Core Outcome Sets (COS) related to pregnancy and childbirth : a systematic review

Background Systematic reviews often conclude low confidence in the results due to heterogeneity in the reported outcomes. A Core Outcome Set (COS) is an agreed standardised collection of outcomes for a specific area of health. The outcomes included in a COS are to be measured and summarized in clinical trials as well as systematic reviews to counteract this heterogeneity. Aim The aim is to identify, compile and assess final and ongoing studies that are prioritizing outcomes in the area of pregnancy and childbirth. Methods All studies which prioritized outcomes related to pregnancy and childbirth using consensus method, including Delphi surveys or consensus meetings were included. Searches were conducted in Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Academic Search Elite, CINAHL, SocINDEX and COMET databases up to June 2021. For all studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria, information regarding outcomes as well as population, method, and setting was extracted. In addition, reporting in the finalized studies was assessed using a modified version of the Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting. Results In total, 27 finalized studies and 42 ongoing studies were assessed as relevant and were included. In the finalized studies, the number of outcomes included in the COS ranged from 6 to 51 with a median of 13 outcomes. The majority of the identified COS, both finalized as well as ongoing, were relating to physical complications during pregnancy. Conclusion There is a growing number of Core Outcome Set studies related to pregnancy and childbirth. Although several of the finalized studies follow the proposed reporting, there are still some items that are not always clearly reported. Additionally, several of the identified COS contained a large number (n > 20) outcomes, something that possibly could hinder implementation. Therefore, there is a need to consider the number of outcomes which may be included in a COS to render it optimal for future research

Treatment Foster Care Oregon for Delinquent Adolescents : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Purpose: To examine the effects of Treatment Foster Care on youth with serious behavior problems. Method: Included studies are controlled trials with high or medium quality, published between 1990 and September 2017. The control group consists of youth with serious behavior problems in group care, and the follow-up time was at least 12 months. The review also examines ethical and economic aspects. Results: A total of eight controlled studies were included, consisting of 633 young people and 55 effect sizes. All studies examined the same model, Treatment Foster Care Oregon (TFCO). There is moderate certainty of evidence that TFCO reduces the risk of future criminal behavior and the number of days in locked settings. Furthermore, there is low certainty of evidence that TFCO reduces the risk of delinquent peer associations, drug use, and depression. Discussion: TFCO is to be preferred to group care for youth with serious behavior problems. Ethical and economic implications are discussed

Interventions in Foster Family Care : A Systematic Review

Objective: Foster family care is associated with adverse short- and long-term consequences for the child. A systematic review was conducted on interventions for foster children and foster careers. Method: A comprehensive search process was used to find eligible interventions evaluated in randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies. The quality of studies was assessed with GRADE, and effects were synthesized using meta-analytic methods. Results: In all, 28 publications of 18 interventions, including 5,357 children, were identified. Only three specific interventions had sufficient confidence of evidence. No study had examined tools for foster parent selection nor had evaluated preservice programs related to outcomes. Discussion: These analyses provide new insights and hope into the field of systematic interventions in foster care. The overall results indicate that it is possible to improve eight outcomes but cannot point out which programs are superior. Ethically, social care organizations should systematically collect knowledge about effects and side effects

Organisational models of health services for children and adolescents in out-of-home care : health technology assessment

AIM: Decades of research confirm that children and adolescents in out-of-home care (foster family, residential care) have much greater healthcare needs than their peers. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate organizational healthcare models for this vulnerable group. METHODS: A systematic literature search was undertaken of the following databases: Academic Search Elite, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cinahl, DARE, ERIC, HTA, PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PubMed, SocIndex. Randomized and non-randomized controlled trials were to be included. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed abstracts of the identified published papers. Abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria were ordered in full text. Each article was reviewed independently, by pairs of reviewers. A joint assessment was made based on the inclusion criteria and relevance. Cases of disagreement were resolved by consensus discussion. RESULTS: No study with low or medium risk of bias was identified. CONCLUSION: In the absence of studies of acceptable quality, it is not possible to assess the impact of organizational models intended to ensure adequate health and dental care for children and adolescents in out-of-home care. Therefore, well-designed follow-up studies should be conducted following the implementation of such models. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

Organisational models of Health services for Children and adolescents in out-of-home care: Health technology assessment

AimDecades of research confirm that children and adolescents in out‐of‐home care (foster family, residential care) have much greater health care needs than their peers. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate organisational health care models for this vulnerable group.MethodsA systematic literature search was undertaken of the following databases: Academic Search Elite, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cinahl, DARE, ERIC, HTA, PsycInfo, Psychology and Behavioural Sciences Collection, PubMed, SocIndex. Randomised and non‐randomised controlled trials were to be included. Two pairs of reviewers independently assessed abstracts of the identified published papers. Abstracts meeting the inclusion criteria were ordered in full text. Each article was reviewed independently, by pairs of reviewers. A joint assessment was made based on the inclusion criteria and relevance. Cases of disagreement were resolved by consensus discussion.ResultsNo study with low or medium risk of bias was identified.ConclusionIn the absence of studies of acceptable quality, it is not possible to assess the impact of organisational models intended to ensure adequate health and dental care for children and adolescents in out‐of‐home care. Therefore, well‐designed follow‐up studies should be conducted following the implementation of such model

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine