Pregnancy exposure registries for drugs and vaccines in low-income and middle-income countries: scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Data regarding the safety of drugs and vaccines in pregnant women are typically unavailable before licensure. Pregnancy exposure registries (PERs) are an important source of postmarketing safety information. PERs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) are uncommon but can provide valuable safety data regarding their distinct contexts and will become more relevant as the introduction and use of new drugs and vaccines in pregnancy increase worldwide. Strategies to support PERs in LMICs must be based on a better understanding of their current status. We developed a scoping review protocol to assess the landscape of PERs that operate in LMICs and characterise their strengths and challenges. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This scoping review protocol follows the Joanna Briggs Institute manual for scoping reviews. The search strategy will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist. We will search PubMed, Embase, CINAHL and WHO's Global Index Medicus, as well as the reference lists of retrieved full-text records, for articles published between 2000 and 2022 that describe PERs or other resources that systematically record exposures to medical products during pregnancy and maternal and infant outcomes in LMICs. Title and abstracts will be screened by two authors and data extracted using a standardised form. We will undertake a grey literature search using Google Scholar and targeted websites. We will distribute an online survey to selected experts and conduct semistructured interviews with key informants. Identified PERs will be summarised in tables and analysed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this activity, as it was determined not to involve human subjects research. Findings will be submitted to an open access peer-reviewed journal and may be presented at conferences, with underlying data and other materials made publicly available.

The impact of technology systems and level of support in digital mental health interventions: a secondary meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The majority of people with a chronic disease (e.g., diabetes, hypertension, COPD) have more than one concurrent condition and are also at higher risk for developing comorbidities in mental health, including anxiety and depression. There is an urgent need for more relevant and accurate data on digital interventions in this area to prepare for an increase demand for mental health services. The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis of the digital mental health interventions for people with comorbid physical and mental chronic diseases to compare the effect of technology systems and level of support. METHODS: This secondary meta-analysis follows a rapid review of systematic reviews, a virtual workshop with knowledge users to identify research questions and a modified Delphi study to guide research methods: What types of digital health interventions (according to a recognized categorization) are the most effective for the management of concomitant mental health and chronic disease conditions in adults? We conducted a secondary analysis of the primary studies identified in the rapid review. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts and applied inclusion criteria: RCT design using a digital mental health intervention in a population of adults with another chronic condition, published after 2010 in French or English, and including an outcome measurement of anxiety or depression. RESULTS: Seven hundred eight primary studies were extracted from the systematic reviews and 84 primary studies met the inclusion criteria Digital mental health interventions were significantly more effective than in-person care for both anxiety and depression outcomes. Online messaging was the most effective technology to improve anxiety and depression scores; however, all technology types were effective. Interventions partially supported by healthcare professionals were more effective than self-administered. CONCLUSIONS: While our meta-analysis identifies digital intervention's characteristics are associated with better effectiveness, all technologies and levels of support could be used considering implementation context and population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol for this review is registered in the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) COVID-19 Rapid Evidence Service (ID 75).

Global evidence of gender equity in academic health research: a scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research. DESIGN: Scoping review. PARTICIPANTS: Quantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Outcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support. RESULTS: Literature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Reviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

PROTOCOL: Exploring education to support vaccine confidence amongst healthcare and long-term care staff amidst the COVID-19 pandemic: A protocol for a living scoping review.

Despite the demonstrated effectiveness of vaccines, varying levels of hesitancy were observed among healthcare and long-term care workers, who were prioritized in the roll out of COVID-19 vaccines due to their high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 transmission. However, the evidence around the measurable impact of various educational interventions to improve vaccine confidence is limited. The proposed scoping review is intended to explore any emerging research and experiences of delivering educational interventions to improve COVID-19 vaccine confidence among health and long-term care workforces. We aim to identify characteristics of both informal and formal educational interventions delivered during the pandemic to support COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Using the guidance outlined by the Joanna Briggs Institute, we intend to search five databases including, Ovid MEDLINE and Web of Science, as well as grey literature. We will consider all study designs and reports in an effort to include a breadth of sources to ensure our review will capture preliminary evidence, as well as more exploratory experiences of COVID-19 vaccine education delivery. Articles will be screened by three reviewers independently and the data will be charted, and results described narratively.

Service-level barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use: protocol for a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, substance use health services for treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use (AUD/PAU) were fragmented and challenging to access. The pandemic magnified system weaknesses, often resulting in disruptions of treatment as alcohol use during the pandemic rose. When treatment services were available, utilisation was often low for various reasons. Virtual care was implemented to offset the drop in in-person care, however accessibility was not universal. Identification of the characteristics of treatment services for AUD/PAU that impact accessibility, as perceived by the individuals accessing or providing the services, will provide insights to enable improved access. We will perform a scoping review that will identify characteristics of services for treatment of AUD/PAU that have been identified as barriers to or facilitators of service access from the perspectives of these groups. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will follow scoping review methodological guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Using the OVID platform, we will search Ovid MEDLINE including Epub Ahead of Print and In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase Classic+Embase, APA PsychInfo, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL (Ebsco Platform). Multiple reviewers will screen citations. We will seek studies reporting data collected from individuals with AUD/PAU or providers of treatment for AUD/PAU on service-level factors affecting access to care. We will map barriers to and facilitators of access to AUD/PAU treatment services identified in the relevant studies, stratified by service type and key measures of inequity across service users. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This research will enhance awareness of existing evidence regarding barriers to and facilitators of access to services for the treatment of alcohol use disorder and problematic alcohol use. Findings will be disseminated through publications, conference presentations and a stakeholder meeting. As this is a scoping review of published literature, no ethics approval was required.

Risk of transmission of respiratory viruses during aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) revisited in the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In many jurisdictions healthcare workers (HCWs) are using respirators for aerosol-generating medical procedures (AGMPs) performed on adult and pediatric populations with all suspect/confirmed viral respiratory infections (VRIs). This systematic review assessed the risk of VRIs to HCWs in the presence of AGMPs, the role respirators versus medical/surgical masks have on reducing that risk, and if the risk to HCWs during AGMPs differed when caring for adult or pediatric patient populations. MAIN TEXT: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central, Cochrane SR, CINAHL, COVID-19 specific resources, and MedRxiv for English and French articles from database inception to September 9, 2021. Independent reviewers screened abstracts using pre-defined criteria, reviewed full-text articles, selected relevant studies, abstracted data, and conducted quality assessments of all studies using the ROBINS-I risk of bias tool. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Thirty-eight studies were included; 23 studies on COVID-19, 10 on SARS, and 5 on MERS/ influenza/other respiratory viruses. Two of the 16 studies which assessed associations found that HCWs were 1.7 to 2.5 times more likely to contract COVID-19 after exposure to AGMPs vs. not exposed to AGMPs. Eight studies reported statistically significant associations for nine specific AGMPs and transmission of SARS to HCWS. Intubation was consistently associated with an increased risk of SARS. HCWs were more likely (OR 2.05, 95% CI 1.2-3.4) to contract human coronaviruses when exposed to an AGMP in one study. There were no reported associations between AGMP exposure and transmission of influenza or in a single study on MERS. There was limited evidence supporting the use of a respirator over a medical/surgical mask during an AGMP to reduce the risk of viral transmission. One study described outcomes of HCWs exposed to a pediatric patient during intubation. CONCLUSION: Exposure to an AGMP may increase the risk of transmission of COVID-19, SARS, and human coronaviruses to HCWs, however the evidence base is heterogenous and prone to confounding, particularly related to COVID-19. There continues to be a significant research gap in the epidemiology of the risk of VRIs among HCWs during AGMPs, particularly for pediatric patients. Further evidence is needed regarding what constitutes an AGMP.

Models of provider care in long-term care: A rapid scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: One of the current challenges in long-term care homes (LTCH) is to identify the optimal model of care, which may include specialty physicians, nursing staff, person support workers, among others. There is currently no consensus on the complement or scope of care delivered by these providers, nor is there a repository of studies that evaluate the various models of care. We conducted a rapid scoping review to identify and map what care provider models and interventions in LTCH have been evaluated to improve quality of life, quality of care, and health outcomes of residents. METHODS: We conducted this review over 10-weeks of English language, peer-reviewed studies published from 2010 onward. Search strategies for databases (e.g., MEDLINE) were run on July 9, 2020. Studies that evaluated models of provider care (e.g., direct patient care), or interventions delivered to facility, staff, and residents of LTCH were included. Study selection was performed independently, in duplicate. Mapping was performed by two reviewers, and data were extracted by one reviewer, with partial verification by a second reviewer. RESULTS: A total of 7,574 citations were screened based on the title/abstract, 836 were reviewed at full text, and 366 studies were included. Studies were classified according to two main categories: healthcare service delivery (n = 92) and implementation strategies (n = 274). The condition/ focus of the intervention was used to further classify the interventions into subcategories. The complex nature of the interventions may have led to a study being classified in more than one category/subcategory. CONCLUSION: Many healthcare service interventions have been evaluated in the literature in the last decade. Well represented interventions (e.g., dementia care, exercise/mobility, optimal/appropriate medication) may present opportunities for future systematic reviews. Areas with less research (e.g., hearing care, vision care, foot care) have the potential to have an impact on balance, falls, subsequent acute care hospitalization.

Digital health interventions for the management of mental health in people with chronic diseases: a rapid review.

OBJECTIVE: Determine the effectiveness of digital mental health interventions for individuals with a concomitant chronic disease. DESIGN: We conducted a rapid review of systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently conducted study selection and risk of bias evaluation. A standardised extraction form was used. Data are reported narratively. INTERVENTIONS: We included systematic reviews of digital health interventions aiming to prevent, detect or manage mental health problems in individuals with a pre-existing chronic disease, including chronic mental health illnesses, published in 2010 or after. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reports on mental health outcomes (eg, anxiety symptoms and depression symptoms). RESULTS: We included 35 reviews, totalling 702 primary studies with a total sample of 50 692 participants. We structured the results in four population clusters: (1) chronic diseases, (2) cancer, (3) mental health and (4) children and youth. For populations presenting a chronic disease or cancer, health provider directed digital interventions (eg, web-based consultation, internet cognitive-behavioural therapy) are effective and safe. Further analyses are required in order to provide stronger recommendations regarding relevance for specific population (such as children and youth). Web-based interventions and email were the modes of administration that had the most reports of improvement. Virtual reality, smartphone applications and patient portal had limited reports of improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Digital technologies could be used to prevent and manage mental health problems in people living with chronic conditions, with consideration for the age group and type of technology used.