Search

Global initiatives have raised awareness of the need for cross-departmental and cross-sectoral activities to support urban health, sustainability, and equity, with respective indicators routinely used as a way to catalyze and monitor action toward pre-defined goals. Despite the existence of at least 145 urban health indicator (UHI) tools globally, there has been very little research on the use of indicators by policy- and decision-makers; more attention has been devoted to their development and validation. This paper describes the second part of a two-part systematic review of the characteristics (part A) and use (part B, this part) of UHI tools by municipal built environment policy- and decision-makers. Part B is a narrative synthesis of studies on the use of UHI tools. This PRISMA-P compliant review follows a mixed methods sequential explanatory design. The search was conducted using seven bibliographic databases, grey literature searches, and key journal hand searches. Ten studies describing the use of ten UHI tools in seven countries were included in the narrative synthesis, resulting in development of a theory of change (ToC). We found that both expert-led and participatory indicator projects can be underpinned by research evidence and residents' knowledge. Our findings contradict the dominant view of indicator use in policy-making as a linear process, highlighting a number of technical, organizational, political, knowledge, and contextual factors that affect their use. Participatory UHI tools with community involvement were generally more effective at supporting "health in all policies" and "whole-of-society" approaches to governing healthy cities than expert-led processes. UHI tool producers proposed a range of techniques to address urban health complexity characteristics. Finally, in combining data from both parts of the review, we found that potentially important UHI tool features, such as neighbourhood-scale data, were influential in the use of indicators by built environment policy- and decision-makers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This study aims to assess the rate at which screening colonoscopy is performed on patients younger or older than the age range specified in national guidelines, or at shorter intervals than recommended. Such non-indicated use of the procedure is considered low-value care, or overuse. This study is the first systematic review of the rate of non-indicated completed screening colonoscopy in the USA.Methods: PubMed and Embase were queried for relevant studies on overuse of screening colonoscopy published from January 1, 2002, until January 23, 2019. English-language studies that were conducted for screening colonoscopy after 2001 for average-risk patients were included. Studies must have followed national guidelines for detecting rates of overuse. We followed methods outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and the reporting recommendations of the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology group (MOOSE).Results: A total of 772 papers were reviewed for inclusion; 42 were reviewed in full text. Of those reviewed, six studies met eligibility criteria, including a total of 459,503 colonoscopies of which 242,756 were screening colonoscopies. The rate of overuse ranged credibly from 17 to 25.7%.Discussion: This study demonstrates that screening colonoscopy is regularly performed in the USA more often, and in populations older or younger, than recommended by national guidelines. Such overuse wastes resources and places patients at unnecessary risk of harm. Efforts to reduce non-indicated screening colonoscopy are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Design: A meta-analysis.Background: Hip fracture (HF), as common geriatric fracture, is related to increased disability and mortality. Preoperative deep vein thrombosis (DVT) is one of the most common complications in patients with hip fractures, affecting 8-34.9% of hip fracture patients. The study aimed to assess the risk factors of preoperative DVT after hip fractures by meta-analysis.Methods: An extensive search of the literature was performed in the English databases of PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library; and the Chinese databases of CNKI and WAN FANG. We collected possible predictors of preoperative DVT from included studies, and data analysis was conducted with RevMan 5.3 and STATA 12.0.Results: A total of 26 English articles were included, and the rate of DVT was 16.6% (1627 of 9823 patients) in our study. Our findings showed that advanced age [p = 0.0003, OR = 0.13 95% CI (0.06, 0.21)], female patients [p = 0.0009, OR = 0.82 95% CI (0.72, 0.92)], high-energy injury [p = 0.009, OR = 0.58 95% CI (0.38, 0.87)], prolonged time from injury to admission [p < 0.00001, OR = 0.54 95% CI (0.44, 0.65)], prolonged time from injury to surgery [p < 0.00001, OR = 2.06, 95% CI (1.40, 2.72)], hemoglobin [p < 0.00001, OR = - 0.32 95% CI (- 0.43, - 0.21)], coronary heart disease [p = 0.006, OR = 1.25 95% CI (1.07, 1.47)], dementia [p = 0.02, OR = 1.72 95% CI (1.1, 2.67)], liver and kidney diseases [p = 0.02, OR = 1.91 95% CI (1.12, 3.25)], pulmonary disease [p = 0.02, OR = 1.55 95% CI (1.07, 2.23)], smoking [p = 0.007, OR = 1.45 95% CI (1.11, 1.89)], fibrinogen [p = 0.0005, OR = 0.20 95% CI (0.09, 0.32)], anti-platelet drug [p = 0.01, OR = 0.51 95% CI (0.30, 0.85)], C-reactive protein [p = 0.02, OR = 5.95 95% CI (1.04, 10.85)], < 35 g/l albumin [p = 0.006, OR = 1.42 95% CI (1.1, 1.82)], and thrombosis history [p < 0.00001, OR = 5.28 95% CI (2.85, 9.78)] were risk factors for preoperative DVT.Conclusions: Many factors, including advanced age, female patients, high-energy injury, prolonged time from injury to admission, prolonged time from injury to surgery, patients with a history of coronary heart disease, dementia, liver and kidney diseases, pulmonary disease, smoking, and thrombosis, fibrinogen, C-reactive protein, and < 35 g/l albumin, were found to be associated with preoperative DVT. Our findings suggested that the patient with above characteristics might have preoperative DVT.Level Of Evidence: Level III. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the past decade, nearly half of internal medicine residencies have implemented block clinic scheduling; however, the effects on residency-related outcomes are unknown. The authors systematically reviewed the impact of block versus traditional ambulatory scheduling on residency-related outcomes, including (1) resident satisfaction, (2) resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, (3) ambulatory training time, (4) continuity of care, (5) patient satisfaction, and (6) patient health outcomes.Method: The authors reviewed the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid MEDLINE InProcess, EBSCO CINAHL, EBSCO ERIC, and the Cochrane Library from inception through March 2017 and included studies of residency programs comparing block to traditional scheduling with at least one outcome of interest. Two authors independently extracted data on setting, participants, schedule design, and the outcomes of interest.Results: Of 8139 studies, 11 studies of fair to moderate methodologic quality were included in the final analysis. Overall, block scheduling was associated with marked improvements in resident satisfaction (n = 7 studies, effect size range - 0.3 to + 0.9), resident-perceived conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities (n = 5, effect size range + 0.3 to + 2.6), and available ambulatory training time (n = 5). Larger improvements occurred in programs implementing short (1 week) ambulatory blocks. However, block scheduling may result in worse physician continuity (n = 4). Block scheduling had inconsistent effects on patient continuity (n = 4), satisfaction (n = 3), and health outcomes (n = 3).Discussion: Although block scheduling improves resident satisfaction, conflict between inpatient and outpatient responsibilities, and ambulatory training time, there may be important tradeoffs with worse care continuity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]