Infographic. One small step for man, one giant leap for men's health: a meta-analysis of behaviour change interventions to increase men's physical activity.

OBJECTIVE:To determine the effects of behaviour change interventions on men's physical activity (postintervention), sustained change in physical activity behaviour (≥12 months postintervention) and to identify variations in effects due to potential moderating variables (eg, theoretical underpinning, gender-tailored, contact frequency). DESIGN:Systematic review with meta-analysis. Pooled effect size (Cohen's d) was calculated assuming a random-effects model. Homogeneity and subsequent exploratory moderator analyses were assessed using Q, T2 and I2. DATA SOURCES:Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus and Web of Science to April 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTED STUDIES:Randomised control trials of behaviour change interventions in men (≥18 years) where physical activity was an outcome and data were from men-only studies or disaggregated by sex. RESULTS:Twenty-six articles described 24 eligible studies. The overall mean intervention effect on men's physical activity was 0.35 (SE=0.05; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45; p<0.001). This effect size is consistent with an increase of approximately 97 min of total physical activity per week or 980 steps per day. Intervention moderators associated with greater increases in physical activity included objective physical activity outcome measures, a gender-tailored design, use of a theoretical framework, shorter length programmes (≤12 weeks), using four or more types of behaviour change techniques and frequent contact with participants (≥1 contact per week). 12 studies included additional follow-up assessments (≥12 months postintervention) and the overall mean effect was 0.32 (SE=0.09; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.48; p<0.001) for that sustained increase in physical activity. SUMMARY:Behaviour change interventions targeting men's physical activity can be effective. Moderator analyses are preliminary and suggest research directions

One small step for man, one giant leap for men's health: A meta-analysis of behaviour change interventions to increase men's physical activity

Objective To determine the effects of behaviour change interventions on men’s physical activity (postintervention), sustained change in physical activity behaviour (≥12 months postintervention) and to identify variations in effects due to potential moderating variables (eg, theoretical underpinning, gender-tailored, contact frequency). Design Systematic review with meta-analysis. Pooled effect size (Cohen’s d) was calculated assuming a random-effects model. Homogeneity and subsequent exploratory moderator analyses were assessed using Q, T2 and I2. Data sources Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, SportDiscus and Web of Science to April 2019. Eligibility criteria for selected studies Randomised control trials of behaviour change interventions in men (≥18 years) where physical activity was an outcome and data were from men-only studies or disaggregated by sex. Results Twenty-six articles described 24 eligible studies. The overall mean intervention effect on men’s physical activity was 0.35 (SE=0.05; 95% CI 0.26 to 0.45;

Systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury and related health conditions:A scoping review

Study design: Scoping review.Objective: To identify and provide systematic overviews of partnership principles and strategies identified from health research about spinal cord injury (SCI) and related health conditions.Methods: Four health electronic databases (Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO) were searched from inception to March 2019. We included articles that described, reflected, and/or evaluated one or more collaborative research activities in health research about SCI, stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease, amputation, cerebral palsy, spina bifida, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, acquired brain injury, or wheelchair-users. Partnership principles (i.e. norms or values) and strategies (i.e. observable actions) were extracted and analyzed using directed qualitative content analysis.Results: We included 39 articles about SCI (n = 13), stroke (n = 15), multiple sclerosis (n = 5), amputation (n = 2), cerebral palsy (n = 2), Parkinson's disease (n = 1), and wheelchair users (n = 1). We extracted 110 principles and synthesized them into 13 overarching principles. Principles related to building and maintaining relationships between researchers and research users were most frequently reported. We identified 32 strategies that could be applied at various phases of the research process and 26 strategies that were specific to a research phase (planning, conduct, or dissemination).Conclusion: We provided systematic overviews of principles and strategies for research partnerships. These could be used by researchers and research users who want to work in partnership to plan, conduct and/or disseminate their SCI research. The findings informed the development of the new SCI Integrated Knowledge Translation Guiding Principles (www.iktprinciples.com) and will support the implementation of these Principles within the SCI research system.</p

How are health research partnerships assessed? A systematic review of outcomes, impacts, terminology and the use of theories, models and frameworks

BACKGROUND: Accurate, consistent assessment of outcomes and impacts is challenging in the health research partnerships domain. Increased focus on tool quality, including conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics, could improve the quantification, measurement and reporting partnership outcomes and impacts. This cascading review was undertaken as part of a coordinated, multicentre effort to identify, synthesize and assess a vast body of health research partnership literature. OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships, relevant terminology and the type/use of theories, models and frameworks (TMF) arising from studies using partnership assessment tools with known conceptual, psychometric and pragmatic characteristics. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Plus and PsycINFO) from inception to 2 June 2021. We retained studies containing partnership evaluation tools with (1) conceptual foundations (reference to TMF), (2) empirical, quantitative psychometric evidence (evidence of validity and reliability, at minimum) and (3) one or more pragmatic characteristics. Outcomes, impacts, terminology, definitions and TMF type/use were abstracted verbatim from eligible studies using a hybrid (independent abstraction–validation) approach and synthesized using summary statistics (quantitative), inductive thematic analysis and deductive categories (qualitative). Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD). RESULTS: Application of inclusion criteria yielded 37 eligible studies. Study quality scores were high (mean 80%, standard deviation 0.11%) but revealed needed improvements (i.e. methodological, reporting, user involvement in research design). Only 14 (38%) studies reported 48 partnership outcomes and 55 impacts; most were positive effects (43, 90% and 47, 89%, respectively). Most outcomes were positive personal, functional, structural and contextual effects; most impacts were personal, functional and contextual in nature. Most terms described outcomes (39, 89%), and 30 of 44 outcomes/impacts terms were unique, but few were explicitly defined (9, 20%). Terms were complex and mixed on one or more dimensions (e.g. type, temporality, stage, perspective). Most studies made explicit use of study-related TMF (34, 92%). There were 138 unique TMF sources, and these informed tool construct type/choice and hypothesis testing in almost all cases (36, 97%). CONCLUSION: This study synthesized partnership outcomes and impacts, deconstructed term complexities and evolved our understanding of TMF use in tool development, testing and refinement studies. Renewed attention to basic concepts is necessary to advance partnership measurement and research innovation in the field. Systematic review protocol registration: PROSPERO protocol registration: CRD42021137932 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=137932. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12961-022-00938-8

A scoping review of the globally available tools for assessing health research partnership outcomes and impacts

Abstract Background Health research partnership approaches have grown in popularity over the past decade, but the systematic evaluation of their outcomes and impacts has not kept equal pace. Identifying partnership assessment tools and key partnership characteristics is needed to advance partnerships, partnership measurement, and the assessment of their outcomes and impacts through systematic study. Objective To locate and identify globally available tools for assessing the outcomes and impacts of health research partnerships. Methods We searched four electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL + , PsychINFO) with an a priori strategy from inception to June 2021, without limits. We screened studies independently and in duplicate, keeping only those involving a health research partnership and the development, use and/or assessment of tools to evaluate partnership outcomes and impacts. Reviewer disagreements were resolved by consensus. Study, tool and partnership characteristics, and emerging research questions, gaps and key recommendations were synthesized using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis. Results We screened 36 027 de-duplicated citations, reviewed 2784 papers in full text, and kept 166 studies and three companion reports. Most studies originated in North America and were published in English after 2015. Most of the 205 tools we identified were questionnaires and surveys targeting researchers, patients and public/community members. While tools were comprehensive and usable, most were designed for single use and lacked validity or reliability evidence. Challenges associated with the interchange and definition of terms (i.e., outcomes, impacts, tool type) were common and may obscure partnership measurement and comparison. Very few of the tools identified in this study overlapped with tools identified by other, similar reviews. Partnership tool development, refinement and evaluation, including tool measurement and optimization, are key areas for future tools-related research. Conclusion This large scoping review identified numerous, single-use tools that require further development and testing to improve their psychometric and scientific qualities. The review also confirmed that the health partnership research domain and its measurement tools are still nascent and actively evolving. Dedicated efforts and resources are required to better understand health research partnerships, partnership optimization and partnership measurement and evaluation using valid, reliable and practical tools that meet partners’ needs

Factors Associated with Revision Surgery after Internal Fixation of Hip Fractures

Background: Femoral neck fractures are associated with high rates of revision surgery after management with internal fixation. Using data from the Fixation using Alternative Implants for the Treatment of Hip fractures (FAITH) trial evaluating methods of internal fixation in patients with femoral neck fractures, we investigated associations between baseline and surgical factors and the need for revision surgery to promote healing, relieve pain, treat infection or improve function over 24 months postsurgery. Additionally, we investigated factors associated with (1) hardware removal and (2) implant exchange from cancellous screws (CS) or sliding hip screw (SHS) to total hip arthroplasty, hemiarthroplasty, or another internal fixation device. Methods: We identified 15 potential factors a priori that may be associated with revision surgery, 7 with hardware removal, and 14 with implant exchange. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards analyses in our investigation. Results: Factors associated with increased risk of revision surgery included: female sex, [hazard ratio (HR) 1.79, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25-2.50; P = 0.001], higher body mass index (fo

Clinical effects of Emblica officinalis fruit consumption on cardiovascular disease risk factors : a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Emblica officinalis (EO) fruit consumption has been found to have a beneficial effect on cardiovascular disease (CVD) physiological risk factors in preliminary clinical intervention trials; however, questions remain regarding the overall effectiveness of EO on CVD risk. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to: 1) systematically describe the clinical research examining EO; and 2) quantitatively assess the effects of EO on CVD physiological risk factors. Methods The Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar electronic platforms were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published until April 7, 2021. Studies were included if they involved adults (age ≥ 18 years) ingesting a form of EO fruit; included blood lipids, blood pressure, and/or inflammatory biomarkers as outcomes; had clearly defined intervention and control treatments with pre- and post-intervention data; were peer-reviewed; and were written in English. Studies were excluded if they compared EO with another risk reduction intervention without a usual care control group. RCTs were assessed for methodological quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias version 2 (ROB2) tool, qualitatively described, and quantitatively evaluated using random and fixed effect meta-analysis models. Results A total of nine RCTs (n = 535 participants) were included for review. Included studies followed parallel-group (n = 6) and crossover (n = 3) designs, with EO dosage ranging from 500 mg/day to 1500 mg/day, and treatment duration ranging from 14 to 84 days. Meta-analyses revealed EO to have a significant composite effect at lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C; Mean difference (MD) = -15.08 mg/dL [95% Confidence interval (CI) = -25.43 to -4.73], I2 = 77%, prediction interval = -48.29 to 18.13), very low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C; MD = -5.43 mg/dL [95% CI = -8.37 to -2.49], I2 = 44%), triglycerides (TG; MD = -22.35 mg/dL [95% CI = -39.71 to -4.99], I2 = 62%, prediction interval = -73.47 to 28.77), and high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP; MD = -1.70 mg/L [95% CI = -2.06 to -1.33], I2 = 0%) compared with placebo. Conclusions Due to statistical and clinical heterogeneity in the limited number of clinical trials to date, the promising effects of EO on physiologic CVD risk factors in this review should be interpreted with caution. Further research is needed to determine if EO offers an efficacious option for primary or secondary prevention of CVD as either monotherapy or adjunct to evidence-based dietary patterns and/or standard pharmacotherapy.Medicine, Faculty ofScience, Irving K. Barber Faculty of (Okanagan)Biology, Department of (Okanagan)Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, Department ofSouthern Medical Program (Okanagan)Library, UBCReviewedFacultyResearcherGraduateUnknow

Review of Reviews

This page includes all relevant supplementary documents and data related to the Review of Reviews