A systematic review of high quality randomized controlled trials investigating motor skill programmes for children with developmental coordination disorder.

To identify effective motor training interventions for children with developmental coordination disorder from research graded as high quality (using objective criteria) for the purpose of informing evidence-based clinical practice.We followed the guidance for conducting systematic reviews issued by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Six OvidSP electronic databases (AMED, All EBM reviews (including Cochrane), Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, PsychARTICLES Full Text, PsycINFO) were searched systematically. We aimed to retain only randomized control trials and systematic reviews of randomized control trials, defined as the highest level of evidence by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. We searched reference lists of retained articles to identify further appropriate articles.Two reviewers critically appraised and categorized articles by effect size (including confidence intervals), inclusion of power calculations and quality using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale. Only studies scoring seven or more on the PEDro scale (classed by the PEDro as high reliability) were retained.No systematic reviews met our criteria for inclusion from 846 articles yielded by the systematic search. Nine randomized control trials investigating 15 interventions to improve motor skills met our inclusion criteria for 'high quality'. Nevertheless, not all included studies were adequately powered for determining an effect.Large effect sizes associated with 95 % confidence intervals suggest that 'Neuromotor Task Training', 'Task-oriented Motor Training' and 'Motor Imagery + Task Practice Training' are the most effective reported interventions for improving motor skills in children with developmental coordination disorder

Quality of life assessed with the medical outcomes study short form 36-item health survey of patients on renal replacement therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objectives: The Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36) is the most widely used generic instrument to estimate quality of life of patients on renal replacement therapy. Purpose of this study was to summarize and compare the published literature on quality of life of hemodialysis (HD), peritoneal dialysis (PD), and renal transplant (RTx) patients. Methods: We used random-effects regression analyses to compare the SF-36 scores across treatment groups and adjusted this comparison for age and prevalence of diabetes using random-effects meta-regression analyses. Results: We found 52 articles that met the inclusion criteria, reporting quality of life of 36,582 patients. The unadjusted scores of all SF-36 health dimensions were not significantly different between HD and PD patients, but the scores of RTx patients were higher than those of dialysis patients, except for the dimensions Mental Health and Bodily Pain. Point differences between dialysis and RTx patients varied from 2 to 32. With adjustment for age and diabetes, the differences became smaller (point difference 2–22). The significance of the differences of both dialysis groups compared with RTx recipients disappeared for the dimensions Vitality and Social Functioning. The significance of the differences between HD and RTx patients disappeared on the dimensions Physical Functioning, Role Physical, and Bodily Pain. Conclusion: We conclude that dialysis patients have a lower quality of life than RTx patients, but this difference can partly be explained by differences in age and prevalence of diabetes. Keywords: hemodialysis, meta-analysis, peritoneal dialysis, quality of life, renal transplantation

Research utilisation and knowledge mobilisation in the commissioning and joint planning of public health interventions to reduce alcohol-related harms: a qualitative case design using a cocreation approach

Background: Considerable resources are spent on research to establish what works to improve the nation’s health. If the findings from this research are used, better health outcomes can follow, but we know that these findings are not always used. In public health, evidence of what works may not ‘fit’ everywhere, making it difficult to know what to do locally. Research suggests that evidence use is a social and dynamic process, not a simple application of research findings. It is unclear whether it is easier to get evidence used via a legal contracting process or within unified organisational arrangements with shared responsibilities. Objective: To work in cocreation with research participants to investigate how research is utilised and knowledge mobilised in the commissioning and planning of public health services to reduce alcohol-related harms. Design, setting and participants: Two in-depth, largely qualitative, cross-comparison case studies were undertaken to compare real-time research utilisation in commissioning across a purchaser–provider split (England) and in joint planning under unified organisational arrangements (Scotland) to reduce alcohol-related harms. Using an overarching realist approach and working in cocreation, case study partners (stakeholders in the process) picked the topic and helped to interpret the findings. In Scotland, the topic picked was licensing; in England, it was reducing maternal alcohol consumption. Methods: Sixty-nine interviews, two focus groups, 14 observations of decision-making meetings, two local feedback workshops (n = 23 and n = 15) and one national workshop (n = 10) were undertaken. A questionnaire (n = 73) using a Behaviourally Anchored Rating Scale was issued to test the transferability of the 10 main findings. Given the small numbers, care must be taken in interpreting the findings. Findings: Not all practitioners have the time, skills or interest to work in cocreation, but when there was collaboration, much was learned. Evidence included professional and tacit knowledge, and anecdotes, as well as findings from rigorous research designs. It was difficult to identify evidence in use and decisions were sometimes progressed in informal ways and in places we did not get to see. There are few formal evidence entry points. Evidence (prevalence and trends in public health issues) enters the process and is embedded in strategic documents to set priorities, but local data were collected in both sites to provide actionable messages (sometimes replicating the evidence base). Conclusions: Two mid-range theories explain the findings. If evidence has saliency (relates to ‘here and now’ as opposed to ‘there and then’) and immediacy (short, presented verbally or visually and with emotional appeal) it is more likely to be used in both settings. A second mid-range theory explains how differing tensions pull and compete as feasible and acceptable local solutions are pursued across stakeholders. Answering what works depends on answering for whom and where simultaneously to find workable (if temporary) ‘blends’. Gaining this agreement across stakeholders appeared more difficult across the purchaser–provider split, because opportunities to interact were curtailed; however, more research is needed. Funding: This study was funded by the Health Services and Delivery Research programme of the National Institute for Health Research

Evidence for models of diagnostic service provision in the community: literature mapping exercise and focused rapid reviews

Background Current NHS policy favours the expansion of diagnostic testing services in community and primary care settings. Objectives Our objectives were to identify current models of community diagnostic services in the UK and internationally and to assess the evidence for quality, safety and clinical effectiveness of such services. We were also interested in whether or not there is any evidence to support a broader range of diagnostic tests being provided in the community. Review methods We performed an initial broad literature mapping exercise to assess the quantity and nature of the published research evidence. The results were used to inform selection of three areas for investigation in more detail. We chose to perform focused reviews on logistics of diagnostic modalities in primary care (because the relevant issues differ widely between different types of test); diagnostic ultrasound (a key diagnostic technology affected by developments in equipment); and a diagnostic pathway (assessment of breathlessness) typically delivered wholly or partly in primary care/community settings. Databases and other sources searched, and search dates, were decided individually for each review. Quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews and primary studies of any design were eligible for inclusion. Results We identified seven main models of service that are delivered in primary care/community settings and in most cases with the possible involvement of community/primary care staff. Not all of these models are relevant to all types of diagnostic test. Overall, the evidence base for community- and primary care-based diagnostic services was limited, with very few controlled studies comparing different models of service. We found evidence from different settings that these services can reduce referrals to secondary care and allow more patients to be managed in primary care, but the quality of the research was generally poor. Evidence on the quality (including diagnostic accuracy and appropriateness of test ordering) and safety of such services was mixed. Conclusions In the absence of clear evidence of superior clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, the expansion of community-based services appears to be driven by other factors. These include policies to encourage moving services out of hospitals; the promise of reduced waiting times for diagnosis; the availability of a wider range of suitable tests and/or cheaper, more user-friendly equipment; and the ability of commercial providers to bid for NHS contracts. However, service development also faces a number of barriers, including issues related to staffing, training, governance and quality control. Limitations We have not attempted to cover all types of diagnostic technology in equal depth. Time and staff resources constrained our ability to carry out review processes in duplicate. Research in this field is limited by the difficulty of obtaining, from publicly available sources, up-to-date information about what models of service are commissioned, where and from which providers. Future work There is a need for research to compare the outcomes of different service models using robust study designs. Comparisons of ‘true’ community-based services with secondary care-based open-access services and rapid access clinics would be particularly valuable. There are specific needs for economic evaluations and for studies that incorporate effects on the wider health system. There appears to be no easy way of identifying what services are being commissioned from whom and keeping up with local evaluations of new services, suggesting a need to improve the availability of information in this area. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme