Cannabis Use in Pregnancy and Neonatal Outcomes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Objective: To determine whether prenatal cannabis use alone increases the likelihood of fetal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Study Design: We searched bibliographic databases, such as PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane reviews, PsycInfo, MEDLINE, Clinicaltrials.gov, and Google Scholar from inception through February 14, 2022. Cohort or case-control studies with prespecified fetal or neonatal outcomes in pregnancies with prenatal cannabis use. Primary outcomes were preterm birth (PTB; <37 weeks of gestation), small-for-gestational-age (SGA), birthweight (grams), and perinatal mortality. Two independent reviewers screened studies. Studies were extracted by one reviewer and confirmed by a second using a predefined template. Risk of bias assessment of studies, using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation for evaluating the certainty of evidence for select outcomes were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by a third. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted, using adjusted and unadjusted effect estimates, to compare groups according to prenatal exposure to cannabis use status. Results: Fifty-three studies were included. Except for birthweight, unadjusted and adjusted meta-analyses had similar results. We found very-low- to low-certainty evidence that cannabis use during pregnancy was significantly associated with greater odds of PTB (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.42; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.19 to 1.69; I2, 93%; p=0.0001), SGA (aOR, 1.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.05; I2, 86%; p<0.0001), and perinatal mortality (aOR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.62; I2, 0%; p<0.0001), but not significantly different for birthweight (mean difference, -40.69 g; 95% CI, -124.22 to 42.83; I2, 85%; p=0.29). Because of substantial heterogeneity, we also conducted a narrative synthesis and found comparable results to meta-analyses. Conclusion: Prenatal cannabis use was associated with greater odds of PTB, SGA, and perinatal mortality even after accounting for prenatal tobacco use. However, our confidence in these findings is limited. Limitations of most existing studies was the failure to not include timing or quantity of cannabis use. This review can help guide health care providers with counseling, management, and addressing the limited existing safety data. Protocol Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020172343.

From "getting things right" to "getting things right now": Developing COVID-19 guidance under time pressure and knowledge uncertainty.

BACKGROUND: At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, guidance was needed more than ever to direct frontline healthcare and national containment strategies. Rigorous guidance based on robust research was compromised by the emergence of the pandemic and the urgency of need for guidance. Rather than aiming to "get guidance right", guidance developers needed to "get guidance right now". AIM: To examine how guidance developers have responded to the need for credible guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: An exploratory mixed-methods study was conducted among guidance developers. A web-based survey and follow-up interviews were used to examine the most pertinent challenges in developing COVID-19 guidance, strategies used to address these, and perspectives on the implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on future guidance development. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 46 guidance developers. Survey findings showed that conventional methods of guidance development were largely unsuited for COVID-19 guidance, with 80% (n = 37) of respondents resorting to other methods. From the survey and five follow-up interviews, two themes were identified to bolster the credibility of guidance in a setting of extreme uncertainty: (1) strengthening end-user involvement and (2) conjoining evidence review and recommendation formulation. 70% (n = 32) of survey respondents foresaw possible changes in future guidance production, most notably shortening development time, by reconsidering how to balance between rigour and speed for different types of questions. CONCLUSION: "Getting guidance right" and "getting guidance right now" are not opposites, rather uncertainties are always part of guidance development and require guidance developers to balance scientific robustness with usability, acceptability, adequacy and contingency. This crisis points to the need to acknowledge uncertainties of scientific evidence more explicitly and points to mechanisms to live with such uncertainty, thus extending guidance development methods and processes more widely.

Challenges in applying the GRADE approach in public health guidelines and systematic reviews: a concept article from the GRADE Public Health Group.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This article explores the need for conceptual advances and practical guidance in the application of the GRADE approach within public health contexts. METHODS: We convened an expert workshop and conducted a scoping review to identify challenges experienced by GRADE users in public health contexts. We developed this concept article through thematic analysis and an iterative process of consultation and discussion conducted with members electronically and at three GRADE Working Group meetings. RESULTS: Five priority issues can pose challenges for public health guideline developers and systematic reviewers when applying GRADE: (1) incorporating the perspectives of diverse stakeholders; (2) selecting and prioritizing health and "nonhealth" outcomes; (3) interpreting outcomes and identifying a threshold for decision-making; (4) assessing certainty of evidence from diverse sources, including nonrandomized studies; and (5) addressing implications for decision makers, including concerns about conditional recommendations. We illustrate these challenges with examples from public health guidelines and systematic reviews, identifying gaps where conceptual advances may facilitate the consistent application or further development of the methodology and provide solutions. CONCLUSION: The GRADE Public Health Group will respond to these challenges with solutions that are coherent with existing guidance and can be consistently implemented across public health decision-making contexts.

Barriers and facilitators to deprescribing in primary care: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM: To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD: A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS: In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION: A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of tuberculosis diagnostic and treatment services by hard-to-reach populations in countries of low and medium tuberculosis incidence: a systematic review of qualitative literature.

Tuberculosis disproportionately affects hard-to-reach populations, such as homeless people, migrants, refugees, prisoners, or drug users. These people often face challenges in accessing quality health care. We did a systematic review of the qualitative literature to identify barriers and facilitators to the uptake of tuberculosis diagnostic and treatment services by people from hard-to-reach populations in all European Union (EU), European Economic Area, EU candidate, and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. The 12 studies included in this review mainly focused on migrants. Views on perceived susceptibility to and severity of tuberculosis varied widely and included many misconceptions. Stigma and challenges regarding access to health care were identified as barriers to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment uptake, whereas support from nurses, family, and friends was a facilitator for treatment adherence. Further studies are required to identify barriers and facilitators to the improved identification and management of tuberculosis in hard-to-reach populations to inform recommendations for more effective tuberculosis control programmes.

Effectiveness of interventions for diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis in hard-to-reach populations in countries of low and medium tuberculosis incidence: a systematic review.

Tuberculosis is over-represented in hard-to-reach (underserved) populations in high-income countries of low tuberculosis incidence. The mainstay of tuberculosis care is early detection of active tuberculosis (case finding), contact tracing, and treatment completion. We did a systematic review with a scoping component of relevant studies published between 1990 and 2015 to update and extend previous National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reviews on the effectiveness of interventions for identifying and managing tuberculosis in hard-to-reach populations. The analyses showed that tuberculosis screening by (mobile) chest radiography improved screening coverage and tuberculosis identification, reduced diagnostic delay, and was cost-effective among several hard-to-reach populations. Sputum culture for pre-migration screening and active referral to a tuberculosis clinic improved identification. Furthermore, monetary incentives improved tuberculosis identification and management among drug users and homeless people. Enhanced case management, good cooperation between services, and directly observed therapy improved treatment outcome and compliance. Strong conclusions cannot be drawn because of the heterogeneity of evidence with regard to study population, methodology, and quality.

A systematic review of implementation strategies to deliver guidelines on obstetric care practice in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare measures to prevent maternal deaths are well known. However, effective implementation of this knowledge to change practice remains a challenge. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether strategies to promote the use of guidelines can improve obstetric practices in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched up to February 7, 2014, using relevant terms for implementation strategies (e.g. "audit," "education," "reminder"), and maternal mortality. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and non-randomized studies of implementation strategies targeting healthcare professionals within the formal health services in LMICs were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane methodological guidance was followed. Because of heterogeneity in the interventions, a narrative synthesis was completed. MAIN RESULTS: Nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Moderate-to-low-quality evidence was found to show improvement in the areas of doctor-patient communication (one study), analgesic provision (one study), the management of emergencies (two studies) and maternal and late neonatal mortality (one study each). Intervention effects were not consistent across studies. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation strategies targeting health professionals could lead to improvement in obstetric care in LMICs. Future research should explore what feature of an intervention is effective in one context and how this could be translated into another context. PROSPERO: CRD42014010310.

Reporting standards for guideline-based performance measures.

BACKGROUND: The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to promote high quality clinical guideline development and implementation. Guideline-based performance measures are a key implementation tool and are widely used internationally for quality improvement, quality assurance, and pay for performance in health care. There is, however, no international consensus on best methods for guideline-based performance measures. In order to address this issue, the G-I-N Performance Measures Working Group aimed to develop a set of consensus-based reporting standards for guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. METHODS: Methodology publications on guideline-based performance measures were identified from a systematic literature review and analyzed. Core criteria for the development and evaluation process of guideline-based performance measures were determined and refined into draft standards with an associated rationale and description of the evidence base. In a two-round Delphi-process, the group members appraised and approved the draft standards. After the first round, the group met to discuss comments and revised the drafts accordingly. RESULTS: Twenty-one methodology publications were reviewed. The group reached strong consensus on nine reporting standards concerning: (1) selection of clinical guidelines, (2) extraction of clinical guideline recommendations, (3) description of the measure development process, (4) measure appraisal, (5) measure specification, (6) description of the intended use of the measure, (7) measure testing/validating, (8) measure review/re-evaluation, and (9) composition of the measure development panel. CONCLUSIONS: These proposed international reporting standards address core components of guideline-based performance measure development and re-evaluation. They are intended to contribute to international reporting harmonization and improvement of methods for performance measures. Further research is required regarding validity, acceptability, and practicality.

The costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in England and Wales.

BACKGROUND: The management of epilepsy incurs significant costs to the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Making a diagnosis of epilepsy can, however, be difficult and misdiagnosis frequently occurs when patients are seen by non-specialists. This study estimates the financial costs of epilepsy misdiagnosis in the NHS in England and Wales. METHODS: Standard costing methods were applied to estimate the costs attributable to epilepsy misdiagnosis. The primary data were published in UK studies on the prevalence of epilepsy, epilepsy misdiagnosis and costs identified from Medline, Cinahl and Embase (1996-May 2006). RESULTS: An estimated total of 92,000 people were misdiagnosed with epilepsy in England and Wales in 2002. The average medical cost per patient per year of misdiagnosis was 316 pounds sterling, with the chief economic burdens being inpatient admissions (45%), inappropriate prescribing of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) (26%), outpatient attendances (16%) and general practitioner (GP) care (8%). The estimated annual medical costs in England and Wales were 29,000,000 pounds sterling, while total costs could reach up to 138,000,000 pounds sterling a year. CONCLUSIONS: Allowing for uncertainty, and considering the analysis exclusively from the NHS/CBS (community based services) perspective the opportunity costs of misdiagnosis are substantial. There is a need for health care commissioners to ensure that misdiagnosis is kept to a minimum by ensuring that individuals with a recent onset suspected seizure are seen as soon as possible by a specialist medical practitioner with training and expertise in epilepsy.