The volume-outcome relationship, i.e., higher hospital volume results in better health outcomes, has been established for different surgical procedures as well as for certain nonsurgical medical interventions. Accordingly, many countries such as Germany, the USA, Canada, the UK, and Switzerland have established minimum volume standards. To date, there is a lack of systematically summarized evidence regarding the effects of such regulations.
To be included in the review, studies must measure any effects connected to minimum volume standards. Outcomes of interest include the following: (1) patient-related outcomes, (2) process-related outcomes, and (3) health system-related outcomes. We will include (cluster) randomized controlled trials ([C]RCTs), non-randomized controlled trials (nRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs), and interrupted time-series studies (ITSs). We will apply no restrictions regarding language, publication date, and publication status. We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed), Embase (via Embase), CENTRAL (via Cochrane Library), CINHAL (via EBSCO), EconLit (via EBSCO), PDQ evidence for informed health policymaking, health systems evidence, OpenGrey, and also trial registries for relevant studies. We will further search manually for additional studies by cross-checking the reference lists of all included primary studies as well as cross-checking the reference lists of relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the risk of bias, we will use the ROBINS-I and RoB 2 risk-of-bias tools for the corresponding study designs. For data synthesis and statistical analyses, we will follow the guidance published by the EPOC Cochrane group (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC), EPOC Resources for review authors, 2019).
This systematic review focuses on minimum volume standards and the outcomes used to measure their effects. It is designed to provide thorough and encompassing evidence-based information on this topic. Thus, it will inform decision-makers and policymakers with respect to the effects of minimum volume standards and inform further studies in regard to research gaps.
PROSPERO CRD42022318883.

To establish the evidence base for the effects on health outcomes and costs of social prescribing link workers (non-health or social care professionals who connect people to community resources) for people in community settings focusing on people experiencing multimorbidity and social deprivation.
Systematic review and narrative synthesis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.
Cochrane Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, LILACS, Web of Science and grey literature were searched up to 31 July 2021. A forward citation search was completed on 9 June 2022.
Controlled trials meeting the Cochrane Effectiveness of Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidance on eligible study designs assessing the effect of social prescribing link workers for adults in community settings on any outcomes. No language restrictions were applied.
Two independent reviewers extracted data, evaluated study quality using the Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool and judged certainty of the evidence. Results were synthesised narratively.
Eight studies (n=6500 participants), with five randomised controlled trials at low risk of bias and three controlled before-after studies at high risk of bias, were included. Four included participants experiencing multimorbidity and social deprivation. Four (n=2186) reported no impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Four (n=1924) reported mental health outcomes with three reporting no impact. Two US studies found improved ratings of high-quality care and reduced hospitalisations for people with multimorbidity experiencing deprivation. No cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low.
There is an absence of evidence for social prescribing link workers. Policymakers should note this and support evaluation of current programmes before mainstreaming.
CRD42019134737.

Examine the effectiveness of interventions to approach guideline-adherent surgical referrals for low back pain assessed via systematic review and meta-analysis.
Five databases (10 September 2021), Google Scholar, reference lists of relevant systematic reviews were searched and forward and backward citation tracking of included studies were implemented. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain of interventions to optimise surgery rates or referrals to surgery or secondary referral were included. Bias was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool and evidence certainty via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A random effects meta-analysis with a Paule Mandel estimator plus Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method was used to calculate the odds ratio and 95% confidence interval, respectively.
Of 886 records, 6 studies were included (N = 258,329) participants; cluster sizes ranged from 4 to 54. Five studies were rated as low risk of bias and one as having some concerns. Two studies reporting spine surgery referral or rates could only be pooled via combination of p values and gave evidence for a reduction (p = 0.021, Fisher\'s method, risk of bias: low). This did not persist with sensitivity analysis (p = 0.053). For secondary referral, meta-analysis revealed a non-significant odds ratio of 1.07 (95% CI [0.55, 2.06], I2 = 73.0%, n = 4 studies, Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE] evidence certainty: very low).
Few RCTs exist for interventions to improve guideline-adherent spine surgery rates or referral. Clinician education in isolation may not be effective. Future RCTs should consider organisational and/or policy level interventions.
CRD42020215137.

To examine the effectiveness of implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals in low back pain.
Systematic review with meta-analysis.
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science Core Collection, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to June 14, 2021, as well as Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant systematic reviews published in the last 10 years. We conducted forward and backward citation tracking.
Randomized controlled or clinical trials in adults with low back pain to improve imaging referrals.
Bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized using narrative synthesis and random-effects meta-analysis (Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method). We assessed the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.
Of the 2719 identified records, 8 trials were included, with 6 studies eligible for meta-analysis (participants: N = 170 460). All trials incorporated clinician education; 4 included audit and/or feedback components. Comparators were no-intervention control and passive dissemination of guidelines. Five trials were rated as low risk of bias, and 2 trials were rated as having some concerns. There was low-certainty evidence that implementing interventions to improve guideline-recommended imaging referrals had no effect (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 0.87 [0.72, 1.05]; I2 = 0%; studies: n = 6). The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.
We found low-certainty evidence that interventions to reduce imaging referrals or use in low back pain had no effect. Education interventions are unlikely to be effective. Organizational- and policy-level interventions are more likely to be effective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2022;52(4):175-191. Epub 05 Feb 2022. doi:10.2519/jospt.2022.10731.

Road traffic injuries are among the top ten causes of death globally, with the highest burden in low and middle-income countries, where over a third of deaths occur among pedestrians and cyclists. Several interventions to mitigate the burden among pedestrians have been widely implemented, however, the effectiveness has not been systematically examined.
To assess the effectiveness of interventions to reduce road traffic crashes, injuries, hospitalizations and deaths among pedestrians.
We considered studies that evaluated interventions to reduce road traffic crashes, injuries, hospitalizations and/or deaths among pedestrians. We considered randomized controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, and controlled before-after studies. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, WHO Global Health Index, Health Evidence, Transport Research International Documentation and ClinicalTrials.gov through 31 August 2020, and the reference lists of all included studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and full texts, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. We summarized findings narratively with text and tables.
A total of 69123 unique records were identified through the searches, with 26 of these meeting our eligibility criteria. All except two of these were conducted in high-income countries and most were from urban settings. The majority of studies observed either a clear effect favoring the intervention or an unclear effect potentially favoring the intervention and these included: changes to the road environment (19/27); changes to legislation and enforcement (12/12); and road user behavior/education combined with either changes to the road environment (3/3) or with legislation and enforcement (1/1). A small number of studies observed either a null effect or an effect favoring the control.
Although the highest burden of road traffic injuries exists in LMICs, very few studies have examined the effectiveness of available interventions in these settings. Studies indicate that road environment, legislation and enforcement interventions alone produce positive effects on pedestrian safety. In combination with or with road user behavior/education interventions they are particularly effective in improving pedestrian safety.

BACKGROUND: Effectiveness of implementing interventions to optimise guideline-recommended medical prescription in low back pain is not well established.
METHODS: A systematic review and random-effects meta-analyses for dichotomous outcomes with a Paule-Mandel estimator. Five databases and reference lists were searched from inception to 4th August 2021. Randomised controlled/clinical trials in adults with low back pain to optimise medication prescription were included. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool and GRADE were implemented. The review was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42020219767).
RESULTS: Of 3352 unique records identified in the search, seven studies were included and five were eligible for meta-analysis (N=11339 participants). Six of seven studies incorporated clinician education, three studies included audit/feedback components and one study implemented changes in medical records systems. Via meta-analysis, we estimated a non-significant odds-ratio of 0·94 (95% CI (0·77; 1.16), I² = 0%; n=5 studies, GRADE: low) in favour of the intervention group. The main finding was robust to sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that existing interventions to optimise medication prescription or usage in back pain had no impact. Peer-to-peer education alone does not appear to lead to behaviour change. Organisational and policy interventions may be more effective.
BACKGROUND: This work was supported by internal institutional funding only.

To characterise the extent to which health professionals perform SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommendation) as intended (ie, with high fidelity) and the extent to which its use improves communication clarity or other quality measures.
Medline, Healthstar, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL to October 2020 and handsearching selected journals.
Eligible studies consisted of controlled trials and time series, including simple before-after design, assessing SBAR implementation fidelity or the effects of SBAR on communication clarity or other quality measures (eg, safety climate, patient outcomes).
Two reviewers independently abstracted data according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on study features, intervention details and study outcomes. We characterised the magnitude of improvement in outcomes as small (<20% relative increase), moderate (20%-40%) or large (>40%).
Twenty-eight studies (3 randomised controlled trials, 6 controlled before-after studies, and 19 uncontrolled before-after studies) met inclusion criteria. Of the nine studies assessing fidelity of SBAR use, four occurred in classroom settings and three of these studies reported large improvements. The five studies assessing fidelity in clinical settings reported small to moderate effects. Among eight studies measuring communication clarity, only three reported large improvements and two of these occurred in classroom settings. Among the 17 studies reporting impacts on quality measures beyond communication, over half reported moderate to large improvements. These improvements tended to involve measures of teamwork and culture. Improvements in patient outcomes occurred only with intensive multifaceted interventions (eg, early warning scores and rapid response systems).
High fidelity uptake of SBAR and improvements in communication clarity occurred predominantly in classroom studies. Studies in clinical settings achieving impacts beyond communication typically involved broader, multifaceted interventions. Future efforts to improve communication using SBAR should first confirm high fidelity uptake in clinical settings rather than assuming this has occurred.
CRD42018111377.

Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is increasing in low resource settings. It complicates the management of infectious diseases and is an increasing cause of death. This is due to, among other things, lack of health resources for appropriate diagnosis and unregulated access to antimicrobials in the public sphere. Developing context-specific interventions that enable judicious use of antimicrobials is important to curb this problem.
We will conduct a systematic review of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) approaches in Development Assistance Committee in least developed and low-income countries. The inclusion criteria are antimicrobial stewardship interventions in hospitalised patients of all age groups and exclusion criteria are community-based trials and studies that solely focus on viral, fungal or parasite infections. Antimicrobial stewardship interventions will be classified as structural, enabling, persuasive, restrictive or combined. Outcomes of included studies will be classified as clinical, microbiological or behavioural outcomes. The studies to be included will be randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series trials, cohort and qualitative studies. Data will be extracted using forms adapted from the Cochrane collaboration data collection form. This systematic review will be conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and risk of bias will be done according to the Integrated quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs.
Our findings will be presented to clinicians and policymakers, to support developing AMS protocols for low resource settings. We will publish our results in peer-reviewed journals.
CRD42020210634.

Ministries of health, donors, and other decision-makers are exploring how they can use mobile technologies to acquire accurate and timely statistics on births and deaths. These stakeholders have called for evidence-based guidance on this topic. This review was carried out to support World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on digital interventions for health system strengthening.
Primary objective: To assess the effects of birth notification and death notification via a mobile device, compared to standard practice. Secondary objectives: To describe the range of strategies used to implement birth and death notification via mobile devices and identify factors influencing the implementation of birth and death notification via mobile devices.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, the Global Health Library, and POPLINE (August 2, 2019). We searched two trial registries (August 2, 2019). We also searched Epistemonikos for related systematic reviews and potentially eligible primary studies (August 27, 2019). We conducted a grey literature search using mHealthevidence.org (August 15, 2017) and issued a call for papers through popular digital health communities of practice. Finally, we conducted citation searches of included studies in Web of Science and Google Scholar (May 15, 2020). We searched for studies published after 2000 in any language.  SELECTION CRITERIA: For the primary objective, we included individual and cluster-randomised trials; cross-over and stepped-wedge study designs; controlled before-after studies, provided they have at least two intervention sites and two control sites; and interrupted time series studies. For the secondary objectives, we included any study design, either quantitative, qualitative, or descriptive, that aimed to describe current strategies for birth and death notification via mobile devices; or to explore factors that influence the implementation of these strategies, including studies of acceptability or feasibility. For the primary objective, we included studies that compared birth and death notification via mobile devices with standard practice. For the secondary objectives, we included studies of birth and death notification via mobile device as long as we could extract data relevant to our secondary objectives. We included studies of all cadres of healthcare providers, including lay health workers; administrative, managerial, and supervisory staff; focal individuals at the village or community level; children whose births were being notified and their parents/caregivers; and individuals whose deaths were being notified and their relatives/caregivers.
For the primary objective, two authors independently screened all records, extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias. For the analyses of the primary objective, we reported means and proportions, where appropriate. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to assess the certainty of the evidence and we prepared a \'Summary of Findings\' table. For the secondary objectives, two authors screened all records, one author extracted data from the included studies and assessed methodological limitations using the WEIRD tool and a second author checked the data and assessments. We carried out a framework analysis using the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence (SURE) framework to identify themes in the data. We used the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach to assess our confidence in the evidence and we prepared a \'Summary of Qualitative Findings\' table.
For the primary objective, we included one study, which used a controlled before-after study design. The study was conducted in Lao People\'s Democratic Republic and assessed the effect of using mobile devices for birth notification on outcomes related to coverage and timeliness of Hepatitis B vaccination. However, we are uncertain of the effect of this approach on these outcomes because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low. The included study did not assess resource use or unintended consequences. For the primary objective, we did not identify any studies using mobile devices for death notification. For the secondary objective, we included 21 studies. All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income settings. They focussed on identification of births and deaths in rural, remote, or marginalised populations who are typically under-represented in civil registration processes or traditionally seen as having poor access to health services. The review identified several factors that could influence the implementation of birth-death notification via mobile device. These factors were tied to the health system, the person responsible for notifying, the community and families; and include: - Geographic barriers that could prevent people\'s access to birth-death notification and post-notification services - Access to health workers and other notifiers with enough training, supervision, support, and incentives - Monitoring systems that ensure the quality and timeliness of the birth and death data - Legal frameworks that allow births and deaths to be notified by mobile device and by different types of notifiers - Community awareness of the need to register births and deaths - Socio-cultural norms around birth and death - Government commitment - Cost to the system, to health workers and to families - Access to electricity and network connectivity, and compatibility with existing systems - Systems that protect data confidentiality We have low to moderate confidence in these findings. This was mainly because of concerns about methodological limitations and data adequacy.
We need more, well-designed studies of the effect of birth and death notification via mobile devices and on factors that may influence its implementation.

Adolescence is a period of rapid physical growth and transition between childhood to adulthood. However, in many developing countries, nutritional and epidemiological transitions are contributing to surging overnutrition, which, together with prevalent undernutrition, is resulting in the double burden of malnutrition (DBM) among adolescents. Schools as social systems have tremendous but mostly underutilized capacity to facilitate change and address a range of nutritional and associated educational concerns of adolescents and young people. The main objective of this systematic review will be to describe school-based interventions that address the multiple forms of malnutrition, and synthesize their effects on nutrition and educational outcomes among adolescents (10 - 19 - years - old) from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
Comprehensive literature searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases, including Medline (through PubMed), Embase, CENTRAL (through Cochrane Library), CINAHL, and Google Scholar. We will include randomized controlled trials (RCTs), non-RCTs including controlled before-after studies, examining the effects of nutrition interventions on nutrition and educational outcomes among adolescents in LMICs. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and full-text articles and abstract data. The quality of the included studies will be assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration\'s revised tool for assessing the risk of bias for RCTs and the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies of Interventions tool for controlled before-after studies and non-randomized controlled trials.
To maximize the power of schools as a platform to reinforce the mutually beneficial relationship between adolescent nutrition and education, it is imperative to develop and implement integrated interventions connecting schools, adolescents, parents, communities, and the health care system. The results of this systematic review may provide a comprehensive state of current knowledge on the effectiveness of school-based interventions to enable future research that maximizes the impact and efficiency of integrated approaches to tackle multiple forms of malnutrition among school-going and out-of-school adolescents.
PROSPERO ID: CRD42020211109.