Explore the vast range of titles available.

ObjectiveTo systematically identify and describe studies that have evaluated the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. A secondary objective was to use this evidence to build evidence-based logic models to guide health strategy decision making about gardens and gardening as a non-medical, social prescription.DesignScoping review of the impact of gardens and gardening on health and well-being. Gardens include private spaces and those open to the public or part of hospitals, care homes, hospices or third sector organisations.Data sourcesA range of biomedical and health management journals was searched including Medline, CINAHL, Psychinfo, Web of Knowledge, ASSIA, Cochrane, Joanna Briggs, Greenfile, Environment Complete and a number of indicative websites were searched to locate context-specific data and grey literature. We searched from 1990 to November 2019.Eligibility criteriaWe included research studies (including systematic reviews) that assessed the effect, value or impact of any garden that met the gardening definition.Data extraction and synthesisThree reviewers jointly screened 50 records by titles and abstracts to ensure calibration. Each record title was screened independently by 2 out of 3 members of the project team and each abstract was screened by 1 member of a team of 3. Random checks on abstract and full-text screening were conducted by a fourth member of the team and any discrepancies were resolved through double-checking and discussion.ResultsFrom the 8896 papers located, a total of 77* studies was included. Over 35 validated health, well-being and functional biometric outcome measures were reported. Interventions ranged from viewing gardens, taking part in gardening or undertaking therapeutic activities. The findings demonstrated links between gardens and improved mental well-being, increased physical activity and a reduction in social isolation enabling the development of 2 logic models.ConclusionsGardens and gardening can improve the health and well-being for people with a range of health and social needs. The benefits of gardens and gardening could be used as a ‘social prescription’ globally, for people with long-term conditions (LTCs). Our logic models provide an evidence-based illustration that can guide health strategy decision making about the referral of people with LTCs to socially prescribed, non-medical interventions involving gardens and gardening.

Background There is convincing evidence that unhealthy food marketing is extensive on television and in digital media, uses powerful persuasive techniques, and impacts dietary choices and consumption, particularly in children. It is less clear whether this is also the case for outdoor food marketing. This review (i) identifies common criteria used to define outdoor food marketing, (ii) summarises research methodologies used, (iii) identifies available evidence on the exposure, power (i.e. persuasive creative strategies within marketing) and impact of outdoor food marketing on behaviour and health and (iv) identifies knowledge gaps and directions for future research. Methods A systematic search was conducted of Medline (Ovid), Scopus, Science Direct, Proquest, PsycINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and a number of grey literature sources. Titles and abstracts were screened by one researcher. Relevant full texts were independently checked by two researchers against eligibility criteria. Results Fifty-three studies were conducted across twenty-one countries. The majority of studies ( n  = 39) were conducted in high-income countries. All measured the extent of exposure to outdoor food marketing, twelve also assessed power and three measured impact on behavioural or health outcomes. Criteria used to define outdoor food marketing and methodologies adopted were highly variable across studies. Almost a quarter of advertisements across all studies were for food (mean of 22.1%) and the majority of advertised foods were unhealthy (mean of 63%). The evidence on differences in exposure by SES is heterogenous, which makes it difficult to draw conclusions, however the research suggests that ethnic minority groups have a higher likelihood of exposure to food marketing outdoors. The most frequent persuasive creative strategies were premium offers and use of characters. There was limited evidence on the relationship between exposure to outdoor food marketing and eating behaviour or health outcomes. Conclusions This review highlights the extent of unhealthy outdoor food marketing globally and the powerful methods used within this marketing. There is a need for consistency in defining and measuring outdoor food marketing to enable comparison across time and place. Future research should attempt to measure direct impacts on behaviour and health.

People who experience homelessness and those vulnerably housed experience disproportionately high rates of drug use and associated harms, yet barriers to services and support are common. We undertook a systematic 'review of reviews' to investigate the effects of interventions for this population on substance use, housing, and related outcomes, as well as on treatment engagement, retention and successful completion. We searched ten electronic databases from inception to October 2020 for reviews and syntheses, conducted a grey literature search, and hand searched reference lists of included studies. We selected reviews that synthesised evidence on any type of treatment or intervention that reported substance use outcomes for people who reported being homeless. We appraised the quality of included reviews using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses and the Scale for the Assessment of Narrative Review Articles. Our search identified 843 citations, and 25 reviews met the inclusion criteria. Regarding substance use outcomes, there was evidence that harm reduction approaches lead to decreases in drug-related risk behaviour and fatal overdoses, and reduce mortality, morbidity, and substance use. Case management interventions were significantly better than treatment as usual in reducing substance use among people who are homeless. The evidence indicates that Housing First does not lead to significant changes in substance use. Evidence regarding housing and other outcomes is mixed. People who are homeless and use drugs experience many barriers to accessing healthcare and treatment. Evidence regarding interventions designed specifically for this population is limited, but harm reduction and case management approaches can lead to improvements in substance use outcomes, whilst some housing interventions improve housing outcomes and may provide more stability. More research is needed regarding optimal treatment length as well as qualitative insights from people experiencing or at risk of homelessness.

Globally, approximately 3 billion primarily cook using inefficient and poorly vented combustion devices, leading to unsafe levels of household air pollution (HAP) in and around the home. Such exposures contribute to nearly 4 million deaths annually (WHO 2018a, 2018b ). Characterizing the effectiveness of interventions for reducing HAP concentration and exposure is critical for informing policy and programmatic decision-making on which cooking solutions yield the greatest health benefits. This review synthesizes evidence of in-field measurements from four cleaner cooking technologies and three clean fuels, using field studies aimed at reducing HAP concentration and personal exposure to health damaging pollutants (particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) and carbon monoxide (CO)). Fifty studies from Africa, Asia, South and Latin America, provided 168 estimates synthesized through meta-analysis. For PM 2.5 kitchen concentrations, burning biomass more cleanly through improved combustion stoves (ICS) with ( n = 29; 63% reduction) or without ( n = 12; 52%) venting (through flue or chimney) and through forced-draft combustion ( n = 9; 50%) was less effective than cooking with clean fuels including ethanol ( n = 4; 83%), liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) ( n = 11; 83%) and electricity ( n = 6; 86%). Only studies of clean fuels consistently achieved post-intervention kitchen PM 2.5 levels at or below the health-based WHO interim target level 1 (WHO-IT1) of 35 μ g m −3 . None of the advanced combustion stoves (gasifiers) achieved WHO-IT1, although no evidence was available for pellet fuelled stoves. For personal exposure to PM 2.5, none of the ICS ( n = 11) were close to WHO-IT1 whereas 75% ( n = 6 of 8) of LPG interventions were at or below WHO-IT1. Similar patterns were observed for CO, although most post-intervention levels achieved the WHO 24 h guideline level. While clean cooking fuel interventions (LPG, electric) significantly reduce kitchen concentrations and personal exposure to PM 2.5 in household settings, stove stacking and background levels of ambient air pollution, have likely prevented most clean fuel interventions from approaching WHO-IT1. In order to maximize health gains, a wholistic approach jointly targeting ambient and HAP should be followed in lower-and-middle income countries.

Children attending hospital for radiological procedures can experience uncertainty, anxiety and distress; this can result in sub-optimal experiences for children, poor scan quality and the need for radiological procedures to be rescheduled or sedation to be used. The preparation and education of children before clinical procedures has been shown to have a positive influence on procedural outcomes. This scoping review aimed to locate and examine the evidence relating to non-invasive interventions and methods to prepare, educate and familiarise children for radiological procedures within a healthcare setting. A comprehensive search strategy identified 36 articles. A narrative synthesis approach was adopted to make sense of the key findings. Studies investigated a range of radiological procedures (MRI, plain radiographs, CT, fluoroscopy and Micturating cystourethrogram) using a wide range of interventions (smartphone applications, storybooks, videos, mock scanners) which varied by method, mode of delivery and target audience. The outcomes used to evaluate the value and impact of the interventions are wide, varied and inconsistently applied making it difficult to judge which interventions offer the optimal impact on scan quality, scan completion and children’s experiences. This review highlights that there is a need to further understand which specific elements of the non-invasive interventions ‘work best’ for children. There is a need for consistency on the outcomes measured and for these measures to include child-centred outcomes alongside scan quality and length of radiological procedure.

Background For children and young people with eye and vision conditions, research is essential to advancing evidence-based recommendations in diagnosis, prevention, treatments and cures. Patient ‘experience’ reflects a key measure of quality in health care (Department of Health. High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review Final Report: The Stationery Office (2008)); research participant ‘experiences’ are equally important. Therefore, in order to achieve child-centred, high-quality paediatric ophthalmic research, we need to understand participation experiences. We conducted a systematic review of existing literature; our primary outcome was to understand what children and young people, parents and research staff perceive to support or hinder positive paediatric eye and vision research experiences. Our secondary outcomes explored whether any adverse or positive effects were perceived to be related to participation experiences, and if any interventions to improve paediatric ophthalmic research experiences had previously been developed or used. Methods We searched (from inception to November 2018, updated July 2020) in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, NICE evidence and The Cochrane Library (CDSR and CENTRAL), key journals (by hand), grey literature databases and Google Scholar; looking for evidence from the perspectives of children, young people, parents and staff with experience of paediatric ophthalmic research. The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Participant in Research Experience Survey (PRES) (National Institute for Health Research. Research Participant Experience Survey Report 2018–19 (2019); National Institute for Health Research. Optimising the Participant in Research Experience Checklist (2019)) identified ‘five domains’ pivotal to shaping positive research experiences; we used these domains as an ‘a priori’ framework to conduct a ‘best fit’ synthesis (Carroll et al., BMC Med Res Methodol. 11:29, 2011; Carroll et al., BMC Med Res Methodol. 13:37, 2013). Results Our search yielded 13,020 papers; two studies were eligible. These evaluated research experiences from the perspectives of parents and staff; the perspectives of children and young people themselves were not collected. No studies were identified addressing our secondary objectives. Synthesis confirmed the experiences of parents were shaped by staff characteristics, information provision, trial organisation and personal motivations, concurring with the ‘PRES domains’ (National Institute for Health Research. Optimising the Participant in Research Experience Checklist (2019)) and generating additional dimensions to participation motivations and the physical and emotional costs of study organisation. Conclusions The evidence base is limited and importantly omits the voices of children and young people. Further research, involving children and young people, is necessary to better understand the research experiences of this population, and so inform quality improvements for paediatric ophthalmic research care and outcomes. Trial registration Review registered with PROSPERO, International prospective register of systematic reviews: CRD42018117984. Registered on 11 December 2018.

To provide high-quality care to people living in care homes, it is crucial that care home staff possess the knowledge and skills necessary to apply the principles of mental capacity legislation. In order to achieve this, training must be delivered and implemented. This review aimed to identify what is known about the design, delivery and implementation of mental capacity-related education and training in care homes. A scoping review was conducted in line with Joanna Briggs Institute guidance, and reported in accordance with PRISMA-ScR. A total of 3055 records were retrieved by the search and independently screened by two reviewers. A total of 14 papers met the inclusion criteria and were included in the review. Results were synthesised and mapped to the TIDieR checklist. The results highlighted two key factors. Firstly, a standardised one-size-fits-all approach to mental capacity legislation training fails to take account of the diverse needs of both care home residents and staff. Secondly, understanding the relationships between these domains can help overcome barriers and enhance facilitators, leading to more effective training outcomes. The review highlights a knowledge gap, with limited research considering the design and delivery of mental capacity related training. This limits the development of consistent and effective training across the sector. Future research should consider issues of diversity among care home staff or residents, to ensure the appropriateness and applicability of training for all those who receive it.

Exposure to household air pollution results in a substantial global health burden. The World Health Organization (WHO) Guidelines for Indoor Air Quality: Household Fuel Combustion stipulate emission rates for household energy devices should meet air quality guidelines and protect health. Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), biogas, natural gas (NG), and alcohol fuels are considered clean for health due to their low emissions at the point of use. In light of the ongoing energy transition and increasing emphasis on these fuels, it is imperative to provide an updated synthesis of the impacts of these fuels on health. A systematic review was completed on the health effects of liquid and gaseous fuels for household energy use for cooking, heating, and lighting across high-, middle- and low-income countries. Comprehensive searches were undertaken in 12 international databases and selected studies were compiled into a new publicly available WHO Health Effects of Household Liquid & Gaseous Fuels Database, containing key study characteristics including pollutants and/or health outcomes measured. This database was then mapped to understand the breadth of evidence and potential gaps. From 48 130 search results, 587 studies were extracted for inclusion in the database on completion of the full-text review. Studies represented low-, middle- and high-income countries (HICs) over several decades - there has been a substantial increase in evidence from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) published in the last decade, particularly in Asia. Most evidence focused on LPG for cooking in LMICs or NG used in HICs for cooking and heating. Women were the most studied demographic, with self-reported health outcomes and symptoms being the most common assessment method. Particulate matter and nitrogen oxides were the most monitored pollutants. A wide array of health symptoms and disease and injury outcomes were assessed, and most concerned respiratory health. This is the first time that evidence on the health effects of liquid and gaseous fuels for household energy use has been systematically catalogued and mapped. Most evidence concerned cooking and heating, with a paucity of information on the health effects from lighting. Limited evidence was available on the health effects of liquid fuels (such as alcohol fuels), with most studies concerning gaseous fuels. The WHO Health Effects of Household Liquid & Gaseous Fuels Database represents a valuable resource to enable the examination of the positive and negative health effects from these fuels.

Background Systematic review guidance recommends the use of programme theory to inform considerations of if and how healthcare interventions may work differently across socio-economic status (SES) groups. This study aimed to address the lack of detail on how reviewers operationalise this in practice. Methods A methodological systematic review was undertaken to assess if, how and the extent to which systematic reviewers operationalise the guidance on the use of programme theory in considerations of socio-economic inequalities in health. Multiple databases were searched from January 2013 to May 2016. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of an intervention and included data on SES. Two reviewers independently screened all studies, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. A narrative approach to synthesis was adopted. Results A total of 37 systematic reviews were included, 10 of which were explicit in the use of terminology for ‘programme theory’. Twenty-nine studies used programme theory to inform both their a priori assumptions and explain their review findings. Of these, 22 incorporated considerations of both what and how interventions do/do not work in SES groups to both predict and explain their review findings. Thirteen studies acknowledged 24 unique theoretical references to support their assumptions of what or how interventions may have different effects in SES groups. Most reviewers used supplementary evidence to support their considerations of differential effectiveness. The majority of authors outlined a programme theory in the “Introduction” and “Discussion” sections of the review to inform their assumptions or provide explanations of what or how interventions may result in differential effects within or across SES groups. About a third of reviews used programme theory to inform the review analysis and/or synthesis. Few authors used programme theory to inform their inclusion criteria, data extraction or quality assessment. Twenty-one studies tested their a priori programme theory. Conclusions The use of programme theory to inform considerations of if , what and how interventions lead to differential effects on health in different SES groups in the systematic review process is not yet widely adopted, is used implicitly, is often fragmented and is not implemented in a systematic way.