May 2013 · Issue 33
In this issue:
- Having difficulty choosing indicators to measure the performance of a public health initiative?
- Evidence in Action: National Collaborating Centres Working With You
- New in Registry of Methods and Tools
- New from Public Health+
- Out and About with NCCMT
Having difficulty choosing indicators to measure the performance of a public health initiative?
Check out the Good Indicators Guide!
Health indicators are single summary measures that represent a key dimension of health status, the health care system or related factors. Published by NHS’ Institute for Innovation and Improvement, the Good Indicators Guide is a resource for anyone using indicators to monitor and improve performance, systems or outcomes.
For more info, check out: Guidelines for selecting and using indicators
http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/73.html
Evidence in Action: National Collaborating Centres Working With You
NCCPH Interactive workshop at CPHA 2013
Monday, June 10, 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA)
Interested in hearing about ways in which your colleagues have used resources from the National Collaborating Centres for Public Health?
On Monday, June 10, 10:30 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) conference participants are invited to attend Evidence in Action: National Collaborating Centres Working With You.
This 90-minute interactive session will provide participants with the opportunity to interact with colleagues from across the country who have been advancing public health programs and policies to improve the health of Canadians through the use of resources available from the six National Collaborating Centres for Public Health.
For more information, please consult the conference program, available at the CPHA website.
New in Registry of Methods and Tools
Interpreting meta-analysis graphs: The forest plot
http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/166.html
Interpreting public health statistics for decision making
http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/174.html
Harvest plot: synthesizing evidence on effects of population-level interventions
http://www.nccmt.ca/registry/view/eng/176.html
New from Public Health+
Human papillomavirus testing versus repeat cytology for triage of minor cytological cervical lesions.
BACKGROUND: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance (ASCUS) and low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions (LSIL) are minor lesions of the cervical epithelium, detectable by cytological examination of cells collected from the surface of the cervix of a woman.Usually, women with ASCUS and LSIL do not have cervical (pre-) cancer, however a substantial proportion of them do have underlying high-grade cervical intra-epithelial neoplasia (CIN, grade 2 or 3) and so are at increased risk for developing cervical cancer. Therefore, accurate triage of women with ASCUS or LSIL is required to identify those who need further management.This review evaluates two ways to triage women with ASCUS or LSIL: repeating the cytological test, and DNA testing for high-risk types of the human papillomavirus (hrHPV) - the main causal factor of cervical cancer. OBJECTIVES: Main objectiveTo compare the accuracy of hrHPV testing with the Hybrid Capture 2 (HC2) assay against that of repeat cytology for detection of underlying cervical intraepithelial neoplasia of grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) or grade 3 or worse (CIN3+) in women with ASCUS or LSIL. For the HC2 assay, a positive result was defined as proposed by the manufacturer. For repeat cytology, different cut-offs were used to define positivity: Atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance or worse (ASCUS+), low-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions or worse (LSIL+) or high-grade squamous intra-epithelial lesions or worse (HSIL+).Secondary objectiveTo assess the accuracy of the HC2 assay to detect CIN2+ or CIN3+ in women with ASCUS or LSIL in a larger group of reports of studies that applied hrHPV testing and the reference standard (coloscopy and biopsy), irrespective whether or not repeat cytology was done. SEARCH METHODS: We made a comprehensive literature search that included the Cochrane Register of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE (through PubMed), and EMBASE (last search 6 January 2011). Selected journals likely to contain relevant papers were handsearched from 1992 to 2010 (December). We also searched CERVIX, the bibliographic database of the Unit of Cancer Epidemiology at the Scientific Institute of Public Health (Brussels, Belgium) which contains more than 20,000 references on cervical cancer.More recent searches, up to December 2012, targeted reports on the accuracy of triage of ASCUS or LSIL with other HPV DNA assays, or HPV RNA assays and other molecular markers. These searches will be used for new Cochrane reviews as well as for updates of the current review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies eligible for inclusion in the review had to include: women presenting with a cervical cytology result of ASCUS or LSIL, who had undergone both HC2 testing and repeat cytology, or HC2 testing alone, and were subsequently subjected to reference standard verification with colposcopy and colposcopy-directed biopsies for histologic verification. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently extracted data from the selected studies, and obtained additional data from report authors.Two groups of meta-analyses were performed: group I concerned triage of women with ASCUS, group II concerned women with LSIL. The bivariate model (METADAS-macro in SAS) was used to assess the absolute accuracy of the triage tests in both groups as well as the differences in accuracy between the triage tests. MAIN RESULTS: The pooled sensitivity of HC2 was significantly higher than that of repeat cytology at cut-off ASCUS+ to detect CIN2+ in both triage of ASCUS and LSIL (relative sensitivity of 1.27 (95% CI 1.16 to 1.39; P value < 0.0001) and 1.23 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.4; P value 0.007), respectively. In ASCUS triage, the pooled specificity of the triage methods did not differ significantly from each other (relative specificity: 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; P value 0.98)). However, the specificity of HC2 was substantially, and significantly, lower than that of repeat cytology in the triage of LSIL (relative specificity: 0.66 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.75) P value < 0.0001). AUTHORS` CONCLUSIONS: HPV-triage with HC2 can be recommended to triage women with ASCUS because it has higher accuracy (significantly higher sensitivity, and similar specificity) than repeat cytology. When triaging women with LSIL, an HC2 test yields a significantly higher sensitivity, but a significantly lower specificity, compared to a repeat cytology. Therefore, practice recommendations for management of women with LSIL should be balanced, taking local circumstances into account.
The full text may be available from PubMed
Systematic Review of Positive Youth Development Programs for Adolescents With Chronic Illness.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:The Positive Youth Development (PYD) framework has been successfully used to support at-risk youth. However, its effectiveness in fostering positive outcomes for adolescents with chronic illness has not been established. We performed a systematic review of PYD-consistent programs for adolescents with chronic illness.METHODS:Data sources included PubMed, CINAHL, and PsychINFO. Guided by an analytic framework, we searched for studies of PYD-consistent programs serving adolescents and young adults aged 13 through 24 with chronic illness. References were screened iteratively with increasing depth until a focused cohort was obtained and reviewed in full. The authors separately reviewed the studies using structured analysis forms. Relevant study details were abstracted during the review process.RESULTS:Fifteen studies describing 14 programs were included in the analysis. Three comprehensive programs included all 3 core components of a PYD program, including opportunities for youth leadership, skill building, and sustained connections between youth and adults. Four programs were primarily mentoring programs, and 7 others focused on youth leadership. Programs served youth with a variety of chronic illnesses. The quality and type of evaluation varied considerably, with most reporting psychosocial outcomes but only a few including medical outcomes.CONCLUSIONS:The PYD-consistent programs identified in this review can serve as models for the development of youth development programs for adolescents with chronic illness. Additional study is needed to evaluate such programs rigorously with respect to both psychosocial and health-related outcomes. PYD-consistent programs have the potential to reach youth with chronic illness and promote positive adult outcomes broadly.
The full text may be available from PubMed
Interprofessional education: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (update).
BACKGROUND: The delivery of effective, high-quality patient care is a complex activity. It demands health and social care professionals collaborate in an effective manner. Research continues to suggest that collaboration between these professionals can be problematic. Interprofessional education (IPE) offers a possible way to improve interprofessional collaboration and patient care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific education interventions; and to assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no education intervention. SEARCH METHODS: For this update we searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group specialised register, MEDLINE and CINAHL, for the years 2006 to 2011. We also handsearched the Journal of Interprofessional Care (2006 to 2011), reference lists of all included studies, the proceedings of leading IPE conferences, and websites of IPE organisations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled before and after (CBA) studies and interrupted time series (ITS) studies of IPE interventions that reported objectively measured or self reported (validated instrument) patient/client or healthcare process outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed the eligibility of potentially relevant studies. For included studies, at least two review authors extracted data and assessed study quality. A meta-analysis of study outcomes was not possible due to heterogeneity in study designs and outcome measures. Consequently, the results are presented in a narrative format. MAIN RESULTS: This update located nine new studies, which were added to the six studies from our last update in 2008. This review now includes 15 studies (eight RCTs, five CBA and two ITS studies). All of these studies measured the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to no educational intervention. Seven studies indicated that IPE produced positive outcomes in the following areas: diabetes care, emergency department culture and patient satisfaction; collaborative team behaviour and reduction of clinical error rates for emergency department teams; collaborative team behaviour in operating rooms; management of care delivered in cases of domestic violence; and mental health practitioner competencies related to the delivery of patient care. In addition, four of the studies reported mixed outcomes (positive and neutral) and four studies reported that the IPE interventions had no impact on either professional practice or patient care. AUTHORS` CONCLUSIONS: This updated review reports on 15 studies that met the inclusion criteria (nine studies from this update and six studies from the 2008 update). Although these studies reported some positive outcomes, due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity of interventions and outcome measures, it is not possible to draw generalisable inferences about the key elements of IPE and its effectiveness. To improve the quality of evidence relating to IPE and patient outcomes or healthcare process outcomes, the following three gaps will need to be filled: first, studies that assess the effectiveness of IPE interventions compared to separate, profession-specific interventions; second, RCT, CBA or ITS studies with qualitative strands examining processes relating to the IPE and practice changes; third, cost-benefit analyses.
The full text may be available from PubMed
Strategies to prevent weight gain in workplace and college settings: A systematic review.
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of self-management, dietary, physical activity, and/or environmental strategies for the prevention of weight gain among adults in work and college settings. METHOD: We conducted a systematic review of work/college-based studies that intervened on adults using one or more of the above strategies with follow up over at least a 12-month period. We excluded studies with a weight loss component. Our weight outcomes included body mass index (BMI), weight, and waist circumference. RESULTS: We included 7 work- and 2 college-based interventional studies, which all used combinations of different strategies. There was moderate strength of evidence that work/college-based combination interventions prevented weight gain of >/=0.5kg over 12months as compared to control; however, we were unable to perform meta-analysis due to substantial heterogeneity in the intervention strategies and study populations. These programs did not prevent BMI gain or waist circumference increase. CONCLUSION: While we found limited evidence that work/college-based interventions employing a combination of strategies prevent adult weight gain, the combination of personalized diet and physical activity counseling for the individual along with the promotion of healthy lifestyle changes in the environment may be a promising strategy to explore in future research.
The full text may be available from PubMed
Workplace pedometer interventions for increasing physical activity.
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization and the World Economic Forum have recommended further research to strengthen current knowledge of workplace health programmes, particularly on effectiveness and using simple instruments. A pedometer is one such simple instrument that can be incorporated in workplace interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (671 potential papers), MEDLINE (1001), Embase (965), CINAHL (1262), OSH UPDATE databases (75) and Web of Science (1154) from the earliest record to between 30th January and 6th February 2012 yielded 3248 unique records. Reference lists of articles yielded an additional 34 papers. Contact with individuals and organisations did not produce any further records. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual and cluster-randomised controlled trials of workplace health promotion interventions with a pedometer component in employed adults. The primary outcome was physical activity and was part of the eligibility criteria. We considered subsequent health outcomes, including adverse effects, as secondary outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors undertook the screening of titles and abstracts and the full-text papers independently. Two review authors (RFP and MC) independently completed data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted authors to obtain additional data and clarification. MAIN RESULTS: We found four relevant studies providing data for 1809 employees, 60% of whom were allocated to the intervention group. All studies assessed outcomes immediately after the intervention had finished and the intervention duration varied between three to six months. All studies had usual treatment control conditions; however one study`s usual treatment was an alternative physical activity programme while the other three had minimally active controls. In general, there was high risk of bias mainly due to lack of blinding, self reported outcome measurement, incomplete outcome data due to attrition, and most of the studies had not published protocols, which increases the likelihood of selective reporting.Three studies compared the pedometer programme to a minimally active control group, but the results for physical activity could not be combined because each study used a different measure of activity. One study observed an increase in physical activity under a pedometer programme, but the other two did not find a significant difference. For secondary outcomes we found improvements in body mass index, waist circumference, fasting plasma glucose, the quality of life mental component and worksite injury associated with the pedometer programmes, but these results were based on limited data from one or two small studies. There were no differences between the pedometer programme and the control group for blood pressure, a number of biochemical outcomes and the quality of life physical component. Sedentary behaviour and disease risk scores were not measured by any of the included studies.One study compared a pedometer programme and an alternative physical activity programme, but baseline imbalances made it difficult to distinguish the true improvements associated with either programme.Overall, there was insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace.There is a need for more high quality randomised controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes. To improve the quality of the evidence available, future studies should be registered in an online trials register, publish a protocol, allocate time and financial support to reducing attrition, and try to blind personnel (especially those who undertake measurement). To better identify the effects of pedometer interventions, future studies should report a core set of outcomes (total physical activity in METs, total time sitting in hours and minutes, objectively measured cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes risk factors, quality of life and injury), assess outcomes in the long term and undertake subgroup analyses based upon demographic subgroups (e.g. age, gender, educational status). Future studies should also compare different types of active intervention to test specific intervention components (eligibility, duration, step goal, step diary, settings), and settings (occupation, intervention provider). AUTHORS` CONCLUSIONS: There was limited and low quality data providing insufficient evidence to assess the effectiveness of pedometer interventions in the workplace for increasing physical activity and improving subsequent health outcomes.
The full text may be available from PubMed
Out and About with NCCMT
Find us at these Spring/summer 2013 conferences:
- Canadian Health Libraries Association (CHLA) - May 22 - 25 - Saskatoon
- Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) - June 9 - 12 - Ottawa
- Community Health Nurses of Canada (CHNC) - June 17 - 19 - Kelowna
- Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (CASN) - June 24 - 26 - Vancouver
