Silvia Minozzi

Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme have collaborated to produce four Cochrane overviews of systematic reviews synthesizing evidence from health policy and systems research (HPSR) in rehabilitation. Each overview focuses on one of the four HPSR pillars identified by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy: delivery, financial, and governance arrangements; and implementation strategies. This overview addresses delivery arrangements, which Cochrane EPOC defines as how health services are organized and delivered, including who provides care, how care is coordinated and managed, and where services are provided. This overview aimed to synthesize current evidence on delivery arrangements in rehabilitation from an HPSR perspective. Our series of four overviews has the following overarching objectives. • To offer a broad synthesis of existing evidence on health policy and systems interventions' effects. • To direct end-users, including policymakers, towards systematic reviews that may address their health policy questions. • To identify current research gaps and set priorities for future primary HPSR. • To pinpoint needs and priorities for new evidence syntheses where no reliable, up-to-date systematic reviews currently exist. We searched Epistemonikos Health Systems Evidence databases and EPOC Group systematic reviews with no language limitations to identify reviews published between 2015 and 17 November 2024. We included Cochrane systematic reviews (CSRs) and non-CSRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) evaluating the effectiveness of health policy and systems interventions for rehabilitation in health systems, specifically related to delivery arrangements as defined in the EPOC taxonomy. All four overview teams screened reviews and extracted data. We used AMSTAR 2 to critically appraise the reviews, and we analyzed the results descriptively. We included 25 systematic reviews. Three overlapped, and for 17 the AMSTAR 2 rating was low or critically low confidence. Five systematic reviews (2 CSRs and 3 non-CSRs) contributed to our synthesis. Most outcomes focused on patients, caregivers, or service use (e.g. access to rehabilitation). Equity-related outcomes were absent, and quality of care, adverse events, and our important outcomes were rarely reported. Below, we report the results of three of the five reviews judged to have moderate to high confidence for our outcomes of interest, in which authors conducted meta-analysis and assessed the certainty of the evidence. Who provides care One review analyzed advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models, which may result in little to no difference in health-related outcomes measured by the Pain Disability Index and EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire after the intervention, compared with usual care in adults with spinal pain (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.32 to 0.42; 2 studies, 225 participants; low certainty). Information and communication technology We included two reviews in this category. One compared telerehabilitation with usual care in older adults, finding that telerehabilitation may have little or no effect on quality of life after seven to 20 weeks (SMD -0.09, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.40; 3 studies, 179 participants; low certainty). There was very low-certainty evidence on mobility after seven to 26 weeks (SMD 0.63, 95% CI -0.25 to 1.51; 5 studies, 302 participants), strength after 12 and 26 weeks (SMD 0.73, 95% CI -0.10 to 1.56; 4 studies, 226 participants), and balance after seven to 26 weeks (SMD 0.40, 95% CI -0.35 to 1.15; 3 studies, 199 participants). Another review on stroke survivors living in the community found that telerehabilitation compared with usual care probably has little or no effect on independence in activities of daily living (ADL) after 24 weeks (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.15; 2 studies, 661 participants; moderate certainty), self-reported quality of life after six to 24 weeks (SMD 0.03, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.20; 3 studies, 569 participants; moderate certainty), and depression after six to 24 weeks (SMD -0.04, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.11; 6 studies, 1145 participants; moderate certainty); and may have little or no effect on upper limb function after 12 weeks (SMD 0.33, 95% CI -0.21 to 0.87; 2 studies, 54 participants; low certainty) and mobility after six weeks (mean difference 0.01, 95% CI -0.12 to 0.14; 1 study; 144 participants; low certainty). This review also compared telerehabilitation with in-person rehabilitation and found that there may be little to no difference in independence in ADL, measured with the Modified Barthel Index at four to 12 weeks (MD 0.59, 95% CI -5.50 to 6.68; 2 studies, 75 participants; low certainty); balance, measured with the Berg Balance Scale at four to 12 weeks (MD 0.48, 95% CI -1.36 to 2.32; 3 studies, 106 participants; low certainty); and upper limb function, evaluated with the Fugl-Meyer Assessment (Upper Extremity) four weeks after intervention (MD 1.23, 95% CI -2.17 to 4.64; 3 studies, 170 participants; low certainty). Current evidence on delivery arrangements in rehabilitation is limited, mostly of low certainty, and derived from high-income countries. Reviews covered five EPOC categories, but reliable evidence for our outcomes of interest was available for only two categories. Most evidence was on telerehabilitation. Compared with usual care, APP models may have little to no effect on health outcomes in adults with spinal pain. In people with stroke, telerehabilitation compared with usual care probably has little or no effect on independence in daily living, quality of life, and depression, and may have little to no effect on upper limb function and mobility. Compared with in-person care, telerehabilitation may have little to no effect on ADL, balance, and upper limb function. Further...

Background Cochrane Rehabilitation and the World Health Organization (WHO) Rehabilitation Programme have collaborated to produce four Cochrane overviews of systematic reviews that synthesize current available evidence from health policy and systems research (HPSR) in rehabilitation. Each overview focuses on one of the four pillars of HPSR as identified by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) taxonomy: delivery arrangements, financial arrangements, governance arrangements, and implementation strategies. This overview examined implementation strategies, defined by EPOC as interventions designed to bring about changes in healthcare organizations, the behavior of healthcare professionals, or the use of health services by healthcare recipients. Objectives This overview aimed to synthesize current evidence on implementation strategies in rehabilitation from a health policy and systems research (HPSR) perspective. Our series of four overviews have the following overarching objectives. • To offer a broad synthesis of the existing evidence on health policy and systems interventions' effects. • To direct end‐users, including policymakers, towards systematic reviews that may address their health policy questions. • To identify current research gaps and set priorities for future primary HPSR. • To pinpoint the needs and priorities for new evidence syntheses where no reliable, up‐to‐date systematic reviews currently exist. Methods We searched the Epistemonikos database, the Health Systems Evidence database, and EPOC Group systematic reviews to identify reviews published between 1 January 2015 and 17 November 2024. We applied no language limitations. We included Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non‐randomized studies of interventions (NRSIs) that evaluated the effectiveness of health policy and systems interventions for rehabilitation in health systems, specifically related to implementation strategies as defined in the EPOC taxonomy. All four overview teams collaborated to screen reviews and extract data. We used AMSTAR 2 to critically appraise the quality of the reviews. Results were analyzed descriptively and are based on reviews with ratings of high‐to‐moderate confidence, with low‐confidence reviews reported separately. Main results We identified 7882 systematic reviews, of which 15 met our inclusion criteria. Three reviews overlapped substantially with other reviews, and eight received low‐ or critically low‐confidence ratings. Ultimately, four moderate‐ to high‐confidence reviews contributed to the synthesis; two were Cochrane systematic reviews. Most primary studies were from high‐income countries; none were from low‐income countries. Most strategies targeting healthcare professionals (e.g. guideline dissemination, interactive workshops, opinion leaders, audit and feedback) or healthcare recipients (e.g. structured monitoring, telehealth support, counseling, motivational interviewing) included more than one component. Strategies targeting healthcare recipients' use of health services in cardiac rehabilitation may show small benefits in terms of participation (enrollment, adherence, completion), but effects on other outcomes are uncertain. The effects of strategies targeting older healthcare recipients via telehealth are uncertain. Strategies targeting healthcare professionals may have little to no effect on professional or patient and carer outcomes in stroke rehabilitation. For musculoskeletal conditions, there were no evidence‐certainty ratings, so intervention effects are unclear. We found no reviews of strategies targeting health service organizations or specific types of rehabilitation practice. The evidence certainty was generally low; evidence of adverse events was missing or uncertain; and reporting on organizational, implementation, economic, and equity outcomes was scarce. Authors' conclusions Current evidence on implementation strategies in rehabilitation is limited, mostly of low certainty, and derived from high‐income countries. Multicomponent, patient‐targeted strategies may modestly improve cardiac rehabilitation participation, but effects in other areas remain uncertain. Further high‐quality research using well‐defined frameworks is needed, especially in low‐ and middle‐income countries, to identify effective strategies and evaluate organizational, implementation, and equity outcomes. Future Cochrane overviews of reviews in HPSR should consider including a broader range of study designs, such as observational, qualitative, and mixed‐methods evidence, to better capture evidence on implementation strategies in rehabilitation. Funding This Cochrane review was funded by the Italian Ministry of Health (Ricerca Corrente). The funder played no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Registration The protocol was first published in the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine online on 27 January 2025. The manuscript was received on 11 November 2024 and was accepted on 26 November 2024. Protocol: DOI 10.23736/S1973‐9087.24.08833‐6.

Aim This guideline (GL) is aimed at providing a clinical practice reference for the management of adult patients with overweight or obesity associated with metabolic complications who are resistant to lifestyle modification. Methods Surgeons, endocrinologists, gastroenterologists, psychologists, pharmacologists, a general practitioner, a nutritionist, a nurse and a patients’ representative acted as multi-disciplinary panel. This GL has been developed following the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A systematic review and network meta-analysis was performed by a methodologic group. For each question, the panel identified potentially relevant outcomes, which were then rated for their impact on therapeutic choices. Only outcomes classified as “critical” and “important” were considered in the systematic review of evidence. Those classified as “critical” were considered for clinical practice recommendations. Consensus on the direction (for or against) and strength (strong or conditional) of recommendations was reached through a majority vote. Results The present GL provides recommendations about the role of both pharmacological and surgical treatment for the clinical management of the adult patient population with BMI > 27 kg/m² and < 40 kg/m² associated with weight-related metabolic comorbidities, resistant to lifestyle changes. The panel: suggests the timely implementation of therapeutic interventions in addition to diet and physical activity; recommends the use of semaglutide 2.4 mg/week and suggests liraglutide 3 mg/day in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by diabetes or pre-diabetes; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by non-alcoholic fatty liver disease; recommends semaglutide 2.4 mg/week as first-line drug in patients with obesity or overweight that require a larger weight loss to reduce comorbidities; suggests the use of orlistat in patients with obesity or overweight also affected by hypertriglyceridemia that assume high-calorie and high-fat diet; suggests the use of naltrexone/bupropion combination in patients with obesity or overweight, with emotional eating; recommends surgical intervention (sleeve gastrectomy, Roux-en-Y gastric bypass, or metabolic gastric bypass/gastric bypass with single anastomosis/gastric mini bypass in patients with BMI ≥ 35 kg/m² who are suitable for metabolic surgery; and suggests gastric banding as a possible, though less effective, surgical alternative. Conclusion The present GL is directed to all physicians addressing people with obesity—working in hospitals, territorial services or private practice—and to general practitioners and patients. The recommendations should also consider the patient’s preferences and the available resources and expertise.

Background Cocaine is a psychostimulant used by approximately 0.4% of the general population worldwide. Cocaine dependence is a chronic mental disorder characterised by the inability to control cocaine use and a host of severe medical and psychosocial complications. There is current no approved pharmacological treatment for cocaine dependence. Some researchers have proposed disulfiram, a medication approved to treat alcohol use disorder. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2010. Objectives To evaluate the efficacy and safety of disulfiram for the treatment of cocaine dependence. Search methods We updated our searches of the following databases to August 2022: the Cochrane Drugs and Alcohol Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. We also searched for ongoing and unpublished studies via two trials registries. We handsearched the references of topic‐related systematic reviews and included studies. The searches had no language restrictions. Selection criteria We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated disulfiram alone or associated with psychosocial interventions versus placebo, no intervention, other pharmacological interventions, or any psychosocial intervention for the treatment of cocaine dependence. Data collection and analysis We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Main results Thirteen studies (1191 participants) met our inclusion criteria. Disulfiram versus placebo or no treatment Disulfiram compared to placebo may increase the number of people who are abstinent at the end of treatment (point abstinence; risk ratio (RR) 1.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 2.36; 3 datasets, 142 participants; low‐certainty evidence). However, compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment, disulfiram may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use (standardised mean difference (SMD) −0.11 standard deviations (SDs), 95% CI −0.39 to 0.17; 13 datasets, 818 participants), amount of cocaine use (SMD −0.00 SDs, 95% CI −0.30 to 0.30; 7 datasets, 376 participants), continuous abstinence (RR 1.23, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.91; 6 datasets, 386 participants), and dropout for any reason (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.55; 14 datasets, 841 participants). The certainty of the evidence was low for all these outcomes. We are unsure about the effects of disulfiram versus placebo on dropout due to adverse events (RR 12.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 218.37; 1 study, 67 participants) and on the occurrence of adverse events (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.35 to 25.98), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Disulfiram versus naltrexone Disulfiram compared with naltrexone may reduce the frequency of cocaine use (mean difference (MD) −1.90 days, 95% CI −3.37 to −0.43; 2 datasets, 123 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and may have little or no effect on amount of cocaine use (SMD 0.12 SDs, 95% CI −0.27 to 0.51, 2 datasets, 123 participants; low‐certainty evidence). We are unsure about the effect of disulfiram versus naltrexone on dropout for any reason (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32, 3 datasets, 131 participants) and dropout due to adverse events (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.07 to 3.55; 1 dataset, 8 participants), because the certainty of the evidence was very low for these outcomes. Authors' conclusions Our results show that disulfiram compared to placebo may increase point abstinence. However, disulfiram compared to placebo or no pharmacological treatment may have little or no effect on frequency of cocaine use, amount of cocaine use, continued abstinence, and dropout for any reason. We are unsure if disulfiram has any adverse effects in this population. Caution is required when transferring our results to clinical practice.