Patient navigator programmes for children and adolescents with chronic diseases.

Despite a substantial global improvement in infant and child mortality from communicable diseases since the early 1990s there is now a growing burden of chronic disease in children and adolescents worldwide, mimicking the trend seen in the adult population. Chronic diseases in children and adolescents can affect all aspects of their well-being and function with these burdens and their health-related consequences often carried into adulthood. Up to one third of disability-adjusted life years for children and adolescents globally are a result of chronic disease. This has profound implications for the broader family unit, communities, and health systems in which these children and young people reside. Models of chronic care delivery for children and adolescents with chronic disease have traditionally been adapted from adult models. There is a growing recognition that children and adolescents with chronic diseases have a unique set of healthcare needs. Their needs extend beyond disease education and management appropriate to the developmental stage of the child, to encompass psychological well-being for the entire family and a holistic care approach focusing on the social determinants of health. It is for this reason that patient navigators have been proposed as a potential intervention to help fulfil this critical healthcare gap. Patient navigators are trained medical or non-medical personnel (e.g. lay health workers, community health workers, nurses, or people with lived experience) who provide guidance for the patients (and their primary caregivers) as they move through complex (and often bewildering) medical and social systems. The navigator may deliver education, help to co-ordinate patient care, be an advocate for the patient (and their primary caregivers), or combinations of these. Patient navigators can assist people with a chronic illness (especially those who are vulnerable or from a marginalised population, or both) to better understand their diagnoses, treatment options, and available resources. As there is considerable variation in the purpose, design, and target population of patient navigator programmes, there is a need to systematically review and summarise the existing literature on the effectiveness of navigator programmes in children and young adults with chronic disease. To assess the effectiveness of patient navigator programmes in children and adolescents with chronic diseases. We searched the Cochrane Library and Epistemonikos up to 20 January 2023 for related systematic reviews using search terms relevant to this review. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO, conference proceedings, the International Clinical Trials Register (ICTRP) Search Portal, and ClinicalTrials.gov for primary studies. We included randomised controlled trials reporting the effect of patient navigator interventions on children and adolescents (aged 18 years or younger) with any chronic disease in hospital or community settings. Two review authors independently assessed the retrieved titles and abstracts, and where necessary, the full text to identify studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria. Two review authors extracted data using a standard data extraction form. We used a random-effects model to perform a quantitative synthesis of the data. We used the I² statistic to measure heterogeneity amongst the studies in each analysis. We indicated summary estimates as mean differences (MD), where studies used the same scale, or standardised mean differences (SMD), where studies used different scales, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used subgroup and univariate meta-regression to assess reasons for between-study differences. We used the Cochrane RoB 1 tool to assess the methodological quality of the included studies. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We included 17 studies (2895 randomised participants). All studies compared patient navigators with standard care. Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. Meta-analysis was undertaken only for those studies that had the same duration of patient navigator intervention and follow-up/reporting of outcome measures. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of patient navigator programmes compared with standard care on self-reported quality of life of children with chronic illness (SMD 0.63, 95% CI -0.20 to 1.47; I2 = 96%; 4 studies, 671 participants; very low-certainty evidence); parent proxy-reported quality of life (SMD 0.09, 95% CI -2.21 to 2.40; I2 = 99%; 2 studies, 309 participants; very low-certainty evidence); or parents' or caregivers' quality of life (SMD -1.98, 95% CI -4.13 to 0.17; I2 = 99%; 3 studies, 757 participants; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether duration of patient navigator intervention accounts for any of the variances in the changes in quality of life. The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of patient navigator programmes compared with standard care on the number of hospital admissions (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.23; I2 = 99%; 2 studies, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and the number of presentations to the emergency department (MD 0.06, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.34; I2 = 98%; 2 studies, 381 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Furthermore, it is unclear whether patient navigator programmes reduce the number of missed school days as data were sparse (2 studies, 301 participants). Four studies (629 participants) reported data on resource use. However, given the variation in units of analysis used, meta-analysis was not possible (very low-certainty evidence). All studies reported cost savings or quality-adjusted life year improvement (or both) in the patient navigation arm. No studies reported on adverse events (specifically, abuse of any type against the navigator, the patient, or their family members). There is insufficient evidence at present to support the use of patient navigator programmes for children and adolescents with chronic diseases. The current evidence is based on limited data with very low-certainty evidence. Further studies are likely to significantly change these results.

Lalji R ，Koh L ，Francis A ，Khalid R ，Guha C ，Johnson DW ，Wong G ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing faecal incontinence and constipation in adults with central neurological diseases.

People with central neurological disease or injury have a much higher risk of both faecal incontinence (FI) and constipation than the general population. There is often a fine line between the two symptoms, with management intended to ameliorate one risking precipitating the other. Bowel problems are observed to be the cause of much anxiety and may reduce quality of life in these people. Current bowel management is largely empirical, with a limited research base. The review is relevant to individuals with any disease directly and chronically affecting the central nervous system (post-traumatic, degenerative, ischaemic or neoplastic), such as multiple sclerosis, spinal cord injury, cerebrovascular disease, Parkinson's disease and Alzheimer's disease. This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2001 and subsequently updated in 2003, 2006 and 2014. To assess the effects of conservative, physical and surgical interventions for managing FI and constipation in people with a neurological disease or injury affecting the central nervous system. We searched the Cochrane Incontinence Specialised Register (searched 27 March 2023), which includes searches of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP as well as handsearching of journals and conference proceedings; and all reference lists of relevant articles. We included randomised, quasi-randomised (where allocation is not strictly random), cross-over and cluster-randomised trials evaluating any type of conservative, physical or surgical intervention against placebo, usual care or no intervention for the management of FI and constipation in people with central neurological disease or injury. At least two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias in eligible trials using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool and independently extracted data from the included trials using a range of prespecified outcome measures. We produced summary of findings tables for our main outcome measures and assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. We included 25 studies with 1598 participants. The studies were generally at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel to the intervention. Half of the included studies were also at high risk of bias in terms of selective reporting. Outcomes were often reported heterogeneously across studies, making it difficult to pool data. We did not find enough evidence to be able to analyse the effects of interventions on individual central neurological diseases. Additionally, very few studies reported on the primary outcomes of self-reported improvement in FI or constipation, or Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score. Conservative interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Thirteen studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included assessment-based nursing, holistic nursing, probiotics, psyllium, faecal microbiota transplantation, and a stepwise protocol of increasingly invasive evacuation methods. Conservative interventions may result in a large improvement in faecal incontinence (standardised mean difference (SMD) -1.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.47 to -0.23; 3 studies; n = 410; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.80 as a large effect. It was not possible to pool all data from studies that assessed improvement in constipation, but the evidence suggested that conservative interventions may improve constipation symptoms (data not pooled; 8 studies; n = 612; low-certainty evidence). Conservative interventions may lead to a reduction in mean time taken on bowel care (data not pooled; 5 studies; n = 526; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is uncertain about the effects of conservative interventions on condition-specific quality of life and adverse events. Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score was not reported. Physical therapy compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo Twelve studies assessed this comparison. The interventions included massage therapy, standing, osteopathic manipulative treatment, electrical stimulation, transanal irrigation, and conventional physical therapy with visceral mobilisation. Physical therapies may make little to no difference to self-reported faecal continence assessed using the St Mark's Faecal Incontinence Score, where the minimally important difference is five, or the Cleveland Constipation Score (MD -2.60, 95% CI -4.91 to -0.29; 3 studies; n = 155; low-certainty evidence). Physical therapies may result in a moderate improvement in constipation symptoms (SMD -0.62, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.14; 9 studies; n = 431; low-certainty evidence). We interpreted SMD ≥ 0.5 as a moderate effect. However, physical therapies may make little to no difference in Neurogenic Bowel Dysfunction Score as the minimally important difference for this tool is 3 (MD -1.94, 95% CI -3.36 to -0.51; 7 studies; n = 358; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effects of physical therapies on the time spent on bowel care, condition-specific quality of life and adverse effects (all very low-certainty evidence). Surgical interventions compared with usual care, no active treatment or placebo No studies were found for surgical interventions that met the inclusion criteria for this review. There remains little research on this common and, for patients, very significant issue of bowel management. The available evidence is almost uniformly of low methodological quality. The clinical significance of some of the research findings presented here is difficult to interpret, not least because each intervention has only been addressed in individual trials, against control rather than compared against each other, and the interventions are very different from each other. Understanding whether there is a clinically-meaningful difference from the results of available trials is largely hampered by the lack of uniform outcome measures. This is due to an absence of core outcome sets, and development of these needs to be a research priority to allow studies to be compared directly. Some studies used validated constipation, incontinence or condition-specific measures; however, others used unvalidated analogue scales to report effectiveness. Some studies did not use any patient-reported outcomes and focused on physiological outcome measures, which is of relatively limited significance in terms of clinical implementation. There was evidence in favour of some conservative interventions, but these findings need to be confirmed by larger, well-designed controlled trials, which should include evaluation of the acceptability of the intervention to patients and the effect on their quality of life.

Todd CL ，Johnson EE ，Stewart F ，Wallace SA ，Bryant A ，Woodward S ，Norton C ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Prevention of self-harm and suicide in young people up to the age of 25 in education settings.

In 2016, globally, suicide was the second leading cause of death amongst those aged 15 to 29 years. Self-harm is increasingly common among young people in many countries, particularly among women and girls. The risk of suicide is elevated 30-fold in the year following hospital presentation for self-harm, and those with suicidal ideation have double the risk of suicide compared with the general population. Self-harm and suicide in young people are significant public health issues that cause distress for young people, their peers, and family, and lead to substantial healthcare costs. Educational settings are widely acknowledged as a logical and appropriate place to provide prevention and treatment. A comprehensive, high-quality systematic review of self-harm and suicide prevention programmes in all education settings is thus urgently required. This will support evidence-informed decision making to facilitate rational investment in prevention efforts in educational settings. Suicide and self-harm are distressing, and we acknowledge that the content of this review is sensitive as the data outlined below represents the lived and living experience of suicidal distress for individuals and their caregivers. To assess the effects of interventions delivered in educational settings to prevent or address self-harm and suicidal ideation in young people (up to the age of 25) and examine whether the relative effects on self-harm and suicide are modified by education setting. We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Specialised Register, CENTRAL, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Ovid MEDLINE, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, EBSCO host Australian Education Index, British Education Index, Educational Research Abstracts to 28 April 2023. We included trials where the primary aim was to evaluate an intervention specifically designed to reduce self-harm or prevent suicide in an education setting. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster-RCTs, cross-over trials and quasi-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcomes were self-harm postintervention and acceptability; secondary outcomes included suicidal ideation, hopelessness, and two outcomes co-designed with young people: better or more coping skills, and a safe environment, with more acceptance and understanding. We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We analysed dichotomous data as odds ratios (ORs) and continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We conducted random-effects meta-analyses and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. For co-designed outcomes, we used vote counting based on the direction of effect, as there is a huge variation in the data and the effect measure used in the included studies. We included 51 trials involving 36,414 participants (minimum 23; maximum 11,100). Twenty-seven studies were conducted in secondary schools, one in middle school, one in primary school, 19 in universities, one in medical school, and one across education and community settings. Eighteen trials investigated universal interventions, 11 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but no trials provided data for self-harm postintervention. Evidence on the acceptability of universal interventions is of very low certainty, and indicates little or no difference between groups (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.67; 9 studies, 8528 participants). Low-certainty evidence showed little to no effect on suicidal ideation (SMD -0.02, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.20; 4 studies, 379 participants) nor on hopelessness (MD -0.01, 95% CI -1.98 to 1.96; 1 trial, 121 participants). Fifteen trials investigated selective interventions, eight of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only one trial provided data for self-harm postintervention. Low-certainty evidence indicates that selective interventions may reduce self-harm postintervention slightly (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.43; 1 trial, 148 participants). While no trial provided data for hopelessness, little to no effect was found on acceptability (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.5 to 2.0; 6 studies, 10,208 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or suicidal ideation (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.36 to 0.43; 2 studies, 102 participants; low-certainty evidence). Seventeen trials investigated indicated interventions, 14 of which provided data for at least one meta-analysis, but only four trials provided data for self-harm postintervention and two reported no events in both groups. Low-certainty evidence suggests that indicated interventions may slightly reduce self-harm postintervention (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.76; 2 studies, 76 participants). There is also low-certainty evidence indicating that these interventions may decrease the odds of non-suicidal self-injury (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.79; 2 studies, 89 participants). Evidence of a slight decrease in acceptability in the intervention group is of low certainty (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.42; 10 studies, 641 participants). Low-certainty evidence shows that indicated interventions may slightly reduce suicidal ideation (SMD -0.33, 95% CI -0.55 to -0.10; 10 studies, 685 participants) and may result in little to no difference in hopelessness postintervention (SMD -0.27, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.01; 6 studies, 455 participants). There were mixed findings regarding the effect of suicide prevention interventions on a range of constructs relevant to coping skills and safe environment. None of the trials, however, measured the impact of improvements in these constructs on self-harm or suicidal ideation. While this review provides an update on the evidence about interventions targeting self-harm and suicide prevention in education settings, there remains significant uncertainty about the impact of these interventions. There are some promising findings but large replication studies are needed, as are studies that examine the combination of different intervention approaches, and can be delivered in a safe environment and implemented over a long period of time. Further research is required to understand and measure outcomes that are meaningful to young people with lived experience, as they want coping skills and safety of the environment in which they conduct their everyday lives to be measured as key outcomes in future trials.

Sharma V ，Marshall D ，Fortune S ，Prescott AE ，Boggiss A ，Macleod E ，Mitchell C ，Clarke A ，Robinson J ，Witt KG ，Hawton K ，Hetrick SE ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Mindfulness-enhanced parenting programmes for improving the psychosocial outcomes of children (0 to 18 years) and their parents.

Featherston R ，Barlow J ，Song Y ，Haysom Z ，Loy B ，Tufford L ，Shlonsky A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》