Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Healthcare systems around the world have been responding to the demand for better integrated models of service delivery. However, there is a need for further clarity regarding the effects of these new models of integration, and exploration regarding whether models introduced in other care systems may achieve similar outcomes in a UK national health service context. Methods The study aimed to carry out a systematic review of the effects of integration or co-ordination between healthcare services, or between health and social care on service delivery outcomes including effectiveness, efficiency and quality of care. Electronic databases including MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL; Science and Social Science Citation Indices; and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant literature published between 2006 to March 2017. Online sources were searched for UK grey literature, and citation searching, and manual reference list screening were also carried out. Quantitative primary studies and systematic reviews, reporting actual or perceived effects on service delivery following the introduction of models of integration or co-ordination, in healthcare or health and social care settings in developed countries were eligible for inclusion. Strength of evidence for each outcome reported was analysed and synthesised using a four point comparative rating system of stronger, weaker, inconsistent or limited evidence. Results One hundred sixty seven studies were eligible for inclusion. Analysis indicated evidence of perceived improved quality of care, evidence of increased patient satisfaction, and evidence of improved access to care. Evidence was rated as either inconsistent or limited regarding all other outcomes reported, including system-wide impacts on primary care, secondary care, and health care costs. There were limited differences between outcomes reported by UK and international studies, and overall the literature had a limited consideration of effects on service users. Conclusions Models of integrated care may enhance patient satisfaction, increase perceived quality of care, and enable access to services, although the evidence for other outcomes including service costs remains unclear. Indications of improved access may have important implications for services struggling to cope with increasing demand. Trial registration Prospero registration number: 42016037725 .

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis.

BackgroundPatients recovering from an episode in an intensive care unit (ICU) frequently experience medication errors on transition to the hospital ward. Structured handover recommendations often underestimate the challenges and complexity of ICU patient transitions. For adult ICU patients transitioning to a hospital ward, it is currently unclear what interventions reduce the risks of medication errors.The aims were to examine the impact of medication-related interventions on medication and patient outcomes on transition from adult ICU settings and identify barriers and facilitators to implementation.MethodsThe systematic review protocol was preregistered on PROSPERO. Six electronic databases were searched until October 2020 for controlled and uncontrolled study designs that reported medication-related (ie, de-prescribing; medication errors) or patient-related outcomes (ie, mortality; length of stay). Risk of bias (RoB) assessment used V.2.0 and ROBINS-I Cochrane tools. Where feasible, random-effects meta-analysis was used for pooling the OR across studies. The quality of evidence was assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.ResultsSeventeen studies were eligible, 15 (88%) were uncontrolled before-after studies. The intervention components included education of staff (n=8 studies), medication review (n=7), guidelines (n=6), electronic transfer/handover tool or letter (n=4) and medicines reconciliation (n=4). Overall, pooled analysis of all interventions reduced risk of inappropriate medication continuation at ICU discharge (OR=0.45 (95% CI 0.31 to 0.63), I2=55%, n=9) and hospital discharge (OR=0.39 (95% CI 0.2 to 0.76), I2=75%, n=9). Multicomponent interventions, based on education of staff and guidelines, demonstrated no significant difference in inappropriate medication continuation at the ICU discharge point (OR 0.5 (95% CI 0.22 to 1.11), I2=62%, n=4), but were very effective in increasing de-prescribing outcomes on hospital discharge (OR 0.26 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.55), I2=67%, n=6)). Facilitators to intervention delivery included ICU clinical pharmacist availability and participation in multiprofessional ward rounds, while barriers included increased workload associated with the discharge intervention process.ConclusionsMulticomponent interventions based on education of staff and guidelines were effective at achieving almost four times more de-prescribing of inappropriate medication by the time of patient hospital discharge. Based on the findings, practice and policy recommendations are made and guidance is provided on the need for, and design of theory informed interventions in this area, including the requirement for process and economic evaluations.

Background The Systematic Review (SR) Toolbox was developed in 2014 to collate tools that can be used to support the systematic review process. Since its inception, the breadth of evidence synthesis methodologies has expanded greatly. This work describes the process of updating the SR Toolbox in 2022 to reflect these changes in evidence synthesis methodology. We also briefly analysed included tools and guidance to identify any potential gaps in what is currently available to researchers. Methods We manually extracted all guidance and software tools contained within the SR Toolbox in February 2022. A single reviewer, with a second checking a proportion, extracted and analysed information from records contained within the SR Toolbox using Microsoft Excel. Using this spreadsheet and Microsoft Access, the SR Toolbox was updated to reflect expansion of evidence synthesis methodologies and brief analysis conducted. Results The updated version of the SR Toolbox was launched on 13 May 2022, with 235 software tools and 112 guidance documents included. Regarding review families, most software tools ( N = 223) and guidance documents ( N = 78) were applicable to systematic reviews. However, there were fewer tools and guidance documents applicable to reviews of reviews ( N = 66 and N = 22, respectively), while qualitative reviews were less served by guidance documents ( N = 19). In terms of review production stages, most guidance documents surrounded quality assessment ( N = 70), while software tools related to searching and synthesis ( N = 84 and N = 82, respectively). There appears to be a paucity of tools and guidance relating to stakeholder engagement ( N = 2 and N = 3, respectively). Conclusions The SR Toolbox provides a platform for those undertaking evidence syntheses to locate guidance and software tools to support different aspects of the review process across multiple review types. However, this work has also identified potential gaps in guidance and software that could inform future research.

Background Rare diseases present a challenge to guideline implementation due to a low prevalence in the general population and the unfamiliarity of healthcare professionals. Existing literature in more common diseases references barriers and facilitators to guideline implementation. This systematic review aims to identify these barriers and facilitators in rare diseases from existing literature. Methods A multi-stage strategy included searching MEDLINE PubMed, EMBASE Ovid, Web of Science and Cochrane library from the earliest date available to April 2021, Orphanet journal hand-search, a pearl-growing strategy from a primary source and reference/citation search was performed. The Integrated Checklist of Determinants of Practice which comprises of twelve checklists and taxonomies, informed by 57 potential determinants was selected as a screening tool to identify determinants that warrant further in-depth investigation to inform design of future implementation strategies. Results Forty-four studies were included, most of which were conducted in the United States (54.5%). There were 168 barriers across 36 determinants (37 studies) and 52 facilitators across 22 determinants (22 studies). Fifteen diseases were included across eight WHO ICD-11 disease categories. Together individual health professional factors and guideline factors formed the majority of the reported determinants (59.5% of barriers and 53.8% of facilitators). Overall, the three most reported individual barriers were the awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, domain knowledge and feasibility. The three most reported individual facilitators were awareness/familiarity with the recommendation, agreement with the recommendation and ability to readily access the guidelines. Resource barriers to implementation included technology costs, ancillary staff costs and more cost-effective alternatives. There was a paucity of studies reporting influential people, patient advocacy groups or opinion leaders, or organisational factors influencing implementation. Conclusions Key barriers and facilitators to the implementation of clinical practice guidelines in the setting of rare diseases were at the individual health professional and guideline level. Influential people and organisational factors were relatively under-reported and warrant exploration, as does increasing the ability to access the guidelines as a potential intervention.

Qualitative research addresses 'how' and 'why' questions in healthcare. It captures the complexity of clinical practice by providing insights into experiences, behaviours and context often missed by quantitative methods. The objective of this review was to explore the volume, trends and adherence to reporting standards in qualitative research across hospital-based medical subspecialties. Longitudinal bibliometric review. Ovid Medline, Embase and Emcare were searched for qualitative research published between 2000 and 2024 in 12 medical subspecialties. For each subspecialty, the number and percentage of qualitative publications was identified. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed in a random sample of publications covering all subspecialties. Between 2000 and 2024, 715 471 qualitative research studies were published across 12 medical subspecialties, representing 1.36% of all studies (52 620 042). Neurology and oncology had the highest number of qualitative studies (116 835 and 106 360). Although infectious diseases contributed a lower absolute number of qualitative studies (59 947), they had the highest proportion relative to all studies (4.07%). Conversely, nephrology and haematology exhibited the lowest number of qualitative studies (14 510 and 29 198) and smallest proportions (0.90% and 0.81%). Overall, the annual proportion of qualitative research increased from 0.64% (6052/945 008) in 2000 to 1.95% (56 909/2 919 825) in 2024. However, the relative positions remained largely stable over time.Adherence to reporting standards was generally good, particularly in relation to methodological coherence. However, there was under-reporting of positionality (where researchers consider how their identity and standpoint may influence the research process) and reflexivity (where researchers critically reflect on how their assumptions and decisions shape the study). Qualitative research is under-represented in medical subspecialties but has increased steadily over time, with notable variation in adoption between subspecialties. While overall adherence to reporting standards is good, greater attention to positionality and reflexivity is needed to enhance transparency and rigour.

To assess whether different cervical spine immobilisation strategies (full immobilisation, movement minimisation or no immobilisation), impact neurological and/or other outcomes for patients with suspected cervical spinal injury in the pre-hospital and emergency department setting. Systematic review following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and two research registers were searched until September 2023. All comparative studies (prospective or retrospective) that examined the potential benefits and/or harms of immobilisation practices during pre-hospital and emergency care of patients with a potential cervical spine injury (pre-imaging) following blunt trauma. Two authors independently selected and extracted data. Risk of bias was appraised using the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised studies. Data were synthesised without meta-analysis. Six observational studies met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality was variable, with most studies having serious or critical risk of bias. The effect of cervical spine immobilisation practices such as full immobilisation or movement minimisation during pre-hospital and emergency care did not show clear evidence of benefit for the prevention of neurological deterioration, spinal injuries and death compared with no immobilisation. However, increased pain, discomfort and anatomical complications were associated with collar application during immobilisation. Despite the limited evidence, weak designs and limited generalisability, the available data suggest that pre-hospital cervical spine immobilisation (full immobilisation or movement minimisation) was of uncertain value due to the lack of demonstrable benefit and may lead to potential complications and adverse outcomes. High-quality randomised comparative studies are required to address this important question. PROSPERO REGISTRATION Fiona Lecky, Abdullah Pandor, Munira Essat, Anthea Sutton, Carl Marincowitz, Gordon Fuller, Stuart Reid, Jason Smith. A systematic review of cervical spine immobilisation following blunt trauma in pre-hospital and emergency care. PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022349600 Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022349600.

Spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is a genetic neuromuscular disorder causing the degeneration of motor neurons in the spinal cord. Recent studies suggest greater effectiveness of treatment in the presymptomatic stage. This systematic review synthesises findings from 37 studies (and 3 overviews) of newborn screening for SMA published up to November 2023 across 17 countries to understand the methodologies used; test accuracy performance; and timing, logistics and feasibility of screening. All studies screened for the homozygous deletion of SMN1 exon 7. Most (28 studies) used RT-PCR as the initial test on dried blood spots (DBSs), while nine studies also reported second-tier tests on DBSs for screen-positive cases. Babies testing positive on DBSs were referred for confirmatory testing via a range of methods. Observed SMA birth prevalence ranged from 1 in 4000 to 1 in 20,000. Most studies reported no false-negative or false-positive cases (therefore had a sensitivity and specificity of 100%). Five studies reported either one or two false-negative cases each (total of six cases; three compound heterozygotes and three due to system errors), although some false-negatives may have been missed due to lack of follow-up of negative results. Eleven studies reported false-positive cases, some being heterozygous carriers or potentially related to heparin use. Time to testing and treatment varied between studies. In conclusion, several countries have implemented newborn screening for SMA in the last 5 years using a variety of methods. Implementation considerations include processes for timely initial and confirmatory testing, partnerships between screening and neuromuscular centres, and timely treatment initiation.

Background Opportunities for social connection between generations have diminished over the last few decades around the world as a result of changes in the way that we live and work. The COVID‐19 pandemic has exacerbated loneliness for many with young and old being kept apart for safety. The Public Health England prevention concordat for better mental health (Office for Health Improvement and Disparities) aims to bring a prevention‐focused approach to improving public mental health. The concordat promotes evidence‐based planning and commissioning to increase the impact on reducing health inequalities using sustainable and cost‐effective interventions that impact on the wider determinants of mental health and wellbeing for children and young people and older people. Intergenerational activities could provide an opportunity to support both populations. In 2023, we produced an evidence and gap map to illustrate the amount and variety of research on intergenerational interventions and the gaps in research that still exist in this area. The review conducted here is based on the evidence in that map. Objectives This systematic review examines the impact of intergenerational interventions on the wellbeing and mental health of older people and identifies areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners. Search Methods We searched an evidence and gap map published in 2022 (comprehensive searches conducted July 2021 and updated June 2023) to identify randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that report mental health and wellbeing outcomes for older people. Selection Criteria Randomised controlled trials of intergenerational interventions that involved unrelated younger and older people with at least one skipped generation between them and reported mental health or wellbeing outcomes for older people were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. We conducted data extraction and Cochrane risk of bias assessments in EPPI reviewer. Where data allowed meta‐analyses were conducted in STATA. Main Results This review includes 14 trials from six different countries. The trials had some important methodological weaknesses. Interventions were mainly delivered in‐person and often in groups. They included visiting programmes, school volunteering programmes, music‐based interventions and task‐oriented interventions such as activities set in a multigenerational park, reminiscing activities, aggression management programmes, learning a language, making local environmental changes and in‐school project work. Intergenerational interventions showed a small positive trend towards improving self‐esteem (effect size [ES]: 0.33, 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.35, 1.01) and depression (ES: 0.19, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.60) for older people participating. However, due to the small study sizes and low number of studies available, we cannot be confident about any effects. The results for other mental health and wellbeing outcomes are reported but due to little overlap in similar assessments across the studies, we could not combine them to assess the strength of evidence. There were no data about social isolation, spiritual health or sense of community. There are no long‐term studies and no data on equity. We still know very little about what works and how or why. Whilst some interventions do use theories and logic to inform their development others do not. More exploration of this is needed. Authors’ Conclusions Commissioners and intervention developers should ensure interventions provide sufficient theoretical evidence for the logic behind the proposed intervention and should improve their consideration of equity within the interventions Research on intergenerational interventions need more consistent and agreed measures for reporting outcomes including community outcomes (core outcome sets). More understanding is needed on how best to measure ‘community’ outcomes. Research on intergenerational interventions should measure outcomes for BOTH the older and younger population engaged in the intervention—these may or may not be the same outcomes reflected in both populations. Further research is needed on the long‐term impact of interventions on outcomes (whether participants need to keep being involved in an ‘intervention’ to continue to benefit) and sustainability of interventions beyond the initial funding of the research project. Supporting this our stakeholders highlighted that interventions that are initiated for research and then end (usually within a year) are not helpful.

Background Opportunities for social connection between generations in the UK have diminished over the last few decades because of changes in the way that we live and work. The decline in communal spaces such as libraries, youth clubs and community centres mean that there are fewer opportunities to meet and mix socially with other generations outside our own families. Increased working hours, improved technology, changes in family patterns, relationship breakdowns within families and migration are also believed to be contributory factors to generation segregation. There are many potential economic, social and political impacts of generations living separate and parallel lives, for example, higher health and social care costs, an undermining of trust between generations reduced social capital, a reliance on the media to form understanding of others’ viewpoints and higher levels of anxiety and loneliness. Intergenerational programmes and activities can take many forms and are delivered in many settings.  Evidence suggests that intergenerational activity can have a positive impact on participants, for example, in reducing loneliness and exclusion for both older people and children and young people, improving mental health, increasing mutual understanding and addressing important issues such as ageism, housing and care. There are currently no other EGMs that exist that address this type of intervention; however, it would complement existing EGMs addressing child welfare. Objectives To identify, appraise and bring together the evidence on the use of intergenerational practice, to answer the following specific research questions: What is the volume, nature and diversity of research on, and evaluation of, intergenerational practice and learning? What approaches have been used to deliver intergenerational activities and programmes that may be relevant to providing such services during and in the subsequent recovery from the COVID‐19 pandemic? What promising intergenerational activities and programmes have been developed and are being used but have not yet been subject to formal evaluation? Search Methods We searched MEDLINE (via OvidSp), EMBASE (via OvidSp), PsycINFO (via OvidSp), CINAHL (via EBSCOHost), Social Policy and Practice (via OvidSp), Health Management Information Consortium (via OvidSp), Ageline (via EBSCOhost), ASSIA (via ProQuest), Social Science Citations Index (via Web of Science), ERIC (via EBSCOhost), Community Care Inform Children, Research in Practice for Children, ChildData (via Social Policy and Practice), the Campbell Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the CENTRAL database between 22 and 30 July 2021. We searched for additional grey literature via the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (via Web of Science) and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Global and via relevant organisation websites, for example, Age UK, Age International, the Centre for Ageing Better, Barnado's, Children's Commission, UNICEF, Generations Working Together, the Intergenerational Foundation, Linking Generations and The Beth Johnson Foundation) and the Ottawa initiative called Older Adults and Students for Intergenerational support. Selection Criteria Any intervention that brings older and younger people together with the purpose of interacting to achieve positive health and/or social and/or educational outcomes from any study design including systematic reviews, randomised controlled studies, observational studies, surveys and qualitative studies are included. The titles and s, and later full texts, of records identified by the search methods were screened against inclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Data Collection and Analysis Data extraction was undertaken by one reviewer and checked by a second with any inconsistencies identified and resolved through discussion. The data extraction tool was developed on EPPI reviewer and was modified and tested through stakeholder and advisor consultation, and piloting of the process. The tool was informed by the research question and the structure of the map. We did not undertake quality appraisal of the included studies. Main Results Our searches identified 12,056 references, after screening 500 research articles were included in the evidence gap map conducted across 27 countries. We identified 26 systematic reviews, 236 quantitative comparative studies (of which 38 were randomised controlled trials), 227 were qualitative studies (or had a qualitative element), 105 were observational studies (or had elements of observational methods) and 82 used a mixed methods approach. The outcomes reported in the research cover mental health (n = 73), physical health (n = 62), attainment and knowledge (n = 165), agency (n = 174), mental wellbeing (n = 224), loneliness and social isolation (n = 54), attitudes towards the other generation (n = 283), intergenerational interactions (n = 196), peer interactions (n = 30) and health promotion (n = 23) and including mutual outcomes such as the impact on community (n = 37) and perceptions on the sense of community (n = 43). Gaps in the evidence that were identified include: research that reports on mutual, societal and community outcomes of intergenerational interventions; more research on interventions classified as levels 1–4 and level 7 on the Intergenerational Engagement Scale, mental health, loneliness, social isolation, peer interactions, physical health and health promotion outcomes in children and young people; health promotion in older people; outcomes centred on care giver wellbeing, mental health and attitudes; economic outcomes; process outcomes and adverse or unexpected outcomes. Authors’ Conclusions Whilst a substantional amount of research on intergenerational interventions has been identified in this EGM, as well as the gaps identified above, there is a need to explore promising interventions not yet formally evaluated. Research on this topic is gradually increasing, and systematic reviews will be important to determine how and why interventions are or are not beneficial. However, the primary research needs to build more cohesively so that the findings can be comparable and avoid research waste. The EGM presented here will nevertheless be a useful resource for decision‐makers allowing them to explore the evidence with regard to the different interventions that may be relevant to their population needs and the settings or resources available to them.