure treatment outcomes for this population.MethodA systematic review of the literature highlighted 60 studies which met eligibility criteria; they were synthesised using content analysis. The findings were refined within a consultation and consensus exercises with carers, patients and experts.ResultsThe final framework encompassed three apriorisuperordinate domains: (a) effectiveness, (b) patient safety and (c) patient and carer experience. Within each of these, further sub-domains emerged from our systematic review and consultation exercises. These included severity of clinical symptoms, offending behaviours, reactive and restrictive interventions, quality of life and patient satisfaction.ConclusionsTo index recovery, services need to measure treatment outcomes using this framework.

Health-promotion intervention in a group home: Perspectives of residents, staff and rehabilitation professionals

2019 ◽  
pp. 174462951987497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Õie Umb Carlsson
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Eating Habits ◽  
Group Home ◽  
Health Promotion Intervention ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Rehabilitation Professionals ◽  
People With Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Group Interviews ◽  
Health Promotion Interventions

Promoting healthier lifestyles in people with intellectual disabilities is important in order to improve health and reduce health inequalities. Few studies have explored how health-promotion interventions for people with intellectual disabilities in community-based settings are experienced. The aim of this study was to explore residents’, staff members’ and rehabilitation professionals’ experiences of how a health-promotion intervention affected the habits of people living in a group home regarding eating habits and physical activities and staffs’ ways of working. Semi-structured group interviews were conducted with five residents, six staff members and five rehabilitation professionals. The group discussions were analysed with content analysis separately for each group. Four different categories described residents’, staff members’ and rehabilitation professionals’ views respectively. It is suggested that including people with intellectual disabilities as active parties throughout the process would facilitate implementation of a health-promotion profile in community residences.

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Outcome Domains for use Within Forensic Services for People with Intellectual Disabilities

2017 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. S152-S152
Author(s):  
R. Alexander ◽  
V. Chester ◽  
P. Langdon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Clinical Symptoms ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Service Users ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Offending Behavior ◽  
People With Intellectual Disabilities

AimsIn response to the Winterbourne scandal, and the large number of people with intellectual disabilities (IDs) and offending behavior being treated in psychiatric hospitals, this study identified the domains that should be used to measure treatment outcomes of this group.MethodsA systematic search of relevant databases was undertaken to identify domains. Sixty studies met the eligibility criteria, and findings were synthesized using content analysis. The findings were refined within a consultation and consensus exercises with carers, service users, and experts.ResultsThe final framework encompassed three a priori super-ordinate domains (a) effectiveness, (b) patient safety, and (c) patient and carer experience. Within each of these, further sub-domains emerged from our systematic review and consultation exercises. These included severity of clinical symptoms, offending behaviors, reactive and restrictive interventions, quality of life and patient satisfaction.ConclusionsTo index recovery, services need to measure outcome using this framework.

Physical Activity and Nutrition Health Promotion Interventions: What is Working for People With Intellectual Disabilities?

2011 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamar Heller ◽  
Jeffrey A. McCubbin ◽  
Charles Drum ◽  
Jana Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Comprehensive Health ◽  
People With Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Adults With Intellectual Disabilities ◽  
Health Promotion Interventions ◽  
Psychosocial Benefits ◽  
Individuals With Intellectual Disabilities

Abstract A scoping review of studies on physical activity and nutrition health promotion interventions for individuals with intellectual disabilities was conducted. Searches included MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases from 1986 through July 2006. The final number included 11 articles comprising 12 studies. Generally, this review indicated some evidence for fitness and psychosocial benefits of community-based physical activity and exercise programs for adults with intellectual disabilities. When combined with a more comprehensive health behavior education program incorporating exercise and nutrition information, some evidence exists for reductions in weight.

scholarly journals Outcomes and outcome measures reported in clinical studies of therapeutic mammaplasty: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046438
Author(s):  
Alice Lee ◽  
Richard M Kwasnicki ◽  
Daniel R Leff
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionTherapeutic mammaplasty (TM) is an oncological procedure which combines tumour resection with breast reduction and mastopexy techniques. Previous systematic reviews have demonstrated oncological safety of TM, but poor and inconsistent reporting of quality-of-life, aesthetic and functional outcomes, often with non-validated measurement tools. Moreover, there is a paucity of patient-reported outcome measures. Standardisation of outcome reporting is required to enable study results to be compared and combined, for example, through core outcome set (COS) development. This systematic review aims to comprehensively describe the outcomes reported in clinical studies of TM, their respective outcome measures and the time points at which they were evaluated. The overall objective is to facilitate the development of a COS for TM.Methods and analysisA systematic review of clinical studies evaluating outcomes following TM will be completed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. The following electronic databases have been searched from inception to 5 August 2020: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science. Primary outcomes will include the number of reported outcomes of various types (clinical, aesthetic, functional, quality-of-life and cost-effectiveness), whether these are patient-reported or clinician-reported, how outcomes are defined and the outcome measurement tool(s) used. The time point(s) at which outcomes were measured will be a secondary outcome. No studies will be excluded on the basis of methodological quality in order to generate a comprehensive list of reported outcomes and outcome measures; hence, risk of bias assessment is not required. The data will be described narratively. This protocol has been reported in line with PRISMA-Protocols.Ethics and disseminationThis study does not involve human or animal participants, hence ethical approval is not required. The findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020200365.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document