Rachel Warren

Diabetes self-management programmes in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The evidence for self‐management programmes in older adults varies in methodological approaches, and disease criteria. Using predetermined methodological criteria, we evaluated the effect of diabetes‐specific self‐management programme interventions in older adults.

Social work and the arts: Images at the intersection

This article considers social work engagement with the arts. We are interested in claims made in the social work literature about why art matters (or should matter) to social work, and about what art achieves for people and communities and ideas. We focus in particular on the images and metaphors at play in descriptions of arts-informed social work projects. Our intent is to offer a framework for understanding what social work communities think (and hope, and imagine) happens when we take up the arts in education, practice and research.

Treatment for mild cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND The effectiveness of treatments for mild cognitive impairment is uncertain. The aim of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and harms of treatment for mild cognitive impairment in adults 65 years of age and older. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central (December 2012-December 2014); citations from 2 systematic reviews were considered for inclusion. We included randomized controlled trials involving community-dwelling adults aged 65 years and older with a diagnosis of mild cognitive impairment. Studies reporting on cognition, function, behaviour, global status, mortality and adverse events for treatment with pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions were included. RESULTS Seventeen studies were included. Cholinesterase inhibitor studies evaluating cognition (Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale, cognition subscale) showed no difference between intervention and control groups (mean difference [MD] -0.33, 95% CI -0.73 to 0.06]; one behavioural study showed no significant effect on cognition (Alzheimers Disease Assessment Scale, cognition subscale) for the intervention group when compared to controls (MD -0.60, (95% CI -1.44 to 0.24), and one study on vitamin E showed no difference between intervention and control groups (MD 0.85, 95% CI -0.32 to 2.02). With the Mini-Mental State Examination, cholinesterase inhibitors showed no difference between intervention and control groups (MD 0.17, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.47); behavioural studies showed a significant difference favouring intervention (MD 1.01, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.77), and studies of dietary supplements and/or vitamins showed no difference between intervention and control groups (MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.43). Pharmacologic studies showed no difference in serious adverse events (risk ratio 0.98, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.10). No serious adverse events were reported for nonpharmacologic interventions. INTERPRETATION Treatment of mild cognitive impairment with cholinesterase inhibitors showed no benefit when compared with a control group. A small cognitive benefit was observed using behavioural therapies when compared with the control group. However, the clinical significance of this small benefit remains uncertain. The current evidence does not support the use of cholinesterase inhibitors for treating mild cognitive impairment, and future high-quality research using a standardized approach is needed to affirm the finding of a small benefit on cognition that was observed for behavioural interventions. REGISTRATION PROSPERO no. CRD42014015431.

Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

To evaluate the effectiveness of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in asymptomatic adults. A search was conducted of the Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases. A targeted search of PubMed was conducted for on-topic randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Meta-analysis across 4 RCTs for guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening showed a reduction of 18% (risk ratio [RR], 0.82; 95% CI [CI], 0.73-0.92) and 26% (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.67-0.83) in CRC mortality for the screening group compared to controls, respectively. The number needed to screen (NNS) were 377 (95% CI, 249-887) and 864 (95% CI, 672-1266) for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively. A reduction of 8% and 27% in incidence of late-stage CRC was also observed for gFOBT and FS screening, respectively, but both had no significant effect on all-cause mortality. A single RCT found that screening with immunochemical fecal occult blood test (iFOBT) had no significant impact on CRC mortality (RR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.72-1.07). Screening with FS has potential harms such as perforation, major and minor bleeding, and death from the procedure or from follow-up colonoscopy. gFOBT and FS screening reduce CRC mortality and incidence of late-stage disease. The absolute effect and NNS were much more favorable for older adults (≥ 60 years), suggesting that a targeted screening approach may avoid exposing younger adults to the harms of CRC screening, from which they are unlikely to derive any significant benefit. Although there is insufficient RCT evidence on the impact of iFOBT on mortality outcomes. compared to gFOBT, this test showed higher sensitivity and comparable specificity, indicating the need to update and reevaluate the evidence in light of future high-quality research. The protocol for this systematic review have been published with PROSPERO 2014: CRD42014009777.

Screening for developmental delay among children aged 1-4 years: a systematic review

BACKGROUND Existing guidelines on screening children less than 5 years of age for developmental delay vary. In this systematic review, we synthesized the literature on the effectiveness and harms of screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years. METHODS We searched MEDLINE, Embase and PsychINFO for relevant articles published to June 16, 2015. We identified studies that included children aged 1-4 years who were not at high risk of developmental delay, screened in a primary care setting. Randomized trials and controlled cohort studies were considered for benefits (cognitive, academic and functional outcomes); no restrictions on study design were imposed for the review of harms. RESULTS Two studies were included. One used the Ages and Stages Questionnaire II for screening and reported significantly more referrals to early intervention in the intervention groups than in the control group (relative risk [RR] 1.95, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.49-2.54, in the intervention group with office support and RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.30-2.25, in the intervention group without office support). The time to referral was 70% shorter in the intervention group with office support (rate ratio 0.30, 95% CI 0.19-0.48) and 64% shorter in the intervention group without office support (rate ratio 0.36, 95% CI 0.23-0.59), compared with the control group. The other study used the VroegTijdige Onderkenning Ontwikkelingsstoornissen Language Screening instrument to screen children aged 15 months at enrolment for language delay. It reported no differences between groups in academic performance outcomes at age 8 years. INTERPRETATION The evidence on screening for developmental delay in asymptomatic children aged 1-4 years is inconclusive. Further research with longer-term outcomes is needed to inform decisions about screening and screening intervals.

Research in cancer care disparities in countries with universal healthcare: mapping the field and its conceptual contours

The paper reviews published studies focused on disparities in receipt of cancer treatments and supportive care services in countries where cancer care is free at the point of access. We map these studies in terms of the equity stratifiers they examined, the countries in which they took place, and the care settings and cancer populations they investigated. Based on this map, we reflect on patterns of scholarly attention to equity and disparity in cancer care. We then consider conceptual challenges and opportunities in the field, including how treatment disparities are defined, how equity stratifiers are defined and conceptualized and how disparities are explained, with special attention to the challenge of psychosocial explanations.