PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Abstract This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings.Search MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus.Selection CriteriaTitles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed.Main ResultsA total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community-based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high-income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low-income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community-based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at-risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities

Deworming in non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Background The impact of deworming on parasite load, nutritional status and other health outcomes of non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women is uncertain. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Food and Technology Abstracts databases were searched until 24 September 2018. Studies were included if they were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after studies or interrupted time studies comparing deworming with no intervention or placebo in non-pregnant adolescent girls and women 10 to 49 years old. Outcomes of interest included parasite load, reinfection, anaemia, severe anaemia, iron deficiency, diarrhoea or all-cause morbidity. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Results We included four RCTs of mass deworming involving 1086 participants, in the analyses. Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of roundworm infection (RR 0.29; 95% CI 0.14 to 0.62; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of hookworm infection (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.18 to 0.59; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence), prevalence of whipworm infection (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.65 to 0.91; 2 trials; 1498 participants, moderate certainty evidence) compared to the control group. Deworming may make little or no difference in prevalence of anaemia (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.60 to 1.11, 3 studies, 683 participants, low certainty evidence) and prevalence of iron-deficiency (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.64 to 1.23, 1 study, 186 participants, low certainty evidence) compared to control. We are uncertain whether deworming reduces the prevalence of severe anaemia compared to control as the certainty of evidence was very low. None of the included studies assessed screen and treat deworming or reported reinfection, diarrhoea or adverse events. Conclusions Mass deworming probably reduces the prevalence of soil-transmitted helminth infections but may have little or no effect on anaemia and iron-deficiency in adolescent girls and non-pregnant women in comparison to no intervention or placebo. We are uncertain about the effect on severe anaemia. These results are limited by sparse data and the moderate to very low quality of evidence available. Systematic review registration The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42016039557).  Primary source of funding: Evidence and Programme Guidance unit, Department of Nutrition for Health and Development, World Health Organization (WHO)

Articles Risk of serious infection in biological treatment of patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary Background Serious infections are a major concern for patients considering treatments for rheumatoid arthritis. Evidence is inconsistent as to whether biological drugs are associated with an increased risk of serious infection compared with traditional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of serious infections in patients treated with biological drugs compared with those treated with traditional DMARDs

How effects on health equity are assessed in systematic reviews of interventions.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing health equity is endorsed in the Sustainable Development Goals. The failure of systematic reviews to consider potential differences in effects across equity factors is cited by decision-makers as a limitation to their ability to inform policy and program decisions.  OBJECTIVES: To explore what methods systematic reviewers use to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to 26 February 2021: MEDLINE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, Education Resources Information Center, Education Abstracts, Criminal Justice Abstracts, Hein Index to Foreign Legal Periodicals, PAIS International, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, Digital Dissertations and the Health Technology Assessment Database. We searched SCOPUS to identify articles that cited any of the included studies on 10 June 10 2021. We contacted authors and searched the reference lists of included studies to identify additional potentially relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included empirical studies of cohorts of systematic reviews that assessed methods for measuring effects on health inequalities. We define health inequalities as unfair and avoidable differences across socially stratifying factors that limit opportunities for health. We operationalised this by assessing studies which evaluated differences in health across any component of the PROGRESS-Plus acronym, which stands for Place of residence, Race/ethnicity/culture/language, Occupation, Gender or sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status, Social capital. "Plus" stands for other factors associated with discrimination, exclusion, marginalisation or vulnerability such as personal characteristics (e.g. age, disability), relationships that limit opportunities for health (e.g. children in a household with parents who smoke) or environmental situations which provide limited control of opportunities for health (e.g. school food environment). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a pre-tested form. Risk of bias was appraised for included studies according to the potential for bias in selection and detection of systematic reviews.  MAIN RESULTS: In total, 48,814 studies were identified and the titles and abstracts were screened in duplicate. In this updated review, we identified an additional 124 methodological studies published in the 10 years since the first version of this review, which included 34 studies. Thus, 158 methodological studies met our criteria for inclusion. The methods used by these studies focused on evidence relevant to populations experiencing health inequity (108 out of 158 studies), assess subgroup analysis across PROGRESS-Plus (26 out of 158 studies), assess analysis of a gradient in effect across PROGRESS-Plus (2 out of 158 studies) or use a combination of subgroup analysis and focused approaches (20 out of 158 studies). The most common PROGRESS-Plus factors assessed were age (43 studies), socioeconomic status in 35 studies, low- and middle-income countries in 24 studies, gender or sex in 22 studies, race or ethnicity in 17 studies, and four studies assessed multiple factors across which health inequity may exist. Only 16 studies provided a definition of health inequity. Five methodological approaches to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness were identified: 1) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in systematic reviews (140 of 158 studies used a type of descriptive method); 2) descriptive assessment of reporting and analysis in original trials (50 studies); 3) analytic approaches which assessed differential effects across one or more PROGRESS-Plus factors (16 studies); 4) applicability assessment (25 studies) and 5) stakeholder engagement (28 studies), which is a new finding in this update and examines the appraisal of whether relevant stakeholders with lived experience of health inequity were included in the design of systematic reviews or design and delivery of interventions. Reporting for both approaches (analytic and applicability) lacked transparency and was insufficiently detailed to enable the assessment of credibility. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for improvement in conceptual clarity about the definition of health equity, describing sufficient detail about analytic approaches (including subgroup analyses) and transparent reporting of judgments required for applicability assessments in order to consider health equity in systematic reviews of effectiveness

Progress on incorporating the patient perspective in outcome assessment in rheumatology and the emergence of life impact measures at OMERACT 9

The Patient Perspective Workshop included over 100 researchers and 18 patient participants from 8 countries. Following preconference reading and short plenary presentations, breakout groups considered work undertaken on measurement of sleep, assessing interventions to develop the effective consumer, and assessing psychological and educational interventions. The workshop explored the best way to identify other outcome domains (and instruments) that should be measured in observational or interventional studies with broader intentions than simply altering outcomes captured in the traditional "core set" plus fatigue. Four sleep questionnaires showed promise and will be the subject of further study. The Effective Consumer scale (EC-17) was reviewed and the concept Effective Consumer was well received. Participants thought it worthwhile to measure the skills and attributes of an effective consumer and develop an intervention that would include education in all of the scale's categories. Assessment of educational and psychological interventions requires a wider set of instruments than is currently used; these should relate to the purpose of the intervention. This principle was extended to include wider measures of the impact of disease on life, as indicated in the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Life impact measure sets covering domains appropriate to different rheumatic conditions and focused on different interventions might be defined by future OMERACT consensus. Measurement instruments within these domains that are valid for use in rheumatic conditions can then be identified and, in the case of psychological and educational interventions, chosen to fit with the purpose of the intervention. The Journal of Rheumatology Copyright © 2009. All rights reserved