Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) Wales Recommendations Briefing Report

Background: Breastfeeding and the provision of human milk is the most accessible and cost-effective activity available to public health which is known to prevent a range of infectious and non-communicable diseases (NCDs), specifically gastro-enteritis, childhood obesity, diabetes type 2 and maternal breast cancer. However, global efforts to further improve exclusive breastfeeding rates have had limited success, in part because effective scaling‐up frameworks and roadmaps have not been developed. The UK has one of the lowest breastfeeding rates in the world; 80% of babies are breastfed at birth and only 1% are exclusively breastfed by 6 months. In Wales, whilst over 60% of women intend to breastfeed, the figure falls to 26% reporting any breastfeeding at 6 weeks, with considerable variation among Health Boards and breastfeeding rates lower among women in areas of higher deprivation, exacerbating health inequalities. Sustained intervention is required to improve the experience of breastfeeding for women, babies and families and work towards the WHO’s 2025 global target of increasing exclusive breastfeeding in the first six months to at least 50%. BBF: The Becoming Breastfeeding Friendly (BBF) toolkit was developed through highly structured technical and academic collaboration, led by Yale University and has been piloted in Mexico and Ghana. In the short term, it provides an evidence-based tool to guide countries in assessing their breastfeeding status, and their readiness to scale up. In the long term, it supports countries to identify the concrete measures they can take to sustainably increase breastfeeding rates, based on data-driven recommendations. The BBF Gear Model is made up of eight simultaneous conditions which sustain breastfeeding: the gears. This conceptual model illustrates how each gear must be sufficiently mobilised to turn the next, whilst the central Coordination gear gathers and delivers timely feedback. This report contains a set of briefings detailing the six themes and their accompanying recommendations and actions

Improving skills and care standards in the support workforce for older people: a realist synthesis of workforce development interventions

Background Support workers make up the majority of the workforce in health and social care services for older people. There is evidence to suggest that support workers are not deployed as effectively as possible, are often undervalued, and that there are gaps in understanding support worker roles across different care settings. In the context of a population that is growing older, having a skilled and knowledgeable workforce is an imperative. Workforce development includes the support required to equip those providing care to older people with the right skills, knowledge and behaviours to deliver safe and high-quality services. Objective The review answered the question ‘how can workforce development interventions improve the skills and the care standards of support workers within older people’s health and social care services?’. Design A realist synthesis was conducted. In realist synthesis, contingent relationships are expressed as context–mechanism–outcomes (CMOs), to show how particular contexts or conditions trigger mechanisms to generate outcomes. The review was conducted in four iterative stages over 18 months: (1) development of a theoretical framework and initial programme theory; (2) retrieval, review and synthesis of evidence relating to interventions designed to develop the support workforce, guided by the programme theories; (3) ‘testing out’ the synthesis findings to refine the programme theories and establish their practical relevance/potential for implementation; and (4) forming recommendations about how to improve current workforce development interventions to ensure high standards in the care of older people. Participants Twelve stakeholders were involved in workshops to inform programme theory development, and 10 managers, directors for training/development and experienced support workers were interviewed in phase 4 of the study to evaluate the findings and inform knowledge mobilisation. Results Eight CMO configurations emerged from the review process, which provide a programme theory about ‘what works’ in developing the older person’s support workforce. The findings indicate that the design and delivery of workforce development should consider and include a number of starting points. These include personal factors about the support worker, the specific requirements of workforce development and the fit with broader organisational strategy and goals. Conclusions and recommendations The review has resulted in an explanatory account of how the design and delivery of workforce development interventions work to improve the skills and care standards of support workers in older people’s health and social care services. Implications for the practice of designing and delivering older person’s support workforce development interventions are directly related to the eight CMO configuration of the programme theory. Our recommendations for future research relate both to aspects of research methods and to a number of research questions to further evaluate and explicate our programme theory. Limitations We found that reports of studies evaluating workforce development interventions tended to lack detail about the interventions that were being evaluated. We found a lack of specificity in reports about what were the perceived and actual intended impacts from the workforce development initiatives being implemented and/or evaluated. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPRERO CRD42013006283. Funding The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care

Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19: a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

Abstract Background Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/GEHFX ). Methods In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung–Knapp–Sidik–Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care