scholarly journals Medication Management Models for Polymedicated Home-Dwelling Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Protocol of a Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Filipa Pereira ◽  
Pauline Roux ◽  
Joëlle Rosselet Amoussou ◽  
Maria Manuela Martins ◽  
Armin Von Gunten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Entire Study ◽  
Management Models ◽  
Unpublished Studies

BACKGROUND Older adults with multiple chronic diseases commonly require complex medication regimes. When combined with frailty, cognitive impairment, and changing pharmacological prescriptions, older adults’ polymedication regimes increase the risk of medication-related problems (MRPs) and hospitalization. Effective, well-organized medication management could avoid MRPs and their clinical outcomes. OBJECTIVE Identify medication management models and analyze their impact on managing and preventing MRPs for polymedicated, home-dwelling older adults. METHODS We will conduct a systematic review of published articles in relevant professional scientific journals from inception until March 31, 2019, in the following electronic databases,: Embase; Medline OvidSP; PubMed (NOT Medline[sb]); Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) EBSCO; PsycINFO OvidSP; Cochrane Library, Wiley; and Web of Science. We will also hand search the bibliographies of all the relevant articles found and search for unpublished studies. We will consider publications in English, French, German, Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese. Retrieved articles will be screened for eligibility. Statistical analyses will be conducted following the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) statements. Data will be analyzed using SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 25.0 (IBM Corp), and Review Manager, version 5.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration). RESULTS A preliminary search in Embase delivered 3272 references. This preliminary search allows us to complete our research strategy with equation development and to search the other databases. Relevant articles identified will allow for searching the reference lists for unpublished studies. The inclusion and exclusion criteria will be rigorously respected in the study selection. The entire study is expected to be completed by January 2020. CONCLUSIONS This review will provide an exhaustive view of medication management models that could be effective for polymedicated, home-dwelling older adults and will allow us to analyze their impact on managing and preventing MRPs. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42018117287; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=117287 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/77fCfbCjT) INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPOR DERR1-10.2196/13582

scholarly journals Medication Management Models for Polymedicated Home-Dwelling Older Adults With Multiple Chronic Conditions: Protocol of a Systematic Review

10.2196/13582 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. e13582
Author(s):  
Filipa Pereira ◽  
Pauline Roux ◽  
Joëlle Rosselet Amoussou ◽  
Maria Manuela Martins ◽  
Armin von Gunten ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Management Models

scholarly journals Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Chow ◽  
Eileen Huang ◽  
Allen Li ◽  
Sophie Li ◽  
Sarah Y. Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals The Effects of Technological Interventions on Social Participation of Community-Dwelling Older Adults with and without Dementia: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 2308
Author(s):  
Pascale Heins ◽  
Lizzy M. M. Boots ◽  
Wei Qi Koh ◽  
An Neven ◽  
Frans R. J. Verhey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Social Isolation ◽  
Social Participation ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Technological Interventions ◽  
Community Dwelling Older Adults

Social isolation in community-dwelling older adults with dementia is a growing health issue that can negatively affect health and well-being. To date, little attention has been paid to the role of technology in improving their social participation. This systematic review aims to provide a systematic overview of the effects of technological interventions that target social participation in community-dwelling older adults with and without dementia. The scientific databases Medline (PubMed), PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched and independently screened by two reviewers. Results were synthesized narratively. The methodological quality of included studies was independently assessed by two reviewers. In total, 36 studies of varying methodological quality were identified. Most studies evaluated social networking technology and ICT training programs. Three studies focused on people with dementia. Quantitative findings showed limited effects on loneliness, social isolation, and social support. Nevertheless, several benefits related to social participation were reported qualitatively. Social interaction, face-to-face contact, and intergenerational engagement were suggested to be successful elements of technological interventions in improving the social participation of community-dwelling older adults. Rigorous studies with larger sample sizes are highly needed to evaluate the long-term effects of technology on the multidimensional concept of social participation.

scholarly journals Hearing Loss Treatment in Older Adults With Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 61 (10) ◽  
pp. 2589-2603 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara K. Mamo ◽  
Nicholas S. Reed ◽  
Carrie Price ◽  
Dona Occhipinti ◽  
Alexandra Pletnikova ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Vocabulary ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Full Text Review

Purpose The purpose of this systematic review was to assess studies of treating hearing loss in older adults with cognitive impairment. Of interest to this review is identifying clinical adaptations that may be used to tailor hearing loss treatment to older adults with cognitive impairment in order to better serve this vulnerable population. Method A systematic search with controlled vocabulary and key word terms was applied to PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Search concepts included terms related to hearing loss and cognitive impairment. The overall search resulted in 4,945 unique references, 50 of which were eligible for full-text review and 13 of which were included in the final review. Included manuscripts were categorized according to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tools. Results Only 1 study implemented a randomized controlled trial design to assess cognitive function and behavioral symptoms after treatment with hearing aids. Other quasiexperimental studies evaluated dementia-related symptoms and/or auditory function after treating hearing loss in pre/post research designs. Finally, evidence from case studies suggested that hearing loss treatment is feasible, reduces stressful communication for caregivers, and improves dementia-related behavior problems. Conclusion Based on the systematic review, evidence suggests that treating hearing loss in persons with cognitive impairment can have benefits to communication and quality of life. Because of the quasi- and nonexperimental nature of most of the evidence found in this review, further studies are necessary to understand the effect of treatment in the context of a variable and progressive disease.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of early assessment and intervention by interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals in the emergency department: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e023464 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Rosie Quinn ◽  
Breda Naddy ◽  
Andrew O’Regan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Interdisciplinary Teams ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Early Assessment ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionFinding cost-effective strategies to improve patient care in the emergency department (ED) is an increasing imperative given growing numbers of ED attendees. Encouraging evidence indicates that interdisciplinary teams including health and social care professionals (HSCPs) enhance patient care across a variety of healthcare settings. However, to date no systematic reviews of the effectiveness of early assessment and/or interventions carried by such teams in the ED exist. This systematic review aims to explore the impact of early assessment and/or intervention carried out by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED on the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of care, and to define the content of the assessment and/or intervention offered by HSCPs.Methods and analysisUsing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standardised guidelines, we will conduct a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs, controlled before–after studies, interrupted time series and repeated measures studies that report the impact of early assessment and/or intervention provided to adults aged 18+ by interdisciplinary teams including HSCPs in the ED. Searches will be carried in Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, Cochrane Library and MEDLINE from inception to March 2018. We will also hand-search the reference lists of relevant studies. Following a two-step screening process, two independent reviewers will extract data on the type of population, intervention, comparison, outcomes and study design. The quality of the studies will be appraised using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. The findings will be synthesised in a narrative summary, and a meta-analysis will be conducted where appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval will not be sought since it is not required for systematic reviews. The results of this review will be disseminated through publication in a peer-review journal and presented at relevant conferences.Trial registration numberCRD42018091794.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to implementing clinical imaging guidelines by healthcare professionals using theoretical domains framework: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BJR|Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 20210004
Author(s):  
Harriet Nalubega Kisembo ◽  
Ritah Nassanga ◽  
Faith Ameda Ameda ◽  
Moses Ocan ◽  
Alison A Kinengyere ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Healthcare Professionals ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Clinical Imaging

Objectives: To identify, categorize, and develop an aggregated synthesis of evidence using the theoretical domains framework (TDF) on barriers and facilitators that influence implementation of clinical imaging guidelines (CIGs) by healthcare professionals (HCPs) in diagnostic imaging Methods: The protocol will be guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2014. Methodology for JBI Mixed Methods Systematic Reviews and will adhere to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA-P). Information source will include databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library), internet search (https://www.google.com/scholar), experts’ opinion, professional societies/organizations websites and government bodies strategies/recommendations, and reference lists of included studies. Articles of any study design published in English from 1990 to date, having investigated factors operating as barriers and/or facilitators to the implementation CIGs by HCPs will be eligible. Selecting, appraising, and extracting data from the included studies will be independently performed by at least two reviewers using validated tools and Rayyan – Systematic Review web application. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and a third reviewer as a tie breaker. The aggregated studies will be synthesized using thematic analysis guided by TDF. Results: Identified barriers will be defined a priori and mapped into 7 TDF domains including knowledge, awareness, effectiveness, time, litigationand financial incentives Conclusion: The results will provide an insight into a theory-based approach to predict behavior-related determinants for implementing CIGs and develop strategies/interventions to target the elicited behaviors. Recommendations will be made if the level of evidence is sufficient Advances in knowledge: Resource-constrained settings that are in the process of adopting CIGs may opt for this strategy to predict in advance likely impediments to achieving the goal of CIG implementation and develop tailored interventions during the planning phase. Systematic review Registration: PROSPERO ID = CRD42020136372 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO).

scholarly journals Generic Patient-Reported Outcomes and Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review Study Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuki Seidler ◽  
Erika Mosor ◽  
Margaret R Andrews ◽  
Carolina Watson ◽  
Nick Bott ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are an essential part of health outcome measurement and vital to patient-centricity and valued-based care. Several international consortia have developed core outcome sets and many of them include PROs. PROs are measured by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROs and PROMs can be generic or specific to certain diseases or conditions. While the characteristics of generic PROs and PROMs are well recognised as widely relevant and applicable across different domains, diseases and conditions, there is a lack of knowledge on the types of PROs measured by generic PROMs. We also do not know in which disease areas generic PROs and PROMs are commonly used. To date, there has been no systematic review solely focusing on generic PROMs, what they measure and their areas of application. Objectives: This systematic review will identify core PROs measured by generic PROMs used in adult populations and the areas in which they are applied. Methods: We will conduct a systematic review of reviews. The screening process and the reporting will comply with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) 2020 Statement. We will use four databases, Medline [PubMed], CINHAL [Ebsco], Cochrane [Cochrane Library], and PsycINFO [Ovid], and reports from international consortia. Inclusion criteria are systematic reviews, meta-analysis or patient-reported outcome sets developed by international consortia reporting on generic PROMs in adult populations. Articles primarily focusing on patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), children or adolescents, or those not written in English will be excluded. Risk of bias will be assessed by checking if the included articles comply with established guidelines for systematic reviews such as the PRISMA statement. We will extract generic PROMs and PROs measured by these PROMs, and the areas applied from the selected articles and reports. Extracted data and information will be quantitatively and qualitatively synthesised without statistical interference. The quality of the synthesised evidences will be assessed by clarifying the strengths, limitations and possible biases in our review.

scholarly journals Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assem M. Khamis ◽  
Lara A. Kahale ◽  
Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽  
Holger J. Schünemann ◽  
Elie A. Akl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of acute geriatric unit care on functional decline and process outcomes among older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e050524
Author(s):  
Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Margaret O'Connor ◽  
Mairéad Conneely ◽  
Damien Ryan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Functional Decline ◽  
Index Admission ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Process Outcomes

IntroductionOlder adults are clinically heterogeneous and are at increased risk of adverse outcomes during hospitalisation due to the presence of multiple comorbid conditions and reduced homoeostatic reserves. Acute geriatric units (AGUs) are units designed with their own physical location and structure, which provide care to older adults during the acute phase of illness and are underpinned by an interdisciplinary comprehensive geriatric assessment model of care. This review aims to update and synthesise the totality of evidence related to the effectiveness of AGU care on clinical and process outcomes among older adults admitted to hospital with acute medical complaints.DesignUpdated systematic review and meta-analysisMethods and analysisMEDLINE, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Controlled Trials in the Cochrane Library and Embase electronic databases will be systematically searched from 2008 to February 2021. Trials with a randomised design that deliver an AGU intervention to older adults admitted to hospital for acute medical complaints will be included. The primary outcome measure will be functional decline at discharge from hospital and at follow-up. Secondary outcomes will include length of stay, cost of index admission, incidence of unscheduled hospital readmission, living at home (the inverse of death or institutionalisation combined; used to describe someone who is in their own home at follow‐up), mortality, cognitive function and patient satisfaction with index admission. Title and abstract screening of studies for full-text extraction will be conducted independently by two authors. The Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool will be used to assess the methodological quality of the included trials. The quality of evidence for outcomes reported will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluations framework. A pooled meta-analysis will be conducted using Review Manager, depending on the uniformity of the data.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethical approval is not required as all data collected will be secondary data and will be analysed anonymously. The authors will present the findings of the review to a patient and public involvement stakeholder panel of older adults that has been established at the Ageing Research Centre in the University of Limerick. This will enable the views and opinions of older adults to be integrated into the discussion section of the paper.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021237633.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document