Search

BackgroundMindfulness interventions aim to foster greater attention and awareness of present moment experiences. Uptake of mindfulness programs in the workplace has grown as organizations look to support employee health, wellbeing, and performance.ObjectiveIn support of evidence-based decision making in workplace contexts, we created an evidence map summarizing physical and mental health, cognitive, affective, and interpersonal outcomes from systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of mindfulness interventions.MethodsWe searched nine electronic databases to July 2017, dually-screened all reviews, and consulted topic experts to identify systematic reviews on mindfulness interventions. The distribution of evidence is presented as an evidence map in a bubble plot.ResultsIn total, 175 systematic reviews met inclusion criteria. Reviews included a variety of mindfulness-based interventions. The largest review included 109 randomized controlled trials. The majority of these addressed general health, psychological conditions, chronic illness, pain, and substance use. Twenty-six systematic reviews assessed studies conducted in workplace settings and with healthcare professionals, educators, and caregivers. The evidence map shows the prevalence of research by the primary area of focus. An outline of promising applications of mindfulness interventions is included.ConclusionsThe evidence map provides an overview of existing mindfulness research. It shows the body of available evidence to inform policy and organizational decision-making supporting employee wellbeing in work contexts.

BackgroundThis evidence map describes the volume and focus of Tai Chi research reporting health outcomes. Originally developed as a martial art, Tai Chi is typically taught as a series of slow, low-impact movements that integrate the breath, mind, and physical activity to achieve greater awareness and a sense of well-being.MethodsThe evidence map is based on a systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 11 electronic databases from inception to February 2014, screened reviews of reviews, and consulted with topic experts. We used a bubble plot to graphically display clinical topics, literature size, number of reviews, and a broad estimate of effectiveness.ResultsThe map is based on 107 systematic reviews. Two thirds of the reviews were published in the last five years. The topics with the largest number of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were general health benefits (51 RCTs), psychological well-being (37 RCTs), interventions for older adults (31 RCTs), balance (27 RCTs), hypertension (18 RCTs), fall prevention (15 RCTs), and cognitive performance (11 RCTs). The map identified a number of areas with evidence of a potentially positive treatment effect on patient outcomes, including Tai Chi for hypertension, fall prevention outside of institutions, cognitive performance, osteoarthritis, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pain, balance confidence, and muscle strength. However, identified reviews cautioned that firm conclusions cannot be drawn due to methodological limitations in the original studies and/or an insufficient number of existing research studies.ConclusionsTai Chi has been applied in diverse clinical areas, and for a number of these, systematic reviews have indicated promising results. The evidence map provides a visual overview of Tai Chi research volume and content.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42014009907.

Abstract Background The evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications. Methods We evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions. Results The search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention. Conclusions The presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed.

Abstract Background The evidence base for quality improvement (QI) interventions is expanding rapidly. The diversity of the initiatives and the inconsistency in labeling these as QI interventions makes it challenging for researchers, policymakers, and QI practitioners to access the literature systematically and to identify relevant publications. Methods We evaluated search strategies developed for MEDLINE (Ovid) and PubMed based on free text words, Medical subject headings (MeSH), QI intervention components, continuous quality improvement (CQI) methods, and combinations of the strategies. Three sets of pertinent QI intervention publications were used for validation. Two independent expert reviewers screened publications for relevance. We compared the yield, recall rate, and precision of the search strategies for the identification of QI publications and for a subset of empirical studies on effects of QI interventions. Results The search yields ranged from 2,221 to 216,167 publications. Mean recall rates for reference publications ranged from 5% to 53% for strategies with yields of 50,000 publications or fewer. The 'best case' strategy, a simple text word search with high face validity ('quality' AND 'improv*' AND 'intervention*') identified 44%, 24%, and 62% of influential intervention articles selected by Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) experts, a set of exemplar articles provided by members of the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence (SQUIRE) group, and a sample from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group (EPOC) register of studies, respectively. We applied the search strategy to a PubMed search for articles published in 10 pertinent journals in a three-year period which retrieved 183 publications. Among these, 67% were deemed relevant to QI by at least one of two independent raters. Forty percent were classified as empirical studies reporting on a QI intervention. Conclusions The presented search terms and operating characteristics can be used to guide the identification of QI intervention publications. Even with extensive iterative development, we achieved only moderate recall rates of reference publications. Consensus development on QI reporting and initiatives to develop QI-relevant MeSH terms are urgently needed.

This systematic review addresses the question: What are the effects of medication-assisted treatment (MAT) that use buprenorphine, buprenorphine combined with naloxone, methadone, or naltrexone for opioid use disorder (OUD) on functional outcomes compared with wait-list, placebo, treatment without medication, any other comparator, or each other (e.g., buprenorphine versus naltrexone)? Functional outcomes investigated included cognitive (e.g., memory), physical (e.g., fatigue), occupational (e.g., employment status), social/behavioral (e.g., criminal activity), and neurological (e.g., balance) function. The authors searched five scientific research databases from inception to 2017 and reference mined existing reviews. Two independent literature reviewers screened 6,292 citations; 1,327 full-text publications were reviewed in detail and 37 studies met inclusion criteria. Critical appraisals assessed studies in detail, and quality of evidence was rated using established criteria. Results were synthesized in meta-analyses and presented in comprehensive evidence tables. Although MAT patients performed significantly better on some functional outcomes than persons with OUD who did not receive MAT, MAT patients performed worse on several cognitive measures than did matched "healthy" controls with no history of substance use disorder (SUD) or OUD. Because of the moderate-to-high risk of bias of most studies, quality of evidence is low or very low for all findings. The small number of studies reporting on outcomes of interest and the weaknesses in the body of evidence prevent making strong conclusions about MAT effects on functional outcomes. The literature shows that more research is needed that targets functional outcomes specifically, and there is, in particular, a lack of research evaluating potential differences in functional effects among medication types, the route of administration, treatment modality, and length of treatment., (Copyright © 2020 RAND Corporation.)

Objective: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis that synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials of meditation interventions to provide estimates of their efficacy and safety in treating adults diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). This review was based on an established protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42015025782) and is reported according to PRISMA guidelines. Outcomes of interest included PTSD symptoms, depression, anxiety, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events., Method: Meta-analyses were conducted using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grade of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Results: In total, 10 trials on meditation interventions for PTSD with 643 participants met inclusion criteria. Across interventions, adjunctive meditation interventions of mindfulness-based stress reduction, yoga, and the mantram repetition program improve PTSD and depression symptoms compared with control groups, but the findings are based on low and moderate quality of evidence. Effects were positive but not statistically significant for quality of life and anxiety, and no studies addressed functional status. The variety of meditation intervention types, the short follow-up times, and the quality of studies limited analyses. No adverse events were reported in the included studies; only half of the studies reported on safety., Conclusions: Meditation appears to be effective for PTSD and depression symptoms, but in order to increase confidence in findings, more high-quality studies are needed on meditation as adjunctive treatment with PTSD-diagnosed participant samples large enough to detect statistical differences in outcomes. (PsycINFO Database Record, ((c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved).)

RAND researchers conducted a systematic review that synthesized evidence from randomized controlled trials of St. John's wort (SJW)-used adjunctively or as monotherapy-to provide estimates of its efficacy and safety in treating adults with major depressive disorder. Outcomes of interest included changes in depressive symptomatology, quality of life, and adverse effects. Efficacy meta-analyses used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random-effects models. Quality of evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. In total, 35 studies met inclusion criteria. There is moderate evidence, due to unexplained heterogeneity between studies, that depression improvement based on the number of treatment responders and depression scale scores favors SJW over placebo, and results are comparable to antidepressants. The existing evidence is based on studies testing SJW as monotherapy; there is a lack of evidence for SJW given as adjunct therapy to standard antidepressant therapy. We found no systematic difference between SJW extracts, but head-to-head trials are missing; LI 160 (0.3% hypericin, 1-4% hyperforin) was the extract with the greatest number of studies. Only two trials assessed quality of life. SJW adverse events reported in included trials were comparable to placebo, and were fewer compared with antidepressant medication; however, adverse event assessments were limited, and thus we have limited confidence in this conclusion.