Health outcomes in Deaf signing populations: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: (i) To identify peer reviewed publications reporting the mental and/or physical health outcomes of Deaf adults who are sign language users and to synthesise evidence; (ii) If data available, to analyse how the health of the adult Deaf population compares to that of the general population; (iii) to evaluate the quality of evidence in the identified publications; (iv) to identify limitations of the current evidence base and suggest directions for future research. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: The inclusion criteria were Deaf adult populations who used a signed language, all study types, including methods-focused papers which also contain results in relation to health outcomes of Deaf signing populations. Full-text articles, published in peer-review journals were searched up to 13th June 2023, published in English or a signed language such as ASL (American Sign Language). DATA EXTRACTION: Supported by the Rayyan systematic review software, two authors independently reviewed identified publications at each screening stage (primary and secondary). A third reviewer was consulted to settle any disagreements. Comprehensive data extraction included research design, study sample, methodology, findings, and a quality assessment. RESULTS: Of the 35 included studies, the majority (25 out of 35) concerned mental health outcomes. The findings from this review highlighted the inequalities in health and mental health outcomes for Deaf signing populations in comparison with the general population, gaps in the range of conditions studied in relation to Deaf people, and the poor quality of available data. CONCLUSIONS: Population sample definition and consistency of standards of reporting of health outcomes for Deaf people who use sign language should be improved. Further research on health outcomes not previously reported is needed to gain better understanding of Deaf people's state of health.

A service mapping exercise of four health and social care staff mental health and wellbeing services, Resilience Hubs, to describe health service provision and interventions.

BACKGROUND: NHS England funded 40 Mental Health and Wellbeing Hubs to support health and social care staff affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to document variations in how national guidance was adapted to the local contexts of four Hubs in the North of England. METHODS: We used a modified version of Price's (2019) service mapping methodology. Service level data were used to inform the analysis. A mapping template was adapted from a range of tools, including the European Service Mapping Schedule, and reviewed by Hub leads. Key data included service model; staffing; and interventions. Data were collected between March 2021 - March 2022 by site research assistants. Findings were accuracy-checked by Hub leads, and a logic model developed to theorise how the Hubs may effect change. RESULTS: Hub goals and service models closely reflected guidance; offering: proactive outreach; team-based support; clinical assessment; onward referral, and rapid access to mental health support (in-house and external). Implementation reflected a service context of a client group with high mental health need, and high waiting times at external mental health services. Hubs were predominantly staffed by experienced clinicians, to manage these mental health presentations and organisational working. Formulation-based psychological assessment and the provision of direct therapy were not core functions of the NHS England model, however all Hubs incorporated these adaptations into their service models in response to local contexts, such as extensive waiting lists within external services, and/or client presentations falling between gaps in existing service provision. Finally, a standalone clinical records system was seen as important to reassure Hub users of confidentiality. Other more nuanced variation depended on localised contexts. CONCLUSION: This study provides a map for setting up services, emphasising early understandings of how new services will integrate within existing systems. Local and regional contexts led to variation in service configuration. Whilst additional Hub functions are supported by available literature, further research is needed to determine whether these functions should comprise essential components of staff wellbeing services moving forward. Future research should also determine the comparative effectiveness of service components, and the limits of permissible variation. STUDY REGISTRATION: researchregistry6303.

Cost-effectiveness of home-based cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Centre-based cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recognised as cost-effective for individuals following a cardiac event. However, home-based alternatives are becoming increasingly popular, especially since COVID-19, which necessitated alternative modes of care delivery. This review aimed to assess whether home-based CR interventions are cost-effective (vs centre-based CR). METHODS: Using the MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO databases, literature searches were conducted in October 2021 to identify full economic evaluations (synthesising costs and effects). Studies were included if they focused on home-based elements of a CR programme or full home-based programmes. Data extraction and critical appraisal were completed using the NHS EED handbook, Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards and Drummond checklists and were summarised narratively. The protocol was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42021286252). RESULTS: Nine studies were included in the review. Interventions were heterogeneous in terms of delivery, components of care and duration. Most studies were economic evaluations within clinical trials (8/9). All studies reported quality-adjusted life years, with the EQ-5D as the most common measure of health status (6/9 studies). Most studies (7/9 studies) concluded that home-based CR (added to or replacing centre-based CR) was cost-effective compared with centre-based options. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence suggests that home-based CR options are cost-effective. The limited size of the evidence base and heterogeneity in methods limits external validity. There were further limitations to the evidence base (eg, limited sample sizes) that increase uncertainty. Future research is needed to cover a greater range of home-based designs, including home-based options for psychological care, with greater sample sizes and the potential to acknowledge patient heterogeneity.

Qualitative Validation of COPD Evidenced Care Pathways in Japan, Canada, England, and Germany: Common Barriers to Optimal COPD Care.

Background: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. A comprehensive and detailed understanding of COPD care pathways from pre-diagnosis to acute care is required to understand the common barriers to optimal COPD care across diverse health systems. Methods: Country-specific COPD care pathways were created for four high-income countries using international recommendations and country-specific guidelines, then populated with published epidemiological, clinical, and economic data. To refine and validate the pathways, semi-structured interviews using pre-prepared discussion guides and country-specific pathway maps were held with twenty-four primary and secondary care respiratory healthcare professionals. Thematic analysis was then performed on the interview transcripts. Results: The COPD care pathway showed broad consistency across the countries. Three key themes relating to barriers in optimal COPD management were identified across the countries: journey to diagnosis, treatment, and the impact of COVID-19. Common barriers included presentation to healthcare with advanced COPD, low COPD consideration, and sub-optimal acute and chronic disease management. COVID-19 has negatively impacted disease management across the pathway but presents opportunities to retain virtual consultations. Structural factors such as insurance and short duration of appointments also impacted the diagnosis and management of COPD. Conclusion: COPD is an important public health issue that needs urgent prioritization. The use of Evidenced Care Pathways with decision-makers can facilitate evidence-based decision making on interventions and policies to improve care and outcomes for patients and reduce unnecessary resource use and associated costs for the healthcare provider/payer.