Social prescribing for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers: what works, for whom, under what circumstances and why – protocol for a complex intervention systematic review

Introduction: Dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how. Methods and analysis: A complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies

Current debates on end-of-life sedation:an international expert elicitation study

Purpose End-of-life sedation, though increasingly prevalent and widespread internationally, remains one of the most highly debated medical practices in the context of palliative medicine. This qualitative study aims to elicit and record the perspectives of leading international palliative care experts on current debates. Methods Twenty-one professionals from diverse backgrounds, sharing field-specific knowledge/expertise defined by significant scholarly contribution on end-of-life sedation, were recruited. Open-ended, semi-structured interviews, following a topic-oriented structure reflecting on current debates, were conducted. Results were analysed using thematic content analysis. Results Three main aspects of sedation were identified and discussed as potentially problematic: (a) continuous deep sedation as an extreme facet of end-of-life sedation, (b) psycho-existential suffering as an ambivalent indication for sedation and (c) withdrawal or withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration as potentially life-shortening. On these grounds, concerns were reported over end-of-life sedation being morally equivalent to euthanasia. Considerable emphasis was placed on intentions as the distinguishing factor between end-of-life acts, and protective safeguards were introduced to distance sedation from euthanasia. Conclusions This study shows that, despite the safeguards introduced, certain aspects of sedation, including the intentions associated with the practice, are still under question, parallels being drawn between end-of-life sedation and euthanasia. This reaffirms the existence of a grey area surrounding the two practices, already evidenced in countries where euthanasia is legalized. More clarity over the issues that generate this grey area, with their causes being uncovered and eliminated, is imperative to resolve current debates and effectively inform research, policy and practice of end-of-life sedation

Out-of-hours services and end-of-life hospital admissions: a complex intervention systematic review and narrative synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Out-of-hours (OOH) hospital admissions for patients receiving end-of-life care are a common cause of concern for patients, families, clinicians, and policymakers. It is unclear what issues, or combinations of issues, lead OOH clinicians to initiate hospital care for these patients. AIM: To investigate the circumstances, processes, and mechanisms of UK OOH services-initiated end-of-life care hospital admissions. DESIGN AND SETTING: Systematic literature review and narrative synthesis. METHOD: Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2019 supplemented by hand-searching of the British Journal of General Practice. Key search terms included: 'out-of-hours services', 'hospital admissions', and 'end-of-life care'. Two reviewers independently screened and selected articles, and undertook quality appraisal using Gough's Weight of Evidence framework. Data was analysed using narrative synthesis and reported following PRISMA Complex Intervention guidance. RESULTS: Searches identified 20 727 unique citations, 25 of which met the inclusion criteria. Few studies had a primary focus on the review questions. Admissions were instigated primarily to address clinical needs, caregiver and/or patient distress, and discontinuity or unavailability of care provision, and they were arranged by a range of OOH providers. Reported frequencies of patients receiving end-of-life care being admitted to hospital varied greatly; most evidence related to cancer patients. CONCLUSION: Although OOH end-of-life care can often be readily resolved by hospital admissions, it comes with multiple challenges that seem to be widespread and systemic. Further research is therefore necessary to understand the complexities of OOH services-initiated end-of-life care hospital admissions and how the challenges underpinning such admissions might best be addressed

A systematic content analysis of policy barriers impeding access to opioid medication in Central and Eastern Europe:results of ATOME

Context Reliable access to opioid medication is critical to delivering effective pain management, adequate treatment of opioid dependence, and quality palliative care. However, more than 80% of the world population is estimated to be inadequately treated for pain because of difficulties in accessing opioids. Although barriers to opioid access are primarily associated with restrictive laws, regulations, and licensing requirements, a key problem that significantly limits opioid access relates to policy constraints. Objectives To identify and explore policy barriers to opioid access in 12 Eastern and Central European countries involved in the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe project, funded by the European Community's Seventh Framework (FP7/2007–2013, no. 222994) Programme. Methods A systematic content analysis of texts retrieved from documents (e.g., protocols of national problem analyses, strategic planning worksheets, and executive summaries) compiled, reviewed, approved, and submitted by either the Access to Opioid Medication in Europe consortium or the national country teams (comprising experts in pain management, harm reduction, and palliative care) between September 2011 and April 2014 was performed. Results Twenty-five policy barriers were identified (e.g., economic crisis, bureaucratic issues, lack of training initiatives, stigma, and discrimination), classified under four predetermined categories (financial/economic aspects and governmental support, formularies, education and training, and societal attitudes). Key barriers related to issues of funding allocation, affordability, knowledge, and fears associated with opioids. Conclusion Reducing barriers and improving access to opioids require policy reform at the governmental level with a set of action plans being formulated and concurrently implemented and aimed at different levels of social, education, and economic policy change

Current debates on end-of-life sedation: an international expert elicitation study

End-of-life sedation, though increasingly prevalent and widespread internationally, remains one of the most highly debated medical practices in the context of palliative medicine. This qualitative study aims to elicit and record the perspectives of leading international palliative care experts on current debates. Twenty-one professionals from diverse backgrounds, sharing field-specific knowledge/expertise defined by significant scholarly contribution on end-of-life sedation, were recruited. Open-ended, semi-structured interviews, following a topic-oriented structure reflecting on current debates, were conducted. Results were analysed using thematic content analysis. Three main aspects of sedation were identified and discussed as potentially problematic: (a) continuous deep sedation as an extreme facet of end-of-life sedation, (b) psycho-existential suffering as an ambivalent indication for sedation and (c) withdrawal or withholding of artificial nutrition and hydration as potentially life-shortening. On these grounds, concerns were reported over end-of-life sedation being morally equivalent to euthanasia. Considerable emphasis was placed on intentions as the distinguishing factor between end-of-life acts, and protective safeguards were introduced to distance sedation from euthanasia. This study shows that, despite the safeguards introduced, certain aspects of sedation, including the intentions associated with the practice, are still under question, parallels being drawn between end-of-life sedation and euthanasia. This reaffirms the existence of a grey area surrounding the two practices, already evidenced in countries where euthanasia is legalized. More clarity over the issues that generate this grey area, with their causes being uncovered and eliminated, is imperative to resolve current debates and effectively inform research, policy and practice of end-of-life sedation

Diagnostic Performance of Biomarkers for Bladder Cancer Detection Suitable for Community and Primary Care Settings: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Evidence on the use of biomarkers to detect bladder cancer in the general population is scarce. This study aimed to systematically review evidence on the diagnostic performance of biomarkers which might be suitable for use in community and primary care settings [PROSPERO Registration: CRD42021258754]. Database searches on MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2000 to May 2022 resulted in 4914 unique citations, 44 of which met inclusion criteria. Included studies reported on 112 biomarkers and combinations. Heterogeneity of designs, populations and outcomes allowed for the meta-analysis of three biomarkers identified in at least five studies (NMP-22, UroVysion, uCyt+). These three biomarkers showed similar discriminative ability (adjusted AUC estimates ranging from 0.650 to 0.707), although for NMP-22 and UroVysion there was significant unexplained heterogeneity between included studies. Narrative synthesis revealed the potential of these biomarkers for use in the general population based on their reported clinical utility, including effects on clinicians, patients, and the healthcare system. Finally, we identified some promising novel biomarkers and biomarker combinations (N < 3 studies for each biomarker/combination) with negative predictive values of ≥90%. These biomarkers have potential for use as a triage tool in community and primary care settings for reducing unnecessary specialist referrals. Despite promising emerging evidence, further validation studies in the general population are required at different stages within the diagnostic pathway

Social prescribing for people living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers: what works, for whom, under what circumstances, and why: protocol for a complex intervention systematic review

Introduction: dementia is a complex medical condition that poses significant challenges to healthcare systems and support services. People living with dementia (PLWD) and their carers experience complex needs often exacerbated by social isolation and challenges in accessing support. Social prescribing (SP) seeks to enable PLWD and their carers to access community and voluntary sector resources to support them address such needs. Existing research, however, does not describe what SP interventions are currently in place in dementia care. Little is known about the needs these interventions are designed to address, the reasons that lead PLWD and their carers to participate in them, their effectiveness and the extent to which they could increase positive health outcomes if adopted and how.Methods and analysis: a complex intervention systematic review of SP for PLWD and/or their carers will be conducted using an iterative logic model approach. Six electronic (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane/CENTRAL) and two grey literature databases (EThOS and CORE) were searched for publications between 1 January 2003 and June 2023, supplemented by handsearching of reference lists of included studies. Study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment, using Gough’s Weight of Evidence Framework, will be independently performed by two reviewers. A narrative approach will be employed to synthesise and report quantitative and qualitative data. Reporting will be informed by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Complex Interventions extension statement and checklist.Ethics and dissemination: no ethical approval is required due to this systematic review operating only with secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with key stakeholders including healthcare professionals, patient and carer groups, community organisations (eg, the Social Prescribing Network and the Evidence Collaborative at the National Academy for Social Prescribing), policymakers and funding bodies.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023428625