Recently Published Projects

Objectives: Structured Abstract Objectives. To evaluate the effectiveness, use, and implementation of telehealth for women’s preventive services for reproductive health care and interpersonal violence (IPV), and to evaluate patient preferences and engagement for telehealth, particularly in the context of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. Data sources. Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases (July 1, 2016 to March 4, 2022); manual review of reference lists; suggestions from stakeholders and responses to a Federal Register Notice. Review methods. Eligible abstracts and full-text articles of telehealth interventions were independently dual reviewed for inclusion using predefined criteria. Dual review was used for data abstraction, study-level risk of bias assessment, and strength of evidence (SOE) rating using established methods. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity of studies and limited available data. Results. Searches identified 5,704 unique records. Eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs), one nonrandomized trial, and seven observational studies, involving 10,731 participants, met inclusion criteria. Of these, nine evaluated IPV services and seven evaluated contraceptive care, the only reproductive health service studied. Risk of bias was low in one study, moderate in nine trials and five observational studies, and high in one study. Telehealth interventions were intended to replace usual care in 14 studies and supplement care in two studies. Delivery modes included telephone (5 studies), online modules (5 studies), and mobile applications (1 study), and was unclear or undefined in five studies. There were no differences between telehealth interventions to supplement contraceptive care and comparators for rates of contraceptive use, sexually transmitted infection, and pregnancy (low SOE); evidence was insufficient for abortion rates. There were no differences between telehealth IPV services versus comparators for outcomes measuring repeat IPV, depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, fear of partner, coercive control, self-efficacy, and safety behaviors (low SOE). The COVID-19 pandemic increased telehealth utilization. Barriers to telehealth interventions included limited internet access and digital literacy among English-speaking IPV survivors, and technical challenges and confidentiality concerns for contraceptive care. Telehealth use was facilitated by strategies to ensure safety of individuals who receive IPV services. Evidence was insufficient to evaluate access, health equity, or harms outcomes. Conclusions. Limited evidence suggests that telehealth interventions for contraceptive care and IPV services result in equivalent clinical and patient-reported outcomes as in-person care. Uncertainty remains regarding the most effective approaches for delivering these services, and how to best mobilize telehealth, particularly for women facing barriers to health care.

Objectives: The systematic review will assess the prehabilitation and rehabilitation options for patients who are undergoing (or have undergone) elective, unilateral, total knee or hip replacement surgery for OA.

Objectives: Background: The effectiveness of brief interventions delivered within healthcare settings on improving preventative health behaviours is established. However, the Third and Social Economy (TSE) sector offers an alternate setting and workforce of intervention providers. Purpose: This systematic review will be the first to assess the efficacy of brief interventions specifically within the TSE sector. Data Sources: Health Research Premium collection, ASSIA, and PsychArticles via ProQuest across all available dates. Any quantitative trial was included (RCTs, before-after trials, non-randomised control trials). Study Selection: Included interventions were below 30 minutes in duration for each session with or without follow-up, and either delivered by providers from the TSE sector or delivered within a TSE setting. Measures could be either self-report or objective, surrounding diet, physical activity, alcohol consumption, smoking, finance, or housing. Data Extraction: Data was extracted based on Population and Setting, Methods, Participants, Intervention Groups, Outcome, Results, and Conclusion, and risk of bias was assessed using ROB-2, ROBINS-I, or adaptations of these; depending on the study design.

Objectives: The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) nominated the topic of antenatal care to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality for systematic review. AGOG and SMFM develop clinical practice guidelines and consensus statements both individually and jointly based on the needs of its members who are clinicians that provide gynecologic, obstetric, and high-risk pregnancy care. The scope of the current systematic review was developed to support ACOG and SMFM in their effort to create a new joint consensus statement that will address the preferred frequency, timing, and cadence of routine antenatal care schedules. It will also address use of telemedicine for routine antenatal care. Specifically, the systematic review will summarize (1) the findings from studies of the effectiveness of antenatal care schedules that vary by number and timing of visits for uncomplicated pregnancies, including studies comparing group and individual visits; (2) studies of the effectiveness of telemedicine modalities for providing antenatal care for uncomplicated pregnancies; and (3) qualitative evidence of the patient and provider perspectives, preferences, and perceptions related to the frequency and timing of antenatal care visits and telemedicine approaches to prenatal care. The intended audience includes guideline developers, clinicians and other providers of antenatal care, healthcare policymakers, and patients.

Objectives: Update of KDIGO 2018 CPG, focused on DAA treatments in specific CKD populations (Guideline 2), donor-positive to recipient-negative transplantation (Guideline 4), and HCV-related glomerular disease (Guideline 5)