-
Frontiers in Oral Health 2024People experiencing homelessness are often marginalised and encounter structural barriers when seeking healthcare. Community-based oral health interventions highlighted...
INTRODUCTION
People experiencing homelessness are often marginalised and encounter structural barriers when seeking healthcare. Community-based oral health interventions highlighted the need of well-trained practitioners for the successful engagement of service users and behaviour change. However, a lack of adequate information and specific training has been previously reported. The adoption of inclusive approaches, such as co-design, to develop tailored and meaningful health promotion training and educational materials capable of addressing the specific needs of this group is required. Co-design entails active involvement of different groups in research processes that acknowledge participants' needs and expectations. This scoping review aims to identify the available literature on the participation of people experiencing homelessness and/or their support workers in co-designing health and oral health promotion training/educational materials, approaches adopted, and barriers and enablers to develop these materials.
METHODS
The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Scoping Review Methodology informed the development of the scoping review. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework. Six electronic databases (Medline (OVID), PsychInfo (OVID), Scopus, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA) (ProQuest) and CINHAL) were systematically searched using MeSH terms. An extensive grey literature search, consultation with experts and hand searching of reference lists took place. Records were screened independently and in duplicate using the Rayyan Qatar Computing Research Institute (QCRI) online tool, followed by qualitative content analysis involving descriptive data coding.
RESULTS
Eight studies/materials were included. Key approaches adopted to co-design, enablers and barriers were captured. The enablers were inclusivity, a safe environment for positive participation, empowerment and flexibility, the barriers were difficulty in recruiting and sustaining participation, power differentials, and limited resources.
CONCLUSION
The evidence in this area is limited. This scoping review provided foundations for further research to examine the impact of different components of the co-design process including the environment in which the co-design process is conducted. Further studies with experimental design and reported using appropriate study design frameworks detailing active components of the co-design process would strengthen the evidence base in this area.
PubMed: 38919732
DOI: 10.3389/froh.2024.1355349 -
Frontiers in Pharmacology 2024Cancer refers to a group of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells in the body. Due to its complexity, it has been hard to find...
Cancer refers to a group of diseases characterized by the uncontrolled growth and spread of abnormal cells in the body. Due to its complexity, it has been hard to find an ideal medicine to treat all cancer types, although there is an urgent need for it. However, the cost of developing a new drug is high and time-consuming. In this sense, drug repurposing (DR) can hasten drug discovery by giving existing drugs new disease indications. Many computational methods have been applied to achieve DR, but just a few have succeeded. Therefore, this review aims to show DR approaches and the gap between these strategies and their ultimate application in oncology. The scoping review was conducted according to the Arksey and O'Malley framework and the Joanna Briggs Institute recommendations. Relevant studies were identified through electronic searching of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases, as well as the grey literature. We included peer-reviewed research articles involving strategies applied to drug repurposing in oncology, published between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2021. We identified 238 studies for inclusion in the review. Most studies revealed that the United States, India, China, South Korea, and Italy are top publishers. Regarding cancer types, breast cancer, lymphomas and leukemias, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer are the top investigated. Additionally, most studies solely used computational methods, and just a few assessed more complex scientific models. Lastly, molecular modeling, which includes molecular docking and molecular dynamics simulations, was the most frequently used method, followed by signature-, Machine Learning-, and network-based strategies. DR is a trending opportunity but still demands extensive testing to ensure its safety and efficacy for the new indications. Finally, implementing DR can be challenging due to various factors, including lack of quality data, patient populations, cost, intellectual property issues, market considerations, and regulatory requirements. Despite all the hurdles, DR remains an exciting strategy for identifying new treatments for numerous diseases, including cancer types, and giving patients faster access to new medications.
PubMed: 38919258
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1400029 -
Patient Related Outcome Measures 2024Negative symptoms of schizophrenia (NSS) have been linked with poor functional outcomes. A literature review was performed to identify instruments used to assess... (Review)
Review
AIM
Negative symptoms of schizophrenia (NSS) have been linked with poor functional outcomes. A literature review was performed to identify instruments used to assess functional outcomes and quality of life in clinical trials and observational studies conducted in groups of people with NSS.
METHODS
Literature search strings were designed using Medical Subject Headings combined with free-text terms and searches were performed using the PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library databases. For inclusion, articles were required to be published as full-text articles, in English, over the period 2011-2021, include at least one group or treatment arm of people with NSS and report either functional outcomes or quality of life (QoL).
RESULTS
Literature searches identified a total of 3,268 unique hits. After two rounds of screening, 37 publications (covering 35 individual studies) were included in the review. A total of fourteen different instruments were used to assess functional outcomes and eleven different instruments were used to assess QoL. In studies in people with NSS, the most frequently used functional outcome measures were the Personal and Social Performance scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning. The most frequently used QoL instruments included the Manchester Short Assessment of Quality of Life, the Heinrich Carpenter Quality of Life Scale, the Schizophrenia Quality of Life Scale and the EQ-5D.
CONCLUSION
A large number of measures have been used to assess functional outcomes and QoL in people with NSS, these include both generic and condition-specific as well as both interviewer-administered and self-reported instruments.
PubMed: 38911609
DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S454845 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Investment in mobile devices to support primary or elementary education is increasing and must be informed by robust evidence to demonstrate impact. This systematic review of randomised controlled trials sought to identify the overall impact of mobile devices to support literacy and numeracy outcomes in mainstream primary classrooms.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to understand how mobile devices are used in primary/elementary education around the world, and in particular, determine how activities undertaken using mobile devices in the primary classroom might impact literacy and numeracy attainment for the pupils involved. Within this context, mobile devices are defined as tablets (including iPads and other branded devices), smartphones (usually those with a touchscreen interface and internet connectivity) and handheld games consoles (again usually with touchscreen and internet-enabled). The interventions of interest were those aimed at improving literacy and/or numeracy for children aged 4-12 within the primary/elementary school (or equivalent) classroom.Specifically, the review aimed to answer the following research questions: -What is the effect of mobile device integration in the primary school classroom on children's literacy and numeracy outcomes?-Are there specific devices which are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Tablets, smartphones, or handheld games consoles)-Are there specific classroom integration activities which moderate effectiveness in supporting literacy and numeracy?-Are there specific groups of children for whom mobile devices are more effective in supporting literacy and numeracy? (Across age group and gender).-Do the benefits of mobile devices for learning last for any time beyond the study?-What is the quality of available evidence on the use of mobile devices in primary/elementary education, and where is further research needed in this regard? An Expert Advisory Group supported the review process at key stages to ensure relevance to current practice.
SEARCH METHODS
The search strategy was designed to retrieve both published and unpublished literature, and incorporated relevant journal and other databases with a focus on education and social sciences. Robust electronic database searches were undertaken (12 databases, including APA PsychInfo, Web of Science, ERIC, British Education Index and others, and relevant government and other websites), as well as a hand-search of relevant journals and conference proceedings. Contact was also made with prominent authors in the field to identify any ongoing or unpublished research. All searches and author contact took place between October and November 2020. The review team acknowledges that new studies will likely have emerged since and are not captured at this time. A further update to the review in the future is important and would build on the evidence reflected here.
SELECTION CRITERIA
The review included children within mainstream primary/elementary/kindergarten education settings in any country (aged 4-12), and interventions or activities initiated within the primary school classroom (or global equivalent) that used mobile devices (including tablets, smartphones, or hand-held gaming devices) to intentionally support literacy or numeracy learning. In terms of study design, only Randomised Controlled Trials were included in the review.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
A total of 668 references were identified through a robust search strategy including published and unpublished literature. Following duplicate screening, 18 relevant studies, including 11,126 participants, 14 unique interventions, and 46 relevant outcome measures were synthesised using Robust Variance Estimation and a random effects meta-analysis model. Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three reviewers using the ROB2 tool to assess the quality of studies, with 13 studies rated as having some concerns, and 5 as having high risk of bias. Qualitative data was also extracted and analysed in relation to the types of interventions included to allow a comparison of the key elements of each.
MAIN RESULTS
A positive, statistically significant combined effect was found (Cohen's = 0.24, CI 0.0707 to 0.409, < 0.01), demonstrating that in the studies and interventions included, children undertaking maths or literacy interventions using mobile devices achieved higher numeracy or literacy outcomes than those using an alternative device (e.g., a laptop or desktop computer) or no device (class activities as usual). However these results should be interpreted with caution given the risk of bias assessment noted above (5 studies rated high risk of bias and 13 rated as having some concerns). As the interventions and classroom circumstances differed quite widely, further research is needed to understand any potential impact more fully.Sensitivity analysis aimed to identify moderating factors including age or gender, screen size, frequency/dosage of intervention exposure, and programme implementation features/activities (based on Puentedura's [2009] SAMR model of technology integration). There were too few studies identified to support quantitative analysis of sufficient power to draw robust conclusions on moderating factors, and insufficient data to determine impact beyond immediate post-test period. Sensitivty analysis was also undertaken to exclude the five studies identified as having a high risk of bias, to identify any impact they may have on overall findings.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, this review demonstrates that for the specific interventions and studies included, mobile device use in the classroom led to a significant, positive effect on literacy and numeracy outcomes for the children involved, bringing positive implications for their continued use in primary education. However given the concerns on risk of bias assessment reported above, the differing circumstances, interventions and treatment conditions and intensities, the findings must be interpreted with caution. The review also supports the need for further robust research to better understand what works, under what circumstances, and for whom, in the use of mobile devices to support learning.
PubMed: 38911050
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1417 -
Brain Research Bulletin Jun 2024The Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) causes serious interpersonal problems from childhood to adulthood, one of them being problematic social functioning.... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) causes serious interpersonal problems from childhood to adulthood, one of them being problematic social functioning. This phenomenon in ADHD should be associated with impairments in the Theory of Mind (ToM). Therefore, understanding the neural correlates of the ToM could be crucial for helping individuals with ADHD with their social functioning. Thus, we aimed to review published literature concerning neuroanatomical and functional correlates of ToM deficits in children and adolescents with ADHD.
METHODS
We reviewed studies published between 1970 and 2023. In accordance with PRISMA guidelines, after data from three databases were collected, two authors (LN and PM) independently screened all relevant records (n=638) and consequently, both authors did the data extraction. The quality of the included studies (n=5) was measured by a modified version of The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and by measures specific for our study. This systematic review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020139847).
RESULTS
Results indicated that impairments in performing of the ToM tasks were negatively associated with the grey matter volume in the bilateral amygdala and hippocampus in both, ADHD and control group. In EEG studies, a significantly greater electrophysiological activity during ToM tasks was observed in the, frontal, temporal, parietal and occipital lobes in participants with ADHD as compared to healthy subjects.
CONCLUSION
More research is needed to explore the ToM deficits in children with ADHD. Future research might focus on the neural circuits associated with attention and inhibition, which deficits seems to contribute to the ToM deficits in children and adolescents with ADHD.
PubMed: 38906229
DOI: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2024.111011 -
Clinical Nutrition ESPEN Aug 2024Diet and inflammation may contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Diet and inflammation may contribute to the development of multiple sclerosis (MS). The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the association between proinflammatory diet, as estimated by the Dietary Inflammatory Index (DII®), and the likelihood of developing MS or other demyelinating autoimmune diseases. A systematic search was performed of search engines and databases (PubMed, ISI Web of Sciences, Scopus, and Embase) to identify relevant studies before 10th June 2023. The search identified 182 potential studies, from which 39 full-text articles were screened for relevance. Five articles with case-control design (n = 4,322, intervention group: 1714; control group: 2608) met the study inclusion criteria. The exposure variable was DII, with studies using two distinct models: quartile-based comparisons of DII and assessment of continuous DII. The meta-analysis of high versus low quartiles of DII with four effect sizes showed a significant association with MS/demyelinating autoimmune disease likelihood, with an odds ratio (OR) of 3.26 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16, 9.10). The meta-analysis of four studies with DII fit as a continuous variable showed a 31% increased likelihood of MS per unit increment; which was not statistically significant at the nominal alpha equals 0.05 (OR 1.31; 95% CI 0.95, 1.81). In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis provides evidence of a positive association between higher DII scores with the likelihood of developing MS, highlighting that diet-induced inflammation could play a role in MS or other demyelinating autoimmune diseases risk.
Topics: Humans; Multiple Sclerosis; Diet; Inflammation; Demyelinating Diseases; Autoimmune Diseases; Risk Factors
PubMed: 38901931
DOI: 10.1016/j.clnesp.2024.04.022 -
Child Abuse & Neglect Jun 2024Violence against children is a global phenomenon, yet children living in humanitarian settings are at elevated risk of experiencing violent parenting. Parenting...
The effectiveness of parenting interventions in reducing violence against children in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Violence against children is a global phenomenon, yet children living in humanitarian settings are at elevated risk of experiencing violent parenting. Parenting interventions are a recommended prevention strategy.
OBJECTIVE
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effectiveness of parenting interventions in preventing violence against children and related parent and child outcomes.
PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING
Primary caregivers in humanitarian settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
METHODS
A highly sensitive multi-language systematic search in electronic and grey-literature database. Studies were appraised for risk of bias, summary effects by certainty of effect, and effect estimates pooled using robust variance estimation.
RESULTS
Twenty-three randomized trials were meta-analyzed finding a small effect on physical and psychological violence (n = 14, k = 21, d = -0.36, 95 % CI [-0.69, -0.04]), positive parenting (n = 16, k = 43, d = 0.48, 95 % CI [0.29, 0.67]), negative parenting (n = 17, k = 37, d = -0.42, 95 % CI [-0.67, -0.16]), parental poor mental health (n = 9, k = 15, d = -0.34, 95 % CI [-0.66, -0.02]), and internalizing behaviors (n = 11, k = 29, d = -0.38, 95 % CI [-0.70, -0.05]); a non-significant effect on externalizing child behaviors (n = 9, k = 17, d = -0.12, 95 % CI [-0.50, 0.27]). Too few studies reported intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and parenting stress outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings suggest that parenting interventions in humanitarian settings in LMICs may be an effective strategy to reduce physical and psychological violence, and numerous related parent and child outcomes. However, findings need to be interpreted in light of the limited number of available studies and imprecise statistical significance for selected outcomes.
PubMed: 38880688
DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106850 -
Journal of Bodywork and Movement... Jul 2024The upper quarter y-balance test (YBT-UQ) is a functional screening tool used to detect musculoskeletal injury risk, aid rehabilitation, and monitor dynamic function,... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
The upper quarter y-balance test (YBT-UQ) is a functional screening tool used to detect musculoskeletal injury risk, aid rehabilitation, and monitor dynamic function, strength and control, yet little is currently known about intrinsic and extrinsic factors that influence reach scores.
OBJECTIVES
This systematic review aimed to determine if age, sex, or interventions influenced reach scores and whether between-limb differences were common in non-injured sporting populations, with a secondary aim to identify if sport impacted YBT-UQ reach.
METHODS
Web of Science, PubMed, and SportDiscus were systematically searched from January 2012 to November 16, 2023, revealing twenty-three studies satisfying inclusion criteria of published in English between 2012 and 2023, healthy participants of any age including both males and females, athletic populations, YBT-UQ use to assess upper limb mobility/stability, report normalised reach scores, and peer-reviewed full-texts. Methodological quality was evaluated via National Institutes of Health (NIH) quality assessment tools for controlled interventions, observational cohort and cross-sectional designs, and pre-post with no control group.
RESULTS
Age, sex, sport, and fatigue were influencing factors; greater reach scores were achieved in older athletes (i.e. >18 years), males, and in a well-rested state. Between-limb differences were not common in sporting populations; therefore, asymmetries may be useful for practitioners to aid injury risk identification.
CONCLUSION
This is the first systematic review investigating YBT-UQ influencing factors and thereby provides context for clinicians regarding characteristics that impact reach scores in sporting populations, from which normative values could be determined and further aid clinical decisions or areas to improve regarding injury risk.
Topics: Humans; Upper Extremity; Postural Balance; Male; Age Factors; Sex Factors; Female; Athletic Injuries; Adult; Athletes; Muscle Strength; Fatigue; Sports
PubMed: 38876624
DOI: 10.1016/j.jbmt.2024.02.043 -
Campbell Systematic Reviews Jun 2024Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young... (Review)
Review
REVIEW RATIONALE AND CONTEXT
Many intervention studies of summer programmes examine their impact on employment and education outcomes, however there is growing interest in their effect on young people's offending outcomes. Evidence on summer employment programmes shows promise on this but has not yet been synthesised. This report fills this evidence gap through a systematic review and meta-analysis, covering summer education and summer employment programmes as their contexts and mechanisms are often similar.
RESEARCH OBJECTIVE
The objective is to provide evidence on the extent to which summer programmes impact the outcomes of disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people.
METHODS
The review employs mixed methods: we synthesise quantitative information estimating the impact of summer programme allocation/participation across the outcome domains through meta-analysis using the random-effects model; and we synthesise qualitative information relating to contexts, features, mechanisms and implementation issues through thematic synthesis. Literature searches were largely conducted in January 2023. Databases searched include: Scopus; PsychInfo; ERIC; the YFF-EGM; EEF's and TASO's toolkits; RAND's summer programmes evidence review; key academic journals; and Google Scholar. The review employed PICOSS eligibility criteria: the was disadvantaged or 'at risk' young people aged 10-25; were either summer education or employment programmes; a valid group that did not experience a summer programme was required; studies had to estimate the summer programme's impact on violence and offending, education, employment, socio-emotional and/or health ; eligible were experimental and quasi-experimental; eligible were high-income countries. Other eligibility criteria included publication in English, between 2012 and 2022. Process/qualitative evaluations associated with eligible impact studies or of UK-based interventions were also included; the latter given the interests of the sponsors. We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Campbell Collaboration. The search identified 68 eligible studies; with 41 eligible for meta-analysis. Forty-nine studies evaluated 36 summer education programmes, and 19 studies evaluated six summer employment programmes. The number of participants within these studies ranged from less than 100 to nearly 300,000. The PICOSS criteria affects the external applicability of the body of evidence - allowances made regarding study design to prioritise evidence on UK-based interventions limits our ability to assess impact for some interventions. The risk of bias assessment categorised approximately 75% of the impact evaluations as low quality, due to attrition, losses to follow up, interventions having low take-up rates, or where allocation might introduce selection bias. As such, intention-to-treat analyses are prioritised. The quality assessment rated 93% of qualitative studies as low quality often due to not employing rigorous qualitative methodologies. These results highlight the need to improve the evidence.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
The quantitative synthesis examined impact estimates across 34 outcomes, through meta-analysis (22) or in narrative form (12). We summarise below the findings where meta-analysis was possible, along with the researchers' judgement of the security of the findings (high, moderate or low). This was based on the number and study-design quality of studies evaluating the outcome; the consistency of findings; the similarity in specific outcome measures used; and any other specific issues which might affect our confidence in the summary findings.Below we summarise the findings from the meta-analyses conducted to assess the impact of allocation to/participation in summer education and employment programmes (findings in relation to other outcomes are also discussed in the main body, but due to the low number of studies evaluating these, meta-analysis was not performed). We only cover the pooled results for the two programme types where there are not clear differences in findings between summer education and summer employment programmes, so as to avoid potentially attributing any impact to both summer programme types when this is not the case. We list the outcome measure, the average effect size type (i.e., whether a standardised mean difference (SMD) or log odds ratio), which programme type the finding is in relation to and then the average effect size along with its 95% confidence interval and the interpretation of the finding, that is, whether there appears to be a significant impact and in which direction (positive or negative, clarifying instances where a negative impact is beneficial). In some instances there may be a discrepancy between the 95% confidence interval and whether we determine there to be a significant impact, which will be due to the specifics of the process for constructing the effect sizes used in the meta-analysis. We then list the statistic and the -value from the homogeneity test as indications of the presence of heterogeneity. As the sample size used in the analysis are often small and the homogeneity test is known to be under-powered with small sample sizes, it may not detect statistically significant heterogeneity when it is in fact present. As such, a 90% confidence level threshold should generally be used when interpreting this with regard to the meta-analyses below. The presence of effect size heterogeneity affects the extent to which the average effects size is applicable to all interventions of that summer programme type. We also provide an assessment of the relative confidence we have in the generalisability of the overall finding (low, moderate or high) - some of the overall findings are based on a small sample of studies, the studies evaluating the outcome may be of low quality, there may be wide variation in findings among the studies evaluating the outcome, or there may be specific aspects of the impact estimates included or the effect sizes constructed that affect the generalisability of the headline finding. These issues are detailed in full in the main body of the review. -Engagement with/participation in/enjoyment of education (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.12 (+0.03, +0.20); positive impact; = 48.76%, = 0.10; moderate confidence.-Secondary education attendance (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.26 (+0.08, +0.44); positive impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (-0.03, +0.07); no impact; = 69.98%; = 0.03; low confidence.-Passing tests (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.41 (-0.13, +0.96); no impact; = 95.05%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.02 (+0.00, +0.04); positive impact; = 0.01%; = 0.33; low confidence.-Reading test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.01 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.40%; = 0.48; high confidence.-English test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.07 (+0.00, +0.13); positive impact; = 27.17%; = 0.33; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.03 (-0.05, -0.01); negative impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Mathematics test scores (SMD):∘All summer programmes: +0.09 (-0.06, +0.25); no impact; = 94.53%; = 0.00; high confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (-0.09, +0.36); no impact; = 94.15%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.00 (-0.04, +0.05); no impact; = 0.04%; = 0.92; moderate confidence.-Overall test scores (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.08, +0.05); no impact; = 32.39%; = 0.20; high confidence.-All test scores (SMD):∘Summer education programmes: +0.14 (+0.00, +0.27); positive impact; = 91.07%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.04, +0.01); no impact; = 0.06%; = 0.73; high confidence.-Negative behavioural outcomes (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: -1.55 (-3.14, +0.03); negative impact; = N/A; = N/A; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: -0.07 (-0.33, +0.18); no impact; = 88.17%; = 0.00; moderate confidence.-Progression to HE (log OR):∘All summer programmes: +0.24 (-0.04, +0.52); no impact; = 97.37%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer education programmes: +0.32 (-0.12, +0.76); no impact; = 96.58%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.10 (-0.07, +0.26); no impact; = 76.61%; = 0.02; moderate confidence.-Complete HE (log OR):∘Summer education programmes: +0.38 (+0.15, +0.62); positive impact; = 52.52%; = 0.06; high confidence.∘Summer employment programmes: +0.07 (-0.19, +0.33); no impact; = 70.54%; = 0.07; moderate confidence.-Entry to employment, short-term (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.19 (-0.45, +0.08); no impact; = 87.81%; = 0.00; low confidence.∘Entry to employment, full period (log OR)∘Summer employment programmes: -0.15 (-0.35, +0.05); no impact; = 78.88%; = 0.00; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.05 (-0.15, +0.05); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.76; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a drug-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.16 (-0.57, +0.89); no impact; = 65.97%; = 0.09; low confidence.-Likelihood of having a violence-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.03 (-0.02, +0.08); no impact; = 0.00%; = 0.22; moderate confidence.-Likelihood of having a property-related criminal justice outcome (log OR):∘Summer employment programmes: +0.09 (-0.17, +0.34); no impact; = 45.01%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, during programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 2.17%; = 0.31; low confidence.-Number of criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.03, +0.00); no impact; = 23.57%; = 0.37; low confidence.-Number of drug-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.01 (-0.06, +0.06); no impact; = 55.19%; = 0.14; moderate confidence.-Number of violence-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.08, +0.03); no impact; = 44.48%; = 0.18; low confidence.-Number of property-related criminal justice outcomes, post-programme (SMD):∘Summer employment programmes: -0.02 (-0.10, +0.05); no impact; = 64.93%; = 0.09; low confidence. We re-express instances of significant impact by programme type where we have moderate or high confidence in the security of findings by translating this to a form used by one of the studies, to aid understanding of the findings. Allocation to a summer education programme results in approximately 60% of individuals moving from never reading for fun to doing so once or twice a month (engagement in/participation in/enjoyment of education), and an increase in the English Grade Point Average of 0.08. Participation in a summer education programme results in an increase in overall Grade Point Average of 0.14 and increases the likelihood of completing higher education by 1.5 times. Signs are positive for the effectiveness of summer education programmes in achieving some of the education outcomes considered (particularly on test scores (when pooled across types), completion of higher education and STEM-related higher education outcomes), but the evidence on which overall findings are based is often weak. Summer employment programmes appear to have a limited impact on employment outcomes, if anything, a negative impact on the likelihood of entering employment outside of employment related to the programme. The evidence base for impacts of summer employment programmes on young people's violence and offending type outcomes is currently limited - where impact is detected this largely results in substantial reductions in criminal justice outcomes, but the variation in findings across and within studies affects our ability to make any overarching assertions with confidence. In understanding the effectiveness of summer programmes, the order of outcomes also requires consideration - entries into education from a summer employment programme might be beneficial if this leads towards better quality employment in the future and a reduced propensity of criminal justice outcomes.
QUALITATIVE SYNTHESIS
Various shared features among different summer education programmes emerged from the review, allowing us to cluster specific types of these interventions which then aided the structuring of the thematic synthesis. The three distinct clusters for summer education programmes were: catch-up programmes addressing attainment gaps, raising aspirations programmes inspiring young people to pursue the next stage of their education or career, and transition support programmes facilitating smooth transitions between educational levels. Depending on their aim, summer education programme tend to provide a combination of: additional instruction on core subjects (e.g., English, mathematics); academic classes including to enhance specialist subject knowledge (e.g., STEM-related); homework help; coaching and mentoring; arts and recreation electives; and social and enrichment activities. Summer employment programmes provide paid work placements or subsidised jobs typically in entry-level roles mostly in the third and public sectors, with some summer employment programmes also providing placements in the private sector. They usually include components of pre-work training and employability skills, coaching and mentoring. There are a number of mechanisms which act as facilitators or barriers to engagement in summer programmes. These include tailoring the summer programme to each young person and individualised attention; the presence of well-prepared staff who provide effective academic/workplace and socio-emotional support; incentives of a monetary (e.g., stipends and wages) or non-monetary (e.g., free transport and meals) nature; recruitment strategies, which are effective at identifying, targeting and engaging participants who can most benefit from the intervention; partnerships, with key actors who can help facilitate referrals and recruitment, such as schools, community action and workforce development agencies; format, including providing social activities and opportunities to support the formation of connections with peers; integration into the workplace, through pre-placement engagement, such as through orientation days, pre-work skills training, job fairs, and interactions with employers ahead of the beginning of the summer programme; and skill acquisition, such as improvements in social skills. In terms of the causal processes which lead from engagement in a summer programme to outcomes, these include: skill acquisition, including academic, social, emotional, and life skills; positive relationships with peers, including with older students as mentors in summer education programmes; personalised and positive relationships with staff; location, including accessibility and creating familiar environments; creating connections between the summer education programme and the students' learning at home to maintain continuity and reinforce learning; and providing purposeful and meaningful work through summer employment programmes (potentially facilitated through the provision of financial and/or non-financial incentives), which makes participants more likely to see the importance of education in achieving their life goals and this leads to raised aspirations. It is important to note that no single element of a summer programme can be identified as generating the causal process for impact, and impact results rather from a combination of elements. Finally, we investigated strengths and weaknesses in summer programmes at both the design and implementation stages. In summer education programmes, design strengths include interactive and alternative learning modes; iterative and progressive content building; incorporating confidence building activities; careful lesson planning; and teacher support which is tailored to each student. Design weaknesses include insufficient funding or poor funding governance (e.g., delays to funding); limited reach of the target population; and inadequate allocation of teacher and pupil groups (i.e., misalignment between the education stage of the pupils and the content taught by staff). Implementation strengths include clear programme delivery guidance and good governance; high quality academic instruction; mentoring support; and strong partnerships. Implementation weaknesses include insufficient planning and lead in time; recruitment challenges; and variability in teaching quality. In summer employment programmes, design strengths include use of employer orientation materials and supervisor handbooks; careful consideration of programme staff roles; a wide range of job opportunities; and building a network of engaged employers. Design weaknesses are uncertainty over funding and budget agreements; variation in delivery and quality of training between providers; challenges in recruitment of employers; and caseload size and management. Implementation strengths include effective job matching; supportive relationships with supervisors; pre-work training; and mitigating attrition (e.g., striving to increase take up of the intervention among the treatment group). Implementation weaknesses are insufficient monitors for the number of participants, and challenges around employer availability.
PubMed: 38873396
DOI: 10.1002/cl2.1406 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2024Despite the incentives and provisions created for hospitals by the US Affordable Care Act related to value-based payment and community health needs assessments, concerns... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Despite the incentives and provisions created for hospitals by the US Affordable Care Act related to value-based payment and community health needs assessments, concerns remain regarding the adequacy and distribution of hospital efforts to address SDOH. This scoping review of the peer-reviewed literature identifies the key characteristics of hospital/health system initiatives to address SDOH in the US, to gain insight into the progress and gaps.
METHODS
PRISMA-ScR criteria were used to inform a scoping review of the literature. The article search was guided by an integrated framework of Healthy People SDOH domains and industry recommended SDOH types for hospitals. Three academic databases were searched for eligible articles from 1 January 2018 to 30 June 2023. Database searches yielded 3,027 articles, of which 70 peer-reviewed articles met the eligibility criteria for the review.
RESULTS
Most articles (73%) were published during or after 2020 and 37% were based in Northeast US. More initiatives were undertaken by academic health centers (34%) compared to safety-net facilities (16%). Most (79%) were research initiatives, including clinical trials (40%). Only 34% of all initiatives used the EHR to collect SDOH data. Most initiatives (73%) addressed two or more types of SDOH, e.g., food and housing. A majority (74%) were downstream initiatives to address individual health-related social needs (HRSNs). Only 9% were upstream efforts to address community-level structural SDOH, e.g., housing investments. Most initiatives (74%) involved hot spotting to target HRSNs of high-risk patients, while 26% relied on screening and referral. Most initiatives (60%) relied on internal capacity vs. community partnerships (4%). Health disparities received limited attention (11%). Challenges included implementation issues and limited evidence on the systemic impact and cost savings from interventions.
CONCLUSION
Hospital/health system initiatives have predominantly taken the form of downstream initiatives to address HRSNs through hot-spotting or screening-and-referral. The emphasis on clinical trials coupled with lower use of EHR to collect SDOH data, limits transferability to safety-net facilities. Policymakers must create incentives for hospitals to invest in integrating SDOH data into EHR systems and harnessing community partnerships to address SDOH. Future research is needed on the systemic impact of hospital initiatives to address SDOH.
Topics: Humans; Social Determinants of Health; United States; Hospitals; Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Delivery of Health Care
PubMed: 38873294
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1413205