-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2018Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental condition characterised by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, along with deficits... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a developmental condition characterised by symptoms of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity, along with deficits in executive function, emotional regulation and motivation. The persistence of ADHD in adulthood is a serious clinical problem.ADHD significantly affects social interactions, study and employment performance.Previous studies suggest that cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) could be effective in treating adults with ADHD, especially when combined with pharmacological treatment. CBT aims to change the thoughts and behaviours that reinforce harmful effects of the disorder by teaching people techniques to control the core symptoms. CBT also aims to help people cope with emotions, such as anxiety and depression, and to improve self-esteem.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of cognitive-behavioural-based therapy for ADHD in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
In June 2017, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and three trials registries. We also checked reference lists, handsearched congress abstracts, and contacted experts and researchers in the field.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any form of CBT for adults with ADHD, either as a monotherapy or in conjunction with another treatment, versus one of the following: unspecific control conditions (comprising supportive psychotherapies, no treatment or waiting list) or other specific interventions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures suggested by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (700 participants), 13 of which were conducted in the northern hemisphere and 1 in Australia.Primary outcomes: ADHD symptomsCBT versus unspecific control conditions (supportive psychotherapies, waiting list or no treatment)- CBT versus supportive psychotherapies: CBT was more effective than supportive therapy for improving clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (1 study, 81 participants; low-quality evidence) but not for self-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.19; 2 studies, 122 participants; low-quality evidence; small effect size).- CBT versus waiting list: CBT led to a larger benefit in clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -1.22, 95% CI -2.03 to -0.41; 2 studies, 126 participants; very low-quality evidence; large effect size). We also found significant differences in favour of CBT for self-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.84, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.50; 5 studies, 251 participants; moderate-quality evidence; large effect size).CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone: CBT with pharmacotherapy was more effective than pharmacotherapy alone for clinician-reported core symptoms (SMD -0.80, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.30; 2 studies, 65 participants; very low-quality evidence; large effect size), self-reported core symptoms (MD -7.42 points, 95% CI -11.63 points to -3.22 points; 2 studies, 66 participants low-quality evidence) and self-reported inattention (1 study, 35 participants).CBT versus other interventions that included therapeutic ingredients specifically targeted to ADHD: we found a significant difference in favour of CBT for clinician-reported ADHD symptoms (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.17; 2 studies, 97 participants; low-quality evidence; moderate effect size) and for self-reported ADHD symptom severity (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.88 to -0.01; 4 studies, 156 participants; low-quality evidence; small effect size).Secondary outcomesCBT versus unspecific control conditions: we found differences in favour of CBT compared with waiting-list control for self-reported depression (SMD -0.36, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.11; 5 studies, 258 participants; small effect size) and for self-reported anxiety (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.71 to -0.19; 4 studies, 239 participants; small effect size). We also observed differences in favour of CBT for self-reported state anger (1 study, 43 participants) and self-reported self-esteem (1 study 43 participants) compared to waiting list. We found no differences between CBT and supportive therapy (1 study, 81 participants) for self-rated depression, clinician-rated anxiety or self-rated self-esteem. Additionally, there were no differences between CBT and the waiting list for self-reported trait anger (1 study, 43 participants) or self-reported quality of life (SMD 0.21, 95% CI -0.29 to 0.71; 2 studies, 64 participants; small effect size).CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone: we found differences in favour of CBT plus pharmacotherapy for the Clinical Global Impression score (MD -0.75 points, 95% CI -1.21 points to -0.30 points; 2 studies, 65 participants), self-reported depression (MD -6.09 points, 95% CI -9.55 points to -2.63 points; 2 studies, 66 participants) and self-reported anxiety (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.08; 2 studies, 66 participants; moderate effect size). We also observed differences favouring CBT plus pharmacotherapy (1 study, 31 participants) for clinician-reported depression and clinician-reported anxiety.CBT versus other specific interventions: we found no differences for any of the secondary outcomes, such as self-reported depression and anxiety, and findings on self-reported quality of life varied across different studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low-quality evidence that cognitive-behavioural-based treatments may be beneficial for treating adults with ADHD in the short term. Reductions in core symptoms of ADHD were fairly consistent across the different comparisons: in CBT plus pharmacotherapy versus pharmacotherapy alone and in CBT versus waiting list. There is low-quality evidence that CBT may also improve common secondary disturbances in adults with ADHD, such as depression and anxiety. However, the paucity of long-term follow-up data, the heterogeneous nature of the measured outcomes, and the limited geographical location (northern hemisphere and Australia) limit the generalisability of the results. None of the included studies reported severe adverse events, but five participants receiving different modalities of CBT described some type of adverse event, such as distress and anxiety.
Topics: Adult; Anxiety Disorders; Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Depression; Diagnostic Self Evaluation; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Waiting Lists
PubMed: 29566425
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010840.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2018This is the third update of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Library in 2002, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
This is the third update of a review that was originally published in the Cochrane Library in 2002, Issue 2. People with cancer, their families and carers have a high prevalence of psychological stress, which may be minimised by effective communication and support from their attending healthcare professionals (HCPs). Research suggests communication skills do not reliably improve with experience, therefore, considerable effort is dedicated to courses that may improve communication skills for HCPs involved in cancer care. A variety of communication skills training (CST) courses are in practice. We conducted this review to determine whether CST works and which types of CST, if any, are the most effective.
OBJECTIVES
To assess whether communication skills training is effective in changing behaviour of HCPs working in cancer care and in improving HCP well-being, patient health status and satisfaction.
SEARCH METHODS
For this update, we searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 4), MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, PsycInfo and CINAHL up to May 2018. In addition, we searched the US National Library of Medicine Clinical Trial Registry and handsearched the reference lists of relevant articles and conference proceedings for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The original review was a narrative review that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled before-and-after studies. In updated versions, we limited our criteria to RCTs evaluating CST compared with no CST or other CST in HCPs working in cancer care. Primary outcomes were changes in HCP communication skills measured in interactions with real or simulated people with cancer or both, using objective scales. We excluded studies whose focus was communication skills in encounters related to informed consent for research.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed trials and extracted data to a pre-designed data collection form. We pooled data using the random-effects method. For continuous data, we used standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 17 RCTs conducted mainly in outpatient settings. Eleven trials compared CST with no CST intervention; three trials compared the effect of a follow-up CST intervention after initial CST training; two trials compared the effect of CST and patient coaching; and one trial compared two types of CST. The types of CST courses evaluated in these trials were diverse. Study participants included oncologists, residents, other doctors, nurses and a mixed team of HCPs. Overall, 1240 HCPs participated (612 doctors including 151 residents, 532 nurses, and 96 mixed HCPs).Ten trials contributed data to the meta-analyses. HCPs in the intervention groups were more likely to use open questions in the post-intervention interviews than the control group (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.48; P = 0.03, I² = 62%; 5 studies, 796 participant interviews; very low-certainty evidence); more likely to show empathy towards their patients (SMD 0.18, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.32; P = 0.008, I² = 0%; 6 studies, 844 participant interviews; moderate-certainty evidence), and less likely to give facts only (SMD -0.26, 95% CI -0.51 to -0.01; P = 0.05, I² = 68%; 5 studies, 780 participant interviews; low-certainty evidence). Evidence suggesting no difference between CST and no CST on eliciting patient concerns and providing appropriate information was of a moderate-certainty. There was no evidence of differences in the other HCP communication skills, including clarifying and/or summarising information, and negotiation. Doctors and nurses did not perform differently for any HCP outcomes.There were no differences between the groups with regard to HCP 'burnout' (low-certainty evidence) nor with regard to patient satisfaction or patient perception of the HCPs communication skills (very low-certainty evidence). Out of the 17 included RCTs 15 were considered to be at a low risk of overall bias.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Various CST courses appear to be effective in improving HCP communication skills related to supportive skills and to help HCPs to be less likely to give facts only without individualising their responses to the patient's emotions or offering support. We were unable to determine whether the effects of CST are sustained over time, whether consolidation sessions are necessary, and which types of CST programs are most likely to work. We found no evidence to support a beneficial effect of CST on HCP 'burnout', the mental or physical health and satisfaction of people with cancer.
Topics: Anxiety; Caregivers; Communication; Empathy; Health Personnel; Humans; Medical Oncology; Neoplasms; Oncology Nursing; Professional-Patient Relations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Stress, Psychological
PubMed: 30039853
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003751.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2022Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.
Topics: Delivery of Health Care; Health Personnel; Humans; Leadership; Occupational Stress; Professional Practice; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36214207
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013850.pub2 -
JMIR MHealth and UHealth Dec 2020Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a serious and progressive disease affecting one in 3500-6000 live male births. The use of new virtual reality technologies has... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a serious and progressive disease affecting one in 3500-6000 live male births. The use of new virtual reality technologies has revolutionized the world of youth rehabilitation.
OBJECTIVE
We performed a systematic review to study the effectiveness of the use of virtual reality systems applied in the rehabilitation of the upper limbs of individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
METHODS
Between June 2018 and September 2019, we carried out a series of searches in 5 scientific databases: (1) PubMed, (2) Web of Science, (3) Scopus, (4) The Cochrane Library, and (5) MEDLINE via EBSCO. Two evaluators independently conducted the searches following the PRISMA recommendations for systematic reviews for articles. Two independent evaluators collated the results. Article quality was determined using the PEDro scale.
RESULTS
A total of 7 clinical trials were included in the final review. These studies used new technologies as tools for physiotherapeutic rehabilitation of the upper limbs of patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Collectively, the studies showed improvement in functionality, quality of life, and motivation with the use of virtual reality technologies in the rehabilitation of upper limbs of individuals with Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
CONCLUSIONS
The treatment of neuromuscular diseases has changed in recent years, from palliative symptom management to preventive methods for capacity building. The use of virtual reality is beginning to be necessary in the treatment of progressive diseases involving movement difficulties, as it provides freedom and facilitates the improvement of results in capacity training. Given that new technologies are increasingly accessible, rehabilitation and physiotherapy programs can use these technologies more frequently, and virtual reality environments can be used to improve task performance, which is essential for people with disabilities. Ultimately, virtual reality can be a great tool for physiotherapy and can be used for Duchenne muscular dystrophy rehabilitation programs to improve patient performance during training.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42018102548; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=102548.
Topics: Adolescent; Humans; Male; Motivation; Muscular Dystrophy, Duchenne; Quality of Life; Upper Extremity; Virtual Reality
PubMed: 33289679
DOI: 10.2196/21576 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2018The rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) increases the need for evidence-based behavioral treatments to lessen the impact of symptoms on children's... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The rising prevalence of autism spectrum disorders (ASD) increases the need for evidence-based behavioral treatments to lessen the impact of symptoms on children's functioning. At present, there are no curative or psychopharmacological therapies to effectively treat all symptoms of the disorders. Early intensive behavioral intervention (EIBI) is a treatment based on the principles of applied behavior analysis. Delivered for multiple years at an intensity of 20 to 40 hours per week, it is one of the more well-established treatments for ASD. This is an update of a Cochrane review last published in 2012.
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the evidence for the effectiveness of EIBI in increasing functional behaviors and skills, decreasing autism severity, and improving intelligence and communication skills for young children with ASD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 12 additional electronic databases and two trials registers in August 2017. We also checked references and contacted study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomized control trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in which EIBI was compared to a no-treatment or treatment-as-usual control condition. Participants must have been less than six years of age at treatment onset and assigned to their study condition prior to commencing treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We synthesized the results of the five studies using a random-effects model of meta-analysis, with a mean difference (MD) effect size for outcomes assessed on identical scales, and a standardized mean difference (SMD) effect size (Hedges' g) with small sample correction for outcomes measured on different scales. We rated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included five studies (one RCT and four CCTs) with a total of 219 children: 116 children in the EIBI groups and 103 children in the generic, special education services groups. The age of the children ranged between 30.2 months and 42.5 months. Three of the five studies were conducted in the USA and two in the UK, with a treatment duration of 24 months to 36 months. All studies used a treatment-as-usual comparison group.Primary outcomesThere is low quality-evidence at post-treatment that EIBI improves adaptive behaviour (MD 9.58 (assessed using Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scale (VABS) Composite; normative mean = 100, normative SD = 15), 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.57 to 13.60, P < 0.0001; 5 studies, 202 participants), and reduces autism symptom severity (SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.11, P = 0.14; 2 studies, 81 participants; lower values indicate positive effects) compared to treatment as usual.No adverse effects were reported across studies.Secondary outcomesThere is low-quality evidence at post-treatment that EIBI improves IQ (MD 15.44 (assessed using standardized IQ tests; scale 0 to 100, normative SD = 15), 95% CI 9.29 to 21.59, P < 0.001; 5 studies, 202 participants); expressive (SMD 0.51, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.90, P = 0.01; 4 studies, 165 participants) and receptive (SMD 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.87, P = 0.001; 4 studies, 164 participants) language skills; and problem behaviour (SMD -0.58, 95% CI -1.24 to 0.07, P = 0.08; 2 studies, 67 participants) compared to treatment as usual.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is weak evidence that EIBI may be an effective behavioral treatment for some children with ASD; the strength of the evidence in this review is limited because it mostly comes from small studies that are not of the optimum design. Due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies, there is a high risk of bias and we rated the overall quality of evidence as 'low' or 'very low' using the GRADE system, meaning further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.It is important that providers of EIBI are aware of the current evidence and use clinical decision-making guidelines, such as seeking the family's input and drawing upon prior clinical experience, when making recommendations to clients on the use EIBI. Additional studies using rigorous research designs are needed to make stronger conclusions about the effects of EIBI for children with ASD.
Topics: Behavior Therapy; Child Development Disorders, Pervasive; Child, Preschool; Communication; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Early Intervention, Educational; Early Medical Intervention; Humans; Intelligence
PubMed: 29742275
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009260.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Antisocial personality disorder (AsPD) is associated with poor mental health, criminality, substance use and relationship difficulties. This review updates Gibbon 2010 (previous version of the review).
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the potential benefits and adverse effects of psychological interventions for adults with AsPD.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 13 other databases and two trials registers up to 5 September 2019. We also searched reference lists and contacted study authors to identify studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of adults, where participants with an AsPD or dissocial personality disorder diagnosis comprised at least 75% of the sample randomly allocated to receive a psychological intervention, treatment-as-usual (TAU), waiting list or no treatment. The primary outcomes were aggression, reconviction, global state/functioning, social functioning and adverse events.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.
MAIN RESULTS
This review includes 19 studies (eight new to this update), comparing a psychological intervention against TAU (also called 'standard Maintenance'(SM) in some studies). Eight of the 18 psychological interventions reported data on our primary outcomes. Four studies focussed exclusively on participants with AsPD, and 15 on subgroups of participants with AsPD. Data were available from only 10 studies involving 605 participants. Eight studies were conducted in the UK and North America, and one each in Iran, Denmark and the Netherlands. Study duration ranged from 4 to 156 weeks (median = 26 weeks). Most participants (75%) were male; the mean age was 35.5 years. Eleven studies (58%) were funded by research councils. Risk of bias was high for 13% of criteria, unclear for 54% and low for 33%. Cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) + TAU versus TAU One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for physical aggression (odds ratio (OR) 0.92, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.07; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. One study (39 participants) found no evidence of a difference between CBT + TAU and TAU for social functioning (mean difference (MD) -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.21 to 2.01; very low-certainty evidence), measured by the Social Functioning Questionnaire (SFQ; range = 0-24), for outpatients at 12 months post-intervention. Impulsive lifestyle counselling (ILC) + TAU versus TAU One study (118 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU for trait aggression (assessed with Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire-Short Form) for outpatients at nine months (MD 0.07, CI -0.35 to 0.49; very low-certainty evidence). One study (142 participants) found no evidence of a difference between ILC + TAU and TAU alone for the adverse event of death (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.54; very low-certainty evidence) or incarceration (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.86; very low-certainty evidence) for outpatients between three and nine months follow-up. Contingency management (CM) + SM versus SM One study (83 participants) found evidence that, compared to SM alone, CM + SM may improve social functioning measured by family/social scores on the Addiction Severity Index (ASI; range = 0 (no problems) to 1 (severe problems); MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.02; low-certainty evidence) for outpatients at six months. 'Driving whilst intoxicated' programme (DWI) + incarceration versus incarceration One study (52 participants) found no evidence of a difference between DWI + incarceration and incarceration alone on reconviction rates (hazard ratio 0.56, CI -0.19 to 1.31; very low-certainty evidence) for prisoner participants at 24 months. Schema therapy (ST) versus TAU One study (30 participants in a secure psychiatric hospital, 87% had AsPD diagnosis) found no evidence of a difference between ST and TAU for the number of participants who were reconvicted (OR 2.81, 95% CI 0.11 to 74.56, P = 0.54) at three years. The same study found that ST may be more likely to improve social functioning (assessed by the mean number of days until patients gain unsupervised leave (MD -137.33, 95% CI -271.31 to -3.35) compared to TAU, and no evidence of a difference between the groups for overall adverse events, classified as the number of people experiencing a global negative outcome over a three-year period (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.19). The certainty of the evidence for all outcomes was very low. Social problem-solving (SPS) + psychoeducation (PE) versus TAU One study (17 participants) found no evidence of a difference between SPS + PE and TAU for participants' level of social functioning (MD -1.60 points, 95% CI -5.43 to 2.23; very low-certainty evidence) assessed with the SFQ at six months post-intervention. Dialectical behaviour therapy versus TAU One study (skewed data, 14 participants) provided very low-certainty, narrative evidence that DBT may reduce the number of self-harm days for outpatients at two months post-intervention compared to TAU. Psychosocial risk management (PSRM; 'Resettle') versus TAU One study (skewed data, 35 participants) found no evidence of a difference between PSRM and TAU for a number of officially recorded offences at one year after release from prison. It also found no evidence of difference between the PSRM and TAU for the adverse event of death during the study period (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.05 to 14.83, P = 0.94, 72 participants (90% had AsPD), 1 study, very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very limited evidence available on psychological interventions for adults with AsPD. Few interventions addressed the primary outcomes of this review and, of the eight that did, only three (CM + SM, ST and DBT) showed evidence that the intervention may be more effective than the control condition. No intervention reported compelling evidence of change in antisocial behaviour. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was low or very low, meaning that we have little confidence in the effect estimates reported. The conclusions of this update have not changed from those of the original review, despite the addition of eight new studies. This highlights the ongoing need for further methodologically rigorous studies to yield further data to guide the development and application of psychological interventions for AsPD and may suggest that a new approach is required.
Topics: Adult; Aggression; Antisocial Personality Disorder; Cocaine-Related Disorders; Cognitive Behavioral Therapy; Driving Under the Influence; Female; Humans; Male; Prisoners; Psychotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recidivism; Reward; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 32880104
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007668.pub3 -
Diabetes & Metabolism Nov 2020Diabetes is a chronic disease associated with a variety of complications, and nudging may be a potential solution to improve diabetes control. Since nudging is a new...
BACKGROUND
Diabetes is a chronic disease associated with a variety of complications, and nudging may be a potential solution to improve diabetes control. Since nudging is a new concept, no review of literature on nudging diabetic patients into improving their health behaviour has been done. Therefore, we aim to collate a list of nudge intervention and determine the context in which nudging is successful.
METHODS
We adopted a two-arm search strategy comprising the search of literature databases and snowballing using relevant search terms. We summarized patient characteristics, the nudge intervention, according to nudging strategies, delivery mode and their outcomes. The conditions present in effective nudge interventions were assessed and reported.
RESULTS
We retrieved 11,494 studies from our searches and included 33. An additional five studies were added through snowballing. Studies included utilized framing (n=5), reminders (n=10), gamification (n=2), social modelling (n=5) and social influence (n=16). Studies on reminders and gamification were more likely to have a statistically significant outcome. The targeted health behaviours identified were medication adherence, physical activity, diet, blood glucose monitoring, foot care, self-efficacy, HbA1c and quality of life. Of these, studies with adherence to medication, foot care practice and quality of life as targeted health behaviours were more likely to show a statistically significant outcome.
CONCLUSION
Nudging has shown potential in changing health behaviour of patients with diabetes in specific context. We identified two possible factors (delivery mode and patient characteristics) that may affect the effectiveness of nudge intervention.
Topics: Blood Glucose Self-Monitoring; Choice Behavior; Delivery of Health Care; Diabetes Mellitus; Diet; Economics, Behavioral; Exercise; Games, Recreational; Health Behavior; Humans; Medication Adherence; Peer Influence; Quality of Life; Reminder Systems; Self Care; Self Efficacy
PubMed: 32387700
DOI: 10.1016/j.diabet.2020.04.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2015Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Personalised care planning is a collaborative process used in chronic condition management in which patients and clinicians identify and discuss problems caused by or related to the patient's condition, and develop a plan for tackling these. In essence it is a conversation, or series of conversations, in which they jointly agree goals and actions for managing the patient's condition.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of personalised care planning for adults with long-term health conditions compared to usual care (i.e. forms of care in which active involvement of patients in treatment and management decisions is not explicitly attempted or achieved).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, ProQuest, clinicaltrials.gov and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to July 2013.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials and cluster-randomised trials involving adults with long-term conditions where the intervention included collaborative (between individual patients and clinicians) goal setting and action planning. We excluded studies where there was little or no opportunity for the patient to have meaningful influence on goal selection, choice of treatment or support package, or both.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two of three review authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were effects on physical health, psychological health, subjective health status, and capabilities for self management. Secondary outcomes included effects on health-related behaviours, resource use and costs, and type of intervention. A patient advisory group of people with experience of living with long-term conditions advised on various aspects of the review, including the protocol, selection of outcome measures and emerging findings.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies involving a total of 10,856 participants. Twelve of these studies focused on diabetes, three on mental health, one on heart failure, one on end-stage renal disease, one on asthma, and one on various chronic conditions. All 19 studies included components that were intended to support behaviour change among patients, involving either face-to-face or telephone support. All but three of the personalised care planning interventions took place in primary care or community settings; the remaining three were located in hospital clinics. There was some concern about risk of bias for each of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, usually due to inadequate or unclear descriptions of research methods. Physical healthNine studies measured glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c), giving a combined mean difference (MD) between intervention and control of -0.24% (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.35 to -0.14), a small positive effect in favour of personalised care planning compared to usual care (moderate quality evidence).Six studies measured systolic blood pressure, a combined mean difference of -2.64 mm/Hg (95% CI -4.47 to -0.82) favouring personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The pooled results from four studies showed no significant effect on diastolic blood pressure, MD -0.71 mm/Hg (95% CI -2.26 to 0.84).We found no evidence of an effect on cholesterol (LDL-C), standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.01 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.11) (five studies) or body mass index, MD -0.11 (95% CI -0.35 to 0.13) (four studies).A single study of people with asthma reported that personalised care planning led to improvements in lung function and asthma control. Psychological healthSix studies measured depression. We were able to pool results from five of these, giving an SMD of -0.36 (95% CI -0.52 to -0.20), a small effect in favour of personalised care (moderate quality evidence). The remaining study found greater improvement in the control group than the intervention group.Four other studies used a variety of psychological measures that were conceptually different so could not be pooled. Of these, three found greater improvement for the personalised care group than the usual care group and one was too small to detect differences in outcomes. Subjective health statusTen studies used various patient-reported measures of health status (or health-related quality of life), including both generic health status measures and condition-specific ones. We were able to pool data from three studies that used the SF-36 or SF-12, but found no effect on the physical component summary score SMD 0.16 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.38) or the mental component summary score SMD 0.07 (95% CI -0.15 to 0.28) (moderate quality evidence). Of the three other studies that measured generic health status, two found improvements related to personalised care and one did not.Four studies measured condition-specific health status. The combined results showed no difference between the intervention and control groups, SMD -0.01 (95% CI -0.11 to 0.10) (moderate quality evidence). Self-management capabilitiesNine studies looked at the effect of personalised care on self-management capabilities using a variety of outcome measures, but they focused primarily on self efficacy. We were able to pool results from five studies that measured self efficacy, giving a small positive result in favour of personalised care planning: SMD 0.25 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.43) (moderate quality evidence).A further five studies measured other attributes that contribute to self-management capabilities. The results from these were mixed: two studies found evidence of an effect on patient activation, one found an effect on empowerment, and one found improvements in perceived interpersonal support. Other outcomesPooled data from five studies on exercise levels showed no effect due to personalised care planning, but there was a positive effect on people's self-reported ability to carry out self-care activities: SMD 0.35 (95% CI 0.17 to 0.52).We found no evidence of adverse effects due to personalised care planning.The effects of personalised care planning were greater when more stages of the care planning cycle were completed, when contacts between patients and health professionals were more frequent, and when the patient's usual clinician was involved in the process.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Personalised care planning leads to improvements in certain indicators of physical and psychological health status, and people's capability to self-manage their condition when compared to usual care. The effects are not large, but they appear greater when the intervention is more comprehensive, more intensive, and better integrated into routine care.
Topics: Adult; Asthma; Chronic Disease; Diabetes Mellitus; Glycated Hemoglobin; Health Status; Heart Failure; Humans; Kidney Failure, Chronic; Mental Disorders; Patient Care Planning; Patient Participation; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Care
PubMed: 25733495
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010523.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Transitional care provides for the continuity of care as patients move between different stages and settings of care. Medication discrepancies arising at care transitions have been reported as prevalent and are linked with adverse drug events (ADEs) (e.g. rehospitalisation).Medication reconciliation is a process to prevent medication errors at transitions. Reconciliation involves building a complete list of a person's medications, checking them for accuracy, reconciling and documenting any changes. Despite reconciliation being recognised as a key aspect of patient safety, there remains a lack of consensus and evidence about the most effective methods of implementing reconciliation and calls have been made to strengthen the evidence base prior to widespread adoption.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of medication reconciliation on medication discrepancies, patient-related outcomes and healthcare utilisation in people receiving this intervention during care transitions compared to people not receiving medication reconciliation.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases and two trials registers on 18 January 2018 together with reference checking, citation searching, grey literature searches and contact with study authors to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomised trials. Eligible studies described interventions fulfilling the Institute for Healthcare Improvement definition of medication reconciliation aimed at all patients experiencing a transition of care as compared to standard care in that institution. Included studies had to report on medication discrepancies as an outcome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed studies for eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. Study-specific estimates were pooled, using a random-effects model to yield summary estimates of effect and 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used the GRADE approach to assess the overall certainty of evidence for each pooled outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 25 randomised trials involving 6995 participants. All studies were conducted in hospital or immediately related settings in eight countries. Twenty-three studies were provider orientated (pharmacist mediated) and two were structural (an electronic reconciliation tool and medical record changes). A pooled result of 20 studies comparing medication reconciliation interventions to standard care of participants with at least one medication discrepancy showed a risk ratio (RR) of 0.53 (95% CI 0.42 to 0.67; 4629 participants). The certainty of the evidence on this outcome was very low and therefore the effect of medication reconciliation to reduce discrepancies was uncertain. Similarly, reconciliation's effect on the number of reported discrepancies per participant was also uncertain (mean difference (MD) -1.18, 95% CI -2.58 to 0.23; 4 studies; 1963 participants), as well as its effect on the number of medication discrepancies per participant medication (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.01 to 1.29; 2 studies; 3595 participants) as the certainty of the evidence for both outcomes was very low.Reconciliation may also have had little or no effect on preventable adverse drug events (PADEs) due to the very low certainty of the available evidence (RR 0.37. 95% CI 0.09 to 1.57; 3 studies; 1253 participants), with again uncertainty on its effect on ADE (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.30; 4 studies; 1363 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence of the effect of the interventions on healthcare utilisation was conflicting; it probably made little or no difference on unplanned rehospitalisation when reported alone (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.18; 5 studies; 1206 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and had an uncertain effect on a composite measure of hospital utilisation (emergency department, rehospitalisation RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.22; 4 studies; 597 participants; very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The impact of medication reconciliation interventions, in particular pharmacist-mediated interventions, on medication discrepancies is uncertain due to the certainty of the evidence being very low. There was also no certainty of the effect of the interventions on the secondary clinical outcomes of ADEs, PADEs and healthcare utilisation.
Topics: Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions; Humans; Medication Errors; Medication Reconciliation; Patient Readmission; Pharmacists; Quality Improvement; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Transitional Care
PubMed: 30136718
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010791.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Eczema and food allergy are common health conditions that usually begin in early childhood and often occur together in the same people. They can be associated with an impaired skin barrier in early infancy. It is unclear whether trying to prevent or reverse an impaired skin barrier soon after birth is effective in preventing eczema or food allergy.
OBJECTIVES
Primary objective To assess effects of skin care interventions, such as emollients, for primary prevention of eczema and food allergy in infants Secondary objective To identify features of study populations such as age, hereditary risk, and adherence to interventions that are associated with the greatest treatment benefit or harm for both eczema and food allergy.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases up to July 2020: Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. We searched two trials registers and checked reference lists of included studies and relevant systematic reviews for further references to relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We contacted field experts to identify planned trials and to seek information about unpublished or incomplete trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
RCTs of skin care interventions that could potentially enhance skin barrier function, reduce dryness, or reduce subclinical inflammation in healthy term (> 37 weeks) infants (0 to 12 months) without pre-existing diagnosis of eczema, food allergy, or other skin condition were included. Comparison was standard care in the locality or no treatment. Types of skin care interventions included moisturisers/emollients; bathing products; advice regarding reducing soap exposure and bathing frequency; and use of water softeners. No minimum follow-up was required.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
This is a prospective individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and primary analyses used the IPD dataset. Primary outcomes were cumulative incidence of eczema and cumulative incidence of immunoglobulin (Ig)E-mediated food allergy by one to three years, both measured by the closest available time point to two years. Secondary outcomes included adverse events during the intervention period; eczema severity (clinician-assessed); parent report of eczema severity; time to onset of eczema; parent report of immediate food allergy; and allergic sensitisation to food or inhalant allergen.
MAIN RESULTS
This review identified 33 RCTs, comprising 25,827 participants. A total of 17 studies, randomising 5823 participants, reported information on one or more outcomes specified in this review. Eleven studies randomising 5217 participants, with 10 of these studies providing IPD, were included in one or more meta-analysis (range 2 to 9 studies per individual meta-analysis). Most studies were conducted at children's hospitals. All interventions were compared against no skin care intervention or local standard care. Of the 17 studies that reported our outcomes, 13 assessed emollients. Twenty-five studies, including all those contributing data to meta-analyses, randomised newborns up to age three weeks to receive a skin care intervention or standard infant skin care. Eight of the 11 studies contributing to meta-analyses recruited infants at high risk of developing eczema or food allergy, although definition of high risk varied between studies. Durations of intervention and follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two years. We assessed most of this review's evidence as low certainty or had some concerns of risk of bias. A rating of some concerns was most often due to lack of blinding of outcome assessors or significant missing data, which could have impacted outcome measurement but was judged unlikely to have done so. Evidence for the primary food allergy outcome was rated as high risk of bias due to inclusion of only one trial where findings varied when different assumptions were made about missing data. Skin care interventions during infancy probably do not change risk of eczema by one to two years of age (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.31; moderate-certainty evidence; 3075 participants, 7 trials) nor time to onset of eczema (hazard ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.14; moderate-certainty evidence; 3349 participants, 9 trials). It is unclear whether skin care interventions during infancy change risk of IgE-mediated food allergy by one to two years of age (RR 2.53, 95% CI 0.99 to 6.47; 996 participants, 1 trial) or allergic sensitisation to a food allergen at age one to two years (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.69; 1055 participants, 2 trials) due to very low-certainty evidence for these outcomes. Skin care interventions during infancy may slightly increase risk of parent report of immediate reaction to a common food allergen at two years (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.61; low-certainty evidence; 1171 participants, 1 trial). However, this was only seen for cow's milk, and may be unreliable due to significant over-reporting of cow's milk allergy in infants. Skin care interventions during infancy probably increase risk of skin infection over the intervention period (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.77; moderate-certainty evidence; 2728 participants, 6 trials) and may increase risk of infant slippage over the intervention period (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.99; low-certainty evidence; 2538 participants, 4 trials) or stinging/allergic reactions to moisturisers (RR 2.24, 95% 0.67 to 7.43; low-certainty evidence; 343 participants, 4 trials), although confidence intervals for slippages and stinging/allergic reactions are wide and include the possibility of no effect or reduced risk. Preplanned subgroup analyses show that effects of interventions were not influenced by age, duration of intervention, hereditary risk, FLG mutation, or classification of intervention type for risk of developing eczema. We could not evaluate these effects on risk of food allergy. Evidence was insufficient to show whether adherence to interventions influenced the relationship between skin care interventions and risk of developing eczema or food allergy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Skin care interventions such as emollients during the first year of life in healthy infants are probably not effective for preventing eczema, and probably increase risk of skin infection. Effects of skin care interventions on risk of food allergy are uncertain. Further work is needed to understand whether different approaches to infant skin care might promote or prevent eczema and to evaluate effects on food allergy based on robust outcome assessments.
Topics: Bias; Eczema; Emollients; Female; Filaggrin Proteins; Food Hypersensitivity; Humans; Hypersensitivity, Immediate; Immunoglobulin E; Infant; Infant, Newborn; Male; Milk Hypersensitivity; Skin Care; Skin Diseases, Infectious; Soaps
PubMed: 33545739
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013534.pub2