Rapid evidence assessment on online misinformation and media literacy: final report for Ofcom

This report summarises the results of the Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA) on Online Misinformation and Media Literacy (REA), conducted from November 2020 to April 2021 and commissioned by Ofcom. The review is focused on studies that measure the effectiveness of interventions designed to tackle misinformation, both within the media literacy curriculum and in relation to technological interventions that draw on literacy principles (such as critical thinking, information evaluation and active engagement), even if they are not conducted in an educational setting. The results showed that robust evaluation of media literacy curriculum interventions is not very common. More evaluation has been done on the effectiveness of non-curricular interventions. Nonetheless, findings from both types of research provide important insights into how evidence-based, targeted approaches to dealing with misinformation by improving media literacy might be further developed, building on existing policy and industry initiatives and fostering audience empowerment and agency

Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: findings and recommendations for editorial teams

Introduction: Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision‐making, policy formulation, and evidence‐based practice. However, despite the existence of well‐established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision‐making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews. Methods: A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form.Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d). Results: One‐third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines,protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist.Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.Conclusion: Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore,there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations drawn from the study's observations, aiming to help editorial teams enhance author instructions and, consequently, potentially assisting systematic reviewers in improving the quality of their reviews

Intended and unintended outcomes after FDA pediatric antidepressant warnings: a systematic review

Since 2003, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has warned that antidepressants may be associated with suicidal thoughts and behaviors among youth. An FDA advisory in 2003 and a black-box warning in 2005 focused on children and adolescents younger than age eighteen. The FDA expanded the black-box warning in 2007 to include young adults. Both warnings were intended to increase physician monitoring of suicidal thoughts and behaviors. Our systematic review identified thirty-four studies of depression and suicide-related outcomes after these warnings; eleven of these studies met research design criteria established to reduce biases. The eleven studies examined monitoring for suicidal thoughts and behaviors, physician visits for depression, depression diagnoses, psychotherapy visits, antidepressant treatment and use, and psychotropic drug poisonings (a proxy for suicide attempts) and suicide deaths. We assessed possible spillover to adults not targeted by the warnings. The one study that measured intended physician monitoring of suicidal thoughts and behaviors did not find evidence of an increase. Multiple studies found significant unintended reductions in mental health care after the warnings. After these reductions, there were marked increases in psychotropic drug poisonings and suicide deaths. These findings support reevaluation of risks and benefits of the FDA's black-box antidepressant warnings

The impact of transport, housing, and urban development interventions on older adults' mobility: a systematic review of experimental and quasi-experimental studies

Background: Age-friendly cities and communities aim to enhance and preserve the functional abilities of older adults. This systematic review assesses the impact of interventions in transportation, housing, and urban development on the mobility of older adults. Methods: We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, PsycINFO, and SocINDEX up to July 2022 to identify studies that evaluated the impact of transportation, housing, and urban development interventions on older adults' mobility. Only randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies with control groups were included to establish a causal relationship between interventions and mobility outcomes. Findings: We included a total of 15 studies, of which six were randomised controlled trials. Included studies were conducted in high-income settings and employed diverse metrics to assess mobility outcomes. Among housing interventions, three studies examined the impact of assistive technology within home environments for frail older adults. Two of these interventions maintained functional status without improvement, while the third showed a significant decline in outcomes, with the control group faring even worse. Public transport interventions, focused on enhancing mobility through educational initiatives and policy revisions, consistently produced positive outcomes. Interventions related to driving training for older adults, including in-class and on-road assessments, demonstrated beneficial effects. Results from studies evaluating urban design interventions were more varied, with some enhancing mobility by making public spaces more accessible for older adults and others yielding mixed results following infrastructure changes. Interpretation: Interventions in the built environments of older adults, specifically targeting transportation, housing and urban development, have the potential to enhance mobility and related outcomes according to rigorously designed quantitative evaluations. Due to heterogeneity in how mobility is conceptualised in the literature, greater harmonisation in measurement of mobility would help us understand how the social and built environment contribute to maintaining and improving mobility in older adults. Funding: World Health Organization

Systematic literature review of methodologies and data sources of existing economic models across the full spectrum of Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from apparently healthy through disease progression to end of life care: a systematic review protocol

Introduction Dementia is one of the greatest health challenges the world will face in the coming decades, as it is one of the principal causes of disability and dependency among older people. Economic modelling is used widely across many health conditions to inform decisions on health and social care policy and practice. The aim of this literature review is to systematically identify, review and critically evaluate existing health economics models in dementia. We included the full spectrum of dementia, including Alzheimer’s disease (AD), from preclinical stages through to severe dementia and end of life. This review forms part of the Real world Outcomes across the Alzheimer’s Disease spectrum for better care: multimodal data Access Platform (ROADMAP) project. Methods and analysis Electronic searches were conducted in Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Economic Literature Database, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, Research Papers in Economics, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Science Citation Index, Turning Research Into Practice and Open Grey for studies published between January 2000 and the end of June 2017. Two reviewers will independently assess each study against predefined eligibility criteria. A third reviewer will resolve any disagreement. Data will be extracted using a predefined data extraction form following best practice. Study quality will be assessed using the Phillips checklist for decision analytic modelling. A narrative synthesis will be used. Ethics and dissemination The results will be made available in a scientific peer-reviewed journal paper, will be presented at relevant conferences and will also be made available through the ROADMAP project

Effective/cost effective interventions of child mental health problems in low- and middle-income countries (LAMIC): a protocol systematic review

Background: This systematic review protocol aims to examine the evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of interventions for children and adolescents with, or at risk of developing mental disorders in low- and middle-income countries (LAMICs). Methods: We will search Medline Ovid, EMBASE Ovid, PsycINFO Ovid, CINAHL, LILACS, BDENF and IBECS. We will include randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, economic modelling studies and economic evaluations. Participants are 6 to 18 year-old children and adolescents who live in a LAMIC and who present with, or are at high risk of developing, one or more of the conditions: depression, anxiety, behavioural disorders, eating disorders, psychosis, substance abuse, autism and intellectual disabilities as defined by the DSM-V. Interventions which address suicide, self-harm will also be included, if identified during the extraction process. We will include in person or e-health interventions which have some evidence of effectiveness (in relation to clinical and/or functional outcomes) and which have been delivered to young people in LAMICs. We will consider a wide range of delivery channels (e.g., in person, web-based or virtual, phone), different practitioners (healthcare practitioners, teachers, lay health care providers) and sectors (i.e., primary, secondary and tertiary health care, education, guardianship councils). In the pilot of screening procedures, 5% of all references will be screened by two reviewers. Divergences will be resolved by one expert in mental health research. Reviewers will be retrained afterwards to ensure reliability. The remaining 95% will be screened by one reviewer. Covidence web-based tool will be used to perform screening of references and full text paper, and data extraction. Results: The protocol of this systematic review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences. The results will be presented descriptively and, if possible, meta-analysis will be conducted. Ethical approval is not needed for anonymised secondary data. Conclusion: the systematic review could help health specialists and other professionals to identify evidence-based strategies to deal with child and adolescents with mental health conditions

Effectiveness of interventions for dementia in low- and middle-income countries: protocol for a systematic review, pairwise and network meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are more people living with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries. Evidence-based interventions to improve the lives of people living with dementia and their carers are needed, but a systematic mapping of methodologically robust studies in LMICs and synthesis of the effectiveness of dementia interventions in these settings is missing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review and meta-analysis will be conducted to answer the question: Which dementia interventions were shown to be effective in LMICs and how do they compare to each other? Electronic database searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, WHO Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) will be complemented by hand searching of reference lists and local knowledge of existing studies from an international network of researchers in dementia from LMICs. Studies will be eligible for inclusion if they were published between 2008 and 2018, conducted in LMICs and evaluated the effectiveness of a dementia intervention using a study design that supports causal inference of the treatment effect. We will include both randomised and non-randomised studies due to an anticipated low number of well-conducted randomised trials in LMICs and potentially greater external validity of non-randomised studies conducted in routine care settings. In addition to narrative synthesis of the interventions, feasibility of pairwise and network meta-analyses will be explored to obtain pooled effects of relative treatment effects. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Secondary analysis of published studies, therefore no ethics approval required. Planned dissemination channels include a peer-reviewed publication as well as a website, DVD and evidence summaries. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018106206