Ahmed M. Abou-Setta

Purpose: To inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older in primary care. This protocol outlines the planned scope and methods for a series of systematic reviews. Methods: Updates of two systematic reviews and a de novo review will be conducted to synthesize the evidence on the benefits and harms of screening for prostate cancer with a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and/or digital rectal examination (DRE) (with or without additional information) and patient values and preferences. Outcomes for the benefits of screening include reduced prostate cancer mortality, all-cause mortality, and incidence of metastatic prostate cancer. Outcomes for the harms of screening include false-positive screening tests, overdiagnosis, complications due to biopsy, and complications of treatment including incontinence (urinary or bowel), and erectile dysfunction. The quality of life or functioning (overall and disease-specific) and psychological effects outcomes are considered as a possible benefit or harm. Outcomes for the values and preferences review include quantitative or qualitative information regarding the choice to screen or intention to undergo screening. For the reviews on benefits or harms, we will search for randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized, and controlled studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. For the review on values and preferences, we will search for experimental or observational studies in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo. For all reviews, we will also search websites of relevant organizations, gray literature, and reference lists of included studies. Title and abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and risk of bias assessments will be completed independently by pairs of reviewers with any disagreements resolved by consensus or by consulting with a third reviewer. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach will be used to assess the certainty of the evidence for each outcome. Discussion: The series of systematic reviews will be used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care to update their 2014 guideline on screening for prostate cancer in adults aged 18 years and older. Systematic review registration This review has been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022314407) and is available on the Open Science Framework (osf.io/dm32k).

Background: The body of evidence regarding self-management programs (SMPs) for adult chronic non-cancer pain (CNCP) is steadily growing, and regular updates are needed for effective decision-making. Objectives: To systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize the findings from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of SMPs for CNCP. Methods: We searched relevant databases from 2009 to August 2021 and included English-language RCT publications of SMPs compared with usual care for CNCP among adults (18+ years old). The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HR-QoL). We conducted meta-analysis using an inverse variance, random-effects model and calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and associated 95% confidence interval (CI) and statistical heterogeneity using the I (2) statistic. Results: From 8538 citations, we included 28 RCTs with varying patient populations, standards for SMPs, and usual care. No RCTs were classified as having a low risk of bias. There was no evidence of a significant improvement in overall HR-QoL, irrespective of pain type, immediately post-intervention (SMD 0.01, 95%CI -0.21 to 0.24; I (2) 57%; 11 RCTs; 979 participants), 1-4 months post-intervention (SMD 0.02, 95%CI -0.16 to 0.20; I (2) 48.7%; 12 RCTs; 1160 participants), and 6-12 months post-intervention (SMD 0.07, 95%CI -0.06 to 0.21; I (2) 26.1%; 9 RCTs; 1404 participants). Similar findings were made for physical and mental HR-QoL, and for specific QoL assessment scales (e.g., SF-36). Conclusions: There is a lack of evidence that SMPs are efficacious for CNCP compared with usual care. Standardization of SMPs for CNCP and better planned/conducted RCTs are needed to confirm these conclusions.

Background: COVID-19 has proven to be more difficult to manage for many reasons including its high infectivity rate. One of the potential ways to limit its spread is by limiting free travel across borders, including via air travel. The objective of this systematic review is to identify, critically-appraise and summarize evidence on border closures and travel restrictions. Methods: This review is based on the Cochrane review: “International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic” and followed the same methodology. In brief, we searched for clinical and modelling studies in general health and COVID-19-specific bibliographic databases. The primary outcome categories were (i) cases avoided, (ii) cases detected, and (iii) a shift in epidemic development. Secondary outcomes were other infectious disease transmission outcomes, healthcare utilisation, resource requirements and adverse effects if identified in studies assessing at least one primary outcome. Results: We included 43, mostly modelling, studies that met our inclusion criteria. Fourteen new studies were identified in the updated search, as well as updated companions (e.g., peer-reviewed publications that were previously only available as pre-prints). Most studies were of moderate to high quality. The added studies did not change the main conclusions of the Cochrane review nor the quality of the evidence (very low to low certainty). However, it did add to the evidence base for most outcomes. Conclusions: Weak evidence supports the use of border closures to limit the spread of COVID-19 via air travel. Real-world studies are required to support these conclusions.

Objectives To summarise the current evidence regarding interventions for accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Design A scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute’s methodological framework for the conduct of scoping reviews and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Data sources MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) and PsycINFO (Ovid) bibliographic databases, and websites of relevant organisations. Published and unpublished literature (grey literature) of any study type in the English language were searched for from January 2017 to January 2021. Eligibility and criteria Study participants were individuals of any age presenting at clinics with symptoms indicative of cancer. Interventions included practice guidelines, care pathways or other initiatives focused on achieving predefined benchmarks or targets for wait times, streamlined or rapid cancer diagnostic services, multidisciplinary teams and patient navigation strategies. Outcomes included accuracy and timeliness of cancer diagnosis. Data extraction and synthesis We summarised findings graphically and descriptively. Results From 21 298 retrieved citations, 88 unique published articles and 16 unique unpublished documents (on 18 study reports), met the eligibility for inclusion. About half of the published literature and 83% of the unpublished literature were from the UK. Most of the studies were on interventions in patients with lung cancer. Rapid referral pathways and technology for supporting and streamlining the cancer diagnosis process were the most studied interventions. Interventions were mostly complex and organisation-specific. Common themes among the studies that concluded intervention was effective were multidisciplinary collaboration and the use of a nurse navigator. Conclusions Multidisciplinary cooperation and involvement of a nurse navigator may be unique features to consider when designing, delivering and evaluating interventions focused on improving accurate and timely cancer diagnosis among symptomatic individuals. Future research should examine the effectiveness of the interventions identified through this review.

Objectives To conduct a scoping review to identify and summarise the existing literature on interventions involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department (ED) overcrowding. Design A scoping review. Data sources A comprehensive database search of Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (Wiley) and CINAHL (EBSCO) databases was conducted (inception until January 2020) using peer-reviewed search strategies, complemented by a search of grey literature sources. Eligibility criteria Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs: general practitioners (GPs), nurse practitioners (NPs) or nurses with expanded role) to manage ED overcrowding. Methods We engaged and collaborated, with 13 patient partners during the design and conduct stages of this review. We conducted this review using the JBI guidelines. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We conducted descriptive analysis of the included studies (frequencies and percentages). Results From 23 947 records identified, we included 268 studies published between 1981 and 2020. The majority (58%) of studies were conducted in North America and were predominantly cohort studies (42%). The reported interventions were either ‘within ED’ (48%) interventions (eg, PHCP-led ED triage or fast track) or ‘outside ED’ interventions (52%) (eg, after-hours GP clinic and GP cooperatives). PHCPs involved in the interventions were: GP (32%), NP (26%), nurses with expanded role (16%) and combinations of the PHCPs (42%). The ‘within ED’ and ‘outside ED’ interventions reported outcomes on patient flow and ED utilisation, respectively. Conclusions We identified many interventions involving PHCPs that predominantly reported a positive impact on ED utilisation/patient flow metrics. Future research needs to focus on conducting well-designed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of specific interventions involving PHCPs to critically appraise and summarise evidence on this topic.

Despite influenza vaccination programs in various jurisdictions, seasonal influenza vaccine (SIV) uptake remains suboptimal among older people (≥65years old), an important subpopulation for influenza vaccination. We sought to summarize determinants of SIV uptake (any vaccine receipt) and vaccination adherence (receipt of vaccine in two or more seasons in sequence) among older people. We searched for population-based studies conducted in community-dwelling older people (irrespective of their health status) from 2000–2019. Two reviewers independently selected publications for inclusion. One reviewer extracted data from the included studies; a second checked the extracted data for errors. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus, or a third reviewer. We were interested in the determinants of SIV uptake and vaccination adherence. Where appropriate, we pooled adjusted results using the inverse variance, random-effects method and reported the odds ratios (OR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Out of 11,570 citations screened, we included 34 cross-sectional studies. The following were associated with increased SIV uptake: being older (OR 1.52, 95%CI 1.38–1.67 [21 studies]), white (1.30, 1.14–1.49 [10 studies]), married (1.23, 1.17–1.28 [9 studies]), non-smoker (1.28, 1.11–1.47 [7 studies]), of a higher social class (1.20, 1.06–1.36 [2 studies]), having a higher education (1.12, 1.04–1.21 [14 studies]), having a higher household income (1.11, 1.05–1.18 [8 studies]), having a chronic illness (1.53, 1.44–1.63 [16 studies]), having poor self-assessed health (1.23, 1.02–1.40 [9 studies]), having a family doctor (2.94, 1.79–4.76 [2 studies]), and having health insurance (1.58, 1.13–2.21 [6 studies]). The influence of these factors varied across geographical regions. Being older (1.26, 1.11–1.44 [2 studies]) was also associated with increased vaccination adherence. Several factors may determine SIV uptake and vaccination adherence among older people. More studies are needed to provide a stronger evidence base for planning more effective influenza vaccination programs.

Behavior change is not simple, and the introduction of guidelines or protocols does not mean that they will be followed. As such, implementation strategies are vital for the uptake and sustainability of changes in medical protocols. Medical or mental emergencies may be life-threatening, especially in children due to their unique physiological needs. In emergency departments (EDs), where timely decisions are often made, practice change requires thoughtful considerations regarding the best approaches to implementation. As there are many studies reporting on a wide variety of implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs, we aim to identify and map the characteristics of these studies. We will conduct a scoping review to identify various implementation strategies in the emergency management of children using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Central (Wiley), and CINAHL (Ebsco), from inception to May 29, 2019, for implementation studies among the pediatric population (≤ 21 years) in a pediatric emergency setting. Two pairs of reviewers will independently select studies for inclusion and extract the data. We will perform a descriptive, narrative analysis of the characteristics of the identified implementation strategies. We will present specific characteristics and outcome measures of all included studies in a tabular form. The results of this review are expected to help identify and characterize successful implementation strategies in the emergency management of children in EDs. Open Science Framework https://osf.io/h6jv2