OBJECTIVE: To identify within-stakeholder agreement and between-stakeholder differences in beliefs regarding exercise for osteoarthritis among general practitioners (GPs), physiotherapists (PTs) and people with hip and knee osteoarthritis (PwOA). A secondary objective was to explore the association between referral patterns and beliefs of PwOA.
METHODS: Cross-sectional.
METHODS: Online surveys administered to GPs, PTs and PwOA in Ireland via social media and healthcare networks.
METHODS: 421 valid responses (n=161 GPs, n=163 PTs, n=97 PwOA).
METHODS: Nine belief statements related to exercise effectiveness, safety and delivery were rated on a 5-point Likert scale and analysed for within-stakeholder consensus. χ2 tests assessed differences in agreement between groups. Multivariable linear regression models tested associations between beliefs in PwOA and referral to/attendance at physiotherapy.
RESULTS: Positive within-stakeholder consensus (>75% agreement) was reached for most statements (7/9 GPs, 6/9 PTs, 5/9 PwOA). However, beliefs of PwOA were significantly less positive compared with healthcare professionals for six statements. All stakeholders disagreed that exercise is effective regardless of the level of pain. Attendance at physiotherapy (49% of PwOA), rather than referral to physiotherapy from a GP only, was associated with positive exercise beliefs for PwOA (β=0.287 (95% CI 0.299 to 1.821)).
CONCLUSIONS: Beliefs about exercise therapy for osteoarthritis are predominantly positive across all stakeholders, although less positive in PwOA. PwOA are more likely to have positive beliefs if they have seen a PT for their osteoarthritis. Knowledge translation should highlight the effectiveness of exercise for all levels of pain and osteoarthritis disease.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility. This study aimed to examine the extent and size of COIs among authors of psychiatry CPGs in Japan.
METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of disclosed payments from pharmaceutical companies assesses the prevalence and magnitude of personal payments for lecturing, consulting and writing to CPGs for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan between 2016 and 2020.
RESULTS: This study found that 93.3% of authors received payments over a 5-year period, with total payments exceeding US$4 million. The median payment per author was US$51 403 (IQR: US$9982-US$111 567), with a notable concentration of payments among a small number of authors, including the CPG chairperson. Despite these extensive financial relationships, only a fraction of authors disclosed their COIs in the CPGs. These large amounts of personal payments were made by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing new antidepressants and sleeping aids listed in the CPGs.
CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than 93% of authors of CPGs for major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder in Japan received considerable amounts of personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The findings highlight deviations from international COI management standards and suggest a need for more stringent COI policies for psychiatry CPGs in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Despite research into how to effectively implement evidence-based recommendations into clinical practice, a lack of standardisation in the commissioning and development of clinical practice guidelines can lead to inconsistencies and gaps in implementation. This research aimed to ascertain how topics in kidney care worthy of guideline development within the UK should be chosen, prioritised, designed and implemented.
METHODS: Following a modified Delphi methodology, a multi-disciplinary panel of experts in kidney healthcare from across the UK developed 35 statements on the issues surrounding the selection, development and implementation of nephrology guidelines. Consensus with these statements was determined by agreement using an online survey; the consensus threshold was defined as 75% agreement.
RESULTS: 419 responses were received. Of the 364 healthcare practitioners (HCPs), the majority had over 20 years of experience in their role (n=123) and most respondents were nephrologists (n=95). Of the 55 non-clinical respondents, the majority were people with kidney disease (n=41) and the rest were their carers or family. Participants were from across England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Consensus between HCPs was achieved in 32/35 statements, with 28 statements reaching ≥90% agreement. Consensus between patients and patient representatives was achieved across all 20 statements, with 13/20 reaching ≥90% agreement.
CONCLUSIONS: The current results have provided the basis for six recommendations to improve the selection, design and implementation of guidelines. Actioning these recommendations will help improve the accessibility of, and engagement with, clinical guidelines, contributing to the continuing development of best practice in UK kidney care.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies are fraught with several biases including reverse causation and residual confounding. Overview of reviews of observational studies (ie, umbrella reviews) synthesise systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, and may also aid in the grading of the credibility of reported associations. The number of published umbrella reviews has been increasing. Recently, a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR)) was published, but the field lacks reporting guidelines for umbrella reviews of observational studies. Our aim is to develop a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies assessing epidemiological associations.
METHODS: We will adhere to established guidance and prepare a PRIOR extension for systematic reviews of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies testing epidemiological associations between an exposure and an outcome, namely Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC). Step 1 will be the project launch to identify stakeholders. Step 2 will be a literature review of available guidance to conduct umbrella reviews. Step 3 will be an online Delphi study sampling 100 participants among authors and editors of umbrella reviews. Step 4 will encompass the finalisation of PRIUR-CCC statement, including a checklist, a flow diagram, explanation and elaboration document. Deliverables will be (i) identifying stakeholders to involve according to relevant expertise and end-user groups, with an equity, diversity and inclusion lens; (ii) completing a narrative review of methodological guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews, a narrative review of methodology and reporting in published umbrella reviews and preparing an initial PRIUR-CCC checklist for Delphi study round 1; (iii) preparing a PRIUR-CCC checklist with guidance after Delphi study; (iv) publishing and disseminating PRIUR-CCC statement.
BACKGROUND: PRIUR-CCC has been approved by The Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board and has obtained consent (20220639-01H). Participants to step 3 will give informed consent. PRIUR-CCC steps will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will guide reporting of umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the influence of socioeconomic status, health literacy, and numeracy on treatment decisions and the occurrence of adverse events in patients with breast, lung, and prostate cancer within a Nordic healthcare setting.
METHODS: A follow-up to a cross-sectional, mixed-methods, single-centre study.
METHODS: A Nordic, tertiary cancer clinic.
METHODS: A total of 244 participants with breast, lung and prostate cancer were initially identified, of which 138 first-line treatment participants were eligible for this study. First-line treatment participants (n=138) surpassed the expected cases (n=108).
METHODS: Not applicable as this was an observational study.
METHODS: The study\'s primary endpoint was the rate of guideline adherence. The secondary endpoint involved assessing treatment toxicity in the form of adverse events.
RESULTS: Guideline-adherent treatment was observed in 114 (82.6%) cases. First-line treatment selection appeared uninfluenced by participants\' education, occupation, income or self-reported health literacy. A minority (3.6%) experienced difficulties following treatment instructions, primarily with oral cancer medications.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings indicated lesser cancer health disparities regarding guideline adherence and treatment toxicity within the Nordic healthcare framework. A causal connection may not be established; however, the findings contribute to discourse on equitable cancer health provision.

BACKGROUND: Mental disorders are common in adult patients with traumatic injuries. To limit the burden of poor psychological well-being in this population, recognised authorities have issued recommendations through clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, the uptake of evidence-based recommendations to improve the mental health of trauma patients has been low until recently. This may be explained by the complexity of optimising mental health practices and interpretating CGPs scope and quality. Our aim is to systematically review CPG mental health recommendations in the context of trauma care and appraise their quality.
METHODS: We will identify CPG through a search strategy applied to Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science databases, as well as guidelines repositories and websites of trauma associations. We will target CPGs on adult and acute trauma populations including at least one recommendation on any prevention, screening, assessment, intervention, patient and family engagement, referral or follow-up procedure related to mental health endorsed by recognised organisations in high-income countries. No language limitations will be applied, and we will limit the search to the last 15 years. Pairs of reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, full texts, and carry out data extraction and quality assessment of CPGs using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II. We will synthesise the evidence on recommendations for CPGs rated as moderate or high quality using a matrix based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation quality of evidence, strength of recommendation, health and social determinants and whether recommendations were made using a population-based approach.
BACKGROUND: Ethics approval is not required, as we will conduct secondary analysis of published data. The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal, at international and national scientific meetings. Accessible summary will be distributed to interested parties through professional, healthcare quality and persons with lived experience associations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: (ID454728).

BACKGROUND: Neck pain is a global health problem that can cause severe disability and a huge medical burden. Clinical practice guideline (CPG) is an important basis for clinical diagnosis and treatment. A high-quality CPG plays a significant role in clinical practice. However, the quality of the CPGs for neck pain lacks comprehensive assessment. This protocol aims to evaluate the methodological, recommendation, reporting quality of global CPGs for neck pain and identify key recommendations and gaps that limit evidence-based practice.
METHODS: CPGs from January 2013 to November 2023 will be identified through a systematic search on 13 scientific databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, etc) and 7 online guideline repositories. Six reviewers will independently evaluate the quality of CPGs for neck pain by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation, the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation-Recommendations Excellence and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare tools. Intraclass correlation coefficient will be used to test the consistency of the assessment. We will identify the distribution of evidence and recommendations in each evidence-based CPGs for neck pain and regrade the level of evidence and strength of recommendations by adopting the commonly used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations system. The key recommendations based on high-quality evidence will be summarised. In addition, we will categorise CPGs by different characteristics and conduct a subgroup analysis of the results of assessment.
BACKGROUND: No subjects will be involved in this systematic review, so there is no need for ethical approval. The finding of this review will be summarised as a paper for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.
UNASSIGNED: CRD42023417717.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-quality evidence supporting surgical treatment of lumbar disc herniation (LDH) on healthcare practice in the Netherlands by examining changes in healthcare utilisation, including the timing of surgery, and the healthcare costs for patients with LDH.
METHODS: A retrospective, cross-sectional study was performed using population-based, longitudinal data obtained from the Dutch Healthcare Authority (2007-2020) and NIVEL\'s primary care (2012-2020) administrative databases.
METHODS: The study was conducted within the healthcare system of the Netherlands.
METHODS: We included adults (≥18 years) who visited a Dutch hospital or a general practitioner (GP) for lumbar degenerative disc disease. Patients with LDH were identified based on registered diagnosis code, type of surgery (discectomy) and age (<56 years).
METHODS: The primary outcome measure was the difference in the annual number of LDH procedures following the publication of evidence-based guidelines in 2009 (comparing the periods 2007-2009 to 2017-2019). Secondary outcome measures focused on the timing of surgery and associated healthcare costs. To validate the outcomes, secondary outcomes also include the number of discectomies and the number of procedures in the younger age group (discectomies, laminectomies, and fusion surgery).
RESULTS: The number of patients suffering from LDH increased from 55 581 to 68 997 (+24%) between 2007 and 2019. A decrease was observed in the annual number of LDH procedures (-18%), in the number of discectomies (-22%) and in the number of procedures for patients aged <56 years (-18%). This resulted in lower healthcare costs by €10.5 million annually. In 2012, 31% of all patients <56 years had surgery before 12 weeks from diagnosis at the GP, whereas 20% did in 2019.
CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare utilisation for LDH changed tremendously in the Netherlands between 2007 and 2020 and seemed to be associated with the publication and implementation of evidence-based guidelines. The observed decrease in the number of procedures has been accompanied by a corresponding reduction in healthcare costs. These findings underscore the importance of adhering to evidence-based guidelines to optimise the management of patients with LDH.

BACKGROUND: Shoulder arthroplasty incidence is projected to continue its exponential growth and the resultant burden of monitoring patients with shoulder arthroplasty implants creates significant pressure on orthopaedic services. Surveillance offers the opportunity to study implant longevity, detect failing implants and potentially perform revision at lower morbidity and cost. There is a paucity of evidence to support recommendations on long-term follow-up in shoulder arthroplasty. Prospective studies comparing long-term follow-up and structure are impractical from time, resource and cost perspectives. A real-time Delphi technique represents a mechanism by which experts involved in long-term follow-up of primary shoulder arthroplasty can formulate recommendations via a transparent, reproducible and efficient process. We outline the protocol for a real-time Delphi study seeking consensus on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty .
METHODS: A real-time Delphi technique will be used. A planning committee will design the Delphi statements. A steering committee will supervise and monitor the real-time Delphi process. Participants will be asked to rate their agreement with statements using a 5-point Likert scale. The Delphi statements will be derived from review of published literature, and the strength of evidence available for each statement will be provided. We will offer participation to all surgeons and extended-scope practitioners who are current members of the British Elbow & Shoulder Society (BESS) and have clinical practice involving shoulder arthroplasty follow-up. The questionnaire will be active for 4 weeks and requires a minimum of 20 participants. Consensus agreement is defined as 70% of participants selecting at least a 4-point on a 5-point Likert scale.
CONCLUSIONS: We anticipate the outlined study will achieve consensus on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty. We intend to use the expert consensus recommendations achieved, in addition to the limited applicable published evidence available, to produce BESS-affiliated guidelines on long-term follow-up and surveillance of primary shoulder arthroplasty.EthicsEthical approval is not required for the real-time Delphi study.We expect the results of this initiative will be published in a peer-reviewed, high-impact journal.

To our knowledge, this study is the first to identify and describe current sepsis policies, clinical practice guidelines, and health professional training standards in Canada to inform evidence-based policy recommendations.
This study will be designed and reported according to the Arksey and O\'Malley framework for scoping reviews and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. EMBASE, CINAHL, Medline, Turning Research Into Practice and Policy Commons will be searched for policies, clinical practice guidelines and health professional training standards published or updated in 2010 onwards, and related to the identification, management or reporting of sepsis in Canada. Additional sources of evidence will be identified by searching the websites of Canadian organisations responsible for regulating the training of healthcare professionals and reporting health outcomes. All potentially eligible sources of evidence will be reviewed for inclusion, followed by data extraction, independently and in duplicate. The included policies will be collated and summarised to inform future evidence-based sepsis policy recommendations.
The proposed study does not require ethics approval. The results of the study will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at local, national and international forums.