The effects of supported employment interventions in populations of people with conditions other than severe mental health : a systematic review

To assess the effectiveness of supported employment interventions for improving competitive employment in populations of people with conditions other than only severe mental illness. Supported employment interventions have been extensively tested in severe mental illness populations. These approaches may be beneficial outside of these populations. We searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science, Scopus, JSTOR, PEDro, OTSeeker, and NIOSHTIC for trials including unemployed people with any condition and including severe mental illness if combined with other co-morbidities or other specific circumstances (e.g., homelessness). We excluded trials where inclusion was based on severe mental illness alone. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias (RoB v2.0) and four reviewers extracted data. We assessed rates of competitive employment as compared to traditional vocational rehabilitation or waiting list/services as usual. Ten randomised controlled trials (913 participants) were included. Supported employment was more effective than control interventions for improving competitive employment in seven trials: in people with affective disorders [risk ratio (RR) 10.61 (1.49, 75.38)]; mental disorders and justice involvement [RR 4.44 (1.36,14.46)]; veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [RR 2.73 (1.64, 4.54)]; formerly incarcerated veterans [RR 2.17 (1.09, 4.33)]; people receiving methadone treatment [RR 11.5 (1.62, 81.8)]; veterans with spinal cord injury at 12 months [RR 2.46 (1.16, 5.22)] and at 24 months [RR 2.81 (1.98, 7.37)]; and young people not in employment, education, or training [RR 5.90 (1.91-18.19)]. Three trials did not show significant benefits from supported employment: populations of workers with musculoskeletal injuries [RR 1.38 (1.00, 1.89)]; substance abuse [RR 1.85 (0.65, 5.41)]; and formerly homeless people with mental illness [RR 1.55 (0.76, 3.15)]. Supported employment interventions may be beneficial to people from more diverse populations than those with severe mental illness alone. Defining competitive employment and increasing (and standardising) measurement of non-vocational outcomes may help to improve research in this area

Antibody tests for identification of current and past infection with SARS-CoV-2

Background The diagnostic challenges associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic resulted in rapid development of diagnostic test methods for detecting SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Serology tests to detect the presence of antibodies to SARS‐CoV‐2 enable detection of past infection and may detect cases of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection that were missed by earlier diagnostic tests. Understanding the diagnostic accuracy of serology tests for SARS‐CoV‐2 infection may enable development of effective diagnostic and management pathways, inform public health management decisions and understanding of SARS‐CoV‐2 epidemiology. Objectives To assess the accuracy of antibody tests, firstly, to determine if a person presenting in the community, or in primary or secondary care has current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection according to time after onset of infection and, secondly, to determine if a person has previously been infected with SARS‐CoV‐2. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included: timing of test, test method, SARS‐CoV‐2 antigen used, test brand, and reference standard for non‐SARS‐CoV‐2 cases. Search methods The COVID‐19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) was searched on 30 September 2020. We included additional publications from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co‐ordinating Centre (EPPI‐Centre) ‘COVID‐19: Living map of the evidence’ and the Norwegian Institute of Public Health ’NIPH systematic and living map on COVID‐19 evidence’. We did not apply language restrictions. Selection criteria We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced serology tests, targeting IgG, IgM, IgA alone, or in combination. Studies must have provided data for sensitivity, that could be allocated to a predefined time period after onset of symptoms, or after a positive RT‐PCR test. Small studies with fewer than 25 SARS‐CoV‐2 infection cases were excluded. We included any reference standard to define the presence or absence of SARS‐CoV‐2 (including reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction tests (RT‐PCR), clinical diagnostic criteria, and pre‐pandemic samples). Data collection and analysis We use standard screening procedures with three reviewers. Quality assessment (using the QUADAS‐2 tool) and numeric study results were extracted independently by two people. Other study characteristics were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test and, for meta‐analysis, we fitted univariate random‐effects logistic regression models for sensitivity by eligible time period and for specificity by reference standard group. Heterogeneity was investigated by including indicator variables in the random‐effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and summarised results for tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples and that met a modification of UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) target performance criteria. Main results We included 178 separate studies (described in 177 study reports, with 45 as pre‐prints) providing 527 test evaluations. The studies included 64,688 samples including 25,724 from people with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2; most compared the accuracy of two or more assays (102/178, 57%). Participants with confirmed SARS‐CoV‐2 infection were most commonly hospital inpatients (78/178, 44%), and pre‐pandemic samples were used by 45% (81/178) to estimate specificity. Over two‐thirds of studies recruited participants based on known SARS‐CoV‐2 infection status (123/178, 69%). All studies were conducted prior to the introduction of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines and present data for naturally acquired antibody responses. Seventy‐nine percent (141/178) of studies reported sensitivity by week after symptom onset and 66% (117/178) for convalescent phase infection. Studies evaluated enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) (165/527; 31%), chemiluminescent assays (CLIA) (167/527; 32%) or lateral flow assays (LFA) (188/527; 36%). Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (172, 97%); application and interpretation of the index test (35, 20%); weaknesses in the reference standard (38, 21%); and issues related to participant flow and timing (148, 82%). We judged that there were high concerns about the applicability of the evidence related to participants in 170 (96%) studies, and about the applicability of the reference standard in 162 (91%) studies. Average sensitivities for current SARS‐CoV‐2 infection increased by week after onset for all target antibodies. Average sensitivity for the combination of either IgG or IgM was 41.1% in week one (95% CI 38.1 to 44.2; 103 evaluations; 3881 samples, 1593 cases), 74.9% in week two (95% CI 72.4 to 77.3; 96 evaluations, 3948 samples, 2904 cases) and 88.0% by week three after onset of symptoms (95% CI 86.3 to 89.5; 103 evaluations, 2929 samples, 2571 cases). Average sensitivity during the convalescent phase of infection (up to a maximum of 100 days since onset of symptoms, where reported) was 89.8% for IgG (95% CI 88.5 to 90.9; 253 evaluations, 16,846 samples, 14,183 cases), 92.9% for IgG or IgM combined (95% CI 91.0 to 94.4; 108 evaluations, 3571 samples, 3206 cases) and 94.3% for total antibodies (95% CI 92.8 to 95.5; 58 evaluations, 7063 samples, 6652 cases). Average sensitivities for IgM alone followed a similar pattern but were of a lower test accuracy in every time slot. Average specificities were consistently high and precise, particularly for pre‐pandemic samples which provide the least biased estimates of specificity (ranging from 98.6% for IgM to 99.8% for total antibodies). Subgroup analyses suggested small differences in sensitivity and specificity by test technology however heterogeneity in study results, timing of sample collection, and smaller sample numbers in some groups made comparisons difficult. For IgG, CLIAs were the most sensitive (convalescent‐phase infection) and specific (pre‐pandemic samples) compared to both ELISAs and LFAs (P < 0.001 for differences across test methods). The antigen(s) used (whether from the Spike‐protein or nucleocapsid) appeared to have some effect on average sensitivity in the first weeks after onset but there was no clear evidence of an effect during convalescent‐phase infection. Investigations of test performance by brand showed considerable variation in sensitivity between tests, and in results between studies evaluating the same test. For tests that were evaluated in 200 or more samples, the lower bound of the 95% CI for sensitivity was 90% or more for only a small number of tests (IgG, n = 5; IgG or IgM, n = 1; total antibodies, n = 4). More test brands met the MHRA minimum criteria for specificity of 98% or above (IgG, n = 16; IgG or IgM, n = 5; total antibodies, n = 7). Seven assays met the specified criteria for both sensitivity and specificity. In a low‐prevalence (2%) setting, where antibody testing is used to diagnose COVID‐19 in people with symptoms but who have had a negative PCR test, we would anticipate that 1 (1 to 2) case would be missed and 8 (5 to 15) would be falsely positive in 1000 people undergoing IgG or IgM testing in week three after onset of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. In a seroprevalence survey, where prevalence of prior infection is 50%, we would anticipate that 51 (46 to 58) cases would be missed and 6 (5 to 7) would be falsely positive in 1000 people having IgG tests during the convalescent phase (21 to 100 days post‐symptom onset or post‐positive PCR) of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Authors' conclusions Some antibody tests could be a useful diagnostic tool for those in whom molecular‐ or antigen‐based tests have failed to detect the SARS‐CoV‐2 virus, including in those with ongoing symptoms of acute infection (from week three onwards) or those presenting with post‐acute sequelae of COVID‐19. However, antibody tests have an increasing likelihood of detecting an immune response to infection as time since onset of infection progresses and have demonstrated adequate performance for detection of prior infection for sero‐epidemiological purposes. The applicability of results for detection of vaccination‐induced antibodies is uncertain

Protocols for systematic reviews for WHO guideline for chronic low back pain

Evidence syntheses to support development of WHO guideline for chronic primary low back pai

Health-related guilt in chronic primary pain: A systematic review of evidence

PurposeChronic primary pain conditions are characterized by significant functional disability, emotional distress, and diagnostic uncertainty. Health-related guilt associated with coping and living with chronic pain is poorly understood. There had been no attempts to synthesize findings on health-related guilt across studies. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systemic review of evidence, to enable an understanding of the role of health-related guilt in chronic primary pain, and to provide directions for future research.MethodA search strategy was developed based on our eligibility criteria. Four databases (PsycINFO, Scopus, PubMed, and Web of Science) were searched for relevant papers from inception to 8 July 2020. Data from 12 qualitative and six quantitative studies were synthesized narratively.ResultsThe review of qualitative studies resulted in three themes, relating to the management of pain, diagnostic uncertainty/legitimizing pain, and how participants’ actions or inactions affect others. These findings were integrated with evidence from quantitative studies, which showed that higher levels of guilt were associated with more pain and pain interference, functional impairment, and poorer psychological and social functioning.ConclusionsThe findings demonstrate that health-related guilt is an important psychological factor associated with more pain and poorer function in people with chronic primary pain conditions. Future research should examine health-related guilt as a potential mediating/moderating factor leading to more distress and suffering in this population and as a potential target for interventions

Chemotherapy for second‐stage human African trypanosomiasis: drugs in use

Background Human African trypanosomiasis, or sleeping sickness, is a severe disease affecting people in the poorest parts of Africa. It is usually fatal without treatment. Conventional treatments require days of intravenous infusion, but a recently developed drug, fexinidazole, can be given orally. Another oral drug candidate, acoziborole, is undergoing clinical development and will be considered in subsequent editions. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of currently used drugs for treating second‐stage Trypanosoma brucei gambiense trypanosomiasis (gambiense human African trypanosomiasis, g‐HAT). Search methods On 14 May 2021, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database, BIOSIS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also searched reference lists of included studies, contacted researchers working in the field, and contacted relevant organizations. Selection criteria Eligible studies were randomized controlled trials that included adults and children with second‐stage g‐HAT, treated with anti‐trypanosomal drugs currently in use. Data collection and analysis Two review authors extracted data and assessed risk of bias; a third review author acted as an arbitrator if needed. The included trial only reported dichotomous outcomes, which we presented as risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Main results We included one trial comparing fexinidazole to nifurtimox combined with eflornithine (NECT). This trial was conducted between October 2012 and November 2016 in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic, and included 394 participants. The study reported on efficacy and safety, with up to 24 months' follow‐up. We judged the study to be at low risk of bias in all domains except blinding; as the route of administration and dosing regimens differed between treatment groups, participants and personnel were not blinded, resulting in a high risk of performance bias. Mortality with fexinidazole may be higher at 24 months compared to NECT. There were 9/264 deaths in the fexinidazole group and 2/130 deaths in the NECT group (RR 2.22, 95% CI 0.49 to 10.11; 394 participants; low‐certainty evidence). None of the deaths were related to treatment. Fexinidazole likely results in an increase in the number of people relapsing during follow‐up, with 14 participants in the fexinidazole group (14/264) and none in the NECT group (0/130) relapsing at 24 months (RD 0.05, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.08; 394 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there is any difference between the drugs regarding the incidence of serious adverse events at 24 months. (31/264 with fexinidazole and 13/130 with NECT group at 24 months). Adverse events were common with both drugs (247/264 with fexinidazole versus 121/130 with NECT), with no difference between groups (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.06; 394 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions Oral treatment with fexinidazole is much easier to administer than conventional treatment, but deaths and relapse appear to be more common. However, the advantages or an oral option are considerable, in terms of convenience, avoiding hospitalisation and multiple intravenous infusions, thus increasing adherence

Diagnostic and classification tools for chronic headache disorders:A systematic review

Background or Aim Despite guidelines and the International Classification of Headache Disorders (ICHD-III beta) criteria, the diagnosis of common chronic headache disorders can be challenging for non-expert clinicians. The aim of the review was to identify headache classification tools that could be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic disorders in primary care. Methods We conducted a systematic literature review of studies validating diagnostic and classification headache tools published between Jan 1988 and June 2016 from key databases: MEDLINE, ASSIA, Embase, Web of Knowledge and PsycINFO. Quality assessment was assessed using items of the Quality of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2). Results The search identified 38 papers reporting the validation of 30 tools designed to diagnose, classify or screen for headache disorders; nine for multiple headache types, and 21 for one headache type only. We did not identify a tool validated in a primary care that can be used by a non-expert clinician to classify common chronic headache disorders and screen for primary headaches other than migraine and tension-type headache in primary care. Conclusions Despite the availability of many headache classification tools we propose the need for a tool that could support primary care clinicians in diagnosing and managing chronic headache disorders within primary care, and allow more targeted referral to headache specialists

Prognostic factors for chronic headache – a systematic review

Objective: To identify predictors of prognosis and trial outcomes in prospective studies of people with chronic headache.Methods: This was a systematic review of published literature in peer-reviewed journals. We included (1) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions for chronic headache that reported subgroup analyses and (2) prospective cohort studies, published in English, since 1980. Participants included adults with chronic headache (including chronic headache, chronic migraine, and chronic tension-type headache with or without medication overuse headache). We searched key databases using free text and MeSH terms. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed the methodologic quality of studies and overall quality of evidence identified using appropriate published checklists.Results: We identified 16,556 titles, removed 663 duplicates, and reviewed 199 articles, of which 27 were included in the review—17 prospective cohorts and 10 RCTs with subgroup analyses reported. There was moderate-quality evidence indicating that depression, anxiety, poor sleep and stress, medication overuse, and poor self-efficacy for managing headaches are potential prognostic factors for poor prognosis and unfavorable outcomes from preventive treatment in chronic headache. There was inconclusive evidence about treatment expectations, age, age at onset, body mass index, employment, and several headache features.Conclusions: This review identified several potential predictors of poor prognosis and worse outcome postinterventions in people with chronic headache. The majority of these are modifiable. The findings also highlight the need for more longitudinal high-quality research of prognostic factors in chronic headache.<br/

Protocol for a scoping review of workplace interventions to improve health equity

This review aims to present an overview of the existing evidence on the effectiveness of workplace-based interventions to improve health equity