PROTOCOL: In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

Abstract This is the protocol for an evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: This EGM aims to map available evidence on the effects of in‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups in all settings

In‐person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness: An evidence and gap map

BackgroundSocial isolation and loneliness can occur in all age groups, and they are linked to increased mortality and poorer health outcomes. There is a growing body of research indicating inconsistent findings on the effectiveness of interventions aiming to alleviate social isolation and loneliness. Hence the need to facilitate the discoverability of research on these interventions.ObjectivesTo map available evidence on the effects of in-person interventions aimed at mitigating social isolation and/or loneliness across all age groups and settings.Search MethodsThe following databases were searched from inception up to 17 February 2022 with no language restrictions: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews—Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, APA PsycInfo via Ovid, CINAHL via EBSCO, EBSCO (all databases except CINAHL), Global Index Medicus, ProQuest (all databases), ProQuest ERIC, Web of Science, Korean Citation Index, Russian Science Citation Index, and SciELO Citation Index via Clarivate, and Elsevier Scopus.Selection CriteriaTitles, abstracts, and full texts of potentially eligible articles identified were screened independently by two reviewers for inclusion following the outlined eligibility criteria.Data Collection and AnalysisWe developed and pilot tested a data extraction code set in Eppi-Reviewer. Data was individually extracted and coded. We used the AMSTAR2 tool to assess the quality of reviews. However, the quality of the primary studies was not assessed.Main ResultsA total of 513 articles (421 primary studies and 92 systematic reviews) were included in this evidence and gap map which assessed the effectiveness of in-person interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness. Most (68%) of the reviews were classified as critically low quality, while less than 5% were classified as high or moderate quality. Most reviews looked at interpersonal delivery and community-based delivery interventions, especially interventions for changing cognition led by a health professional and group activities, respectively. Loneliness, wellbeing, and depression/anxiety were the most assessed outcomes. Most research was conducted in high-income countries, concentrated in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia, with none from low-income countries. Major gaps were identified in societal level and community-based delivery interventions that address policies and community structures, respectively. Less than 5% of included reviews assessed process indicators or implementation outcomes. Similar patterns of evidence and gaps were found in primary studies. All age groups were represented but more reviews and primary studies focused on older adults (≥60 years, 63%) compared to young people (≤24 years, 34%). Two thirds described how at-risk populations were identified and even fewer assessed differences in effect across equity factors for populations experiencing inequities

Effects of Anacetrapib in Patients with Atherosclerotic Vascular Disease

BACKGROUND: Patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease remain at high risk for cardiovascular events despite effective statin-based treatment of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels. The inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) by anacetrapib reduces LDL cholesterol levels and increases high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels. However, trials of other CETP inhibitors have shown neutral or adverse effects on cardiovascular outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving 30,449 adults with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive atorvastatin therapy and who had a mean LDL cholesterol level of 61 mg per deciliter (1.58 mmol per liter), a mean non-HDL cholesterol level of 92 mg per deciliter (2.38 mmol per liter), and a mean HDL cholesterol level of 40 mg per deciliter (1.03 mmol per liter). The patients were assigned to receive either 100 mg of anacetrapib once daily (15,225 patients) or matching placebo (15,224 patients). The primary outcome was the first major coronary event, a composite of coronary death, myocardial infarction, or coronary revascularization. RESULTS: During the median follow-up period of 4.1 years, the primary outcome occurred in significantly fewer patients in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (1640 of 15,225 patients [10.8%] vs. 1803 of 15,224 patients [11.8%]; rate ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85 to 0.97; P=0.004). The relative difference in risk was similar across multiple prespecified subgroups. At the trial midpoint, the mean level of HDL cholesterol was higher by 43 mg per deciliter (1.12 mmol per liter) in the anacetrapib group than in the placebo group (a relative difference of 104%), and the mean level of non-HDL cholesterol was lower by 17 mg per deciliter (0.44 mmol per liter), a relative difference of -18%. There were no significant between-group differences in the risk of death, cancer, or other serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with atherosclerotic vascular disease who were receiving intensive statin therapy, the use of anacetrapib resulted in a lower incidence of major coronary events than the use of placebo. (Funded by Merck and others; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN48678192 ; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01252953 ; and EudraCT number, 2010-023467-18 .)

Raw Data

Raw data in excel file

Interventions to increase the use of electronic health information by health care practitioners to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes

Background There is a large volume of health information available, and, if applied in clinical practice, may contribute to effective patient care. Despite an abundance of information, sub-optimal care is common. Many factors influence practitioners’ use of health information, and format (electronic or other) may be one such factor. Objectives To assess the effects of interventions aimed at improving or increasing healthcare practitioners’ use of electronic health information (EHI) on professional practice and patient outcomes. Search methods We searched The Cochrane Library (Wiley), MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCO), and LISA (EBSCO) up toNovember 2013. We contacted researchers in the field and scanned reference lists of relevant articles. Selection criteria We included studies that evaluated the effects of interventions to improve or increase the use of EHI by healthcare practitioners onprofessional practice and patient outcomes. We defined EHI as information accessed on a computer. We defined ’use’ as logging into EHI. We considered any healthcare practitioner involved in patient care. We included randomized, non-randomized, and cluster randomized controlled trials (RCTs, NRCTs, CRCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), interrupted time series (ITS), and controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs).The comparisonswere: electronic versus printed health information; EHI on different electronic devices (e.g. desktop, laptop or tablet computers, etc.; cell / mobile phones); EHI via different user interfaces; EHI provided with or without an educational or training component; and EHI compared to no other type or source of information. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias for each study. We used GRADE to assess the quality of the included studies. We reassessed previously excluded studies following our decision to define logins to EHI as a measure of professional behavior. We reported results in natural units. When possible, we calculated and reported median effect size (odds ratio (OR), interquartile ranges (IQR)). Due to high heterogeneity across studies, meta-analysis was not feasible. Main results We included two RCTs and four CRCTs involving 352 physicians, 48 residents, and 135 allied health practitioners. Overall risk of bias was low as was quality of the evidence. One comparison was supported by three studies and three comparisons were supported by single studies, but outcomes across the three studies were highly heterogeneous. We found no studies to support EHI versus no alternative. Given these factors, it was not possible to determine the relative effectiveness of interventions. All studies reported practitioner use of EHI, two reported on compliance with electronic practice guidelines, and none reported on patient outcomes. One trial (139 participants) measured guideline adherence for an electronic versus printed guideline, but reported no difference between groups (median OR 0.85, IQR 0.74 to 1.08). One small cross-over trial (10 participants) reported increased use of clinical guidelines when provided with a mobile versus stationary, desktop computer (mean use per shift: intervention group (IG) 3.6, standard deviation (SD) 1.7 vs. control group (CG) 2.0 (SD1.9), P value = 0.033). One cross-over trial (203 participants) reported that using a customized versus a generic interface had little impact on practitioners’ use of EHI (mean difference in adjusted end-of-study rate: 0.77 logins/ month/user, 95% confidence interval (CI) CI 0.43 to 1.11). Three trials included education or training and reported increased use of EHI by practitioners following training. Authors’ conclusions This review provided no evidence that the use of EHI translates into improved clinical practice or patient outcomes, though it does suggest that when practitioners are provided with EHI and education or training, the use of EHI increases. We have defined use as the activity of logging into an EHI resource, but based on our findings use does not automatically translate to the application of EHI in practice. While using EHI may be an important component of evidence-based medicine, alone it is insufficient to improve patient care or clinical practices. For EHI to be applied in patient care, it will be necessary to understand why practitioners’ are reluctant to apply EHI when treating people, and to determine the most effective way(s) to reduce this reluctance.status: publishe