OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of reviews describing task shifts from physicians to allied healthcare workers in primary care and its impact on clinical outcomes.

METHODS: Six electronic databases were searched up to 15 December 2020, to identify reviews describing task shifting in primary care. Two reviewers independently screened the references for relevant studies, extracted the data and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR-2.

RESULTS: Twenty-one reviews that described task shifting in primary care were included. Task shifted include provision of care for people with chronic conditions, medication prescribing, and health education. We found that task shifting could potentially improve several health outcomes such as blood pressure, HbA1c, and mental health while achieving cost savings. Key elements for successful implementation of task shifting include collaboration among all parties, a system for coordinated care, provider empowerment, patient preference, shared decision making, training and competency, supportive organisation system, clear process outcome, and financing.

METHODS: A systematic review of published and unpublished studies were carried out. Included studies described the development of explicit criteria for PIM use in older adults and provided a list of medications that should be considered inappropriate. PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Scopus searches were conducted. The PIMs were analyzed according to the general conditions, disease-specific conditions, and drug-drug interaction classes. The qualities of the included studies were assessed using a nine-point evaluation tool. The kappa agreement index was used to evaluate the level of agreement between the identified explicit PIM tools.

RESULTS: The search yielded 1206 articles, and 15 studies were included in our analysis. Thirteen criteria were identified in East Asia and two in South Asia. Twelve out of the 15 criteria were developed using the Delphi method. We identified 283 PIMs independent of medical conditions and 465 disease-specific PIMs. Antipsychotics were included in most of the criteria (14/15), followed by tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) (13/15), antihistamines (13/15), sulfonylureas (12/15), benzodiazepines (11/15), and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAIDs) (11/15). Only one study fulfilled all the quality components. There was a low kappa agreement (k = 0.230) between the included studies.

METHODS: Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model.

RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.

METHODS: A systematic review was performed for economic burden studies in schizophrenia using four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and EconLit) from inception to August 31, 2014.

RESULTS: A total of 56 articles were included in this review. More than 80% of the studies were conducted in high-income countries. Most studies had undertaken a retrospective- and prevalence-based study design. The bottom-up approach was commonly employed to determine cost, while human capital method was used for indirect cost estimation. Database and literature were the most commonly used data sources in cost estimation in high-income countries, while chart review and interview were the main data sources in low and middle-income countries. Annual costs for the schizophrenia population in the country ranged from US$94 million to US$102 billion. Indirect costs contributed to 50%-85% of the total costs associated with schizophrenia. The economic burden of schizophrenia was estimated to range from 0.02% to 1.65% of the gross domestic product.

METHODOLOGY: Prospective observational cohort study of consecutive surviving VLBW infants and randomly sampled NBW infants born in the Kuala Lumpur Maternity Hospital between 1 December 1989 and 31 December 1992. Infants were followed up regularly during the first year of life, after correction for prematurity.

RESULTS: Compared with NBW infants (n = 106), VLBW infants (n = 127) had significantly higher risk of failure to thrive (odds ratio [OR] = 8.0, 95% confidence intervals [CI]: 1.1 to 354.3), wheezing (OR = 3.7, 95% CI: 1.6 to 9.3), rehospitalization (OR = 2.3, 95% CI: 1.1 to 5.0), cerebral palsy (OR = 8.6, 95% CI: 2.0 to 77.6), neurosensory hearing loss (OR = 12.0, 95% CI: 1.7 to 513.6) and visual loss (7.9 vs 0%, P = 0.002). The mean mental developmental index (MDI) and mean psychomotor developmental index (PDI) at 1 year of age were significantly lower among VLBW infants (MDI 99 [SD = 28], PDI 89 [SD = 25]) than NBW infants (MDI 106 [SD = 18], PDI 101 [SD = 18]) (95% CI for difference between means being MDI: -14.1 to -1.7; and PDI: -17.6 to -6.0). Logistic regression analysis showed that among VLBW infants: (i) male sex, Malay ethnicity and bronchopulmonary dysplasia were significant risk factors associated with wheezing; (ii) longer duration of oxygen therapy during the neonatal period, seizures after the post-neonatal period and wheezing were significant risk factors associated with rehospitalization; and (iii) longer duration of oxygen therapy during the neonatal period was a significant risk factor associated with adverse neurodevelopmental outcome during the first year of life.

Objective: This review aims to summarize the clinical evidence regarding the use of chia seed for a wide variety of health conditions.

Data Sources: A number of databases, including PubMed and Embase, were searched systematically.

Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials that assessed the clinical effects of chia seed consumption in human participants were included. The quality of trials was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool.

Data Extraction: Data on study design, blinding status, characteristics of participants, chia seed intervention, comparator, clinical assessment, duration of intake, interval of assessment, and study funding status were extracted. Meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Twelve trials were included. Participants included healthy persons, athletes, diabetic patients, and individuals with metabolic syndrome. Pooling of results showed no significant differences except for the following findings of subgroup analysis at higher doses of chia seed: (1) lower postprandial blood glucose level (mean difference [MD] of -33.95 incremental area under the curve [iAUC] [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -61.85, -6.05] and -51.60 iAUC [mmol/L × 2 h] [95%CI, -79.64, -23.56] at medium doses and high doses, respectively); (2) lower high-density lipoprotein in serum (MD of -0.10 mmol/L [95%CI, -0.20, -0.01]); and (3) lower diastolic blood pressure (MD of -7.14 mmHg [95%CI, -11.08, -3.19]). The quality of all evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was low or very low. All trials employed only surrogate markers as outcomes.

Conclusions: Future trials with improved methodological quality, well-described clinical events, and validated surrogate markers as outcomes are needed to support the potential health benefits of chia seed consumption.