Factors associated with child and adolescent electronic nicotine and non-nicotine delivery systems use: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVES: To identify, characterise and broadly synthesise factors associated with child and adolescent electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) and/or electronic non-nicotine delivery systems (ENNDS) ever-use and/or current use. METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to 3rd June 2022. Non-experimental studies that provided quantitative factors associated with adolescent and/or child ENDS or ENNDS ever-use and/or current use were included. Factors associated with ever-use (any lifetime use) and/or current use (use in past 30 days) were included. All screening and data extraction was conducted independently by paired review authors. Frequencies for country, study design, sample size, measure of ENDS/ENNDS use and factors examined were calculated. Factors were categorised according to the Theory of Triadic Influence domains and sub-domains. RESULTS: The search of electronic databases identified 4756 records, 240 of which were included. The majority of studies examined factors categorised within the Biology and Personality domain of the Theory of Triadic Influence (89.2%; 95%CI 84.6, 82.5), followed by the Social Context (50.8%; 95%CI 44.5, 57.2) and Broader Environment domains (30.4%; 95%CI 24.6, 36.3). The proportion of factors significantly associated with ENDS/ENNDS use was >75% for the Behavioural (78.0%; factors included use of tobacco, other drugs and alcohol), Peer Attitudes and Behaviours (80.0%; factors included peer use of ENDS/ENNDS and tobacco), and Legislation/Policy sub-domains (78.6%; factors included accessibility and advertising). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence base on factors associated with ENDS/ENNDS use in children and adolescents is rapidly developing, predominately by research concentrated in high income regions and focused on behavioural- and personality-related factors.

Improving academic and public health impact of Cochrane public health reviews: what can we learn from bibliographic metrics and author dissemination strategies? A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: To facilitate the development of impactful research dissemination strategies, this study aimed to: (i) survey authors of trials included in a sample of Cochrane reviews to describe strategies to disseminate trial findings, and examine their association with academic and policy impacts and (ii) audit academic and policy impact of CPH reviews. METHODS: Authors of 104 trials within identified Cochrane reviews completed survey items assessing the dissemination strategies. Field weighted citation (FWCI) data extracted from bibliographic databases served as a measure of academic impact of trials and CPH reviews. Policy and practice impacts of trials were assessed during the survey of trial authors using items based on the Payback Framework, and for CPH reviews using 'policy mention' data collected via Altmetric Explorer. RESULTS: Among the included trials, univariate (but not multivariable) regression models revealed significant associations between the use of dissemination strategies (i.e. posts on social media; workshops with end-users; media-releases) and policy or practice impacts. No significant associations were reported between dissemination strategies and trial FWCI. The mean FWCI of CPH reviews suggest that they are cited 220% more than other reviews in their field. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehensive dissemination strategies are likely required to maximize the potential the potential impacts of public health research.

X-rays had little value in diagnosing children's abnormal skull shapes, and primary care clinicians should refer concerns to specialist teams.

AIM: This study examined the consensus between the primary care radiological diagnosis and specialist clinical diagnosis of abnormal skull shapes in children. METHODS: We performed a retrospective review of children treated at the National Paediatric Craniofacial Centre at Children's Health Ireland, Dublin, Ireland. Group 1 were referred by primary care colleagues concerned about suspected abnormal skull shapes from 1 January 2015 to 30 May 2017. These included cases where they sought specialist confirmation that the skull shape was normal. Group 2 underwent surgery for craniosynostosis from 1 January 2011 to 25 October 2017. The primary care skull X-ray reports were examined for both groups to see whether they matched the specialist diagnosis. RESULTS: Group 1 comprised 300 children, and 59 (20%) had pre-referral skull X-rays. The primary care X-ray reports and specialist diagnoses agreed in 44 (75%) cases, including 19 (43%) who had a normal skull shape. Group 2 comprised 274 children, and 63 (23%) had pre-referral skull X-rays. In this group, there was agreement in 41 (65%) diagnoses; however, the primary care X-ray reports did not diagnose craniosynostosis for the remaining 22 (35%) children. CONCLUSION: X-rays were of little value in diagnosing abnormal skull shapes, especially craniosynostosis, and primary care clinicians should refer concerns to specialist teams.

Ensuring relevance for Cochrane reviews: evaluating processes and methods for prioritizing topics for Cochrane reviews.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the presence and effectiveness of existing systems of prioritization for Cochrane review topics and to explore methods of improving those systems. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We surveyed groups of Cochrane review authors and recorded any evidence of their use of priority-setting processes or policies. To evaluate the effectiveness of the policies we encountered, we assessed them using two frameworks from the literature: "Accountability for Reasonableness" (1) and Sibbald's 2009 framework (2) for successful priority setting. We then held two workshops with the subject groups to discuss our findings and their implications. RESULTS: Of the 66 groups surveyed, 29 had a system in place to inform the selection or prioritization of topics for Cochrane reviews. Fifteen groups used a more comprehensive structured approach that eventually resulted in a list of ranked priority titles for authoring, updating, or disseminating Cochrane reviews. Most groups involved researchers, practitioners, and patients in their prioritization processes. CONCLUSION: Groups within The Cochrane Collaboration currently use a range of different priority-setting systems, some of which are more detailed than others. These differences often reflect the nature of The Cochrane Collaboration itself: given the topic breadth, history, and variety of international contexts present in the organization, a single unified system would not always be appropriate. All Cochrane entities, however, should have or develop strategic plans to improve the inclusiveness and transparency of their own prioritization processes, increase the number of finished prioritized reviews, and make more effective use of feedback from end users to increase the likelihood of producing reviews that have positive effects on health outcomes.