METHODS: We surveyed 16 512 adults from July 2020 to August 2021 in 30 territories. Participants self-reported their medical histories and the perceived impact of COVID-19 on 18 lifestyle factors and 13 health outcomes. For each disease subgroup, we generated lifestyle, health outcome, and bridge networks. Variables with the highest centrality indices in each were identified central or bridge. We validated these networks using nonparametric and case-dropping subset bootstrapping and confirmed central and bridge variables' significantly higher indices through a centrality difference test.
FINDINGS: Among the 48 networks, 44 were validated (all correlation-stability coefficients >0.25). Six central lifestyle factors were identified: less consumption of snacks (for the chronic disease: anxiety), less sugary drinks (cancer, gastric ulcer, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes), less smoking tobacco (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease), frequency of exercise (depression and fatty liver disease), duration of exercise (irritable bowel syndrome), and overall amount of exercise (autoimmune disease, diabetes, eczema, heart attack, and high cholesterol). Two central health outcomes emerged: less emotional distress (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, eczema, fatty liver disease, gastric ulcer, heart attack, high cholesterol, hypertension, insomnia, and pre-diabetes) and quality of life (anxiety, autoimmune disease, cancer, depression, diabetes, and irritable bowel syndrome). Four bridge lifestyles were identified: consumption of fruits and vegetables (diabetes, high cholesterol, hypertension, and insomnia), less duration of sitting (eczema, fatty liver disease, and heart attack), frequency of exercise (autoimmune disease, depression, and heart attack), and overall amount of exercise (anxiety, gastric ulcer, and insomnia). The centrality difference test showed the central and bridge variables had significantly higher centrality indices than others in their networks (P health outcomes, and bridge lifestyles are paramount. The key variables shared across chronic diseases emphasise the importance of coordinated intervention strategies.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A long list of outcomes will be generated using (1) a systematic review of existing studies on OA-TOF and (2) qualitative research with children (patients), adults (patients) and families involving focus groups, semistructured interviews and self-reported outcome activity packs. A two-phase Delphi survey will then be completed by four key stakeholder groups: (1) patients (paediatric and adult); (2) families; (3) healthcare professionals; and (4) researchers. Phase I will include stakeholders individually rating the importance and relevance of each long-listed outcome using a 9-point Likert scale, with the option to suggest additional outcomes not already included. During phase II, stakeholders will review summarised results from phase I relative to their own initial score and then will be asked to rescore the outcome based on this information. Responses from phase II will be summarised using descriptive statistics and a predefined definition of consensus for inclusion or exclusion of outcomes. Following the Delphi process, stakeholder experts will be invited to review data at a consensus meeting and agree on a COS for OA-TOF.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was sought through the Health Research Authority via the Integrated Research Application System, registration no. 297026. However, approval was deemed not to be required, so study sponsorship and oversight were provided by Alder Hey Children's NHS Foundation Trust. The study has been prospectively registered with the COMET Initiative. The study will be published in an open access forum.
METHODOLOGY: A systematic review, using the PRISMA guideline, was conducted on articles published between 2002 and 2023 from three electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. A manual search was conducted for the references of the included articles using Google Scholar. Included articles must be in English and were based on empirical evidence published in peer-reviewed journals and focus on the assessment of domains of social frailty in older people aged 60 or over in the Asia-Pacific (East Asia, Southeast Asia, and Oceania).
RESULT: A total of 31 studies were included in the thematic analysis, from which 16 screening tools measuring six social domains were reviewed. The six domains were: social networks, followed by social activities, social support, financial difficulties, social roles, and socioeconomic, arranged in four categories: social resources, social needs, social behaviors (or social activities), and general resources. The six social domains predicted mortality, physical difficulties, and disability incidence. Other adverse health outcomes were also associated with these social domains, including cognitive disorders, mental illness, and nutritional disorders (n = 5 domains each), dementia (n = 4 domains), and oral frailty, hearing loss, obesity, and chronic pain (n = 3 domains each).
CONCLUSION: Overall, social frailty is a complex construct with multiple dimensions, including the frailty of social and general resources, social behaviors, and social needs, leading to several health disorders. The findings contribute to understanding the conceptual framework of social frailty in older people and its related health outcomes. Therefore, it could facilitate professionals and researchers to monitor and reduce the risks of adverse health outcomes related to each domain of social frailty, contributing to a better aging process.
DESIGN: A psychometric systematic review.
DATA SOURCES: Articles about the translation, adaptation, or validation of the MOS-SSS in Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science and their reference lists published before 11 November 2022.
REVIEW METHODS: The review followed the Consensus Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments guidelines.
RESULTS: The review included 35 articles. Eleven versions of MOS-SSS (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19, and 22 items) have been validated in various populations and 13 languages. Of 14 studies developing a translated version of MOS-SSS, four studies performed both an experts' evaluation of content validity and a face validity test; two studies reported translation evaluation in the form of a content validity index. Of 35 studies, six performed both exploratory factor analysis and confirmatory factor analysis for structural validity; hypotheses and measurements for construct validity testings were often not clearly stated; two examined criterion validity; and four assessed cross-cultural validity. Internal consistency reliabilities were commonly examined by calculating Cronbach's alpha and reported satisfactory. Five studies analysed test-retest reliabilities using intra correlation coefficient. Methodological concerns exist.
CONCLUSION: The English 19-item, Farsi Persian 19-item, and Vietnamese 19-item versions are recommended for future use in research and practice. Italian 19-item and Malaysian 13-item versions are not recommended to be used in future research and practice. All other versions considered in this review have potential use in future research and practice. Proper procedures for developing a translated version of MOS-SSS and validating the scale are recommended.
IMPACT: The review identified quality versions of MOS-SSS to measure social support in future research and practice. The study also indicated methodological issues in current validation studies. Application of the study findings and recommendations can be useful to improve outcome measurement quality and maximize the efficiency of resource use in future research and practice.
NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This systematic review synthesized the evidence from previous research and did not involve any human participation.
METHODS: Four electronic databases were searched from inception to December 2022 (MEDLINE via Ovid, EMBASE via Ovid, CINAHL via Healthcare Databases Advanced Search, CENTRAL via Cochrane). Studies were included if they examined at least one clinimetric property of a CONCISE measurement instrument or recognised variation in adults ≥ 18 years with critical illness or recovering from critical illness in any language. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures was used. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses were used in line with COSMIN guidance. The COSMIN checklist was used to evaluate the risk of bias and the quality of clinimetric properties. Overall certainty of the evidence was rated using a modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Narrative synthesis was performed and where possible, meta-analysis was conducted.
RESULTS: A total of 4316 studies were screened. Forty-seven were included in the review, reporting data for 12308 participants. The Short Form-36 Questionnaire (Physical Component Score and Physical Functioning), sit-to-stand test, 6-m walk test and Barthel Index had the strongest clinimetric properties and certainty of evidence. The Short Physical Performance Battery, Katz Index and handgrip strength had less favourable results. There was limited data for Lawson Instrumental Activities of Daily Living and the Global Leadership Initiative on Malnutrition criteria. The risk of bias ranged from inadequate to very good. The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to high.
CONCLUSIONS: Variable evidence exists to support the clinimetric properties of the CONCISE measurement instruments. We suggest using this review alongside CONCISE to guide outcome selection for future trials of nutrition and metabolic interventions in critical illness.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023438187). Registered 21/06/2023.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A total of 294 eligible participants will be recruited and allocated into 3 groups comprising of mHealth intervention alone, mHealth intervention integrated with personal medical nutrition therapy and a control group. Pretested structured questionnaires are used to obtain the respondents' personal information, anthropometry data, prenatal knowledge, physical activity, psychosocial well-being, dietary intake, quality of life, sleep quality and GWG. There will be at least three time points of data collection, with all participants recruited during their first or second trimester will be followed up prospectively (after 3 months or/and after 6 months) until delivery. Generalised linear mixed models will be used to compare the mean changes of outcome measures over the entire study period between the three groups.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approvals were obtained from the ethics committee of human subjects research of Universiti Putra Malaysia (JKEUPM-2022-072) and medical research & ethics committee, Ministry of Health Malaysia: NMRR ID-22-00622-EPU(IIR). The results will be disseminated through journals and conferences targeting stakeholders involved in nutrition research.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrial.gov ID: NCT05377151.
OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.
FINDINGS: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.
METHODS: An international cross-sectional study was conducted in 30 countries across six World Health Organization regions from July 2020 to August 2021, with 16 512 adults self-reporting changes in 18 lifestyle factors and 13 interim health outcomes since the pandemic.
RESULTS: Three networks were computed and tested. The central variables decided by the expected influence centrality were consumption of fruits and vegetables (centrality = 0.98) jointly with less sugary drinks (centrality = 0.93) in the lifestyles network; and quality of life (centrality = 1.00) co-dominant (centrality = 1.00) with less emotional distress in the interim health outcomes network. The overall amount of exercise had the highest bridge expected influence centrality in the bridge network (centrality = 0.51). No significant differences were found in the network global strength or the centrality of the aforementioned key variables within each network between males and females or health workers and non-health workers (all P-values >0.05 after Holm-Bonferroni correction).
CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of fruits and vegetables, sugary drinks, quality of life, emotional distress, and the overall amount of exercise are key intervention components for improving overall lifestyle, overall health and overall health via lifestyle in the general population, respectively. Although modifications are needed for all aspects of lifestyle and interim health outcomes, a larger allocation of resources and more intensive interventions were recommended for these key variables to produce the most cost-effective improvements in lifestyles and health, regardless of gender or occupation.
METHODS: Neonatal trials including ≥100 participants/arm published between 2015 and 2020 with at least 1 primary outcome from a neonatal core outcome set were eligible. Raters recruited from Cochrane Neonatal were trained to evaluate the trials' primary outcome reporting completeness using relevant items from Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials 2010 and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Outcomes 2022 pertaining to the reporting of the definition, selection, measurement, analysis, and interpretation of primary trial outcomes. All trial reports were assessed by 3 raters. Assessments and discrepancies between raters were analyzed.
RESULTS: Outcome-reporting evaluations were completed for 36 included neonatal trials by 39 raters. Levels of outcome reporting completeness were highly variable. All trials fully reported the primary outcome measurement domain, statistical methods used to compare treatment groups, and participant flow. Yet, only 28% of trials fully reported on minimal important difference, 24% on outcome data missingness, 66% on blinding of the outcome assessor, and 42% on handling of outcome multiplicity.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary outcome reporting in neonatal trials often lacks key information needed for interpretability of results, knowledge synthesis, and evidence-informed decision-making in neonatology. Use of existing outcome-reporting guidelines by trialists, journals, and peer reviewers will enhance transparent reporting of neonatal trials.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated.
RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel.
CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.
METHODS: A total of 9,737 pediatric patients aged <18 years with unintentional injuries cared for at participating centers of the Pan-Asian Trauma Outcome Study (PATOS) from October 2015 to December 2020 were reviewed retrospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: those <8 and those ≥8 years of age. Variables such as patient demographics, injury epidemiology, Injury Severity Score (ISS), and prehospital care were collected. Injury severity and administered prehospital care stratified by gross national income were also analyzed.
RESULTS: Pediatric unintentional injuries accounted for 9.4% of EMS-transported trauma cases in the participating Asian centers, and the mortality rate was 0.88%. The leading cause of injury was traffic injuries in older children aged ≥8 years (56.5%), while falls at home were common among young children aged <8 years (43.9%). Compared with younger children, older children with similar ISS tended to receive more prehospital interventions. Uneven disease severity was found in that older children in lower-middle and upper-middle-income countries had higher ISS compared with those in high-income countries. The performance of prehospital interventions also differed among countries with different gross national incomes. Immobilizations were the most performed prehospital intervention followed by oxygen administration, airway management, and pain control; only one patient received prehospital thoracentesis. Procedures were performed more frequently in high-income countries than in upper-middle-income and lower-middle-income countries.
CONCLUSIONS: The major cause of injury was road traffic injuries in older children, while falls at home were common among young children. Prehospital care in pediatric unintentional injuries in Asian countries was not standardized and might be insufficient, and the economic status of countries may affect the implementation of prehospital care.
OBJECTIVE: With the growing body of evidence supporting the use of eHealth interventions, the intention is to conduct a meta-analysis on various health outcomes of eHealth interventions among ischaemic heart disease (IHD) patients.
METHODS: Based on PRISMA guidelines, eligible studies were searched through databases of Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, EBSCOHost, and SAGE (PROSPERO registration CRD42021290091). Inclusion criteria were English language and randomised controlled trials published between 2011 to 2021 exploring health outcomes that empower IHD patients with eHealth interventions. RevMan 5.4 was utilised for meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and risk of bias (RoB) assessment while GRADE software for generating findings of physical health outcomes. Non-physical health outcomes were analysed using SWiM (synthesis without meta-analysis) method.
RESULTS: This review included 10 studies, whereby, six studies with 895 participants' data were pooled for physical health outcomes. Overall, the RoB varied significantly across domains, with the majority was low risks, a substantial proportion of high risks and a sizeable proportion of unclear. With GRADE evidence of moderate to high quality, eHealth interventions improved low density lipoprotien (LDL) levels in IHD patients when compared to usual care after 12 months of interventions (SMD -0.26, 95% CI [-0.45, -0.06], I2 = 0%, p = 0.01). Significance appraisal in each domain of the non-physical health outcomes found significant findings for medication adherence, physical activity and dietary behaviour, while half of the non-significant findings were found for other behavioural outcomes, psychological and quality of life.
CONCLUSIONS: Electronic Health interventions are found effective at lowering LDL cholesterol in long-term but benefits remain inconclusive for other physical and non-physical health outcomes for IHD patients. Integrating sustainable patient empowerment strategies with the advancement of eHealth interventions by utilising appropriate frameworks is recommended for future research.
METHODS: In this umbrella review, we searched four databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos) from database inception to April 2022. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2). The strength of evidence of the associations between race and ethnicity with outcomes was ranked according to established criteria as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022336805.
RESULTS: Of 880 records screened, we selected seven meta-analyses for evidence synthesis, with 42 associations examined. Overall, 10 of 42 associations were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). Two associations were highly suggestive, two were suggestive, and two were weak, whereas the remaining 32 associations were non-significant. The risk of COVID-19 infection was higher in Black individuals compared to White individuals (risk ratio, 2.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.60-2.71), which was supported by highly suggestive evidence; with the conservative estimates from the sensitivity analyses, this association remained suggestive. Among those infected with COVID-19, Hispanic individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization than non-Hispanic White individuals (odds ratio, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.60-2.70) with highly suggestive evidence which remained after sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: Individuals of Black and Hispanic groups had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization compared to their White counterparts. These associations of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes existed more obviously in the pre-hospitalization stage. More consideration should be given in this stage for addressing health inequity.