Pauline Campbell

Physical Rehabilitation Approaches for the Recovery of Function and Mobility After Stroke: Major Update

Various physical rehabilitation approaches may be used to promote recovery of function and mobility after stroke. Controversy and debate about the relative effectiveness of approaches persist. We aimed to determine whether physical rehabilitation approaches are effective in recovery of function and mobility in people with stroke, and to assess whether any one physical rehabilitation approach is more effective than any other approach. A stakeholder group, comprising stroke survivors, caregivers, and physiotherapists, made decisions using consensus-making techniques relating to the scope and focus of this updated review.1 We performed a comprehensive search (to December 2012), …

A systematic review of evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals

AIM The aim of this study was to systematically review evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses, midwives and allied health professionals. BACKGROUND Since 1902 statutory supervision has been a requirement for UK midwives, but this is due to change. Evidence relating to clinical supervision for nurses and allied health professions could inform a new model of clinical supervision for midwives. DESIGN A systematic review with a contingent design, comprising a broad map of research relating to clinical supervision and two focussed syntheses answering specific review questions. DATA SOURCES Electronic databases were searched from 2005 - September 2015, limited to English-language peer-reviewed publications. REVIEW METHODS Systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of clinical supervision were included in Synthesis 1. Primary research studies including a description of a clinical supervision intervention were included in Synthesis 2. Quality of reviews were judged using a risk of bias tool and review results summarized in tables. Data describing the key components of clinical supervision interventions were extracted from studies included in Synthesis 2, categorized using a reporting framework and a narrative account provided. RESULTS Ten reviews were included in Synthesis 1; these demonstrated an absence of convincing empirical evidence and lack of agreement over the nature of clinical supervision. Nineteen primary studies were included in Synthesis 2; these highlighted a lack of consistency and large variations between delivered interventions. CONCLUSION Despite insufficient evidence to directly inform the selection and implementation of a framework, the limited available evidence can inform the design of a new model of clinical supervision for UK-based midwives.

User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update

BackgroundThis paper describes the structured methods used to involve patients, carers and health professionals in an update of a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke and explores the perceived impact of involvement.MethodsWe sought funding and ethical approval for our user involvement. We recruited a stakeholder group comprising stroke survivors, carers, physiotherapists and educators and held three pre-planned meetings during the course of updating a Cochrane systematic review. Within these meetings, we used formal group consensus methods, based on nominal group techniques, to reach consensus decisions on key issues relating to the structure and methods of the review.ResultsThe stakeholder group comprised 13 people, including stroke survivors, carers and physiotherapists with a range of different experience, and either 12 or 13 participated in each meeting. At meeting 1, there was consensus that methods of categorising interventions that were used in the original Cochrane review were no longer appropriate or clinically relevant (11/13 participants disagreed or strongly disagreed with previous categories) and that international trials (which had not fitted into the original method of categorisation) ought to be included within the review (12/12 participants agreed or strongly agreed these should be included). At meeting 2, the group members reached consensus over 27 clearly defined treatment components, which were to be used to categorise interventions within the review (12/12 agreed or strongly agreed), and at meeting 3, they agreed on the key messages emerging from the completed review. All participants strongly agreed that the views of the group impacted on the review update, that the review benefited from the involvement of the stakeholder group, and that they believed other Cochrane reviews would benefit from the involvement of similar stakeholder groups.ConclusionsWe involved a stakeholder group in the update of a Cochrane systematic review, using clearly described structured methods to reach consensus decisions. The involvement of stakeholders impacted substantially on the review, with the inclusion of international studies, and changes to classification of treatments, comparisons and subgroup comparisons explored within the meta-analysis. We argue that the structured approach which we adopted has implications for other systematic reviews.

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.MethodsMethods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.ResultsMethodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews.Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.ConclusionsOverviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects

Plain English SummaryResearchers are expected to actively involve stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) in their research. Although researchers increasingly recognise that this is good practice, there is limited practical guidance about how to involve stakeholders. Systematic reviews are a research method in which international literature is brought together, using carefully designed and rigorous methods to answer a specified question about healthcare. We want to investigate how researchers have involved stakeholders in systematic reviews, and how involvement has potentially affected the quality and impact of reviews. We plan to bring this information together by searching and reviewing the literature for reports of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. This paper describes in detail the methods that we plan to use to do this.After carrying out comprehensive searches for literature, we will:1. Provide an overview of identified reports, describing key information such as types of stakeholders involved, and how.2. Pick out reports of involvement which include detailed descriptions of how researchers involved people in a systematic review and summarise the methods they used. We will consider who was involved, how people were recruited, and how the involvement was organised and managed.3. Bring together any reports which have explored the effect, or impact, of involving stakeholders in a systematic review. We will assess the quality of these reports, and summarise their findings.Once completed, our review will be used to produce training resources aimed at helping researchers to improve ways of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews.AbstractBackground There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes.For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses.Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively.Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources.

Can older people remember medication reminders presented using synthetic speech

Reminders are often part of interventions to help older people adhere to complicated medication regimes. Computer-generated (synthetic) speech is ideal for tailoring reminders to different medication regimes. Since synthetic speech may be less intelligible than human speech, in particular under difficult listening conditions, we assessed how well older people can recall synthetic speech reminders for medications. 44 participants aged 50-80 with no cognitive impairment recalled reminders for one or four medications after a short distraction. We varied background noise, speech quality, and message design. Reminders were presented using a human voice and two synthetic voices. Data were analyzed using generalized linear mixed models. Reminder recall was satisfactory if reminders were restricted to one familiar medication, regardless of the voice used. Repeating medication names supported recall of lists of medications. We conclude that spoken reminders should build on familiar information and be integrated with other adherence support measures.

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol.MethodsInitial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187–99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews.ResultsWithin this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed.ConclusionsClear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview.

Recognizing European cancer nursing: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence of effectiveness and value of cancer nursing

AIM To identify, appraise and synthesize the available evidence relating to the value and impact of cancer nursing on patient experience and outcomes. BACKGROUND There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance and contribution of cancer nurses, however, a comprehensive review examining how cancer nurses have an impact on care quality, patient outcomes and overall experience of cancer, as well as cost of services across the entire cancer spectrum is lacking. DESIGN A systematic review and meta-analysis using Cochrane methods. METHODS We will systematically search 10 electronic databases from 2000, with pre-determined search terms. No language restrictions will be applied. We will include all randomized and controlled before-and-after studies that compare cancer nursing interventions to a standard care or no intervention. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of the studies and appraise methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Disagreements will be resolved by discussion and may involve a third reviewer if necessary. Data from included studies will be extracted in accordance with the Template for intervention Description and Replication reporting guidelines. Missing data will be actively sought from all trialists. Data will be synthesized in evidence tables and narrative to answer three key questions. If sufficient data are available, we will perform meta-analyses. DISCUSSION This review will allow us to systematically assess the impact of cancer nursing on patient care and experience. This evidence will be used to determine implications for clinical practice and used to inform future programme and policy decisions in Europe.

Interventions for sustained healthcare professional behaviour change: a protocol for an overview of reviews

BackgroundFailure to successfully implement and sustain change over the long term continues to be a major problem in health and social care. Translating evidence into routine clinical practice is notoriously complex, and it is recognised that to implement new evidence-based interventions and sustain them over time, professional behaviour needs to change accordingly. A number of theories and frameworks have been developed to support behaviour change among health and social care professionals, and models of sustainability are emerging, but few have translated into valid and reliable interventions. The long-term success of healthcare professional behavioural change interventions is variable, and the characteristics of successful interventions unclear. Previous reviews have synthesised the evidence for behaviour change, but none have focused on sustainability. In addition, multiple overlapping reviews have reported inconsistent results, which do not aid translation of evidence into practice. Overviews of reviews can provide accessible succinct summaries of evidence and address barriers to evidence-based practice. We aim to compile an overview of reviews, identifying, appraising and synthesising evidence relating to sustained social and healthcare professional behaviour change.MethodsWe will conduct a systematic review of Cochrane reviews (an Overview). We plan to systematically search the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We will include all systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials comparing a healthcare professional targeted behaviour change intervention to a standard care or no intervention control group. Two reviewers will independently assess the eligibility of the reviews and the methodological quality of included reviews using the ROBIS tool. The quality of evidence within each comparison in each review will be judged based on the GRADE criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion. Effects of interventions will be systematically tabulated and the quality of evidence used to determine implications for clinical practice and make recommendations for future research.DiscussionThis overview will bring together the best available evidence relating to the sustainability of health professional behaviour change, thus supporting policy makers with decision-making in this field.

Challenges in integrating international evidence relating to stroke rehabilitation: experiences from a Cochrane systematic review

There are many randomized controlled trials relating to stroke rehabilitation being carried out in China, which are often published in Chinese-language journals. A recent update to our Cochrane systematic review of physical rehabilitation to improve function and mobility after stroke included 96 trials; over half (51) were conducted in China; 37 of these included studies were published in Chinese. Analyses within this Cochrane review support the conclusion that physical rehabilitation, using a mix of components from different approaches, is effective for the recovery of function and mobility after stroke. The inclusion of the Chinese studies had a substantial impact on the volume of evidence and, consequently, the conclusions. In this paper, we explore whether it is appropriate to draw implications for clinical practice throughout the world from evidence relating to a complex rehabilitation intervention delivered within one particular geographical healthcare setting. We explore the unique challenges associated with incorporating the body of evidence from China, particularly the Chinese-language publications, and identify the ongoing debate about the quality of Chinese research publications. We conclude that the growing body of evidence from China has important implications for future systematic reviews and evidence-based stroke care, but analysis and interpretation raise challenges, and improved reporting is critical.