Allison Gates

Vegetable and Fruit Intakes of On-Reserve First Nations Schoolchildren Compared to Canadian Averages and Current Recommendations

This study investigated, in on-reserve First Nations (FN) youth in Ontario, Canada, the following: (a) the intakes of vegetable and fruit, “other” foods and relevant nutrients as compared to current recommendations and national averages, (b) current prevalence rates of overweight and obesity and (c) the relationship between latitude and dietary intakes. Twenty-four-hour diet recalls were collected via the Waterloo Web-Based Eating Behaviour Questionnaire (WEB-Q) (n = 443). Heights and weights of participants were self reported using measured values and Body Mass Index was categorized using the International Obesity Task Force cutoffs. Food group and nutrient intakes were compared to current standards, Southern Ontario Food Behaviour data and the Canadian Community Health Survey, Cycle 2.2, using descriptive statistics. Mean vegetable and fruit, fibre and folate intakes were less than current recommendations. Girls aged 14–18 years had mean intakes of vitamin A below current recommendations for this sub-group; for all sub-groups, mean intakes of vegetables and fruit were below Canadian averages. All sub-groups also had intakes of all nutrients and food groups investigated that were less than those observed in non-FN youth from Southern Ontario, with the exception of “other” foods in boys 12–18 years. Prevalence rates of overweight and obesity were 31.8% and 19.6%, respectively, exceeding rates in the general population. Dietary intakes did not vary consistently by latitude (n = 248), as revealed by ANOVA. This study provided a unique investigation of the dietary intakes of on-reserve FN youth in Ontario and revealed poor intakes of vegetables and fruit and related nutrients and high intakes of “other” foods. Prevalence rates of overweight and obesity exceed those of the general population.

Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool

BackgroundMachine learning tools can expedite systematic review (SR) processes by semi-automating citation screening. Abstrackr semi-automates citation screening by predicting relevant records. We evaluated its performance for four screening projects.MethodsWe used a convenience sample of screening projects completed at the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Edmonton, Canada: three SRs and one descriptive analysis for which we had used SR screening methods. The projects were heterogeneous with respect to search yield (median 9328; range 5243 to 47,385 records; interquartile range (IQR) 15,688 records), topic (Antipsychotics, Bronchiolitis, Diabetes, Child Health SRs), and screening complexity. We uploaded the records to Abstrackr and screened until it made predictions about the relevance of the remaining records. Across three trials for each project, we compared the predictions to human reviewer decisions and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, precision, false negative rate, proportion missed, and workload savings.ResultsAbstrackr’s sensitivity was > 0.75 for all projects and the mean specificity ranged from 0.69 to 0.90 with the exception of Child Health SRs, for which it was 0.19. The precision (proportion of records correctly predicted as relevant) varied by screening task (median 26.6%; range 14.8 to 64.7%; IQR 29.7%). The median false negative rate (proportion of records incorrectly predicted as irrelevant) was 12.6% (range 3.5 to 21.2%; IQR 12.3%). The workload savings were often large (median 67.2%, range 9.5 to 88.4%; IQR 23.9%). The proportion missed (proportion of records predicted as irrelevant that were included in the final report, out of the total number predicted as irrelevant) was 0.1% for all SRs and 6.4% for the descriptive analysis. This equated to 4.2% (range 0 to 12.2%; IQR 7.8%) of the records in the final reports.ConclusionsAbstrackr’s reliability and the workload savings varied by screening task. Workload savings came at the expense of potentially missing relevant records. How this might affect the results and conclusions of SRs needs to be evaluated. Studies evaluating Abstrackr as the second reviewer in a pair would be of interest to determine if concerns for reliability would diminish. Further evaluations of Abstrackr’s performance and usability will inform its refinement and practical utility.

Procedural Pain: Systematic Review of Parent Experiences and Information Needs:

Parents wish to reduce their child’s pain during medical procedures but may not know how to do so. We systematically reviewed the literature on parents’ experiences and information needs related to managing their child’s pain for common medical procedures. Of 2678 records retrieved through database searching, 5 were included. Three additional records were identified by scanning reference lists. Five studies were qualitative, and 3 were quantitative. Most took place in North America or Europe (n = 7) and described neonatal intensive care unit experiences (n = 5). Procedures included needle-related medical procedures (eg, venipuncture, phlebotomy, intravenous insertion), sutures, and wound repair and treatment, among others. Generally, parents desired being present during procedures, wanted to remain stoic for their child, and thought that information would be empowering and relieve stress but felt unsupported in taking an active role. Supporting and educating parents may empower them to lessen pain for their children while undergoing medical procedures.

Which outcomes are important to patients and families who have experienced paediatric acute respiratory illness? Findings from a mixed methods sequential exploratory study

Objectives To identify the outcome priorities of parents of children who had experienced an acute respiratory infection (ARI). Design This was a two-phase, mixed methods study with a sequential exploratory design. We used a cross-sectional quantitative web-based survey to elicit parents’ priorities for paediatric ARI. We then used a discussion moderated via Facebook to elucidate richer descriptions of parents’ priorities. Setting Survey and discussion data were collected via the internet. Participants 110 parents (90% women, median age 35 years, 92.7% urban dwelling, 94.5% with a postsecondary education) with a child who had experienced an ARI responded to the survey. Four parents participated in the Facebook discussion. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was parents’ rankings of outcomes related to paediatric ARI. The secondary outcomes were the alignment of parent-reported important outcomes with those commonly reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). Results Commonly reported ARIs included croup (44.5%), wheezing (43.6%) and influenza (38.2%). Parents ranked major complications, illness symptoms and length of stay as the most important outcome categories. With respect to specific outcomes, severe complications, major side effects, doctor’s assessment, relapse, oxygen supplementation and results from laboratory measures were reported as most important (75th–99th percentile). Taking time off work, mild complications, interference with daily activities, treatment costs, absenteeism, follow-up visits and other costs were deemed minimally important (<25th percentile). In 35 Cochrane SRs, 29 unique outcomes were reported. Although participants’ priorities sometimes aligned with outcomes frequently reported in the literature, this was not always true. Additional priorities from the survey (n=50) and Facebook discussions (n=4) included healthcare access, interacting with healthcare providers, education, impact on daily activities and child well-being. Conclusions In the context of paediatric ARI, parents’ priorities did not always align with commonly researched outcomes. Appealing and efficient strategies to engage patients and parents in research should be developed.

Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study

BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can provide the best evidence to inform decision-making, but their methodological and reporting quality varies. Tools exist to guide the critical appraisal of quality and risk of bias in SRs, but evaluations of their measurement properties are limited. We will investigate the interrater reliability (IRR), usability, and applicability of A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), AMSTAR 2, and Risk Of Bias In Systematic reviews (ROBIS) for SRs in the fields of biomedicine and public health.MethodsAn international team of researchers at three collaborating centres will undertake the study. We will use a random sample of 30 SRs of RCTs investigating therapeutic interventions indexed in MEDLINE in February 2014. Two reviewers at each centre will appraise the quality and risk of bias in each SR using AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS. We will record the time to complete each assessment and for the two reviewers to reach consensus for each SR. We will extract the descriptive characteristics of each SR, the included studies, participants, interventions, and comparators. We will also extract the direction and strength of the results and conclusions for the primary outcome. We will summarise the descriptive characteristics of the SRs using means and standard deviations, or frequencies and proportions. To test for interrater reliability between reviewers and between the consensus agreements of reviewer pairs, we will use Gwet’s AC1 statistic. For comparability to previous evaluations, we will also calculate weighted Cohen’s kappa and Fleiss’ kappa statistics. To estimate usability, we will calculate the mean time to complete the appraisal and to reach consensus for each tool. To inform applications of the tools, we will test for statistical associations between quality scores and risk of bias judgments, and the results and conclusions of the SRs.DiscussionAppraising the methodological and reporting quality of SRs is necessary to determine the trustworthiness of their conclusions. Which tool may be most reliably applied and how the appraisals should be used is uncertain; the usability of newly developed tools is unknown. This investigation of common (AMSTAR) and newly developed (AMSTAR 2, ROBIS) tools will provide empiric data to inform their application, interpretation, and refinement.

Dissemination of evidence in paediatric emergency medicine: a quantitative descriptive evaluation of a 16-week social media promotion

Objectives TRanslating Emergency Knowledge for Kids (TREKK) and Cochrane Child Health collaborate to develop knowledge products on paediatric emergency medicine topics. Via a targeted social media promotion, we aimed to increase user interaction with the TREKK and Cochrane Child Health Twitter accounts and the uptake of TREKK Bottom Line Recommendations (BLRs) and Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). Design Quantitative descriptive evaluation. Setting We undertook this study and collected data via the internet. Participants Our target users included online healthcare providers and health consumers. Intervention For 16 weeks, we used Twitter accounts (@TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child) and the Cochrane Child Health blog to promote 6 TREKK BLRs and 16 related Cochrane SRs. We published 1 blog post and 98 image-based tweets per week. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was user interaction with @TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child. Secondary outcomes were visits to TREKK’s website and the Cochrane Child Health blog, clicks to and views of the TREKK BLRs, and Altmetric scores and downloads of Cochrane SRs. Results Followers to @TREKKca and @Cochrane_Child increased by 24% and 15%, respectively. Monthly users of TREKK’s website increased by 29%. Clicks to the TREKK BLRs increased by 22%. The BLRs accrued 59% more views compared with the baseline period. The 16 blog posts accrued 28% more views compared with the 8 previous months when no new posts were published. The Altmetric scores for the Cochrane SRs increased by ≥10 points each. The mean number of full text downloads for the promotion period was higher for nine and lower for seven SRs compared with the 16-week average for the previous year (mean difference (SD), +4.0 (22.0%)). Conclusions There was increased traffic to TREKK knowledge products and Cochrane SRs during the social media promotion. Quantitative evidence supports blogging and tweeting as dissemination strategies for evidence-based knowledge products.

Parent experiences and information needs relating to procedural pain in children: a systematic review protocol

BackgroundThere exist many evidence-based interventions available to manage procedural pain in children and neonates, yet they are severely underutilized. Parents play an important role in the management of their child’s pain; however, many do not possess adequate knowledge of how to effectively do so. The purpose of the planned study is to systematically review and synthesize current knowledge of the experiences and information needs of parents with regard to the management of their child’s pain and distress related to medical procedures in the emergency department.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review using rigorous methods and reporting based on the PRISMA statement. We will conduct a comprehensive search of literature published between 2000 and 2016 reporting on parents’ experiences and information needs with regard to helping their child manage procedural pain and distress. Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycINFO, CINAHL, and PubMed will be searched. We will also search reference lists of key studies and gray literature sources. Two reviewers will screen the articles following inclusion criteria defined a priori. One reviewer will then extract the data from each article following a data extraction form developed by the study team. The second reviewer will check the data extraction for accuracy and completeness. Any disagreements with regard to study inclusion or data extraction will be resolved via discussion. Data from qualitative studies will be summarized thematically, while those from quantitative studies will be summarized narratively. The second reviewer will confirm the overarching themes resulting from the qualitative and quantitative data syntheses. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Research Checklist and the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies will be used to assess the quality of the evidence from each included study.DiscussionTo our knowledge, no published review exists that comprehensively reports on the experiences and information needs of parents related to the management of their child’s procedural pain and distress. A systematic review of parents’ experiences and information needs will help to inform strategies to empower them with the knowledge necessary to ensure their child’s comfort during a painful procedure.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016043698