Manual therapy and exercise for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Manual therapy and prescribed exercises are often provided together or separately in contemporary clinical practice to treat people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both for adults with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase, and trial registries until 31 January 2024, unrestricted by language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised or quasi-randomised trials. Participants were adults with lateral elbow pain. Interventions were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both. Primary comparators were placebo or minimal or no intervention. We also included comparisons of manual therapy and prescribed exercises with either intervention alone, with or without glucocorticoid injection. Exclusions were trials testing a single application of an intervention or comparison of different types of manual therapy or prescribed exercises. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted trial characteristics and numerical data, and assessed study risk of bias and certainty of evidence using GRADE. The main comparisons were manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both compared with placebo treatment, and with minimal or no intervention. Major outcomes were pain, disability, heath-related quality of life, participant-reported treatment success, participant withdrawals, adverse events and serious adverse events. The primary endpoint was end of intervention for pain, disability, health-related quality of life and participant-reported treatment success and final time point for adverse events and withdrawals. MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-three trials (1612 participants) met our inclusion criteria (mean age ranged from 38 to 52 years, 47% female, 70% dominant arm affected). One trial (23 participants) compared manual therapy to placebo manual therapy, 12 trials (1124 participants) compared manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to minimal or no intervention, six trials (228 participants) compared manual therapy and exercise to exercise alone, one trial (60 participants) compared the addition of manual therapy to prescribed exercises and glucocorticoid injection, and four trials (177 participants) assessed the addition of manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both to glucocorticoid injection. Twenty-one trials without placebo control were susceptible to performance and detection bias as participants were not blinded to the intervention. Other biases included selection (nine trials, 39%, including two quasi-randomised), attrition (eight trials, 35%) and selective reporting (15 trials, 65%) biases. We report the results of the main comparisons. Manual therapy versus placebo manual therapy Low-certainty evidence, based upon a single trial (23 participants) and downgraded due to indirectness and imprecision, indicates manual therapy may reduce pain and elbow disability at the end of two to three weeks of treatment. Mean pain at the end of treatment was 4.1 points with placebo (0 to 10 scale) and 2.0 points with manual therapy, MD -2.1 points (95% CI -4.2 to -0.1). Mean disability was 40 points with placebo (0 to 100 scale) and 15 points with manual therapy, MD -25 points (95% CI -43 to -7). There was no follow-up beyond the end of treatment to show if these effects were sustained, and no other major outcomes were reported. Manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both versus minimal intervention Low-certainty evidence indicates manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but the effects were not sustained, and there may be little to no improvement in health-related quality of life or number of participants reporting treatment success. We downgraded the evidence due to increased risk of performance bias and detection bias across all the trials, and indirectness due to the multimodal nature of the interventions included in the trials. At four weeks to three months, mean pain was 5.10 points with minimal treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced pain by a MD of -0.53 points (95% CI -0.92 to -0.14, I2 = 43%; 12 trials, 1023 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean disability was 63.8 points with minimal or no treatment and manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both reduced disability by a MD of -5.00 points (95% CI -9.22 to -0.77, I2 = 63%; 10 trials, 732 participants). At four weeks to three months, mean quality of life was 73.04 points with minimal treatment on a 0 to 100 scale and prescribed exercises reduced quality of life by a MD of -5.58 points (95% CI -10.29 to -0.99; 2 trials, 113 participants). Treatment success was reported by 42% of participants with minimal or no treatment and 57.1% of participants with manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both, RR 1.36 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.93, I2 = 73%; 6 trials, 770 participants). We are uncertain if manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both results in more withdrawals or adverse events. There were 83/566 participant withdrawals (147 per 1000) from the minimal or no intervention group, and 77/581 (126 per 1000) from the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 0.86 (95% CI 0.66 to 1.12, I2 = 0%; 12 trials). Adverse events were mild and transient and included pain, bruising and gastrointestinal events, and no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events were reported by 19/224 (85 per 1000) in the minimal treatment group and 70/233 (313 per 1000) in the manual therapy, prescribed exercises or both groups, RR 3.69 (95% CI 0.98 to 13.97, I2 = 72%; 6 trials). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from a single trial in people with lateral elbow pain indicates that, compared with placebo, manual therapy may provide a clinically worthwhile benefit in terms of pain and disability at the end of treatment, although the 95% confidence interval also includes both an important improvement and no improvement, and the longer-term outcomes are unknown. Low-certainty evidence from 12 trials indicates that manual therapy and exercise may slightly reduce pain and disability at the end of treatment, but this may not be clinically worthwhile and these benefits are not sustained. While pain after treatment was an adverse event from manual therapy, the number of events was too small to be certain.

Medicamentos antinflamatorios no esteroideos para casos agudos de gota / Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout

Pregunta: ¿Qué es una crisis de gota aguda, y qué son los AINE? La gota surge del depósito de cristales de urato monosódico en las articulaciones y se presenta normalmente como episodios autolimitados de artritis aguda. Los AINE son medicamentos que reducen el dolor y la inflamación, pero podrían incrementar el riesgo de úlceras y sangrado gastrointestinal. Los inhibidores selectivos de la cicloxigenasa (COX-2) son un subgrupo de AINE que provocan menos úlceras estomacales. Fundamento: Fecha de investigación. El estudio es una actualización de una revisión que se publicó inicialmente en 2014 y revisada el 28 de agosto de 2020. Características del estudio y resultados clave: Esta revisión de 28 ensayos cuenta con 3.406 participantes. La mayoría eran hombres (de un 69% a un 100%) entre 44 y 66 años con casos de gota aguda que han durado menos de 48 horas. Un estudio con 30 participantes comparó placebo con un AINE, 13 estudios con 518 participantes compararon un AINE con otro, 6 estudios con 1.244 participantes comparaban AINE con inhibidores selectivos de la COX-2, 5 estudios con 772 participantes compararon glucocorticoides con AINE, 1 estudio con 225 participantes comparó inhibidores interleukina-1 con AINE, 1 estudio con 163 participantes comparó acupuntura y radiación infrarroja con AINE, y 1 estudio con 399 participantes comparó colchicina con AINE. (AU)

Arthroscopic surgery for degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis including degenerative meniscal tears).

BACKGROUND: Arthroscopic knee surgery remains a common treatment for symptomatic knee osteoarthritis, including for degenerative meniscal tears, despite guidelines strongly recommending against its use. This Cochrane Review is an update of a non-Cochrane systematic review published in 2017. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of arthroscopic surgery, including debridement, partial menisectomy or both, compared with placebo surgery or non-surgical treatment in people with degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis, degenerative meniscal tears, or both). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 16 April 2021, unrestricted by language. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), or trials using quasi-randomised methods of participant allocation, comparing arthroscopic surgery with placebo surgery or non-surgical interventions (e.g. exercise, injections, non-arthroscopic lavage/irrigation, drug therapy, and supplements and complementary therapies) in people with symptomatic degenerative knee disease (osteoarthritis or degenerative meniscal tears or both). Major outcomes were pain, function, participant-reported treatment success, knee-specific quality of life, serious adverse events, total adverse events and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary comparison was arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo surgery for outcomes that measured benefits of surgery, but we combined data from all control groups to assess harms and knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy). MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen trials (2105 participants) met our inclusion criteria. The average age of participants ranged from 46 to 65 years, and 56% of participants were women. Four trials (380 participants) compared arthroscopic surgery to placebo surgery. For the remaining trials, arthroscopic surgery was compared to exercise (eight trials, 1371 participants), a single intra-articular glucocorticoid injection (one trial, 120 participants), non-arthroscopic lavage (one trial, 34 participants), non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (one trial, 80 participants) and weekly hyaluronic acid injections for five weeks (one trial, 120 participants). The majority of trials without a placebo control were susceptible to bias: in particular, selection (56%), performance (75%), detection (75%), attrition (44%) and selective reporting (75%) biases. The placebo-controlled trials were less susceptible to bias and none were at risk of performance or detection bias. Here we limit reporting to the main comparison, arthroscopic surgery versus placebo surgery. High-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery leads to little or no difference in pain or function at three months after surgery, moderate-certainty evidence indicates there is probably little or no improvement in knee-specific quality of life three months after surgery, and low-certainty evidence indicates arthroscopic surgery may lead to little or no difference in participant-reported success at up to five years, compared with placebo surgery. Mean post-operative pain in the placebo group was 40.1 points on a 0 to 100 scale (where lower score indicates less pain) compared to 35.5 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 4.6 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.02 better to 9 better; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 309 participants). Mean post-operative function in the placebo group was 75.9 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better function) compared to 76 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 0.1 points better (95% CI 3.2 worse to 3.4 better; I2 = 0%; 3 trials, 302 participants). Mean post-operative knee-specific health-related quality of life in the placebo group was 69.7 points on a 0 to 100 rating scale (where higher score indicates better quality of life) compared with 75.3 points in the arthroscopic surgery group, a difference of 5.6 points better (95% CI 0.36 better to 10.68 better; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 188 participants). We downgraded this evidence to moderate certainty as the 95% confidence interval does not rule in or rule out a clinically important change. After surgery, 74 out of 100 people reported treatment success with placebo and 82 out of 100 people reported treatment success with arthroscopic surgery at up to five years (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.86; I2 = 53%; 3 trials, 189 participants). We downgraded this evidence to low certainty due to serious indirectness (diversity in definition and timing of outcome measurement) and serious imprecision (small number of events). We are less certain if the risk of serious or total adverse events increased with arthroscopic surgery compared to placebo or non-surgical interventions. Serious adverse events were reported in 6 out of 100 people in the control groups and 8 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy groups from eight trials (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.83; I2 = 47%; 8 trials, 1206 participants). Fifteen out of 100 people reported adverse events with control interventions, and 17 out of 100 people with surgery at up to five years (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.70; I2 = 48%; 9 trials, 1326 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to serious imprecision (small number of events) and possible reporting bias (incomplete reporting of outcome across studies). Serious adverse events included death, pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, deep vein thrombosis and deep infection. Subsequent knee surgery (replacement or high tibial osteotomy) was reported in 2 out of 100 people in the control groups and 4 out of 100 people in the arthroscopy surgery groups at up to five years in four trials (RR 2.63, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.34; I2 = 11%; 4 trials, 864 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low, downgraded twice due to the small number of events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Arthroscopic surgery provides little or no clinically important benefit in pain or function, probably does not provide clinically important benefits in knee-specific quality of life, and may not improve treatment success compared with a placebo procedure. It may lead to little or no difference, or a slight increase, in serious and total adverse events compared to control, but the evidence is of low certainty. Whether or not arthroscopic surgery results in slightly more subsequent knee surgery (replacement or osteotomy) compared to control remains unresolved.

Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for acute gout.

BACKGROUND: Gout is an inflammatory arthritis resulting from the deposition of monosodium urate crystals in and around joints. Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are commonly used to treat acute gout. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (including cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs)) for acute gout. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Embase for studies to 28 August 2020. We applied no date or language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing NSAIDs with placebo or another therapy for acute gout. Major outcomes were pain, inflammation, function, participant-reported global assessment, quality of life, withdrawals due to adverse events, and total adverse events. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this update 28 trials (3406 participants), including 5 new trials. One trial (30 participants) compared NSAIDs to placebo, 6 (1244 participants) compared non-selective NSAIDs to selective cyclo-oxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors (COXIBs), 5 (712 participants) compared NSAIDs to glucocorticoids, 13 compared one NSAID to another NSAID (633 participants), and single trials compared NSAIDs to rilonacept (225 participants), acupuncture (163 participants), and colchicine (399 participants). Most trials were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases. We report numerical data for the primary comparison NSAIDs versus placebo and brief results for the two comparisons - NSAIDs versus COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDs versus glucocorticoids. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) from 1 trial (30 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to placebo. More participants (11/15) may have a 50% reduction in pain at 24 hours with NSAIDs than with placebo (4/15) (risk ratio (RR) 2.7, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 6.7), with absolute improvement of 47% (3.5% more to 152.5% more). NSAIDs may have little to no effect on inflammation (swelling) after four days (13/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 12/15 participants taking placebo; RR 1.1, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.5), with absolute improvement of 6.4% (16.8% fewer to 39.2% more). There may be little to no difference in function (4-point scale; 1 = complete resolution) at 24 hours (4/15 participants taking NSAIDs versus 1/15 participants taking placebo; RR 4.0, 95% CI 0.5 to 31.7), with absolute improvement of 20% (3.3% fewer to 204.9% more). NSAIDs may result in little to no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events (0 events in both groups) or in total adverse events; two adverse events (nausea and polyuria) were reported in the placebo group (RR 0.2, 95% CI 0.0, 3.8), with absolute difference of 10.7% more (13.2% fewer to 38% more). Treatment success and health-related quality of life were not measured. Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) from 6 trials (1244 participants) shows non-selective NSAIDs compared to selective COX-2 inhibitors (COXIBs). Non-selective NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (mean difference (MD) 0.03, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.14 higher), swelling (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.07 lower to 0.22 higher), treatment success (MD 0.08, 95% CI 0.04 lower to 0.2 higher), or quality of life (MD -0.2, 95% CI -6.7 to 6.3) compared to COXIBs. Low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests no difference in function (MD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.25) between groups. Non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 2.3, 95% CI 1.3 to 4.1) and total adverse events (mainly gastrointestinal) (RR 1.9, 95% CI 1.4 to 2.8). Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) based on 5 trials (712 participants) shows NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids. NSAIDs probably result in little to no difference in pain (MD 0.1, 95% CI -2.7 to 3.0), inflammation (MD 0.3, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.6), function (MD -0.2, 95% CI -2.2 to 1.8), or treatment success (RR 0.9, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.2). There was no difference in withdrawals due to adverse events with NSAIDs compared to glucocorticoids (RR 2.8, 95% CI 0.5 to 14.2). There was a decrease in total adverse events with glucocorticoids compared to NSAIDs (RR 1.6, 95% CI 1.0 to 2.5). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence from 1 placebo-controlled trial suggests that NSAIDs may improve pain at 24 hours and may have little to no effect on function, inflammation, or adverse events for treatment of acute gout. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that COXIBs and non-selective NSAIDs are probably equally beneficial with regards to improvement in pain, function, inflammation, and treatment success, although non-selective NSAIDs probably increase withdrawals due to adverse events and total adverse events. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that systemic glucocorticoids and NSAIDs probably are equally beneficial in terms of pain relief, improvement in function, and treatment success. Withdrawals due to adverse events were also similar between groups, but NSAIDs probably result in more total adverse events. Low-certainty evidence suggests no difference in inflammation between groups. Only low-certainty evidence was available for the comparisons NSAID versus rilonacept and NSAID versus acupuncture from single trials, or one NSAID versus another NSAID, which also included many NSAIDs that are no longer in clinical use. Although these data were insufficient to support firm conclusions, they do not conflict with clinical guideline recommendations based upon evidence from observational studies, findings for other inflammatory arthritis, and expert consensus, all of which support the use of NSAIDs for acute gout.

Autologous blood and platelet-rich plasma injection therapy for lateral elbow pain.

BACKGROUND: Autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections are commonly used to treat lateral elbow pain (also known as tennis elbow or lateral epicondylitis or epicondylalgia). Based on animal models and observational studies, these injections may modulate tendon injury healing, but randomised controlled trials have reported inconsistent results regarding benefit for people with lateral elbow pain. OBJECTIVES: To review current evidence on the benefit and safety of autologous whole blood or platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injection for treatment of people with lateral elbow pain. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase for published trials, and Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) search portal for ongoing trials, on 18 September 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs comparing autologous whole blood or PRP injection therapy to another therapy (placebo or active treatment, including non-pharmacological therapies, and comparison between PRP and autologous blood) for lateral elbow pain. The primary comparison was PRP versus placebo. Major outcomes were pain relief (≥ 30% or ≥ 50%), mean pain, mean function, treatment success, quality of life, withdrawal due to adverse events, and adverse events; the primary time point was three months. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 studies with 2337 participants; 56% of participants were female, mean age varied between 36 and 53 years, and mean duration of symptoms ranged from 1 to 22 months. Seven trials had three intervention arms. Ten trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to placebo injection (primary comparison). Fifteen trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection to glucocorticoid injection. Four studies compared autologous blood to PRP. Two trials compared autologous blood or PRP injection plus tennis elbow strap and exercise versus tennis elbow strap and exercise alone. Two trials compared PRP injection to surgery, and one trial compared PRP injection and dry needling to dry needling alone. Other comparisons include autologous blood versus extracorporeal shock wave therapy; PRP versus arthroscopic surgery; PRP versus laser; and autologous blood versus polidocanol. Most studies were at risk of selection, performance, and detection biases, mainly due to inadequate allocation concealment and lack of participant blinding. We found moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) to show that autologous blood or PRP injection probably does not provide clinically significant improvement in pain or function compared with placebo injection at three months. Further, low-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias and imprecision) suggests that PRP may not increase risk for adverse events. We are uncertain whether autologous blood or PRP injection improves treatment success (downgraded for bias, imprecision, and indirectness) or withdrawals due to adverse events (downgraded for bias and twice for imprecision). No studies measured health-related quality of life, and no studies reported pain relief (> 30% or 50%) at three months. At three months, mean pain was 3.7 points (0 to 10; 0 is best) with placebo and 0.16 points better (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 better to 0.29 worse; 8 studies, 523 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute improvement of 1.6% better (6% better to 3% worse). At three months, mean function was 27.5 points (0 to 100; 0 is best) with placebo and 1.86 points better (95% CI 4.9 better to 1.25 worse; 8 studies, 502 participants) with autologous blood or PRP injection, for absolute benefit of 1.9% (5% better to 1% worse), and treatment success was 121 out of 185 (65%) with placebo versus 125 out of 187 (67%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (risk ratio (RR) 1.00; 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 4 studies, 372 participants), for absolute improvement of 0% (11.1% lower to 12.4% higher). Regarding harm, we found very low-certainty evidence to suggest that we are uncertain whether withdrawal rates due to adverse events differed. Low-certainty evidence suggests that autologous blood or PRP injection may not increase adverse events compared with placebo injection. Withdrawal due to adverse events occurred in 3 out of 39 (8%) participants treated with placebo versus 1 out of 41 (2%) treated with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 0.32, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.92; 1 study), for an absolute difference of 5.2% fewer (7.5% fewer to 14.8% more). Adverse event rates were 35 out of 208 (17%) with placebo versus 41 out of 217 (19%) with autologous blood or PRP injection (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.72; 5 studies; 425 participants), for an absolute difference of 2.4% more (4% fewer to 12% more). At six and twelve months, no clinically important benefit for mean pain or function was observed with autologous blood or PRP injection compared with placebo injection. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data in this review do not support the use of autologous blood or PRP injection for treatment of lateral elbow pain. These injections probably provide little or no clinically important benefit for pain or function (moderate-certainty evidence), and it is uncertain (very low-certainty evidence) whether they improve treatment success and pain relief > 50%, or increase withdrawal due to adverse events. Although risk for harm may not be increased compared with placebo injection (low-certainty evidence), injection therapies cause pain and carry a small risk of infection. With no evidence of benefit, the costs and risks are not justified.

Identifying alternative models of healthcare service delivery to inform health system improvement: scoping review of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE: To describe available evidence from systematic reviews of alternative healthcare delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries to inform decisions about healthcare system improvement. DESIGN: Scoping review of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: Systematic reviews of interventions indexed in Pretty Darn Quick-Evidence. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: All English language systematic reviews evaluating the effects of alternative delivery arrangements relevant to high-income countries, published between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2017. Eligible reviews had to summarise evidence on at least one of the following outcomes: patient outcomes, quality of care, access and/or use of healthcare services, resource use, impacts on equity and/or social outcomes, healthcare provider outcomes or adverse effects. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Journal, publication year, number and design of primary studies, populations/health conditions represented and types of outcomes were extracted. RESULTS: Of 829 retrieved records, 531 reviews fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Almost all (93%) reviews reported on patient outcomes, while only about one-third included resource use as an outcome of interest. Just over a third (n=189, 36%) of reviews focused on alternative information and communications technology interventions (including 162 reviews on telehealth). About one-quarter (n=122, 23%) of reviews focused on alternative care coordination interventions. 15% (n=80) of reviews examined interventions involving changes to who provides care and how the healthcare workforce is managed. Few reviews investigated the effects of interventions involving changes to how and when care is delivered (n=47, 9%) or interventions addressing a goal-focused question (n=38, 7%). CONCLUSION: A substantial body of evidence about the effects of a wide range of delivery arrangements is available to inform health system improvements. The lack of economic evaluations in the majority of systematic reviews of delivery arrangements means that the value of many of these models is unknown. This scoping review identifies evidence gaps that would be usefully addressed by future research.

Alternative service models for delivery of healthcare services in high-income countries: a scoping review of systematic reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Costs associated with the delivery of healthcare services are growing at an unsustainable rate. There is a need for health systems and healthcare providers to consider the economic impacts of the service models they deliver and to determine if alternative models may lead to improved efficiencies without compromising quality of care. The aim of this protocol is to describe a scoping review of the extent, range and nature of available synthesised research on alternative delivery arrangements for health systems relevant to high-income countries published in the last 5 years. DESIGN: We will perform a scoping review of systematic reviews of trials and economic studies of alternative delivery arrangements for health systems relevant to high-income countries published on 'Pretty Darn Quick' (PDQ)-Evidence between 1 January 2012 and 20 September 2017. All English language systematic reviews will be included. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy of health system interventions will be used to categorise delivery arrangements according to: how and when care is delivered, where care is provided and changes to the healthcare environment, who provides care and how the healthcare workforce is managed, co-ordination of care and management of care processes and information and communication technology systems. This work is part of a 5-year Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability aiming to investigate and create interventions to improve health-system-performance sustainability. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No primary data will be collected, so ethical approval is not required. The study findings will be published and presented at relevant conferences.

Scoping review of priority setting of research topics for musculoskeletal conditions.

OBJECTIVE: Describe research methods used in priority-setting exercises for musculoskeletal conditions and synthesise the priorities identified. DESIGN: Scoping review. SETTING AND POPULATION: Studies that elicited the research priorities of patients/consumers, clinicians, researchers, policy-makers and/or funders for any musculoskeletal condition were included. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception to November 2017 and the James Lind Alliance top 10 priorities, Cochrane Priority Setting Methods Group, and Cochrane Musculoskeletal and Back Groups review priority lists. The reported methods and research topics/questions identified were extracted, and a descriptive synthesis conducted. RESULTS: Forty-nine articles fulfilled our inclusion criteria. Methodologies and stakeholders varied widely (26 included a mix of clinicians, consumers and others, 16 included only clinicians, 6 included only consumers or patients and in 1 participants were unclear). Only two (4%) reported any explicit inclusion criteria for priorities. We identified 294 broad research priorities from 37 articles and 246 specific research questions from 17 articles, although only four (24%) of the latter listed questions in an actionable format. Research priorities for osteoarthritis were identified most often (n=7), followed by rheumatoid arthritis (n=4), osteoporosis (n=4) and back pain (n=4). Nearly half of both broad and specific research priorities were focused on treatment interventions (n=116 and 111, respectively), while few were economic (n=8, 2.7% broad and n=1, 0.4% specific), implementation (n=6, 2% broad and n=4, 1.6% specific) or health services and systems research (n=15, 5.1% broad and n=9, 3.7% specific) priorities. CONCLUSIONS: While many research priority-setting studies in the musculoskeletal field have been performed, methodological limitations and lack of actionable research questions limit their usefulness. Future studies should ensure they conform to good priority-setting practice to ensure that the generated priorities are of maximum value. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42017059250.

Barriers and facilitators to childhood obesity prevention among culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) communities in Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Childhood obesity is rising among culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) groups who show poor engagement in obesity prevention initiatives. We examined the barriers and facilitators to the engagement of CALD communities in obesity prevention initiatives. METHODS: We used the nominal group technique to collect data from 39 participants from Vietnamese, Burmese, African, Afghani and Indian origins living in disadvantaged areas of Victoria, Australia. Data analysis revealed ranked priorities for barriers and facilitators for CALD community engagement in obesity prevention initiatives. RESULTS: CALD parents identified key barriers as being: competing priorities in the post-migration settlement phase; language, cultural and program accessibility barriers; low levels of food and health literacy; junk food advertisement targeting children; and lack of mandatory weight checks for schoolchildren. Key facilitators emerged as: bicultural playgroup leaders; ethnic community groups; and school-based healthy lunch box initiatives. CONCLUSION: This study has identified several policy recommendations including: the implementation of robust food taxation policies; consistent control of food advertising targeting children; improving CALD health literacy using bicultural workers; and matching health promotional materials with CALD community literacy levels. Implications for Public Health: These recommendations can directly influence public health policy to improve the engagement of CALD communities in obesity prevention services and ultimately reduce the widening obesity disparities in Australia.

Readiness of communities to engage with childhood obesity prevention initiatives in disadvantaged areas of Victoria, Australia.

Objective Disadvantaged communities bear a disproportionate burden of childhood obesity and show low participation in childhood obesity prevention initiatives. This study aims to examine the level of readiness of disadvantaged communities to engage with childhood obesity prevention initiatives. Methods Using the community readiness model, 95 semi-structured interviews were conducted among communities in four disadvantaged areas of Victoria, Australia. Community readiness analysis and paired t-tests were performed to assess the readiness levels of disadvantaged communities to engage with childhood obesity prevention initiatives. Results The results showed that disadvantaged communities demonstrated low levels of readiness (readiness score=4/9, 44%) to engage with the existing childhood obesity prevention initiatives, lacked knowledge of childhood obesity and its prevention, and reported facing challenges in initiating and sustaining participation in obesity prevention initiatives. Conclusion This study highlights the need to improve community readiness by addressing low obesity-related literacy levels among disadvantaged communities and by facilitating the capacity-building of bicultural workers to deliver obesity prevention messages to these communities. Integrating these needs into existing Australian health policy and practice is of paramount importance for reducing obesity-related disparities currently prevailing in Australia. What is known about the topic? Childhood obesity prevalence is plateauing in developed countries including Australia; however, obesity-related inequalities continue to exist in Australia especially among communities living in disadvantaged areas, which experience poor engagement in childhood obesity prevention initiatives. Studies in the USA have found that assessing disadvantaged communities' readiness to participate in health programs is a critical initial step in reducing the disproportionate obesity burden among these communities. However, no studies in Australia have assessed disadvantaged communities' readiness to engage in obesity prevention initiatives. What does this paper add? This paper addresses the current gap in the knowledge of disadvantaged communities' level of readiness to engage in childhood obesity prevention initiatives in Australia. The study also identified the key factors responsible for low readiness of disadvantaged communities to participate in current childhood obesity prevention services. By using the Community Readiness model this study shows the readiness levels specific to the various dimensions of the model; Understanding dimension-specific readiness allows us to identify strategies that are tailored to each dimension, as guided by the model. What are the implications for practitioners? With the increasing burden of childhood obesity on disadvantaged communities, policymakers and health practitioners are facing a crisis in obesity prevention and management. Almost every year, new interventions are being planned and implemented. However if the target communities are not ready to participate in the available interventions these efforts are futile. This study exposes the key factors responsible for low readiness to participate in current obesity prevention services by disadvantaged communities. Addressing these key factors and improving readiness before designing new interventions will improve the participation of disadvantaged communities in those interventions. The study findings ultimately have the potential of reducing obesity-related disparities in Australia.

Exploring Service Providers' Perspectives in Improving Childhood Obesity Prevention among CALD Communities in Victoria, Australia.

BACKGROUND: Childhood obesity rates have been increasing disproportionately among disadvantaged communities including culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) migrant groups in Australia due to their poor participation in the available obesity prevention initiatives. We sought to explore service providers' perceptions of the key factors influencing the participation of CALD communities in the existing obesity prevention services and the service requirements needed to improve CALD communities' participation in these services. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study using focus group discussions involving fifty-nine service providers from a range of services, who are involved in the health and wellbeing of children from CALD groups living in four socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in Victoria, Australia. RESULTS: Thematic analysis of the data showed three major themes including community-level barriers to CALD engagement in childhood obesity prevention services; service-level barriers to the delivery of these services; and proposed changes to current childhood obesity prevention approaches. Integrating obesity prevention messages within existing programs, better coordination between prevention and treatment services and the establishment of a childhood obesity surveillance system, were some of the important changes suggested by service providers. CONCLUSION: This study has found that low CALD health literacy, lack of knowledge of cultural barriers among service providers and co-existing deficiencies in the structure and delivery of obesity prevention services negatively impacted the participation of CALD communities in obesity prevention services. Cultural competency training of service providers would improve their understanding of the cultural influences of childhood obesity and incorporate them into the design and development of obesity prevention initiatives. Service providers need to be educated on the pre-migratory health service experiences and health conditions of CALD communities to ensure equitable delivery of care. Collaborative approaches between health systems, immigrant services, early years' services and community health services are urgently needed to address obesity-related disparities in Australia.

Addressing migration-related social and health inequalities in Australia: call for research funding priorities to recognise the needs of migrant populations.

OBJECTIVE: Migrants constitute 26% of the total Australian population and, although disproportionately affected by chronic diseases, they are under-represented in health research. The aim of the present study was to describe trends in Australian Research Council (ARC)- and National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)-funded initiatives from 2002 to 2011 with a key focus on migration-related research funding. METHODS: Data on all NHMRC- and ARC-funded initiatives between 2002 and 2011 were collected from the research funding statistics and national competitive grants program data systems, respectively. The research funding expenditures within these two schemes were categorised into two major groups: (1) people focused (migrant-related and mainstream-related); and (2) basic science focused. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise the data and report the trends in NHMRC and ARC funding over the 10-year period. RESULTS: Over 10 years, the ARC funded 15 354 initiatives worth A$5.5 billion, with 897 (5.8%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$254.4 million. Migrant-related research constituted 7.8% of all people-focused research. The NHMRC funded 12399 initiatives worth A$5.6 billion, with 447 (3.6%) people-focused projects funded, worth A$207.2 million. Migrant-related research accounted for 6.2% of all people-focused initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: Although migrant groups are disproportionately affected by social and health inequalities, the findings of the present study show that migrant-related research is inadequately funded compared with mainstream-related research. Unless equitable research funding is achieved, it will be impossible to build a strong evidence base for planning effective measures to reduce these inequalities among migrants.

Systematic review of empowerment measures in health promotion.

Empowerment, a multi-level construct comprising individual, community and organizational domains, is a fundamental value and goal in health promotion. While a range of scales have been developed for the measurement of empowerment, the qualities of these have not been rigorously assessed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the measurement properties of quantitative empowerment scales and their applicability in health promotion programs. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines was done to evaluate empowerment scales across three dimensions: item development, reliability and validity. This was followed by assessment of measurement properties using a ratings scale with criteria addressing an a priori explicit theoretical framework, assessment of content validity, internal consistency and factor analysis to test structural validity. Of the 20 studies included in this review, only 8 (40%) used literature reviews, expert panels and empirical studies to develop scale items and 9 (45%) of studies fulfilled ≥5 criteria on the ratings scale. Two studies (10%) measured community empowerment and one study measured organizational empowerment, the rest (85%) measured individual empowerment. This review highlights important gaps in the measurement of community and organizational domains of empowerment using quantitative scales. A priority for future empowerment research is to investigate and explore approaches such as mixed methods to enable adequate measurement of empowerment across all three domains. This would help health promotion practitioners to effectively measure empowerment as a driver of change and an outcome in health promotion programs.

Exploring the role of community engagement in improving the health of disadvantaged populations: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although community engagement (CE) is widely used in health promotion, components of CE models associated with improved health are poorly understood. This study aimed to examine the magnitude of the impact of CE on health and health inequalities among disadvantaged populations, which methodological approaches maximise the effectiveness of CE, and components of CE that are acceptable, feasible, and effective when used among disadvantaged populations. DESIGN: The systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We carried out methodological assessments of the included studies using rating scales. The analysis focussed on model synthesis to identify the key CE components linked to positive study outcomes and comparative analysis between positive study outcomes, processes, and quality indicators of CE. RESULTS: Out of 24 studies that met our inclusion criteria, 21 (87.5%) had positively impacted health behaviours, public health planning, health service access, health literacy, and a range of health outcomes. More than half of the studies (58%) were of good quality, whereas 71% and 42% of studies showed good community involvement in research and achieved high levels of CE, respectively. Key CE components that affected health outcomes included real power-sharing, collaborative partnerships, bidirectional learning, incorporating the voice and agency of beneficiary communities in research protocol, and using bicultural health workers for intervention delivery. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that CE models can lead to improved health and health behaviours among disadvantaged populations if designed properly and implemented through effective community consultation and participation. We also found several gaps in the current measurement of CE in health intervention studies, which suggests the importance of developing innovative approaches to measure CE impact on health outcomes in a more rigorous way.

Long-term efficacy of a tele-health intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients with depression: 12-month results of the MoodCare randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common after a cardiac event; however it often remains untreated. Previously, we reported the efficacy and feasibility of a 6-month tele-health programme (MoodCare), which integrates depression management into a cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction programme for Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) patients with low mood. Here, we evaluate the long-term efficacy of the programme at 12-month follow-up. DESIGN: A two-arm, parallel, randomized design to compare the long-term effects of 'MoodCare' (n = 61) to usual care (UC) (n = 60) at 12 months. METHOD: 121 ACS patients recruited from six hospitals in Victoria and Brisbane, Australia were randomized to a telephone-delivered cognitive behavioural therapy and risk-reduction programme or usual medical care. Mixed-model repeated measurements (MMRM) analysis was applied with results expressed as estimated marginal mean changes in depression and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) outcomes by group. RESULTS: After 12 months, treatment effects were observed for those with major depressive disorder (MDD) for PHQ-9 depression (MoodCare: mean score: 6.5; 95% CI: 4.9-8.0 versus UC: 9.3; 95% CI: 7.7-10.9, p = 0.012)) and SF-12 mental health scores (MoodCare: 42.5; 95% CI: 39.8-45.2 versus UC: 36.8; 95% CI: 34.1-39.6, p = 0.005). No beneficial treatment effects were observed in those with no MDD at baseline. CONCLUSION: After 12 months, MoodCare was superior to UC for improving mental health outcomes for those with a clinical diagnosis of major depression. Our findings support the implementation of depression-based interventions for cardiac patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression and provide evidence of longer term efficacy to one year.

The influence of family functioning on the consumption of unhealthy foods and beverages among 1- to 12-y-old children in Victoria, Australia.

OBJECTIVE: Family functioning, which reflects how well family members communicate and interact with each other, is associated with childhood overweight and obesity, but its association with children's eating behaviors remains unclear. The aim of this study was to examine the association between family functioning and unhealthy food and beverage consumption among children ages 1 to 12 y old. METHODS: As part of the Victorian Child Health and Wellbeing study, a random sample of 4602 caregivers of children completed an interview during a single telephone interview in 2006. Caregivers reported on their child's consumption of three types of unhealthy foods and beverages, and responses were recoded into weekly consumption of potato crisps and chips, monthly consumption of takeaway foods, and daily consumption of sweet beverages. Family functioning included general functioning (α = 0.89) and parental psychological distress (α = 0.78). RESULTS: Consumption of potato crisps and chips occurred, on average, twice a week, while takeaway foods were consumed an average of three times per month. Consistently and controlling for other covariates, male caregivers had children who consumed takeaway foods more frequently and who drank more daily cups of sweet beverages. Caregiver education and living in a single-parent household were consistently associated with poorer eating habits. In all models, general family functioning and parental psychological distress were associated with poorer eating habits. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to traditional methods for improving diet, family-based interventions need to target more general aspects of the family's and caregiver's functioning to improve dietary intake.

Efficacy and feasibility of a tele-health intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients with depression: results of the "MoodCare" randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Depression is common after a cardiac event, yet there remain few approaches to management that are both effective and scalable. PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the 6-month efficacy and feasibility of a tele-health program (MoodCare) that integrates depression management into a cardiovascular disease risk reduction program for acute coronary syndrome patients with low mood. METHODS: A two-arm, parallel, randomized design was used comprising 121 patients admitted to one of six hospitals for acute coronary syndrome. RESULTS: Significant treatment effects were observed for Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ9) depression (mean difference [change] = -1.8; p = 0.025; effect size: d = 0.36) for the overall sample, when compared with usual medical care. Results were more pronounced effects for those with a history of depression (mean difference [change] = -2.7; p = 0.043; effect size: d = 0.65). CONCLUSIONS: MoodCare was effective for improving depression in acute coronary syndrome patients, producing effect sizes exceeding those of some face-to-face psychotherapeutic interventions and pharmacotherapy. ( TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN1260900038623.).

Evaluating the impact of depression, anxiety & autonomic function on health related quality of life, vocational functioning and health care utilisation in acute coronary syndrome patients: the ADVENT study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Depression and anxiety are highly prevalent and co-morbid in acute coronary syndrome patients. Somatic and cognitive subtypes of depression and anxiety in acute coronary syndrome have been shown to be associated with mortality although their association with patient outcomes is unknown, as are the mechanisms that underpin these associations. We are conducting a prospective cohort study which aims to examine in acute coronary syndrome patients: (1) the role of somatic subtypes of depression and anxiety as predictors of health related quality of life outcomes; (2) how somatic subtypes of depression and anxiety relate to long term vocational functioning and healthcare utilisation; and (3) the role of the autonomic nervous system assessed by heart rate variability as a moderator of these associations. METHODS: Patients are being screened after index admission for acute coronary syndrome at a single, high volume centre, MonashHeart, Monash Health, Victoria, Australia. The inclusion criterion is all patients aged > 21 years old and fluent in English admitted to MonashHeart, Monash Health with a diagnosis of acute coronary syndrome. The primary outcome is mean health related quality of life (Short Form-36) Physical and Mental Health Summary scores at 12 and 24 months in subtypes with somatic symptoms of depression and anxiety. Depressive domains are assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory II and the Cardiac Depression Scale. Anxiety is measured using the Speilberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Crown Crisp Phobic Anxiety questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include clinical variables, healthcare service utilisation and vocational functioning. DISCUSSION: This manuscript presents the protocol for a prospective cohort study which will investigate the role of somatic subtypes of depression and anxiety as predictors of health related quality of life, long-term vocational functioning and health service use, and the role of the autonomic nervous system in moderating these associations. Findings from the study have the potential to inform more effective pharmacological, psychological and behavioural interventions and better guide health policy on the use of health care resources.

Urbanisation, urbanicity, and health: a systematic review of the reliability and validity of urbanicity scales.

BACKGROUND: Despite a plethora of studies examining the effect of increased urbanisation on health, no single study has systematically examined the measurement properties of scales used to measure urbanicity. It is critical to distinguish findings from studies that use surrogate measures of urbanicity (e.g. population density) from those that use measures rigorously tested for reliability and validity. The purpose of this study was to assess the measurement reliability and validity of the available urbanicity scales and identify areas where more research is needed to facilitate the development of a standardised measure of urbanicity. METHODS: Databases searched were MEDLINE with Full Text, CINAHL with Full Text, and PsycINFO (EBSCOhost) as well as Embase (Ovid) covering the period from January 1970 to April 2012. Studies included in this systematic review were those that focused on the development of an urbanicity scale with clearly defined items or the adoption of an existing scale, included at least one outcome measure related to health, published in peer-reviewed journals, the full text was available in English and tested for validity and reliability. RESULTS: Eleven studies met our inclusion criteria which were conducted in Sri Lanka, Austria, China, Nigeria, India and Philippines. They ranged in size from 3327 to 33,404 participants. The number of scale items ranged from 7 to 12 items in 5 studies. One study measured urban area socioeconomic disadvantage instead of urbanicity. The emerging evidence is that increased urbanisation is associated with deleterious health outcomes. It is possible that increased urbanisation is also associated with access and utilisation of health services. However, urbanicity measures differed across studies, and the reliability and validity properties of the used scales were not well established. CONCLUSION: There is an urgent need for studies to standardise measures of urbanicity. Longitudinal cohort studies to confirm the relationship between increased urbanisation and health outcomes are urgently needed.