Genomic classifiers and prognosis of localized prostate cancer: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Refinement of the risk classification for localized prostate cancer is warranted to aid in clinical decision making. A systematic analysis was undertaken to evaluate the prognostic ability of three genomic classifiers, Decipher, GPS, and Prolaris, for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases and prostate cancer-specific mortality in patients with localized prostate cancer. METHODS: Data sources: MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for reports published from January 2010 to April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: prospective or retrospective studies reporting prognosis for patients with localized prostate cancer. DATA EXTRACTION: relevant data were extracted into a customized database by one researcher with a second overreading. Risk of bias was assessed using a validated tool for prognostic studies, Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS). Disagreements were resolved by consensus or by input from a third reviewer. We assessed the certainty of evidence by GRADE incorporating adaptation for prognostic studies. RESULTS: Data synthesis: a total of 39 studies (37 retrospective) involving over 10,000 patients were identified. Twenty-two assessed Decipher, 5 GPS, and 14 Prolaris. Thirty-four studies included patients who underwent prostatectomy. Based on very low to low certainty of evidence, each of the three genomic classifiers modestly improved upon the prognostic ability for biochemical recurrence, development of metastases, and prostate cancer-specific mortality compared to standard clinical risk-classification schemes. LIMITATIONS: downgrading of confidence in the evidence stemmed largely from bias due to the retrospective nature of the studies, heterogeneity in treatment received, and era in which patients were treated (i.e., prior to the 2000s). CONCLUSIONS: Genomic classifiers provide a small but consistent improvement upon the prognostic ability of clinical classification schemes, which may be helpful when treatment decisions are uncertain. However, evidence from current management-era data and of the predictive ability of these tests is needed.

Interventions to Improve Long-Term Adherence to Physical Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of physical rehabilitation interventions, supplemented with one or more adherence-enhancing components, on outcomes among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic lower back pain. DESIGN: Primary literature search from inception of each database to July 27, 2021, guided by relevant search terms and keywords to search titles and abstracts. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, and Embase. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Randomized and nonrandomized trials evaluating adherence-focused intervention components conducted in addition to an index usual care or usual care-like physical rehabilitation program among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic low back pain. Eligible studies included a comparator group of the same index physical rehabilitation intervention without the adjunctive adherence components. Included studies measured outcomes at least 3 months after the rehabilitation course. RESULTS: Of the 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 6 interventions were delivered concurrent to an index rehabilitation program and 4 were delivered sequentially. Of the 3 studies that reported a positive effect on long-term adherence, only 1 was a low risk of bias study. There is very limited evidence of a beneficial treatment effect of adjunct adherence interventions on long-term physical function, self-efficacy, or adverse events. CONCLUSION: We found inadequate evidence evaluating adherence-enhancing interventions for the specific promotion of long-term adherence to home rehabilitation programs. Future studies should consider testing interventions specifically built to target behavioral maintenance of home rehabilitation programs.

Frontline Clinician Appraisement of Research Engagement: "I feel out of touch with research".

BACKGROUND: Health services research can benefit from frontline clinician input across all stages of research, yet their key perspectives are often not meaningfully engaged. OBJECTIVE: How can we improve clinician engagement in research? DESIGN: Convenience sampling and semi-structured interviews followed by descriptive content analysis with an inductive approach, followed by group participatory listening sessions with interviewees to further contextualize findings. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one multidisciplinary clinicians from one healthcare system. KEY RESULTS: We identified two major themes: perceptions of research (how research fits within job role) and characterizing effective engagement (what works and what does not work in frontline clinician engagement). "Perceptions of Research" encompassed three subthemes: prior research experience; desired degree of engagement; and benefits to clinicians engaging in research. "Characterizing Effective Engagement" had these subthemes: engagement barriers; engagement facilitators; and impact of clinician's racial identity. CONCLUSIONS: Investing in frontline clinicians as research collaborators is beneficial to clinicians themselves, the health systems that employ them, and those for which they care. Yet, there are multiple barriers to meaningful engagement.

Videoconferencing of Movement-Based and Psychologically Informed Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Horizon Scan.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results: Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of improvement coaching: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. AIMS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). CONCLUSION: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.

Telehealth for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature support telehealth as a supplement or adjunct to in-person care for the management of chronic conditions such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Evidence is needed to support the use of telehealth as an equivalent and equitable replacement for in-person care and to assess potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to address the following question: among adults, what is the effect of synchronous telehealth (real-time response among individuals via phone or phone and video) compared with in-person care (or compared with phone, if synchronous video care) for chronic management of CHF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and T2DM on key disease-specific clinical outcomes and health care use? METHODS: We followed systematic review methodologies and searched two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We included randomized or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of synchronously delivered telehealth for relevant chronic conditions that occurred over ≥2 encounters and in which some or all in-person care was supplanted by care delivered via phone or video. We assessed the bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias (ROB) tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We described the findings narratively and did not conduct meta-analysis owing to the small number of studies and the conceptual heterogeneity of the identified interventions. RESULTS: We identified 8662 studies, and 129 (1.49%) were reviewed at the full-text stage. In total, 3.9% (5/129) of the articles were retained for data extraction, all of which (5/5, 100%) were randomized controlled trials. The CHF study (1/5, 20%) was found to have high ROB and randomized patients (n=210) to receive quarterly automated asynchronous web-based review and follow-up of telemetry data versus synchronous personal follow-up (in-person vs phone-based) for 1 year. A 3-way comparison across study arms found no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Overall, 80% (4/5) of the studies (n=466) evaluated synchronous care for patients with T2DM (ROB was judged to be low for 2, 50% of studies and high for 2, 50% of studies). In total, 20% (1/5) of the studies were adequately powered to assess the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin level between groups; however, no significant difference was found. Intervention design varied greatly from remote monitoring of blood glucose combined with video versus in-person visits to an endocrinology clinic to a brief, 3-week remote intervention to stabilize uncontrolled diabetes. No articles were identified for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSIONS: This review found few studies with a variety of designs and interventions that used telehealth as a replacement for in-person care. Future research should consider including observational studies and studies on additional highly prevalent chronic diseases.

Primary Care Engagement Among Individuals with Experiences of Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development. METHODS: We followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations. DISCUSSION: We identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Risk of Transmitting Coronavirus Disease 2019 During Nebulizer Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Rationale: There is an urgent need to understand the risk of viral transmission during nebulizer treatment of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objectives: To assess the risk of transmitting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), SARS, Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS), and influenza with administration of drugs via nebulizer. Methods: We searched multiple electronic databases, including PubMed®, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, preprint databases, and clinicaltrials.gov through December 1, 2020. Any study design in any language describing the risk of viral transmission with nebulizer treatment was eligible. Data were abstracted by one investigator and verified by a second. Results: We identified 22 articles: 1 systematic review, 7 cohort/case-control studies, 7 case series, and 7 simulation-based studies. Eight individual studies involved patients with SARS, five involved MERS, and one involved SARS-CoV-2. The seven cohort/case-control studies (four high risk of bias [ROB], three unclear ROB) found mixed results (median odds ratio 3.91, range 0.08-20.67) based on very weak data among a small number of health care workers (HCWs) with variable use of personal protective equipment (PPE). Case series had multiple potential contributors to transmission. Simulation studies found evidence for droplet dispersion after saline nebulization and measureable influenza viral particles up to 1.7 m from the source after 10 minutes of nebulization with a patient simulator. Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Conclusions: Case series raise concern of transmission risk, and simulation studies demonstrate droplet dispersion with virus recovery, but specific evidence that exposure to nebulizer treatment increases transmission of coronaviruses similar to COVID-19 is inconclusive. Tradeoffs balancing HCW safety and patient appropriateness can potentially minimize risk, including choice of delivery method for inhaled medications (e.g., nebulizer vs. metered dose inhaler) and PPE (e.g., N95 vs. surgical mask).

Implementing remote triage in large health systems: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Remote triage (RT) allows interprofessional teams (e.g., nurses and physicians) to assess patients and make clinical decisions remotely. RT use has developed widespread interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has future potential to address the needs of a rapidly aging population, improve access to care, facilitate interprofessional team care, and ensure appropriate use of resources. However, despite rapid and increasing interest in implementation of RT, there is little research concerning practices for successful implementation. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of practices that impact the implementation of RT for adults seeking clinical care advice. We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through July 2018. We included 32 studies in this review. Our review identified four themes impacting the implementation of RT: characteristics of staff who use RT, influence of RT on staff, considerations in selecting RT tools, and environmental and contextual factors impacting RT. The findings of our systemic review underscore the need for a careful consideration of (a) organizational and stakeholder buy-in before launch, (b) physical and psychological workplace environment, (c) staff training and ongoing support, and (d) optimal metrics to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. Our findings indicate that preimplementation planning, as well as evaluating RT by collecting data during and after implementation, is essential to ensuring successful implementation and continued adoption of RT in a health care system.

Risk for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis After Exposure to Newer Gadolinium Agents: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) after exposure to newer versus older gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence about NSF risk with newer versus older GBCAs across the spectrum of kidney function. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English-language references from inception to 5 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that assessed NSF occurrence after GBCA exposure. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by a second. Investigator pairs assessed risk of bias by using validated tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 32 included studies, 20 allowed for assessment of NSF risk after exposure to newer GBCAs and 12 (11 cohort studies and 1 case-control study) allowed for comparison of NSF risk between newer and older GBCAs. Among 83 291 patients exposed to newer GBCAs, no NSF cases developed (exact 95% CI, 0.0001 to 0.0258 case). Among the 12 studies (n = 118 844) that allowed risk comparison between newer and older GBCAs, 37 NSF cases developed after exposure to older GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0001 to 0.0523 case) and 4 occurred (3 confounded) after exposure to newer GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0018 to 0.0204 case). Data were scant for patients with acute kidney injury or those at risk for chronic kidney disease. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Risk of bias was high in most studies because of inadequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. CONCLUSION: Although NSF occurrence after exposure to newer GBCAs is very rare, the relatively scarce data among patients with acute kidney injury and those with risk factors for chronic kidney disease limit conclusions about safety in these populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135783).