The best of the UK? A report on the value and future of UK databases in the health and social care fields: a systematic map protocol

INTRODUCTION: This protocol covers the first part of a two-part project funded by the Health Libraries Group and the University Health and Medical Librarians Group. It details the proposed methodology for a systematic map of the literature relating to UK bibliographic databases in the fields of health and social care. The aim of this mapping exercise is to consider ways in which UK bibliographic databases are described, considered and discussed in the published and unpublished literature. In doing so, we hope to gain a clearer sense of the ways in which UK bibliographic databases are used and viewed by the research community. It also enables the identification of any gaps in the literature for further research and discussion. This topic is important because UK databases are generally underused by researchers in the UK context and some databases are at risk of closure. A lack of access to UK databases means that researchers may miss relevant UK evidence when identifying an evidence base. / METHOD: Systematic Map. / ANALYSIS: The authors will present a narrative description of the literature relating to UK bibliographic databases in the fields of health and social care. They will use tables to present descriptive information about the literature (eg, frequency tables) and use cross-tabulations to demonstrate intersecting themes. Separately, guidance on how to use the resources (eg, areas of unique content, updating frequencies, unique truncation symbols) will be sought from stakeholders and reported alongside the report narrative as a guide to usage

Can a meta-ethnography be updated by different reviewers? Reflections from a recent update

Over the last decade, there has been a proliferation of published meta-ethnographies. Yet, strategies and techniques for updating have not received the same attention, rendering answers to important methodological questions still elusive. One such question has to do with who can perform an update. Although it is not uncommon for quantitative systematic reviews and statistical meta-analyses to be updated by different reviewers, qualitative synthesists might find themselves caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, as meta-ethnography constitutes an interpretation three times removed from the lived experience of the participants in the original studies, it could be argued that an update by different reviewers might add an extra layer of interpretation. By comparison, updating by the same reviewers could give rise to concerns about the robustness of updated findings, as an implicit drive for making new data fit the original work might be difficult to control for. We recently reported the findings of our attempt to update an earlier meta-ethnography of primary care antibiotic prescribing, conducted by a different team of reviewers. In this article, we wish to contribute to the emerging debate on the necessity of promoting a culture of updating in qualitative evidence synthesis, by discussing some of the practical and methodological issues we considered at each stage of the process and offering lessons learnt from our experience

Core Health Outcomes In Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE):Protocol for the selection of a core outcome set

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.BACKGROUND: There is increasing recognition that establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in trials of interventions for particular conditions will improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set for childhood epilepsy. The aim of this work is to select a core outcome set to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy, as an exemplar of common childhood epilepsy syndromes. METHODS: First we will identify what outcomes should be measured; then we will decide how to measure those outcomes. We will engage relevant UK charities and health professional societies as partners, and convene advisory panels for young people with epilepsy and parents of children with epilepsy. We will identify candidate outcomes from a search for trials of interventions for childhood epilepsy, statutory guidance and consultation with our advisory panels. Families, charities and health, education and neuropsychology professionals will be invited to participate in a Delphi survey following recommended practices in the development of core outcome sets. Participants will be able to recommend additional outcome domains. Over three rounds of Delphi survey participants will rate the importance of candidate outcome domains and state the rationale for their decisions. Over the three rounds we will seek consensus across and between families and health professionals on the more important outcomes. A face-to-face meeting will be convened to ratify the core outcome set. We will then review and recommend ways to measure the shortlisted outcomes using clinical assessment and/or patient-reported outcome measures. DISCUSSION: Our methodology is a proportionate and pragmatic approach to expediently produce a core outcome set for evaluative research of interventions aiming to improve the health of children with epilepsy. A number of decisions have to be made when designing a study to develop a core outcome set including defining the scope, choosing which stakeholders to engage, most effective ways to elicit their views, especially children and a potential role for qualitative research.This study is part of Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Childhood Epilepsy (CASTLE), which is funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research RP-PG-0615-20007

Non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD in school settings: an overarching synthesis of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE: This overarching synthesis brings together the findings of four systematic reviews including 138 studies focused on non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD used in school settings. These reviews considered the effectiveness of school-based interventions for ADHD, attitudes toward and experience of school-based interventions for ADHD, and the experience of ADHD in school settings. METHOD: We developed novel methods to compare the findings across these reviews inductively and deductively. RESULTS: Key contextual issues that may influence the effectiveness and implementation of interventions include the relationships that pupils with ADHD have with their teachers and peers, the attributions individuals make about the etiology of ADHD, and stigma related to ADHD or intervention attendance. CONCLUSION: Although we found some positive effects for some outcomes and intervention categories, heterogeneity in effect size estimates and research evidence suggests a range of diverse contextual factors potentially moderate the implementation and effectiveness of school-based interventions for ADHD.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programNIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied HealthResearch and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC

Is volunteering a public health intervention? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the health and survival of volunteers

Background Volunteering has been advocated by the United Nations, and American and European governments as a way to engage people in their local communities and improve social capital, with the potential for public health benefits such as improving wellbeing and decreasing health inequalities. Furthermore, the US Corporation for National and Community Service Strategic Plan for 2011–2015 focused on increasing the impact of national service on community needs, supporting volunteers’ wellbeing, and prioritising recruitment and engagement of underrepresented populations. The aims of this review were to examine the effect of formal volunteering on volunteers’ physical and mental health and survival, and to explore the influence of volunteering type and intensity on health outcomes. Methods Experimental and cohort studies comparing the physical and mental health outcomes and mortality of a volunteering group to a non-volunteering group were identified from twelve electronic databases (Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, HMIC, SSCI, ASSIA, Social Care Online, Social Policy and Practice) and citation tracking in January 2013. No language, country or date restrictions were applied. Data synthesis was based on vote counting and random effects meta-analysis of mortality risk ratios. Results Forty papers were selected: five randomised controlled trials (RCTs, seven papers); four non-RCTs; and 17 cohort studies (29 papers). Cohort studies showed volunteering had favourable effects on depression, life satisfaction, wellbeing but not on physical health. These findings were not confirmed by experimental studies. Meta-analysis of five cohort studies found volunteers to be at lower risk of mortality (risk ratio: 0.78; 95% CI: 0.66, 0.90). There was insufficient evidence to demonstrate a consistent influence of volunteering type or intensity on outcomes. Conclusion Observational evidence suggested that volunteering may benefit mental health and survival although the causal mechanisms remain unclear. Consequently, there was limited robustly designed research to guide the development of volunteering as a public health promotion intervention. Future studies should explicitly map intervention design to clear health outcomes as well as use pragmatic RCT methodology to test effects

What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people?: A systematic review

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

PROTOCOL: What is the effect of intergenerational activities on the wellbeing and mental health of older people?

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: This systematic review will examine the impact of intergenerational interventions on the mental health and wellbeing of older people and will identify areas for future research as well as key messages for service commissioners

Core Health Outcomes in Childhood Epilepsy (CHOICE): Development of a core outcome set using systematic review methods and a Delphi survey consensus.

This is the final version. Available from the publisher via the DOI in this record.OBJECTIVE: Establishing a core set of outcomes to be evaluated and reported in intervention trials aims to improve the usefulness of health research. There is no established core outcome set (COS) for childhood epilepsies. The aim of this study was to select a COS to be used in evaluative research of interventions for children with rolandic epilepsy (RE). METHODS: We followed guidance from the COMET (Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials) Initiative. First, we identified outcomes that had been measured in research through a systematic review. Second, young people with RE, parents, and professionals were invited to take part in a Delphi survey in which participants rated the importance of candidate outcomes. Last, a face-to-face meeting was convened to seek consensus on which outcomes were critical to include and to ratify the final COS. RESULTS: From 37 eligible papers in the review, we identified and included 48 candidate outcomes in the survey. We sent invitations to 165 people registered to take part in the survey; of these, 102 (62%) completed Round 1, and 80 (78%) completed Round 2 (three young people, 16 parents, 61 professionals). In Round 2 we included four additional outcomes suggested by participants in Round 1. The consensus meeting included two young people, four parents, and nine professionals who were eligible to vote and ratified the COS as 39 outcomes across 10 domains. SIGNIFICANCE: Our methodology was a proportionate and pragmatic approach toward producing a COS for evaluating research on interventions aiming to improve the health of children with RE.National Institute for Health Research (NIHR

Diagnostic accuracy of serological and imaging tests used in surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with cirrhosis: a systematic review protocol [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background Liver cirrhosis is the largest risk factor for developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), and surveillance is therefore recommended among this population. Current guidance recommends surveillance with ultrasound, with or without alpha-fetoprotein (AFP). This review is part of a larger project looking at benefits, harms and costs of surveillance for HCC in people with cirrhosis. It aims to synthesise the evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of imaging or biomarker tests, alone or in combination, to identify HCC in adults with liver cirrhosis in a surveillance programme. Methods We will identify studies through a 2021 Cochrane review with similar eligibility criteria, and a database search of MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include diagnostic test accuracy studies with adult cirrhosis patients of any aetiology. Studies must assess at least one of the following index tests: ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computerised tomography (CT), alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), des-gamma-carboxyprothrombin (DCP), lens culinaris agglutinin-reactive fraction of AFP (AFP-L3), a genomic biomarker, or a diagnostic prediction model incorporating at least one of the above-mentioned tests. We will assess studies for risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We will combine data using bivariate random effects meta-analyses. For tests evaluated across varying diagnostic thresholds, we will produce pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity across the full range of numerical thresholds, where possible. Where sufficient studies compare two or more index tests, we will perform additional analyses to compare the accuracy of different tests. Where feasible, we will stratify all meta-analyses by tumour size and patient characteristics, including cirrhosis aetiology and liver disease severity. Discussion This review will synthesise evidence across the full range of possible surveillance tests, using advanced statistical methods to summarise accuracy across all thresholds and to compare the accuracy of different tests. PROSPERO registration CRD4202235716