Search

Tammy C Hoffmann,1,2 Chris B Del Mar11Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, 2School of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, AustraliaBackground: Being able to make informed decisions is a prerequisite to enabling individuals to participate actively in their health care. In turn, an individual’s understanding of relevant health information can influence his/her ability to make informed decisions. However, there are two broad categories of health information, ie, background information (such as the pathophysiology of conditions) and foreground information (such as disease behavior, prognosis, and effects of treatment). Questions about foreground information are central to evidence-based practice. The majority of health literacy research has focused on background information, yet foreground information is more useful in decision-making, particularly for evidence-informed decisions. In people with type 2 diabetes, we explored individuals’ knowledge of selected evidence-based concepts in diabetes; beliefs about what they can do to manage their diabetes and sources of this information; and whether these change after diabetes education.Methods: Attendees with type 2 diabetes (n = 95) at a one-day diabetes educational exposition completed a questionnaire before and after the event. We asked participants about evidence-based concepts in diabetes and compared their responses with the current evidence. We also asked participants how they could best manage their diabetes, and then, how they knew this.Results: Most participants underestimated their risk of complications. With the exception of a question about exercise and glycosylated hemoglobin level, nearly all participants provided responses that are not supported by current research evidence. There was no significant change in the percentage of participants who answered questions correctly after the exposition, except for a question about the risks of low blood glucose in which more participants answered incorrectly afterwards (P = 0.01). Health professionals were the most frequently identified source of information, with little value placed on research evidence.Conclusion: Participants had a poor understanding of most of the evidence-based concepts in type 2 diabetes that were explored. This disadvantages them in being able to make informed decisions about their health care and actively manage their diabetes.Keywords: type 2 diabetes, evidence-based practice, health literacy, patient education

Background: Despite the well-documented benefits of providing people with written health information, there is a growing body of evidence indicating that people who have aphasia are poorly informed about both their stroke and aphasia. Although extensive research has been conducted into stroke education, limited research has specifically investigated the provision of written health information to people with aphasia. Aims: This study aimed to investigate if people with aphasia recalled receiving written information about stroke and aphasia. Subsequent aims were to determine if reported receipt of stroke and aphasia information was related to participant characteristics such as aphasia severity, reading ability, and time post-stroke. This study also aimed to gain insight into where people with aphasia sourced written stroke and aphasia information, and which health professionals provided this information. Methods & Procedures: This article reports on a 10-item verbal questionnaire that was conducted as part of larger project with 40 adults with aphasia following stroke. Participants with a range of aphasia severities, reading abilities, and time post-onsets were recruited from university clinics and seven hospitals in Queensland, Australia. Descriptive statistics have been used to describe participant responses to questionnaire items. The relationship between participant responses and participant characteristics were explored using the Mann Whitney U and Pearson's chi square tests for nonparametric data. Participant's comments have also been categorised. Outcomes & Results: Only 14 participants (36%) indicated that they received written information about both stroke and aphasia. Findings indicated that receipt of stroke information did not equate to receipt of aphasia information with fewer participants reporting that they received written aphasia information (49%) compared to written stroke information (67%). There was no significant relationship between reported receipt of information and time post-stroke, aphasia severity, reading ability, age, years of education, or gender. Participant comments either related to the lack of health information provided by health professionals, or reflected the ineffective provision of written information, with many participants commenting about the inappropriate complexity of written health information received. The rehabilitation group setting was the main location for written stroke and aphasia information provision, with speech pathologists most frequently being identified as the health professional to provide this information. Conclusions: The majority of participants reported receiving no written information about aphasia. Routine provision of appropriately formatted health information and improved access to the health professionals and services that provide information are two strategies for more successful stroke and aphasia education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To analyse communication about the natural course of self-limiting illnesses, as part of shared decision-making (SDM), in general practice consultations., Methods: Natural history communication and SDM (using Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making (OPTION-12) and Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences (ACEPP) items) were rated by two raters using transcripts from the UK 'One in a Million' database., Results: Of 55 eligible consultations, a 'wait and see' option was mentioned in 27 consultations (49 %), using varying terminology, with a general recovery timeframe provided in 21. Mean OPTION-12 score (of 100) was 25.2 (SD=7.4), indicating a low level of SDM. Mean ACEPP score (out of 5) was 1.2 (SD=0.5), indicating minimal communication about the options' benefits and harms. Recovery likelihood was quantified in only two consultations, while harms were quantified in none., Conclusion: Communication about the natural history of self-limiting illnesses was generally limited. The 'wait and see' approach, along with its benefits and harms, was typically not explicitly presented as an option for patients to consider., Practice Implications: Improving clinicians' awareness of the importance of and skills for communicating the natural history of self-limiting illnesses, as part of SDM, may facilitate informed decision-making in managing these conditions., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To analyse the scope and characteristics of freely available online patient decision aids., Methods: An international environmental scan of online decision aids, with no language restriction, was conducted by searching aids in the recent Cochrane review and 35 online sources. Aid characteristics were extracted and analysed., Results: Of 1555 decision aids identified, there were 1222 unique aids after removing duplicates. Of these, 785 met eligibility criteria. The aids were from 17 countries (30 % from the Netherlands, 20 % from the US) and 44 % in English. Nearly all had a downloadable PDF or were printable and 32 % were interactive web-based. Many aids (72 %) were about a treatment decision. Most common diseases addressed were cancer (23 %), especially breast cancer, musculoskeletal diseases (11 %), and genitourinary system diseases (10 %)., Conclusions: There are many freely available decision aids, with most addressing treatment decisions and particular health conditions. Many (21 %) of the aids identified were duplicates, some topics are covered by multiple versions of decision aids, and other topics have few decision aids., Practice Implications: While many decision aids exist online, initiatives are needed to minimise aid duplication, achieve better distribution of aids across health decisions/topics, encourage greater collaboration between developers, and adaption of existing aids., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: TCH is a member of the PEC Editorial Board and a member of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration which is mentioned in the discussion. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: PR is an associate editor at BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine.TCH is on the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine Editorial Board.

Background: Overuse of medical care is a pervasive problem. Studies using hypothetical scenarios suggest that physicians' risk literacy influences medical decisions; real-world correlations, however, are lacking. We sought to determine the association between physicians' risk literacy and their real-world prescriptions of potentially hazardous drugs, accounting for conflicts of interest and perceptions of benefit-harm ratios in low-value prescribing scenarios., Setting and Sample: Cross-sectional study-conducted online between June and October 2023 via field panels of Sermo (Hamburg, Germany)-with a convenience sample of 304 English general practitioners (GPs)., Methods: GPs' survey responses on their treatment-related risk literacy, conflicts of interest and perceptions of the benefit-harm ratio in low-value prescribing scenarios were matched to their UK National Health Service records of prescribing volumes for antibiotics, opioids, gabapentin and benzodiazepines and analysed for differences., Results: 204 GPs (67.1%) worked in practices with ≥6 practising GPs and 226 (76.0%) reported 10-39 years of experience. Compared with GPs demonstrating low risk literacy, GPs with high literacy prescribed fewer opioids (mean (M ) : 60.60 vs 43.88 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.016), less gabapentin (M: 23.84 vs 18.34 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.023), and fewer benzodiazepines (M: 17.23 vs 13.58 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.037), but comparable volumes of antibiotics (M: 48.84 vs 40.61 prescribed volumes/1000 patients/6 months, p=0.076). High-risk literacy was associated with lower conflicts of interest (ϕ = 0.12, p=0.031) and higher perception of harms outweighing benefits in low-value prescribing scenarios (p=0.007). Conflicts of interest and benefit-harm perceptions were not independently associated with prescribing behaviour (all ps >0.05)., Conclusions and Relevance: The observed association between GPs with higher risk literacy and the prescription of fewer hazardous drugs suggests the importance of risk literacy in enhancing patient safety and quality of care., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Knowing the natural history of acute infections in primary care, defined as the course of a disease over time in the absence of specific therapy or treatment, can inform clinicians' and patients' expectations about illness recovery, but this evidence is fragmented across the literature. This scoping review aimed to map existing research and research gaps relevant to the natural history of acute infections., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL using a 2-phase hierarchical search approach. In Phase A, we focused on identifying systematic reviews synthesising natural history data for eligible infections (acute respiratory, urinary, and skin and soft tissue) and systematic reviews of treatment effectiveness (of RCTs with placebo or no treatment arm, or cohort studies). For infections without existing reviews, in Phase B, we searched for primary studies (placebo-controlled RCTs or cohort studies). Two reviewers independently screened and extracted the data (study characteristics, outcome data - e.g., symptom duration, proportion with resolution at various time points)., Results: We identified 40 systematic reviews, reporting on 45 infections, most commonly (90%) respiratory tract infections. Six (15%) of these aimed to synthesise natural history information. Most reviews reported the proportion of participants with symptom resolution at various time point/s, with 58% providing data on mean symptom duration. Recovery data show the spontaneous resolution of some infections in some people. We found no eligible studies for cellulitis, ecthyma, carbuncle, and erysipelas., Conclusions: Our review has shown that natural history evidence exists for many common acute infections. It can be utilised by clinicians in implementing patient-centred antibiotic stewardship strategies in primary care. Future research should focus on generating natural history evidence for skin and soft tissue infections and urinary tract infections., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Aim: To develop and user test an evidence-based patient decision aid for children and adolescents who are considering anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) reconstruction., Design: Mixed-methods study describing the development of a patient decision aid., Setting: A draft decision aid was developed by a multidisciplinary steering group (including various types of health professionals and researchers, and consumers) informed by the best available evidence and existing patient decision aids., Participants: People who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (ie, adolescents), their parents, and health professionals who manage these patients. Participants were recruited through social media and the network outreach of the steering group., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Semistructured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid. The feedback was used to refine the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, refining the aid according to feedback and further interviews, was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis., Results: We conducted 32 interviews; 16 health professionals (12 physiotherapists, 4 orthopaedic surgeons) and 16 people who ruptured their ACL when they were under 18 years old (7 were adolescents and 9 were adults at the time of the interview). Parents participated in 8 interviews. Most health professionals, patients and parents rated the aid's acceptability as good-to-excellent. Health professionals and patients agreed on most aspects of the decision aid, but some health professionals had differing views on non-surgical management, risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms., Conclusion: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to help children and adolescents choose an appropriate management option following ACL rupture with their parents and health professionals. A clinical trial evaluating the potential benefit of this tool for children and adolescents considering ACL reconstruction is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TH, KM and RT are unpaid members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration Steering Committee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

People often use infographics (also called visual or graphical abstracts) as a substitute for reading the full text of an article. This is a concern because most infographics do not present sufficient information to interpret the research appropriately and guide wise health decisions. The Reporting Infographics and Visual Abstracts of Comparative studies (RIVA-C) checklist and guide aims to improve the completeness with which research findings of comparative studies are communicated and avoid research findings being misinterpreted if readers do not refer to the full text. The primary audience for the RIVA-C checklist and guide is developers of infographics that summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. The need for the RIVA-C checklist and guide was identified by a survey of how people use infographics. Possible checklist items were informed by a systematic review of how infographics report research. We then conducted a two-round, modified Delphi survey of 92 infographic developers/designers, researchers, health professionals and other key stakeholders. The final checklist includes 10 items. Accompanying explanation and both text and graphical examples linked to the items were developed and pilot tested over a 6-month period. The RIVA-C checklist and guide was designed to facilitate the creation of clear, transparent and sufficiently detailed infographics which summarise comparative studies of health and medical interventions. Accurate infographics can ensure research findings are communicated appropriately and not misinterpreted. By capturing the perspectives of a wide range of end users (eg, authors, informatics editors, journal editors, consumers), we are hopeful of rapid endorsement and implementation of RIVA-C., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Knowledge of stroke is essential to empower people to reduce their risk of these events. However, valid tools are required for accurate and reliable measurement of stroke knowledge. We aimed to systematically review contemporary stroke knowledge assessment tools and appraise their content validity, feasibility, and measurement properties., Methods: The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023403566). Electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science) were searched to identify published articles (1 January 2015-1 March 2023), in which stroke knowledge was assessed using a validated tool. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts prior to undertaking full-text review. COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methods guided the appraisal of content validity (relevance, comprehensiveness, comprehensibility), feasibility, and measurement properties., Results: After removing duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 718 articles were screened; 323 reviewed in full; with 42 included (N = 23 unique stroke knowledge tools). For content validity, all tools were relevant, two were comprehensive, and seven were comprehensible. Validation metrics were reported for internal consistency (n = 20 tools), construct validity (n = 17 tools), cross-cultural validity (n = 15 tools), responsiveness (n = 9 tools), reliability (n = 7 tools), structural validity (n = 3 tools), and measurement error (n = 1 tool). The Stroke Knowledge Test met all content validity criteria, with validation data for six measurement properties (n = 3 rated "Sufficient")., Conclusion: Assessment of stroke knowledge is not standardised and many tools lacked validated content or measurement properties. The Stroke Knowledge Test was the most comprehensive but requires updating and further validation for endorsement as a gold standard., (© 2023 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Objective: To explore individuals' perceptions and acceptability of a 'wait and see' approach, and phrases to describe this, for managing self-limiting illnesses (those that typically resolve spontaneously)., Methods: Semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 30 Australians. Two researchers independently conducted a thematic analysis of interview transcripts, and all authors agreed on final themes., Results: Four themes emerged: Interpretation of what 'wait and see' meant varied and encompassed whether individuals had already sought medical care; Individuals' experiences and circumstances influenced the acceptability of a 'wait and see' approach; Symptom management was perceived as the most reassuring phrase to describe this approach; Individuals highly valued clear communication about a 'wait and see' approach and wanted a collaborative and action-oriented plan for the waiting period., Conclusion: Individuals generally accepted a 'wait and see' approach, although less so for some illnesses and in some circumstances. They wanted it at least presented as an option when appropriate, with 'symptom management' as the preferred terminology. Clear communication and collaborative decision-making were valued., Practice Implications: When 'wait and see' is a reasonable option, clinicians should communicate this to patients, support them in decision-making, and provide a plan for the waiting period if the option is chosen., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Data sharing is essential for promoting scientific discoveries and informed decision-making in clinical practice. In 2013, PhRMA/EFPIA recognised the importance of data sharing and supported initiatives to enhance clinical trial data transparency and promote scientific advancements. However, despite these commitments, recent investigations indicate significant scope for improvements in data sharing by the pharmaceutical industry. Drawing on a decade of literature and policy developments, this article presents perspectives from a multidisciplinary team of researchers, clinicians, and consumers. The focus is on policy and process updates to the PhRMA/EFPIA 2013 data sharing commitments, aiming to enhance the sharing and accessibility of participant-level data, clinical study reports, protocols, statistical analysis plans, lay summaries, and result publications from pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. The proposed updates provide clear recommendations regarding which data should be shared, when it should be shared, and under what conditions. The suggested improvements aim to develop a data sharing ecosystem that supports science and patient-centred care. Good data sharing principles require resources, time, and commitment. Notwithstanding these challenges, enhancing data sharing is necessary for efficient resource utilization, increased scientific collaboration, and better decision-making for patients and healthcare professionals., (© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.)

Making informed health decisions requires knowledge and skills in appraising health claims, and teaching adolescents these skills may prepare them for future decision-making. This cluster randomized trial evaluated the effectiveness of an educational intervention on students' ability to identify and appraise health claims. Nine Australian high schools (4 control and 5 intervention) were recruited, comprising 974 students (382 control and 592 intervention) in Grades 7-10. Intervention impact was evaluated through baseline and follow-up evaluation. Follow-up mean scores on questions (maximum score of 25) from the Claim Evaluation Tools database (primary outcome) showed minimal between-group difference (intervention versus control: 14.4 versus 13.6; difference 0.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.6 to 3.1; P = 0.52). Change scores were only slightly higher in the intervention group (difference 1.2 [95% CI -0.7 to 3.1; P = 0.21]). Between-group differences for secondary outcomes were also minimal. Most intervention group students 'trusted' and 'liked' the programme and found the content 'easy' and 'helpful'. Most teacher feedback was positive, some noting challenges of covering content in allocated time and maintaining student engagement. It is unlikely that the assessed educational intervention had a large effect. Future research priorities are suggested., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press.)

Objective: To develop and user-test a patient decision aid portraying the benefits and harms of non-surgical management and surgery for Achilles tendon ruptures., Design: Mixed methods., Setting: A draft decision aid was developed using guidance from a multidisciplinary steering group and existing patient decision aids. Participants were recruited through social media., Participants: People who have previously sustained an Achilles tendon rupture and health professionals who manage these patients., Primary and Secondary Outcomes: Semi-structured interviews and questionnaires were used to gather feedback on the decision aid from health professionals and patients who had previously suffered an Achilles tendon rupture. The feedback was used to redraft the decision aid and assess acceptability. An iterative cycle of interviews, redrafting according to feedback and further interviews was used. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. Questionnaire data were analysed descriptively., Results: We interviewed 18 health professionals (13 physiotherapists, 3 orthopaedic surgeons, 1 chiropractor, 1 sports medicine physician) and 15 patients who had suffered an Achilles tendon rupture (median time since rupture was 12 months). Most health professionals and patients rated the aid's acceptability as good-excellent. Interviews showcased agreement among health professionals and patients on most aspects of the decision aid: introduction, treatment options, comparing benefits and harms, questions to ask health professionals and formatting. However, health professionals had differing views on details about Achilles tendon retraction distance, factors that modify the risk of harms, treatment protocols and evidence on benefits and harms., Conclusion: Our patient decision aid is an acceptable tool to both patients and health professionals, and our study highlights the views of key stakeholders on important information to consider when developing a patient decision aid for Achilles tendon rupture management. A randomised controlled trial evaluating the impact of this tool on the decision-making of people considering Achilles tendon surgery is warranted., Competing Interests: Competing interests: TCH, KM and RT are unpaid members of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration Steering Committee., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review last published in 2020. We include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers in October 2022, with backwards and forwards citation analysis on the new studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, glasses, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures., Main Results: We included 11 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs (610,872 participants) in this update, bringing the total number of RCTs to 78. Six of the new trials were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic; two from Mexico, and one each from Denmark, Bangladesh, England, and Norway. We identified four ongoing studies, of which one is completed, but unreported, evaluating masks concurrent with the COVID-19 pandemic. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods. Several were conducted during the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Therefore, many studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Adherence with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included 12 trials (10 cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and 10 in the community). Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported (very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Restricting pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies (very low-certainty evidence).  One previously reported ongoing RCT has now been published and observed that medical/surgical masks were non-inferior to N95 respirators in a large study of 1009 healthcare workers in four countries providing direct care to COVID-19 patients.  Hand hygiene compared to control Nineteen trials compared hand hygiene interventions with controls with sufficient data to include in meta-analyses. Settings included schools, childcare centres and homes. Comparing hand hygiene interventions with controls (i.e. no intervention), there was a 14% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.90; 9 trials, 52,105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 380 events per 1000 people to 327 per 1000 people (95% CI 308 to 342). When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.09; 11 trials, 34,503 participants; low-certainty evidence), and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials, 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence), suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled 19 trials (71, 210 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. Pooled data showed that hand hygiene may be beneficial with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. In absolute terms this benefit would result in a reduction from 200 events per 1000 people to 178 per 1000 people (95% CI 166 to 188). Few trials measured and reported harms (very low-certainty evidence). We found no RCTs on gowns and gloves, face shields, or screening at entry ports., Authors' Conclusions: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions. There were additional RCTs during the pandemic related to physical interventions but a relative paucity given the importance of the question of masking and its relative effectiveness and the concomitant measures of mask adherence which would be highly relevant to the measurement of effectiveness, especially in the elderly and in young children. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of RCTs did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness, and although this effect was also present when ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza were analysed separately, it was not found to be a significant difference for the latter two outcomes. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, as well as the impact of adherence on effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Many of the acute infections that are seen in primary care and sometimes managed with antibiotics are self-resolving and antibiotics may be unnecessary. Information about the natural history of these infections underpins antibiotic stewardship strategies such as delayed prescribing and shared decision making, yet whether it's reported in guidelines is unknown. We examined, in clinical guidelines, the reporting of natural history information and relevant antibiotic stewardship strategies for acute infections commonly seen in primary care., Methods: A systematic review of national and international guidelines (2010 onwards), available electronically, for managing acute infections (respiratory, urinary, or skin and soft tissue). We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, TRIP, and GIN databases and websites of 22 guideline-publishing organisations., Results: We identified 82 guidelines, covering 114 eligible infections. Natural history information was reported in 49 (59.8%) of the guidelines and 66 (57.9%) of the reported conditions, most commonly for respiratory tract infections. Quantitative information about the expected infection duration was provided for 63.5% (n = 42) of the infections. Delayed antibiotic prescribing strategy was recommended for 34.2% (n = 39) of them and shared decision making for 21% (n = 24)., Conclusions: Just over half of the guidelines for acute infections that are commonly managed in primary care and sometimes with antibiotics contained natural history information. As many of these infections spontaneously improve, this is a missed opportunity to disseminate this information to clinicians, promote antibiotic stewardship, and facilitate conversations with patients and informed decision making. Systematic review registration CRD42021247048., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Importance: Emerging policies drafted by the pharmaceutical industry indicate that they will transparently share clinical trial data. These data offer an unparalleled opportunity to advance evidence-based medicine and support decision-making., Objective: To evaluate the eligibility of independent, qualified researchers to access individual participant data (IPD) from oncology trials that supported US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new anticancer medicines within the past 10 years., Design, Setting, and Participants: In this quality improvement study, a cross-sectional analysis was performed of pivotal clinical trials whose results supported FDA-approved anticancer medicines between January 1, 2011, and June 30, 2021. These trials' results were identified from product labels., Exposures: Eligibility for IPD sharing was confirmed by identification of a public listing of the trial as eligible for sharing or by receipt of a positive response from the sponsor to a standardized inquiry., Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was frequency of IPD sharing eligibility. Reasons for data sharing ineligibility were requested and collated, and company-, drug-, and trial-level subgroups were evaluated and presented using χ2 tests and forest plots., Results: During the 10-year period examined, 115 anticancer medicines were approved by the FDA on the basis of evidence from 304 pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials. Of these trials, 136 (45%) were eligible for IPD sharing and 168 (55%) were not. Data sharing rates differed substantially among industry sponsors, with the most common reason for not sharing trial IPD being that the collection of long-term follow-up data was still ongoing (89 of 168 trials [53%]). Of the top 10 anticancer medicines by global sales, nivolumab, pembrolizumab, and pomalidomide had the lowest eligibility rates for data sharing (<10% of trials)., Conclusions and Relevance: There has been a substantial increase in IPD sharing for industry-sponsored oncology trials over the past 5 years. However, this quality improvement study found that more than 50% of queried trials for FDA-approved anticancer medicines were ineligible for IPD sharing. Data accessibility would be substantially improved if, at the time of FDA registration of a medicine, all data that support the registration were made available.

Background: Cognitive impairment is a frequent consequence of stroke and can impact on a person's ability to perform everyday activities. Occupational therapists use a range of interventions when working with people who have cognitive impairment poststroke. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2010., Objectives: To assess the impact of occupational therapy on activities of daily living (ADL), both basic and instrumental, global cognitive function, and specific cognitive abilities in people who have cognitive impairment following a stroke., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Stroke Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, four other databases (all last searched September 2020), trial registries, and reference lists., Selection Criteria: We included randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that evaluated an intervention for adults with clinically defined stroke and confirmed cognitive impairment. The intervention needed either to be provided by an occupational therapist or considered within the scope of occupational therapy practice as defined in the review. We excluded studies focusing on apraxia or perceptual impairments or virtual reality interventions as these are covered by other Cochrane Reviews. The primary outcome was basic activities of daily living (BADL) such as dressing, feeding, and bathing. Secondary outcomes were instrumental ADL (IADL) (e.g. shopping and meal preparation), community integration and participation, global cognitive function and specific cognitive abilities (including attention, memory, executive function, or a combination of these), and subdomains of these abilities. We included both observed and self-reported outcome measures., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies that met the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of the evidence. A third review author moderated disagreements if consensus was not reached. We contacted trial authors for additional information and data, where available. We assessed the certainty of key outcomes using GRADE.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials from 11 countries involving 1142 (analysed) participants (two weeks to eight years since stroke onset). This update includes 23 new trials in addition to the one study included in the previous version. Most were parallel randomised controlled trials except for one cross-over trial and one with a two-by-two factorial design. Most studies had sample sizes under 50 participants. Twenty studies involved a remediation approach to cognitive rehabilitation, particularly using computer-based interventions. The other four involved a compensatory and adaptive approach. The length of interventions ranged from 10 days to 18 weeks, with a mean total length of 19 hours. Control groups mostly received usual rehabilitation or occupational therapy care, with a few receiving an attention control that was comparable to usual care; two had no intervention (i.e. a waiting list). Apart from high risk of performance bias for all but one of the studies, the risk of bias for other aspects was mostly low or unclear.  For the primary outcome of BADL, meta-analysis found a small effect on completion of the intervention with a mean difference (MD) of 2.26 on the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.17 to 4.22; P = 0.03, I 2 = 0%; 6 studies, 336 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therefore, on average, BADL improved by 2.26 points on the FIM that ranges from 18 (total assist) to 126 (complete independence). On follow-up, there was insufficient evidence of an effect at three months (MD 10.00, 95% CI -0.54 to 20.55; P = 0.06, I 2 = 53%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence), but evidence of an effect at six months (MD 11.38, 95% CI 1.62 to 21.14, I 2 = 12%; 2 studies, 73 participants; low-certainty evidence). These differences are below 22 points which is the established minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the FIM for people with stroke. For IADL, the evidence is very uncertain about an effect (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.47; P = 0.0005, I 2 = 98%; 2 studies, 88 participants). For community integration, we found insufficient evidence of an effect (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.54; P = 0.68, I 2 = 0%; 2 studies, 78 participants). There was an improvement of clinical importance in global cognitive functional performance after the intervention (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.54; P = 0.0004, I 2 = 0%; 9 studies, 432 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.63 points on the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) (95% CI 0.75 to 2.52), which exceeds the anchor-based MCID of the MoCA for stroke rehabilitation patients of 1.22. We found some effect for attention overall (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.15; P = 0.0002, I 2 = 20%; 13 studies, 620 participants; low-certainty evidence), equating to a difference of 17.31 seconds (95% CI 8.38 to 26.24), and for executive functional performance overall (SMD 0.49, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.66; P < 0.00001, I 2 = 74%; 11 studies, 550 participants; very low-certainty evidence), equating to 1.41 points on the Frontal Assessment Battery (range: 0-18). Of the cognitive subdomains, we found evidence of effect of possible clinical importance, immediately after intervention, for sustained visual attention (moderate certainty) equating to 15.63 seconds, for working memory (low certainty) equating to 59.9 seconds, and thinking flexibly (low certainty), compared to control., Authors' Conclusions: The effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment poststroke remains unclear. Occupational therapy may result in little to no clinical difference in BADL immediately after intervention and at three and six months' follow-up. Occupational therapy may slightly improve global cognitive performance of a clinically important difference immediately after intervention, likely improves sustained visual attention slightly, and may slightly increase working memory and flexible thinking after intervention. There is evidence of low or very low certainty or insufficient evidence for effect on other cognitive domains, IADL, and community integration and participation.  Given the low certainty of much of the evidence in our review, more research is needed to support or refute the effectiveness of occupational therapy for cognitive impairment after stroke. Future trials need improved methodology to address issues including risk of bias and to better report the outcome measures and interventions used., (Copyright © 2022 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increased interest in communication with the public regarding vaccination. Our recent Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis points to several factors that could influence the implementation and success of healthcare worker communication with older adults about vaccination. However, it is often difficult to assess whether factors identified as potentially important in qualitative studies have been considered in randomized trials because of poor trial reporting. We therefore decided to use our qualitative evidence synthesis findings to encourage better reporting of vaccination communication interventions in trials by developing an elaboration of the TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist for intervention reporting., Methods: We examined the findings from our Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis on healthcare workers' perceptions of and experiences with communicating about vaccination with adults over the age of 50 years. We identified factors that could influence the implementation and uptake, and thereby the effectiveness, of vaccination communication interventions. We then drafted a list of the information elements we would need from trial reports to assess whether these factors had been considered in the development of the interventions evaluated in these trials. Finally, we compared our list of information elements to the TIDieR checklist items. We were able to align all of our information elements with the TIDieR items. However, for several of the TIDieR items, we developed a more detailed description to ensure that relevant information would be captured sufficiently in trial reports., Results: We developed elaborations for the following TIDieR items: "Why" (item 2), "What-materials" (item 3), "Who provided" (item 5), "How" (item 6), "Where" (item 7) and "Tailoring" (item 9)., Conclusions: Both qualitative research and trials of intervention effectiveness are critical to furthering our understanding of what works, where, for whom and through which mechanisms. However, a key ingredient for developing this understanding is adequate reporting of intervention design, content and implementation in randomized trials. We hope that this elaboration of the TIDier checklist will improve reporting of interventions in trials focused on vaccine communication with older adults, and thereby enhance the usability of this research for developing future communication strategies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Purpose: To determine whether acute respiratory infection (ARI) decision aids and a general practitioner (GP) training package reduces antibiotic dispensing rate and improves GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence., Methods: A cluster randomized trial of 27 Australian general practices (13 intervention, 14 control) involving 122 GPs. Intervention group GPs were given brief decision aids for 3 ARIs (acute otitis media, acute sore throat, acute bronchitis) and video-delivered training. Primary outcome was dispensing rate of target antibiotic classes (routinely used for ARIs), extracted for 12 months before, and following, randomization. Secondary outcomes were GPs' knowledge of antibiotic benefit-harm evidence; prescribing influences; acceptability, usefulness, and self-reported resource use; and dispensing rate of all antibiotics., Results: The baseline mean dispensing rate of ARI-related antibiotics was 3.5% (intervention GPs) and 3.2% (control GPs) of consultations. After 12 months, mean rates decreased (to 2.9% intervention; 2.6% control): an 18% relative reduction from baseline but similar in both groups (rate ratio 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89-1.15). Greater increases in knowledge were seen in the intervention group than control; a significant increase (average 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-4.7, P <.001) in the number of correct responses to the 22 knowledge questions. There were no between-group differences for other secondary outcomes. The intervention was well received, perceived as useful, and reported as used by about two-thirds of intervention GPs., Conclusions: A brief shared decision-making intervention provided to GPs did not reduce antibiotic dispensing more than usual care, although GPs' knowledge of relevant benefit-harm evidence increased significantly., (© 2022 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.)

Objectives: To describe the development and initial evaluation of a brief e-learning course as a means of teaching shared decision making and risk communication skills to clinicians of all specialties., Design: Comparison pre-course and post-course of scores in subjective confidence and objective knowledge about shared decision making and risk communication., Setting: Online and open to all specialties and levels of clinical experience, including students., Participants: The course is freely available online and all who started the course from September 2018 to May 2020 were invited to participate in the evaluation study., Intervention: The self-guided e-learning course is made up of four modules and takes approximately 2 hours to complete. It is hosted on the website of the Winton Centre for Risk Communication and the UK's National Health Service e-learning platform., Main Outcome Measures: Pre-course and post-course confidence in performing shared decision making (as measured by a 10-item scale adapted from the OPTION tool; total score range 10-50), and objective knowledge about basic principles of shared decision making and risk communication, as measured by performance on four knowledge questions and three calculations. At course commencement, a single item from the Berlin Numeracy Test, and the eight-item Subjective Numeracy Test were also asked., Results: Of 366 unique participants who consented and commenced the course, 210 completed all modules and the final post-course test. Participants' mean age was 38.1 years, 69% were in current clinical practice and had a mean of 10.5 years of clinical practice. Numeracy was relatively low, with 50.7% correctly answering the Berlin Numeracy Test item pre-course. Participants who completed the course showed a significant improvement in their confidence by a mean summed score of 3.7 units (95% CI 2.9 to 4.6, p<0.0001) from a mean pre-course of 37.4 (SD 6.1) to post-course of 41.1 (SD 6.9). There was an increase in the proportion of correct answers for most knowledge questions (p<0.0001, p=0.013 for two directly compared), although no improvement in most skill questions that involved numbers (eg, calculating relative risks). Participants with higher numeracy appeared to show higher skill and confidence on most questions., Conclusions: This online, free e-learning course was successful in increasing participants' confidence in, and some aspects of knowledge about, shared decision making and risk communication. It also highlighted the need for improvements in clinicians' numerical skills as a vital part of training. We suggest that the course is used in combination with practical face-to-face experience and more intensive numerical skills training., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Patients and clinicians expect the information in patient decision aids to be based on the best available research evidence. The objectives of this International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) review were to 1) check the currency of, and where needed, update evidence for the domain of "basing the information in decision aids on comprehensive, critically appraised, and up-to-date syntheses of the evidence"; 2) analyze the evidence characteristics of decision aids; and 3) propose updates to relevant IPDAS criteria., Methods: We searched MEDLINE and PubMed to inform updates of this domain's definitions, justifications, and components. We also searched 5 sources to identify all publicly available decision aids ( N = 471). Two assessors independently extracted each aid's evidence characteristics., Results: Minor updates to the definitions and theoretical justifications of this IPDAS domain are provided and changes to relevant IPDAS criteria proposed. Nearly all aids (97%) provided a year of creation/update, but most (81%) did not report an explicit update or expiration policy. No scientific references were cited in 33% of aids. Of the 314 that cited at least 1 reference, 39% cited at least 1 guideline, 44% cited at least 1 systematic review, and 23% cited at least 1 randomized trial. In 35%, it was unclear what statement in the aid the citations referred to. Only 14% reported any of the processes used to find and decide on evidence inclusion. Only 14% reported the evidence quality. Many emerging issues and future research areas were identified., Conclusions: Although many emerging issues need to be addressed, this IPDAS domain is validated and criteria refined. High-quality patient decision aids should be based on comprehensive and up-to-date syntheses of critically appraised evidence.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en., (Copyright © 2021 Sociedad Española de Cardiología. Published by Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: TCH and CDM have received funding from the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council for research on reducing antibiotic resistance for acute infections and for shared decision making, and from the Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care for the development of shared decision making resources. MB has no competing interests to declare.

Competing Interests: Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: EL is head of research for the BMJ; MJP is an editorial board member for PLOS Medicine; ACT is an associate editor and MJP, TL, EMW, and DM are editorial board members for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; DM and LAS were editors in chief, LS, JMT, and ACT are associate editors, and JG is an editorial board member for Systematic Reviews; none of these authors were involved in the peer review process or decision to publish. TCH has received personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work. EMW has received personal fees from the American Journal for Public Health, for which he is the editor for systematic reviews. VW is editor in chief of the Campbell Collaboration which produces systematic reviews and co-convenor of the Campbell and Cochrane equity methods group. DM is chair of the EQUATOR Network, IB is adjunct director of the French EQUATOR Centre and TCH is co-director of the Australasian EQUATOR Centre, which advocate for the use of reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting in research articles. JMT received salary from Evidence Partners Inc, creators of DistillerSR software for systematic reviews; Evidence Partners Inc was not involved in the design or outcomes of the statement and the views expressed solely represent those of the author.

Background: Non-bullous impetigo is typically treated with antibiotics. However, the duration of symptoms without their use has not been established, which hampers informed decision making about antibiotic use., Aim: To determine the natural history of non-bullous impetigo., Design and Setting: Systematic review., Method: The authors searched PubMed up to January 2020, as well as reference lists of articles identified in the search. Eligible studies involved participants with impetigo in either the placebo group of randomised trials, or in single-group prognostic studies that did not use antibiotics and measured time to resolution or improvement. A modified version of a risk of bias assessment for prognostic studies was used. Outcomes were percentage of participants who had either symptom resolution, symptom improvement, or failed to improve at any timepoint. Adverse event data were also extracted., Results: Seven randomised trials (557 placebo group participants) were identified. At about 7 days, the percentage of participants classified as resolved ranged from 13% to 74% across the studies, whereas the percentage classified as 'failure to improve' ranged from 16% to 41%. The rate of adverse effects was low. Incomplete reporting of some details limited assessment of risk of bias., Conclusion: Although some uncertainty around the natural history of non-bullous impetigo remains, symptoms resolve in some patients by about 7 days without using antibiotics, with about one-quarter of patients not improving. Immediate antibiotic use may not be mandatory, and discussions with patients should include the expected course of untreated impetigo and careful consideration of the benefits and harms of antibiotic use., (© The Authors.)

Objective: Public cooperation to practise preventive health behaviours is essential to manage the transmission of infectious diseases such as COVID-19. We aimed to investigate beliefs about COVID-19 diagnosis, transmission and prevention that have the potential to impact the uptake of recommended public health strategies., Design: An online cross-sectional survey., Participants: A national sample of 1500 Australian adults with representative quotas for age and gender provided by an online panel provider., Main Outcome Measure: Proportion of participants with correct/incorrect knowledge of COVID-19 preventive behaviours and reasons for misconceptions., Results: Of the 1802 potential participants contacted, 289 did not qualify, 13 declined and 1500 participated in the survey (response rate 83%). Most participants correctly identified 'washing your hands regularly with soap and water' (92%) and 'staying at least 1.5 m away from others' (90%) could help prevent COVID-19. Over 40% (incorrectly) considered wearing gloves outside of the home would prevent them from contracting COVID-19. Views about face masks were divided. Only 66% of participants correctly identified that 'regular use of antibiotics' would not prevent COVID-19.Most participants (90%) identified 'fever, fatigue and cough' as indicators of COVID-19. However, 42% of participants thought that being unable to 'hold your breath for 10 s without coughing' was an indicator of having the virus. The most frequently reported sources of COVID-19 information were commercial television channels (56%), the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (43%) and the Australian Government COVID-19 information app (31%)., Conclusions: Public messaging about hand hygiene and physical distancing to prevent transmission appears to have been effective. However, there are clear, identified barriers for many individuals that have the potential to impede uptake or maintenance of these behaviours in the long term. We need to develop public health messages that harness these barriers to improve future cooperation. Ensuring adherence to these interventions is critical., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Dose articulation is a universal issue of intervention development and testing. In stroke recovery, dose of a nonpharmaceutical intervention appears to influence outcome but is often poorly reported. The challenges of articulating dose in nonpharmacological stroke recovery research include: (1) the absence of specific internationally agreed dose reporting guidelines; (2) inadequate conceptualization of dose, which is multidimensional; and (3) unclear and inconsistent terminology that incorporates the multiple dose dimensions. To address these challenges, we need a well-conceptualized and consistent approach to dose articulation that can be applied across stroke recovery domains to stimulate critical thinking about dose during intervention development, as well as promote reporting of planned intervention dose versus actually delivered dose. We followed the Design Research Paradigm to develop a framework that guides how to articulate dose, conceptualizes the multidimensional nature and systemic linkages between dose dimensions, and provides reference terminology for the field. Our framework recognizes that dose is multidimensional and comprised of a duration of days that contain individual sessions and episodes that can be active (time on task) or inactive (time off task), and each individual episode can be made up of information about length, intensity, and difficulty. Clinical utility of this framework was demonstrated via hypothetical application to preclinical and clinical domains of stroke recovery. The suitability of the framework to address dose articulation challenges was confirmed with an international expert advisory group. This novel framework provides a pathway for better articulation of nonpharmacological dose that will enable transparent and accurate description, implementation, monitoring, and reporting, in stroke recovery research.

Background: Viral epidemics or pandemics of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) pose a global threat. Examples are influenza (H1N1) caused by the H1N1pdm09 virus in 2009, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by SARS-CoV-2 in 2019. Antiviral drugs and vaccines may be insufficient to prevent their spread. This is an update of a Cochrane Review published in 2007, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The evidence summarised in this review does not include results from studies from the current COVID-19 pandemic., Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of physical interventions to interrupt or reduce the spread of acute respiratory viruses., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL on 1 April 2020. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO ICTRP on 16 March 2020. We conducted a backwards and forwards citation analysis on the newly included studies., Selection Criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs of trials investigating physical interventions (screening at entry ports, isolation, quarantine, physical distancing, personal protection, hand hygiene, face masks, and gargling) to prevent respiratory virus transmission. In previous versions of this review we also included observational studies. However, for this update, there were sufficient RCTs to address our study aims.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. Three pairs of review authors independently extracted data using a standard template applied in previous versions of this review, but which was revised to reflect our focus on RCTs and cluster-RCTs for this update. We did not contact trialists for missing data due to the urgency in completing the review. We extracted data on adverse events (harms) associated with the interventions., Main Results: We included 44 new RCTs and cluster-RCTs in this update, bringing the total number of randomised trials to 67. There were no included studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. Six ongoing studies were identified, of which three evaluating masks are being conducted concurrent with the COVID pandemic, and one is completed. Many studies were conducted during non-epidemic influenza periods, but several studies were conducted during the global H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009, and others in epidemic influenza seasons up to 2016. Thus, studies were conducted in the context of lower respiratory viral circulation and transmission compared to COVID-19. The included studies were conducted in heterogeneous settings, ranging from suburban schools to hospital wards in high-income countries; crowded inner city settings in low-income countries; and an immigrant neighbourhood in a high-income country. Compliance with interventions was low in many studies. The risk of bias for the RCTs and cluster-RCTs was mostly high or unclear. Medical/surgical masks compared to no masks We included nine trials (of which eight were cluster-RCTs) comparing medical/surgical masks versus no masks to prevent the spread of viral respiratory illness (two trials with healthcare workers and seven in the community). There is low certainty evidence from nine trials (3507 participants) that wearing a mask may make little or no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness (ILI) compared to not wearing a mask (risk ratio (RR) 0.99, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.18. There is moderate certainty evidence that wearing a mask probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza compared to not wearing a mask (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.26; 6 trials; 3005 participants). Harms were rarely measured and poorly reported. Two studies during COVID-19 plan to recruit a total of 72,000 people. One evaluates medical/surgical masks (N = 6000) (published Annals of Internal Medicine, 18 Nov 2020), and one evaluates cloth masks (N = 66,000). N95/P2 respirators compared to medical/surgical masks We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one in a household setting). There is uncertainty over the effects of N95/P2 respirators when compared with medical/surgical masks on the outcomes of clinical respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; very low-certainty evidence; 3 trials; 7779 participants) and ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; low-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). The evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirator compared to a medical/surgical mask probably makes little or no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.34; moderate-certainty evidence; 5 trials; 8407 participants). Restricting the pooling to healthcare workers made no difference to the overall findings. Harms were poorly measured and reported, but discomfort wearing medical/surgical masks or N95/P2 respirators was mentioned in several studies. One ongoing study recruiting 576 people compares N95/P2 respirators with medical surgical masks for healthcare workers during COVID-19. Hand hygiene compared to control Settings included schools, childcare centres, homes, and offices. In a comparison of hand hygiene interventions with control (no intervention), there was a 16% relative reduction in the number of people with ARIs in the hand hygiene group (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.86; 7 trials; 44,129 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), suggesting a probable benefit. When considering the more strictly defined outcomes of ILI and laboratory-confirmed influenza, the estimates of effect for ILI (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.13; 10 trials; 32,641 participants; low-certainty evidence) and laboratory-confirmed influenza (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.30; 8 trials; 8332 participants; low-certainty evidence) suggest the intervention made little or no difference. We pooled all 16 trials (61,372 participants) for the composite outcome of ARI or ILI or influenza, with each study only contributing once and the most comprehensive outcome reported. The pooled data showed that hand hygiene may offer a benefit with an 11% relative reduction of respiratory illness (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95; low-certainty evidence), but with high heterogeneity. Few trials measured and reported harms. There are two ongoing studies of handwashing interventions in 395 children outside of COVID-19. We identified one RCT on quarantine/physical distancing. Company employees in Japan were asked to stay at home if household members had ILI symptoms. Overall fewer people in the intervention group contracted influenza compared with workers in the control group (2.75% versus 3.18%; hazard ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.97). However, those who stayed at home with their infected family members were 2.17 times more likely to be infected. We found no RCTs on eye protection, gowns and gloves, or screening at entry ports., Authors' Conclusions: The high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low compliance with the interventions during the studies hamper drawing firm conclusions and generalising the findings to the current COVID-19 pandemic. There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. The low-moderate certainty of the evidence means our confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that the true effect may be different from the observed estimate of the effect. The pooled results of randomised trials did not show a clear reduction in respiratory viral infection with the use of medical/surgical masks during seasonal influenza. There were no clear differences between the use of medical/surgical masks compared with N95/P2 respirators in healthcare workers when used in routine care to reduce respiratory viral infection. Hand hygiene is likely to modestly reduce the burden of respiratory illness. Harms associated with physical interventions were under-investigated. There is a need for large, well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many of these interventions in multiple settings and populations, especially in those most at risk of ARIs., (Copyright © 2020 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Objective: Overuse of diagnostic imaging for patients with low back pain remains common. The underlying beliefs about diagnostic imaging that could drive overuse remain unclear. We synthesised qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain., Design: A qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis., Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO from inception to 17 June 2019. Qualitative studies that interviewed clinicians, patients and/or general public exploring beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain were included. Four review authors independently extracted data and organised these according to themes and subthemes. We used the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool to critically appraise included studies. To assess confidence in review findings, we used the GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research method., Results: We included 69 qualitative studies with 1747 participants. Key findings included: Patients and clinicians believe diagnostic imaging is an important test to locate the source of low back pain (33 studies, high confidence); patients with chronic low back pain believe pathological findings on diagnostic imaging provide evidence that pain is real (12 studies, moderate confidence); and clinicians ordered diagnostic imaging to reduce the risk of a missed diagnosis that could lead to litigation, and to manage patients' expectations (12 studies, moderate confidence)., Conclusion: Clinicians and patients can believe that diagnostic imaging is an important tool for locating the source of non-specific low back pain. Patients may underestimate the harms of unnecessary imaging tests. These beliefs could be important targets for intervention., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017076047., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Objectives: Interpreting a randomized trial requires access to more than the main results paper. We aimed to determine the (1) proportion of trials referring to the protocol in the trial report and their accessibility, (2) proportion of protocols accessible from trial registry entry and by trial registration number search, and (3) types of additional publications associated with trial reports., Study Design and Setting: A previously gathered sample of randomized trials of nonpharmacological interventions published in 2009 was used. Trial reports and registry entries were searched for protocol mentions and obtained when possible. Related publications were identified using citation searching., Results: Of 133 trials, 96 (72%) mentioned the protocol within the report, 61 (64%) contained details about protocol acquisition, with 48 (36%) protocols obtainable. Of the 129 registered trials, 32 (25%) had protocols obtainable from registry entry. Citation tracking identified 1,030 related publications, most common were secondary analyses and qualitative studies., Conclusion: Trial protocols facilitate good trial conduct and interpretation. However, they are often not linked to the main report or registry and can be difficult to obtain. Many trials have related publications that are inconsistently linked. Trial registries and registration numbers could facilitate the threading of articles related to a trial, but currently do not., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Shared decision making is integral to high-quality, evidence-based, and patient-centred physiotherapy practice. It involves therapists and patients collaboratively making a health-related decision after having discussed the options, the likely benefits and harms of each option, and considered the patient's values, preferences and circumstances. Despite being a crucial part of the final step in evidence-based practice, the skills needed to facilitate shared decision making are rarely taught to physiotherapists. This Debate article explores the reasons for the importance of shared decision making to physiotherapy practice; its fundamental role in improving therapist-patient communication, informed decision-making, and evidence-based care; and illustrates some of the processes involved using clinical scenarios., (Copyright © 2019 Chartered Society of Physiotherapy. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Shared decision-making (SDM) has emerged as a key skill to assist clinicians in applying evidence-based practice (EBP). We aimed to develop and pilot a new approach to teaching EBP, which focuses on teaching knowledge and skills about SDM and pre-appraised evidence. We designed a half-day workshop, informed by an international consensus on EBP core competencies and invited practicing clinicians to participate. Skills in SDM and communicating evidence were assessed by audio-recording consultations between clinicians and standardised patients (immediately pre-workshop and post-workshop). These were rated by two independent assessors using the OPTION (Observing Patient Involvement, 0 to 100 points) and ACEPP (Assessing Communication about Evidence and Patient Preferences, 0 to 5 points) tools. Participants also completed a feedback questionnaire (9 Likert scale and four open-ended questions). Fourteen clinicians participated. Skills in SDM and communicating research evidence improved from pre-workshop to post-workshop (mean increase in OPTION score=5.5, 95% CI 1.0 to 9.9; increase in ACEPP score=0.5, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.06). Participant feedback was positive, with most indicating 'agree' or 'strongly agree' to the questions. A contemporary approach to teaching clinicians EBP, with a focus on SDM and pre-appraised evidence, was feasible, perceived as useful, and showed modest improvements in skills. Results should be interpreted cautiously because of the small study size and pre-post design., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

While advances in assessment and management of musculoskeletal conditions have improved care for many people, there have been other, less beneficial developments in the provision of care for people with musculoskeletal pain conditions, one of which is the worrying tendency to provide too much medicine. Too much medicine occurs when the provision of either investigation or intervention (or both) is unjustifiably excessive. Another concern in musculoskeletal health care is medicalizing normality-when a normal human function or condition is labeled as abnormal. In this Viewpoint, the authors argue that medicalizing normality creates health concerns where none exist, while too much medicine involves provision of care where benefits do not outweigh harms, and wastes precious health care resources. The authors (1) list 2 common examples of too much medicine, and 2 examples of medicalizing normality, relevant to physical therapy practice; (2) outline the drivers of too much medicine and medicalizing normality; and (3) make suggestions for change. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2020;50(1):1-4. doi:10.2519/jospt.2020.0601 .

Moving research evidence to practice can take years, if not decades, which denies stroke patients and families from receiving the best care. We present the results of an international consensus process prioritizing what research evidence to implement into stroke rehabilitation practice to have maximal impact. An international 10-member Knowledge Translation Working Group collaborated over a six-month period via videoconferences and a two-day face-to-face meeting. The process was informed from surveys received from 112 consumers/family members and 502 health care providers in over 28 countries, as well as from an international advisory of 20 representatives from 13 countries. From this consensus process, five of the nine identified priorities relate to service delivery (interdisciplinary care, screening and assessment, clinical practice guidelines, intensity, family support) and are generally feasible to implement or improve upon today. Readily available website resources are identified to help health care providers harness the necessary means to implement existing knowledge and solutions to improve service delivery. The remaining four priorities relate to system issues (access to services, transitions in care) and resources (equipment/technology, staffing) and are acknowledged to be more difficult to implement. We recommend that health care providers, managers, and organizations determine whether the priorities we identified are gaps in their local practice, and if so, consider implementation solutions to address them to improve the quality of lives of people living with stroke.

Introduction: Treatment fidelity is a complex, multifaceted evaluative process which refers to whether a studied intervention was delivered as intended. Monitoring and enhancing fidelity is one recommendation of the TiDIER (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) checklist, as fidelity can inform interpretation and conclusions drawn about treatment effects. Despite the methodological and translational benefits, fidelity strategies have been used inconsistently within health behaviour intervention studies; in particular, within aphasia intervention studies, reporting of fidelity remains relatively rare. This paper describes the development of a fidelity protocol for the Action Success Knowledge (ASK) study, a current cluster randomised trial investigating an early mood intervention for people with aphasia (a language disability caused by stroke)., Methods and Analysis: A novel fidelity protocol and tool was developed to monitor and enhance fidelity within the two arms (experimental treatment and attention control) of the ASK study. The ASK fidelity protocol was developed based on the National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium fidelity framework., Ethics and Dissemination: The study protocol was approved by the Darling Downs Hospital and Health Service Human Research Ethics Committee in Queensland, Australia under the National Mutual Acceptance scheme of multicentre human research projects. Specific ethics approval was obtained for those participating sites who were not under the National Mutual Agreement at the time of application. The monitoring and ongoing conduct of the research project is in line with requirements under the National Mutual Acceptance. On completion of the trial, findings from the fidelity reviews will be disseminated via publications and conference presentations., Trial Registration Number: ACTRN12614000979651., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Macrolide antibiotics (macrolides) are among the most commonly prescribed antibiotics worldwide and are used for a wide range of infections. However, macrolides also expose people to the risk of adverse events. The current understanding of adverse events is mostly derived from observational studies, which are subject to bias because it is hard to distinguish events caused by antibiotics from events caused by the diseases being treated. Because adverse events are treatment-specific, rather than disease-specific, it is possible to increase the number of adverse events available for analysis by combining randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the same treatment across different diseases., Objectives: To quantify the incidences of reported adverse events in people taking macrolide antibiotics compared to placebo for any indication., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), which includes the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group Specialised Register (2018, Issue 4); MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946 to 8 May 2018); Embase (from 2010 to 8 May 2018); CINAHL (from 1981 to 8 May 2018); LILACS (from 1982 to 8 May 2018); and Web of Science (from 1955 to 8 May 2018). We searched clinical trial registries for current and completed trials (9 May 2018) and checked the reference lists of included studies and of previous Cochrane Reviews on macrolides., Selection Criteria: We included RCTs that compared a macrolide antibiotic to placebo for any indication. We included trials using any of the four most commonly used macrolide antibiotics: azithromycin, clarithromycin, erythromycin, or roxithromycin. Macrolides could be administered by any route. Concomitant medications were permitted provided they were equally available to both treatment and comparison groups., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted and collected data. We assessed the risk of bias of all included studies and the quality of evidence for each outcome of interest. We analysed specific adverse events, deaths, and subsequent carriage of macrolide-resistant bacteria separately. The study participant was the unit of analysis for each adverse event. Any specific adverse events that occurred in 5% or more of any group were reported. We undertook a meta-analysis when three or more included studies reported a specific adverse event., Main Results: We included 183 studies with a total of 252,886 participants (range 40 to 190,238). The indications for macrolide antibiotics varied greatly, with most studies using macrolides for the treatment or prevention of either acute respiratory tract infections, cardiovascular diseases, chronic respiratory diseases, gastrointestinal conditions, or urogynaecological problems. Most trials were conducted in secondary care settings. Azithromycin and erythromycin were more commonly studied than clarithromycin and roxithromycin.Most studies (89%) reported some adverse events or at least stated that no adverse events were observed.Gastrointestinal adverse events were the most commonly reported type of adverse event. Compared to placebo, macrolides caused more diarrhoea (odds ratio (OR) 1.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.34 to 2.16; low-quality evidence); more abdominal pain (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.22 to 2.26; low-quality evidence); and more nausea (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.37 to 1.90; moderate-quality evidence). Vomiting (OR 1.27, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.56; moderate-quality evidence) and gastrointestinal disorders not otherwise specified (NOS) (OR 2.16, 95% CI 1.56 to 3.00; moderate-quality evidence) were also reported more often in participants taking macrolides compared to placebo.The number of additional people (absolute difference in risk) who experienced adverse events from macrolides was: gastrointestinal disorders NOS 85/1000; diarrhoea 72/1000; abdominal pain 62/1000; nausea 47/1000; and vomiting 23/1000.The number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) ranged from 12 (95% CI 8 to 23) for gastrointestinal disorders NOS to 17 (9 to 47) for abdominal pain; 19 (12 to 33) for diarrhoea; 19 (13 to 30) for nausea; and 45 (22 to 295) for vomiting.There was no clear consistent difference in gastrointestinal adverse events between different types of macrolides or route of administration.Taste disturbances were reported more often by participants taking macrolide antibiotics, although there were wide confidence intervals and moderate heterogeneity (OR 4.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 14.93; I² = 46%; low-quality evidence).Compared with participants taking placebo, those taking macrolides experienced hearing loss more often, however only four studies reported this outcome (OR 1.30, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.70; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We did not find any evidence that macrolides caused more cardiac disorders (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.40; very low-quality evidence); hepatobiliary disorders (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.27 to 4.09; very low-quality evidence); or changes in liver enzymes (OR 1.56, 95% CI 0.73 to 3.37; very low-quality evidence) compared to placebo.We did not find any evidence that appetite loss, dizziness, headache, respiratory symptoms, blood infections, skin and soft tissue infections, itching, or rashes were reported more often by participants treated with macrolides compared to placebo.Macrolides caused less cough (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer respiratory tract infections (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.80; moderate-quality evidence) compared to placebo, probably because these are not adverse events, but rather characteristics of the indications for the antibiotics. Less fever (OR 0.73, 95% 0.54 to 1.00; moderate-quality evidence) was also reported by participants taking macrolides compared to placebo, although these findings were non-significant.There was no increase in mortality in participants taking macrolides compared with placebo (OR 0.96, 95% 0.87 to 1.06; I² = 11%; low-quality evidence).Only 24 studies (13%) provided useful data on macrolide-resistant bacteria. Macrolide-resistant bacteria were more commonly identified among participants immediately after exposure to the antibiotic. However, differences in resistance thereafter were inconsistent.Pharmaceutical companies supplied the trial medication or funding, or both, for 91 trials., Authors' Conclusions: The macrolides as a group clearly increased rates of gastrointestinal adverse events. Most trials made at least some statement about adverse events, such as "none were observed". However, few trials clearly listed adverse events as outcomes, reported on the methods used for eliciting adverse events, or even detailed the numbers of people who experienced adverse events in both the intervention and placebo group. This was especially true for the adverse event of bacterial resistance.

Background: Health information is readily accessible but is of variable quality. General knowledge about how to assess whether claims about health interventions are trustworthy is not common, so people's health decisions can be ill-informed, unnecessarily costly and even unsafe. This review aims to identify and evaluate studies of educational interventions designed to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating claims about the effects of health interventions., Methods/design: We searched multiple electronic databases and sources of grey literature. Inclusion criteria included all study types that included a comparison, any participants (except health professionals or health professional students) and educational interventions aimed at improving people's understanding of one or more of the key concepts considered necessary for assessing health intervention claims. Knowledge and/or understanding of concepts or skills relevant to evaluating health information were our primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included behaviour, confidence, attitude and satisfaction with the educational interventions. Two authors independently screened search results, assessed study eligibility and risk of bias and extracted data. Results were summarised using descriptive synthesis., Results: Among 24 eligible studies, 14 were randomised trials and 10 used other study designs. There was heterogeneity across study participants, settings and educational intervention type, content and delivery. The risk of bias was high in at least one domain for all randomised studies. Most studies measured outcomes immediately after the educational intervention, with few measuring later. In most of the comparisons, measures of knowledge and skills were better among those who had received educational interventions than among controls, and some of these differences were statistically significant. The effects on secondary outcomes were inconsistent., Conclusions: Educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims can improve people's knowledge and skills, at least in the short term. Effects on confidence, attitude and behaviour are uncertain. Many of the studies were at moderate or greater risk of bias. Improvements in study quality, consistency of outcome measures and measures of longer-term effects are needed to improve confidence in estimates of the effects of educational interventions to improve people's understanding of key concepts for evaluating health intervention claims., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42016033103.

Background: Survivors of critical illness often experience a multitude of problems that begin in the intensive care unit (ICU) or present and continue after discharge. These can include muscle weakness, cognitive impairments, psychological difficulties, reduced physical function such as in activities of daily living (ADLs), and decreased quality of life. Early interventions such as mobilizations or active exercise, or both, may diminish the impact of the sequelae of critical illness., Objectives: To assess the effects of early intervention (mobilization or active exercise), commenced in the ICU, provided to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period, compared with delayed exercise or usual care, on improving physical function or performance, muscle strength and health-related quality of life., Search Methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL. We searched conference proceedings, reference lists of retrieved articles, databases of trial registries and contacted experts in the field on 31 August 2017. We did not impose restrictions on language or location of publications., Selection Criteria: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs that compared early intervention (mobilization or active exercise, or both), delivered in the ICU, with delayed exercise or usual care delivered to critically ill adults either during or after the mechanical ventilation period in the ICU., Data Collection and Analysis: Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full-text articles against the inclusion criteria of this review. We resolved any disagreement through discussion with a third review author as required. We presented data descriptively using mean differences or medians, risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals. A meta-analysis was not possible due to the heterogeneity of the included studies. We assessed the quality of evidence with GRADE., Main Results: We included four RCTs (a total of 690 participants), in this review. Participants were adults who were mechanically ventilated in a general, medical or surgical ICU, with mean or median age in the studies ranging from 56 to 62 years. Admitting diagnoses in three of the four studies were indicative of critical illness, while participants in the fourth study had undergone cardiac surgery. Three studies included range-of-motion exercises, bed mobility activities, transfers and ambulation. The fourth study involved only upper limb exercises. Included studies were at high risk of performance bias, as they were not blinded to participants and personnel, and two of four did not blind outcome assessors. Three of four studies reported only on those participants who completed the study, with high rates of dropout. The description of intervention type, dose, intensity and frequency in the standard care control group was poor in two of four studies.Three studies (a total of 454 participants) reported at least one measure of physical function. One study (104 participants) reported low-quality evidence of beneficial effects in the intervention group on return to independent functional status at hospital discharge (59% versus 35%, risk ratio (RR) 1.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.64); the absolute effect is that 246 more people (95% CI 38 to 567) per 1000 would attain independent functional status when provided with early mobilization. The effects on physical functioning are uncertain for a range measures: Barthel Index scores (early mobilization: median 75 control: versus 55, low quality evidence), number of ADLs achieved at ICU (median of 3 versus 0, low quality evidence) or at hospital discharge (median of 6 versus 4, low quality evidence). The effects of early mobilization on physical function measured at ICU discharge are uncertain, as measured by the Acute Care Index of Function (ACIF) (early mobilization mean: 61.1 versus control: 55, mean difference (MD) 6.10, 95% CI -11.85 to 24.05, low quality evidence) and the Physical Function ICU Test (PFIT) score (5.6 versus 5.4, MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.98 to 1.38, low quality evidence). There is low quality evidence that early mobilization may have little or no effect on physical function measured by the Short Physical Performance Battery score at ICU discharge from one study of 184 participants (mean 1.6 in the intervention group versus 1.9 in usual care, MD -0.30, 95% CI -1.10 to 0.50), or at hospital discharge (MD 0, 95% CI -1.00 to 0.90). The fourth study, which examined postoperative cardiac surgery patients did not measure physical function as an outcome.Adverse effects were reported across the four studies but we could not combine the data. Our certainty in the risk of adverse events with either mobilization strategy is low due to the low rate of events. One study reported that in the intervention group one out of 49 participants (2%) experienced oxygen desaturation less than 80% and one of 49 (2%) had accidental dislodgement of the radial catheter. This study also found cessation of therapy due to participant instability occurred in 19 of 498 (4%) of the intervention sessions. In another study five of 101 (5%) participants in the intervention group and five of 109 (4.6%) participants in the control group had postoperative pulmonary complications deemed to be unrelated to intervention. A third study found one of 150 participants in the intervention group had an episode of asymptomatic bradycardia, but completed the exercise session. The fourth study reported no adverse events., Authors' Conclusions: There is insufficient evidence on the effect of early mobilization of critically ill people in the ICU on physical function or performance, adverse events, muscle strength and health-related quality of life at this time. The four studies awaiting classification, and the three ongoing studies may alter the conclusions of the review once these results are available. We assessed that there is currently low-quality evidence for the effect of early mobilization of critically ill adults in the ICU due to small sample sizes, lack of blinding of participants and personnel, variation in the interventions and outcomes used to measure their effect and inadequate descriptions of the interventions delivered as usual care in the studies included in this Cochrane Review.

Introduction: Little is known about how to reduce unnecessary imaging for low back pain. Understanding clinician, patient and general public beliefs about imaging is critical to developing strategies to reduce overuse., Objective: To synthesise qualitative research that has explored clinician, patient or general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain., Methods and Analysis: We will perform a qualitative evidence synthesis of relevant qualitative research exploring clinician, patient and general public beliefs about diagnostic imaging for low back pain. Exclusions will be studies not using qualitative methods and studies not published in English. Studies will be identified using sensitive search strategies in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and PsycINFO. Two reviewers will independently apply inclusion and exclusion criteria, extract data, and use the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme quality assessment tool to assess the quality of included studies. To synthesise the data we will use a narrative synthesis approach that involves developing a theoretical model, conducting a preliminary synthesis, exploring relations in the data, and providing a structured summary. We will code the data using NVivo. At least two reviewers will independently apply the thematic framework to extracted data. Confidence in synthesis findings will be evaluated using the GRADE Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research tool., Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval is not required to conduct this review. We will publish the results in a peer-reviewed journal., Prospero Registration Number: CRD42017076047., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Background: Telehealth-delivered dietary interventions are effective for chronic disease management and are an emerging area of clinical practice. However, to apply interventions from the research setting in clinical practice, health professionals need details of each intervention component., Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the completeness of intervention reporting in published dietary chronic disease management trials that used telehealth delivery methods., Methods: Eligible randomized controlled trial publications were identified through a systematic review. The completeness of reporting of experimental and comparison interventions was assessed by two independent assessors using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist that consists of 12 items including intervention rationale, materials used, procedures, providers, delivery mode, location, when and how much intervention delivered, intervention tailoring, intervention modifications, and fidelity. Where reporting was incomplete, further information was sought from additional published material and through email correspondence with trial authors., Results: Within the 37 eligible trials, there were 49 experimental interventions and 37 comparison interventions. One trial reported every TIDieR item for their experimental intervention. No publications reported every item for the comparison intervention. For the experimental interventions, the most commonly reported items were location (96%), mode of delivery (98%), and rationale for the essential intervention elements (96%). Least reported items for experimental interventions were modifications (2%) and intervention material descriptions (39%) and where to access them (20%). Of the 37 authors, 14 responded with further information, and 8 could not be contacted., Conclusions: Many details of the experimental and comparison interventions in telehealth-delivered dietary chronic disease management trials are incompletely reported. This prevents accurate interpretation of trial results and implementation of effective interventions in clinical practice., (©Molly M Warner, Jaimon T Kelly, Dianne P Reidlinger, Tammy C Hoffmann, Katrina L Campbell. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 11.12.2017.)

Background: Exposure to health claims, particularly in the media and social media, is pervasive, and the information conveyed is often inaccurate, incomplete or misleading. Some young people of high school ages are already making decisions about using readily available health interventions (such as sports drinks and beauty products).Although previous research has assessed adults' understanding of health claims, no research has examined this issue in young adults who are attending high school., Objective: To explore high school students' understanding of, and attitudes towards, concepts relevant to assessing health information and claims., Design: A qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews with 27 Australian high school students. Responses were recorded, transcribed and a thematic analysis performed. Three themes emerged as follows: (i) Variability in sources of health information and claims, and general understanding of their creation and accuracy of content, (ii) The use of substitute indicators to assess health information and claims and make judgements about their trustworthiness, (iii) Uncertainty about, and literal interpretation of, the language of health claims. Despite general scepticism of health claims and admitted uncertainty of research terminology, many students were generally convinced. Students had poor understanding about how health claims are generated and tended to rely on substitute indicators, such as endorsements, when evaluating the believability of claims., Conclusion: School students' lack of awareness of basic health research processes and methods of assessing the accuracy of health information and claims makes them vulnerable to distorted and misleading health information. This restricts their ability to make informed health decisions - a skill that increases in importance as they become adults., (© 2017 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Recent reviews have demonstrated that the quality of stroke rehabilitation research has continued to improve over the last four decades but despite this progress, there are still many barriers in moving the field forward. Rigorous development, monitoring and complete reporting of interventions in stroke trials are essential in providing rehabilitation evidence that is robust, meaningful and implementable. An international partnership of stroke rehabilitation experts committed to develop consensus-based core recommendations with a remit of addressing the issues identified as limiting stroke rehabilitation research in the areas of developing, monitoring and reporting stroke rehabilitation interventions. Work exploring each of the three areas took place via multiple teleconferences and a two-day meeting in Philadelphia in May 2016. A total of 15 recommendations were made. To validate the need for the recommendations, the group reviewed all stroke rehabilitation trials published in 2015 (n=182 papers). Our review highlighted that the majority of publications did not clearly describe how interventions were developed or monitored during the trial. In particular, under-reporting of the theoretical rationale for the intervention and the components of the intervention call into question many interventions that have been evaluated for efficacy. More trials were found to have addressed the reporting of interventions recommendations than those related to development or monitoring. Nonetheless, the majority of reporting recommendations were still not adequately described. To progress the field of stroke rehabilitation research and to ensure stroke patients receive optimal evidence-based clinical care, we urge the research community to endorse and adopt our recommendations.