scholarly journals Effects of Housing First approaches on health and well-being of adults who are homeless or at risk of homelessness: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (5) ◽  
pp. 379-387 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew J Baxter ◽  
Emily J Tweed ◽  
Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi ◽  
Hilary Thomson
Keyword(s):  
Substance Use ◽  
Health Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Housing First ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Housing Stability ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Health And Well Being

BackgroundHomelessness is associated with poor health. A policy approach aiming to end homelessness across Europe and North America, the ‘Housing First’ (HF) model, provides rapid housing, not conditional on abstinence from substance use. We aimed to systematically review the evidence from randomised controlled trials for the effects of HF on health and well-being.MethodsWe searched seven databases for randomised controlled trials of interventions providing rapid access to non-abstinence-contingent, permanent housing. We extracted data on the following outcomes: mental health; self-reported health and quality of life; substance use; non-routine use of healthcare services; housing stability. We assessed risk of bias and calculated standardised effect sizes.ResultsWe included four studies, all with ‘high’ risk of bias. The impact of HF on most short-term health outcomes was imprecisely estimated, with varying effect directions. No clear difference in substance use was seen. Intervention groups experienced fewer emergency department visits (incidence rate ratio (IRR)=0.63; 95% CI 0.48 to 0.82), fewer hospitalisations (IRR=0.76; 95% CI 0.70 to 0.83) and less time spent hospitalised (standardised mean difference (SMD)=−0.14; 95% CI −0.41 to 0.14) than control groups. In all studies intervention participants spent more days housed (SMD=1.24; 95% CI 0.86 to 1.62) and were more likely to be housed at 18–24 months (risk ratio=2.46; 95% CI 1.58 to 3.84).ConclusionHF approaches successfully improve housing stability and may improve some aspects of health. Implementation of HF would likely reduce homelessness and non-routine health service use without an increase in problematic substance use. Impacts on long-term health outcomes require further investigation.Trial registration numberCRD42017064457

scholarly journals Effect of interventions for the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners—a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e046599
Author(s):  
Diana Naehrig ◽  
Aaron Schokman ◽  
Jessica Kate Hughes ◽  
Ronald Epstein ◽  
Ian B Hickie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Positive Outcomes ◽  
Mindfulness Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesClinician well-being has been recognised as an important pillar of healthcare. However, research mainly addresses mitigating the negative aspects of stress or burnout, rather than enabling positive aspects. With the added strain of a pandemic, identifying how best to maintain and support the well-being, satisfaction and flourishing of general practitioners (GPs) is now more important than ever.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL and Scopus from 2000 to 2020.Study selectionIntervention studies with more than 50% GPs in the sample evaluating self-reported well-being, satisfaction and related positive outcomes were included. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool was applied.ResultsWe retrieved 14 792 records, 94 studies underwent full-text review. We included 19 studies in total. Six randomised controlled trials, three non-randomised, controlled trials, eight non-controlled studies of individual or organisational interventions with a total of 1141 participants. There were two quasi-experimental articles evaluating health system policy change. Quantitative and qualitative positive outcomes were extracted and analysed. Individual mindfulness interventions were the most common (k=9) with medium to large within-group (0.37–1.05) and between-group (0.5–1.5) effect sizes for mindfulness outcomes, and small-to-medium effect sizes for other positive outcomes including resilience, compassion and empathy. Studies assessing other intervention foci or other positive outcomes (including well-being, satisfaction) were of limited size and quality.ConclusionsThere is remarkably little evidence on how to improve GPs well-being beyond using mindfulness interventions, particularly for interventions addressing organisational or system factors. This was further undermined by inconsistent reporting, and overall high risk of bias. We need to conduct research in this space with the same rigour with which we approach clinical intervention studies in patients.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020164699.Funding sourceDr Diana Naehrig is funded through the Raymond Seidler PhD scholarship.

scholarly journals Comparative efficacy and safety of interventions for treating head lice: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e001129
Author(s):  
Bill Stevenson ◽  
Wubshet Tesfaye ◽  
Julia Christenson ◽  
Cynthia Mathew ◽  
Solomon Abrha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Head Lice ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundHead lice infestation is a major public health problem around the globe. Its treatment is challenging due to product failures resulting from rapidly emerging resistance to existing treatments, incorrect treatment applications and misdiagnosis. Various head lice treatments with different mechanism of action have been developed and explored over the years, with limited report on systematic assessments of their efficacy and safety. This work aims to present a robust evidence summarising the interventions used in head lice.MethodThis is a systematic review and network meta-analysis which will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses statement for network meta-analyses. Selected databases, including PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be systematically searched for randomised controlled trials exploring head lice treatments. Searches will be limited to trials published in English from database inception till 2021. Grey literature will be identified through Open Grey, AHRQ, Grey Literature Report, Grey Matters, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry and International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry. Additional studies will be sought from reference lists of included studies. Study screening, selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality will be undertaken by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved via a third reviewer. The primary outcome measure is the relative risk of cure at 7 and 14 days postinitial treatment. Secondary outcome measures may include adverse drug events, ovicidal activity, treatment compliance and acceptability, and reinfestation. Information from direct and indirect evidence will be used to generate the effect sizes (relative risk) to compare the efficacy and safety of individual head lice treatments against a common comparator (placebo and/or permethrin). Risk of bias assessment will be undertaken by two independent reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations guideline for network meta-analysis. All quantitative analyses will be conducted using STATA V.16.DiscussionThe evidence generated from this systematic review and meta-analysis is intended for use in evidence-driven treatment of head lice infestations and will be instrumental in informing health professionals, public health practitioners and policy-makers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017073375.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for panic disorder with or without agoraphobia: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Davide Papola ◽  
Giovanni Ostuzzi ◽  
Federico Tedeschi ◽  
Chiara Gastaldon ◽  
Marianna Purgato ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Panic Disorder ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Psychodynamic Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
First Line ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Psychotherapies are the treatment of choice for panic disorder, but which should be considered as first-line treatment is yet to be substantiated by evidence. Aims To examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia via a network meta-analysis. Method We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to examine the most effective and accepted psychotherapy for the acute phase of panic disorder. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and CENTRAL, from inception to 1 Jan 2021 for RCTs. Cochrane and PRISMA guidelines were used. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were conducted using a random-effects model. Confidence in the evidence was assessed using Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA). The protocol was published in a peer-reviewed journal and in PROSPERO (CRD42020206258). Results We included 136 RCTs in the systematic review. Taking into consideration efficacy (7352 participants), acceptability (6862 participants) and the CINeMA confidence in evidence appraisal, the best interventions in comparison with treatment as usual (TAU) were cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) (for efficacy: standardised mean differences s.m.d. = −0.67, 95% CI −0.95 to −0.39; CINeMA: moderate; for acceptability: relative risk RR = 1.21, 95% CI −0.94 to 1.56; CINeMA: moderate) and short-term psychodynamic therapy (for efficacy: s.m.d. = −0.61, 95% CI −1.15 to −0.07; CINeMA: low; for acceptability: RR = 0.92, 95% CI 0.54–1.54; CINeMA: moderate). After removing RCTs at high risk of bias only CBT remained more efficacious than TAU. Conclusions CBT and short-term psychodynamic therapy are reasonable first-line choices. Studies with high risk of bias tend to inflate the overall efficacy of treatments. Results from this systematic review and network meta-analysis should inform clinicians and guidelines.

scholarly journals The Effect of Vitamin D Supplementation on Glycaemic Control in Women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1716 ◽  
Author(s):  
Omorogieva Ojo ◽  
Sharon M. Weldon ◽  
Trevor Thompson ◽  
Elisabeth J. Vargo
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Vitamin D ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Gestational Diabetes ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Vitamin D Supplementation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Vitamin D deficiency is highly prevalent amongst pregnant women and is linked to a range of adverse complications, including gestational diabetes. However, there is no consensus among researchers regarding the impact of vitamin D supplementation in alleviating adverse effects in gestational diabetes. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to determine whether supplementation of vitamin D given to women with gestational diabetes can promote glycaemic control. EMBASE and PubMed were searched up to November, 2018. The selection criteria included randomised controlled trials of the effect of vitamin D supplementation (1000–4762 IU/day) on pregnant women with gestational diabetes mellitus. Study data and outcome measures (fasting blood glucose, glycated haemoglobin and serum insulin) were extracted from included studies. Random-effects models were used for meta-analyses. Heterogeneity tests, and analysis of the risk of bias were conducted. Most of the studies were graded as having either low risk or moderate risk of bias although two studies had a high risk of bias in the areas of blinding of participants and personnel, and incomplete outcome data. On the other hand, the heterogeneity statistic (I2) ranged from 0–41% in the studies included. Five randomised controlled trials were selected for this review and meta-analysis (involving a total of 173 participants supplemented with vitamin D and 153 participants as control drawn from the studies). Vitamin D supplementation was associated with a decrease in fasting blood glucose by a mean of 0.46 mmol/L (−0.68, −0.25) (p < 0.001), glycated haemoglobin by a mean of 0.37% (−0.65, −0.08) (p < 0.01) and serum insulin concentration by mean of 4.10 µIU/mL (−5.50, −2.71) (p < 0.001) compared to controls. This review shows evidence that vitamin D supplementation has the potential to promote glycaemic control in women with Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM). However, due to the limited number of studies in the meta-analysis, the conclusion should be interpreted with caution. Further studies are needed to fully understand the exact mechanism by which vitamin D influences glucose metabolism.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document