What is the volume, quality and characteristics of evidence relating to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary occupational health interventions aiming to improve work-related outcomes for employed adults? An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews.

Background: In the UK, tens of millions of working days are lost due to work-related ill health every year, costing billions of pounds. The role of Occupational Health (OH) services is vital in helping workers to maintain employment when they encounter injury or illness. OH providers traditionally rely on a clinical workforce to deliver these services, particularly doctors and nurses with OH qualifications. However, the increasing demand for OH services is unlikely to be met in the future using this traditional model, due to the declining number of OH-trained doctors and nurses in the UK. Multi-disciplinary models of OH delivery, including a more varied range of healthcare and non-healthcare professionals, could provide a way to meet this new demand for OH services. There is a need to identify collaborative models of OH service delivery and review their effectiveness on return-to work outcomes. There is an existing pool of systematic review evidence evaluating workplace based, multi-disciplinary OH interventions, but it is difficult to identify which aspects of the content and/or delivery of these interventions may be associated with improved work-related outcomes. Objectives: The aim of this evidence and gap map (EGM) was to provide an overview of the systematic review evidence that evaluates the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary OH interventions intending to improve work-related outcomes. Search Methods: In June 2021 we searched a selection of bibliographic databases and other academic literature resources covering a range of relevant disciplines, including health care and business studies, to identify systematic review evidence from a variety of sectors of employment. We also searched Google Search and a selection of topically relevant websites and consulted with stakeholders to identify reports already known to them. Searches were updated in February 2023. Selection Criteria: Systematic reviews needed to be about adults (16 years or over) in employment, who have had absence from work for any medical reason. Interventions needed to be multi-disciplinary (including professionals from different backgrounds in clinical and non-clinical professions) and designed to support employees and employers to manage health conditions in the workplace and/or to help employees with health conditions retain and/or return to work following medical absence. Effectiveness needed to be measured in terms of return to work, work retention or measures of absence, or economic evaluation outcomes. These criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each systematic review independently by two reviewers, with disagreements resolved through discussion. We awarded each systematic review a rating of 'High', 'Medium' or 'Low' relevance to indicate the extent to which the populations, interventions and their contexts synthesised within the review were consistent with our research question. We also recorded the number of primary studies included within each of the 'High' and 'Medium' reviews that were relevant to research question using the same screening process applied at review level. Data Collection and Analysis: Summary data for each eligible review was extracted. The quality of the systematic reviews, rated as 'High' or 'Medium' relevance following full text screening, was appraised using the AMSTAR-2 quality appraisal tool. All data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second, with disagreements being settled through discussion. Summary data for all eligible systematic reviews were tabulated and described narratively. The data extracted from reviews of 'High' and 'Medium' relevance was imported into EPPI-Mapper software to create an EGM. Stakeholder Involvement: We worked alongside commissioners and policy makers from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) and Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), OH personnel, and people with lived experience of accessing OH services themselves and/or supporting employees to access OH services. Individuals contributed to decision making at all stages of the project. This ensured our EGM reflects the needs of individuals who will use it. Main Results: We identified 98 systematic reviews that contained relevant interventions, which involved a variety of professionals and workplaces, and which measured effectiveness in terms of return to work (RTW). Of these, we focused on the 30 reviews where the population and intervention characteristics within the systematic reviews were considered to be of high or medium relevance to our research questions. The 30 reviews were of varying quality, split evenly between High/Moderate quality and Low/Critically-Low quality ratings. We did not identify any relevant systematic review evidence on any other work-related outcome of interest. Interventions were heterogenous, both within and across included systematic reviews. The EGM is structured according to the health condition experienced by participants, and the effectiveness of the interventions being evaluated, as reported within the included systematic reviews. It is possible to view (i) the quality and quantity of systematic review evidence for a given health condition, (ii) how review authors assessed the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of the interventions evaluated. The EGM also details the primary studies relevant to our research aim included within each review. Authors' Conclusions: This EGM map highlights the array of systematic review evidence that exists in relation to the effectiveness or cost-effectiveness of multi-disciplinary, workplace-based OH interventions in supporting RTW. This evidence will allow policy makers and commissioners of services to determine which OH interventions may be most useful for supporting different population groups in different contexts. OH professionals may find the content of the EGM useful in identifying systematic review evidence to support their practice. The EGM also identifies where systematic review evidence in this area is lacking, or where existing evidence is of poor quality. These may represent areas where it may be particularly useful to conduct further systematic reviews.

What is the quantity, quality and type of systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensives? A systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to map the systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of statins and antihypertensive medication. DESIGN: Systematic umbrella review and evidence and gap map (EGM). DATA SOURCES: Eight bibliographic databases (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, EMBASE, Health Management Information Consortium, MEDLINE ALL, PsycINFO, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science and Science Citation Index) were searched from 2010 to 11 August 2020. Update searches conducted in MEDLINE ALL 2 August 2022. We searched relevant websites and conducted backwards citation chasing. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: We sought systematic reviews of quantitative or qualitative research where adults 16 years+ were currently receiving, or being considered for, a prescription of statin or antihypertensive medication. Eligibility criteria were applied to the title and abstract and full text of each article independently by two reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Quality appraisal was completed by one reviewer and checked by a second. Review characteristics were tabulated and incorporated into an EGM based on a patient care pathway. Patients with lived experience provided feedback on our research questions and EGM. RESULTS: Eighty reviews were included within the EGM. The highest quantity of evidence focused on evaluating interventions to promote patient adherence to antihypertensive medication. Key gaps included a lack of reviews synthesising evidence on experiences of specific interventions to promote patient adherence or improve prescribing practice. The evidence was predominantly of low quality, limiting confidence in the findings from individual reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This EGM provides an interactive, accessible format for policy developers, service commissioners and clinicians to view the systematic review evidence available relevant to optimising the prescribing of statin and antihypertensive medication. To address the paucity of high-quality research, future reviews should be conducted and reported according to existing guidelines and address the evidence gaps identified above.

Patient, carer and family experiences of seeking redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event: Systematic review of qualitative evidence.

INTRODUCTION: We conducted a systematic review of qualitative evidence to improve understanding of the processes and outcomes of redress and reconciliation following a life-changing event from the perspectives of individuals experiencing the event and their families. METHODS: We searched six bibliographic databases for primary qualitative evidence exploring the views of individuals who have experienced a life-changing event, and/or their family or carers, of redress or reconciliation processes. This was supplemented with targeted database searches, forward and backward citation chasing and searches of Google Scholar and relevant websites. Title and abstract and full-text screening were undertaken independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were conducted by one reviewer and checked by a second. We used a best-fit framework synthesis approach, drawing upon procedural and restorative justice concepts. FINDINGS: Fifty-three studies (61 papers) were eligible for inclusion. Forty-one studies (47 papers) were included in the synthesis, from which we identified four themes. Three themes 'Transparency', 'Person-centered' and 'Trustworthy' represent the procedural elements required to support a fair and objective process. The fourth, 'Restorative justice' encapsulates how a fair process feels to those who have experienced a life-changing event. This theme highlights the importance of an empathic relationship between the different parties involved in the redress-reconciliation process and the significance of being able to engage in meaningful action. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the procedural aspects and context of redress-reconciliation processes required to ensure that the process and outcomes are experienced as fair. These criteria may be applied to the processes used to investigate both recent and historical patient safety events. PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: One member of the public affiliated with the Exeter Policy Research Programme Evidence Review Facility helped develop the review protocol. Two people with experience of medically life-changing events provided insight which corroborated our findings and identified important limitations of the evidence included in this review.

Optimising the prescribing of drugs that may cause dependency: An evidence and gap map of systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVES: We set out to map the quantitative and qualitative systematic review evidence available to inform the optimal prescribing of drugs that can cause dependency (benzodiazepines, opioids, non-benzodiazepine hypnotics, gabapentinoids and antidepressants). We also consider how this evidence can be used to inform decision-making in the patient care pathway for each type of medication. METHODS: Eight bibliographic databases were searched for the period 2010 to 2020. All included reviews were initially appraised using four items from the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence Synthesis Assessment Tool, with reviews that scored well on all items proceeding to full quality appraisal. Key characteristics of the reviews were tabulated, and each review was incorporated into an evidence and gap map based on a patient care pathway. The care pathway was based upon an amalgamation of existing NICE guidelines and feedback from clinical and patient stakeholders. RESULTS: We identified 80 relevant reviews and displayed them in an evidence and gap map. The evidence included in these reviews was predominantly of low overall quality. Areas where systematic reviews have been conducted include barriers and facilitators to the deprescribing of drugs that may cause dependency, although we identified little evidence exploring the experiences or evaluations of specific interventions to promote deprescribing. All medications of interest, apart from gabapentinoids, were included in at least one review. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence and gap map provides an interactive resource to support (i) policy developers and service commissioners to use evidence in the development and delivery of services for people receiving a prescription of drugs that may cause dependency, where withdrawal of medication may be appropriate, (ii) the clinical decision-making of prescribers and (iii) the commissioning of further research. The map can also be used to inform the commissioning of further systematic reviews. To address the concerns regarding the quality of the existing evidence based raised in this report, future reviews should be conducted according to best-practice guidelines. Systematic reviews focusing on evaluating interventions to promote deprescribing would be particularly beneficial, as would reviews focusing on addressing the paucity of evidence regarding the deprescription of gabapentinoids.

Feasibility and desirability of screening search results from Google Search exhaustively for systematic reviews: A cross-case analysis.

A commonly reported challenge of using Google Search to identify studies for a systematic review is the high number of results retrieved. Thus, 'stopping rules' are applied when screening, such as screening only the first 100 results. However, recent evidence shows that Google Search estimates a much higher number of results than the viewable number, raising the possibility of exhaustive screening. This study aimed to provide further evidence on the feasibility of screening search results from Google Search exhaustively, and to assess the desirability of this in terms of identifying studies for a systematic review. We conducted a cross-case analysis of the search results of eight Google Search searches from two systematic reviews. Feasibility of exhaustive screening was ascertained by calculating the viewable number of results. Desirability was ascertained according to: (1) the distribution of studies within the results, irrespective of relevance to a systematic review; (2) the distribution of studies which met the inclusion criteria for the two systematic reviews. The estimated number of results across the eight searches ranged from 342,000 to 72,300,000. The viewable number ranged from 272 to 364. Across the eight searches the distribution of studies was highest in the first 100 results. However, the lowest ranking relevant studies were ranked 227th and 215th for the two systematic reviews. One study per review was identified uniquely from searching Google Search, both within the first 100 results. The findings suggest it is feasible and desirable to screen Google Search results more extensively than commonly reported.