Search

ObjectivesTo chart the global literature on gender equity in academic health research.DesignScoping review.ParticipantsQuantitative studies were eligible if they examined gender equity within academic institutions including health researchers.Primary and secondary outcome measuresOutcomes related to equity across gender and other social identities in academia: (1) faculty workforce: representation of all genders in university/faculty departments, academic rank or position and salary; (2) service: teaching obligations and administrative/non-teaching activities; (3) recruitment and hiring data: number of applicants by gender, interviews and new hires for various rank; (4) promotion: opportunities for promotion and time to progress through academic ranks; (5) academic leadership: type of leadership positions, opportunities for leadership promotion or training, opportunities to supervise/mentor and support for leadership bids; (6) scholarly output or productivity: number/type of publications and presentations, position of authorship, number/value of grants or awards and intellectual property ownership; (7) contextual factors of universities; (8) infrastructure; (9) knowledge and technology translation activities; (10) availability of maternity/paternity/parental/family leave; (11) collaboration activities/opportunities for collaboration; (12) qualitative considerations: perceptions around promotion, finances and support.ResultsLiterature search yielded 94 798 citations; 4753 full-text articles were screened, and 562 studies were included. Most studies originated from North America (462/562, 82.2%). Few studies (27/562, 4.8%) reported race and fewer reported sex/gender (which were used interchangeably in most studies) other than male/female (11/562, 2.0%). Only one study provided data on religion. No other PROGRESS-PLUS variables were reported. A total of 2996 outcomes were reported, with most studies examining academic output (371/562, 66.0%).ConclusionsReviewed literature suggest a lack in analytic approaches that consider genders beyond the binary categories of man and woman, additional social identities (race, religion, social capital and disability) and an intersectionality lens examining the interconnection of multiple social identities in understanding discrimination and disadvantage. All of these are necessary to tailor strategies that promote gender equity.Trial registration numberOpen Science Framework:https://osf.io/8wk7e/.

Background Positive impacts of quality improvement initiatives on health care and services have not been substantial. Knowledge translation (KT) strategies (tools, products and interventions) strive to facilitate the uptake of knowledge thereby the potential to improve care, but there is little guidance on how to develop them. Existing KT guidance or planning tools fall short in operationalizing all aspects of KT practice activities conducted by knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, patients, decision-makers), and most do not consider their variable needs or to deliver recommendations that are most relevant and useful for them. Methods We conducted a 3-phase study. In phase 1, we used several sources to develop a conceptual framework for creating optimized Knowledge-activated Tools (KaT) (consultation with our integrated KT team, the use of existing KT models and frameworks, findings of a systematic review of multimorbidity interventions and a literature review and document analysis on existing KT guidance tools). In phase 2, we invited KT experts to participate in a Delphi study to refine and evaluate the conceptual KaT framework. In phase 3, we administered an online survey to knowledge users (researchers, clinicians, decision-makers, trainees) to evaluate the potential usefulness of an online mock-up version of the KaT framework. Results We developed the conceptual KaT framework, and iteratively refined it with 35 KT experts in a 3-round Delphi study. The final framework represents the blueprint for what is needed to create KT strategies. Feedback from 201 researcher, clinician, decision-maker and trainee knowledge users on the potential need and usefulness of an online, interactive version of KaT indicated that they liked the idea of it (mean score 4.36 on a 5-point Likert scale) and its proposed features (mean score range 4.30–4.79). Conclusions Our findings suggest that mostly Canadian KT experts and knowledge users perceived the KaT framework and the future development of an online, interactive version to be important and needed. We anticipate that the KaT framework will provide clarity for knowledge users about how to identify their KT needs and what activities can address these needs, and to help streamline the process of these activities to facilitate efficient uptake of knowledge.

INTRODUCTION: More than half of older adults (age ≥ 65 yr) have 2 or more high-burden multimorbidity conditions (i.e., highly prevalent chronic diseases, which are associated with increased health care utilization; these include diabetes [DM], dementia, depression, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD], cardiovascular disease [CVD], arthritis, and heart failure [HF]), yet most existing interventions for managing chronic disease focus on a single disease or do not respond to the specialized needs of older adults. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify effective multimorbidity interventions compared with a control or usual care strategy for older adults. METHODS: We searched bibliometric databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating interventions for managing multiple chronic diseases in any language from 1990 to December 2017. The primary outcome was any outcome specific to managing multiple chronic diseases as reported by studies. Reviewer pairs independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We assessed statistical and methodological heterogeneity and performed a meta-analysis of RCTs with similar interventions and components. RESULTS: We included 25 studies (including 15 RCTs and 6 cluster RCTs) (12 579 older adults; mean age 67.3 yr). In patients with [depression + COPD] or [CVD + DM], care-coordination strategies significantly improved depressive symptoms (standardized mean difference −0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.59 to −0.22; I2 = 0%) and reduced glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels (mean difference −0.51; 95% CI −0.90 to −0.11; I2 = 0%), but not mortality (relative risk [RR] 0.79; 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; I2 = 0%). Among secondary outcomes, care-coordination strategies reduced functional impairment in patients with [arthritis + depression] (between-group difference −0.82; 95% CI −1.17 to −0.47) or [DM + depression] (between-group difference 3.21; 95% CI 1.78 to 4.63); improved cognitive functioning in patients with [DM + depression] (between-group difference 2.44; 95% CI 0.79 to 4.09) or [HF + COPD] (p = 0.006); and increased use of mental health services in those with [DM + (CVD or depression)] (RR 2.57; 95% CI 1.90 to 3.49; I2 = 0%). INTERPRETATION: Subgroup analyses showed that older adults with diabetes and either depression or cardiovascular disease, or with coexistence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heart failure, can benefit from care-coordination strategies with or without education to lower HbA1c, reduce depressive symptoms, improve health-related functional status, and increase the use of mental health services. Protocol registration: PROSPERO-CRD42014014489

Osteoporosis is affecting over 200 million people worldwide. Despite available guidelines, care for these patients remains sub-optimal. We developed an osteoporosis tool to address the multiple dimensions of chronic disease management. Findings from its evaluation showed a significant increase from baseline in osteoporosis investigations and treatment, so we are revising this tool to include multiple chronic conditions including an update of evidence about osteoporosis. Our objectives were to conduct a systematic review of osteoporosis interventions in adults at risk for osteoporosis. We searched bibliometric databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in any language evaluating osteoporosis disease management interventions in adults at risk for osteoporosis. Reviewer pairs independently screened citations and full-text articles, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Analysis included random effects meta-analysis. Primary outcomes were osteoporosis investigations and treatment, and fragility fractures. Fifty-five RCTs and one companion report were included in the analysis representing 165,703 patients. Our findings from 55 RCTs and 18 sub-group meta-analyses showed that complex implementation interventions with multiple components consisting of at least education + feedback + follow-up significantly increased the initiation of osteoporosis medications, and interventions with at least education + follow-up significantly increased the initiation of osteoporosis investigations. No significant impact was found for any type of intervention to reduce fracture. Complex interventions that include at least education + follow-up or feedback have the most potential for increasing osteoporosis investigations and treatment. Patient education appears to be an important component in osteoporosis disease management.

Additional file 1: Appendices.

Additional file 1. Appendix.

Objective To describe the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia who experience depression as a neuropsychiatric symptom of dementia or have a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and grey literature between inception and 15 October 2020. Eligibility criteria for study selection Randomised trials comparing drug or non-drug interventions with usual care or any other intervention targeting symptoms of depression in people with dementia. Main outcome measures Pairs of reviewers screened studies, abstracted aggregate level data, and appraised risk of bias with the Cochrane risk of bias tool, which facilitated the derivation of standardised mean differences and back transformed mean differences (on the Cornell scale for depression in dementia) from bayesian random effects network meta-analyses and pairwise meta-analyses. Results Of 22 138 citations screened, 256 studies (28 483 people with dementia) were included. Missing data posed the greatest risk to review findings. In the network meta-analysis of studies including people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder who were experiencing symptoms of depression (213 studies; 25 177 people with dementia; between study variance 0.23), seven interventions were associated with a greater reduction in symptoms of depression compared with usual care: cognitive stimulation (mean difference −2.93, 95% credible interval −4.35 to −1.52), cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor (−11.39, −18.38 to −3.93), massage and touch therapy (−9.03, −12.28 to −5.88), multidisciplinary care (−1.98, −3.80 to −0.16), occupational therapy (−2.59, −4.70 to −0.40), exercise combined with social interaction and cognitive stimulation (−12.37, −19.01 to −5.36), and reminiscence therapy (−2.30, −3.68 to −0.93). Except for massage and touch therapy, cognitive stimulation combined with a cholinesterase inhibitor, and cognitive stimulation combined with exercise and social interaction, which were more efficacious than some drug interventions, no statistically significant difference was found in the comparative efficacy of drug and non-drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a diagnosis of a major depressive disorder. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity precluded network meta-analysis of studies comparing the efficacy of interventions specifically for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia and a major depressive disorder (22 studies; 1829 patients). Conclusions In this systematic review, non-drug interventions were found to be more efficacious than drug interventions for reducing symptoms of depression in people with dementia without a major depressive disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017050130.

Introduction Performance data can be used to monitor and guide interventions aimed at improving the quality and safety of patient care. To use performance data effectively, nurses need to understand how to interpret and use data in meaningful ways to guide practice. Dashboards are interactive computerised tools that display performance data. In one large, urban teaching hospital in Toronto, Canada, unit-specific dashboards were implemented across the organisation. Methods A qualitative study was undertaken to explore the perceptions and experiences of front-line nurses and managers associated with the implementation of a unit-level dashboard. Six units were selected to participate in the study. Data were analysed using a directed content analysis approach. Results The sample included 56 study participants, including 51 front-line nurses and 5 unit managers. Three key themes emerged around nurses’ and unit managers’ perspectives on the implementation of unit-specific dashboards. Nurses and managers described that the Care Utilising Evidence dashboard was a visual tool that displayed data on the impact of the nursing care provided to patients. This tool also was used by the nurses and managers to keep track of processes of care and patient outcomes and experiences at a unit level. Further, nurses were able to use performance data to identify quality care improvements specific to their unit. Conclusions The results highlight how unit-specific dashboards are being used to monitor performance and drive quality improvement efforts from the perspectives of nurses and unit managers. In practice, nurse leaders may consider investing in dashboards as a quality improvement strategy to optimise the use of performance data at their organisations.

ObjectivesTo understand how and why effective multi-chronic disease management interventions influence health outcomes in older adults 65 years of age or older.DesignA realist review.Data sourcesElectronic databases including Medline and Embase (inception to December 2017); and the grey literature.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesWe considered any studies (ie, experimental quasi-experimental, observational, qualitative and mixed-methods studies) as long as they provided data to explain our programme theories and effectiveness review (published elsewhere) findings. The population of interest was older adults (age ≥65 years) with two or more chronic conditions.AnalysisWe used the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) quality and publication criteria for our synthesis aimed at refining our programme theories such that they contained multiple context-mechanism-outcome configurations describing the ways different mechanisms fire to generate outcomes. We created a 3-step synthesis process grounded in meta-ethnography to separate units of data from articles, and to derive explanatory statements across them.Results106 articles contributed to the analysis. We refined our programme theories to explain multimorbidity management in older adults: (1) care coordination interventions with the best potential for impact are team-based strategies, disease management programmes and case management; (2) optimised disease prioritisation involves ensuring that clinician work with patients to identify what symptoms are problematic and why, and to explore options that are acceptable to both clinicians and patients and (3) optimised patient self-management is dependent on patients’ capacity for selfcare and to what extent, and establishing what patients need to enable selfcare.ConclusionsTo optimise care, both clinical management and patient self-management need to be considered from multiple perspectives (patient, provider and system). To mitigate the complexities of multimorbidity management, patients focus on reducing symptoms and preserving quality of life while providers focus on the condition that most threaten morbidity and mortality.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42014014489.