Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
An official website of the United States government
The following reports are currently under development. If you would like to provide comments about a particular topic, serve as a peer reviewer for the draft report, or know the timeline for completion, please contact the ESP Coordinating Center.
To review the most up-to-date protocols, please visit the PROSPERO website. Protocol registration numbers for an individual project can be found along with the brief abstract for the project, below.
PROSPERO registration number: RD42022347945
KQ1: What are the effects of automating the delivery of oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition supplements to hospitalized patients on patient and process outcomes?
KQ2: How is automating the delivery of oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition supplements to hospitalized patients experienced by the staff involved in implementing and delivering it?
Population(s): KQ1: Hospitalized patients - including long-term care, skilled nursing facility residents and end of life patients - at risk of malnutrition (ie, who have difficulty eating or absorbing nutrients through GI tract)
KQ2: Hospital staff involved in automating the delivery oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition supplements to patients (eg, nurses and nursing assistants, pharmacists, food service, registered dietitians)
Interventions: Automated nutrition delivery of oral, enteral, or parenteral nutrition supplements (ie, medical food supplements) that includes automated notifications to the hospital care team (eg, nurses and nursing assistants, physicians pharmacists, food service, registered dietitians) that nutrition supplements have been ordered/ prescribed and requires responses that the care team has administered nutrition supplements and/or how much the patient actually received (eg, electronic health record alerts, barcode scanning)
Automation is defined as the "creation of a process or application of a technology to deliver hospital-based nutrition to patients minimizing human intervention” (ie, hospital staff provide the thinking on the ordering side (inputs) and the delivery side (outputs) is automated to minimize human touch points).
Automation should include one or both of the following aspects of implementation:
Comparator: KQ1: Any comparator (eg, usual care, active comparator, historical controls)
Outcome(s): KQ1:
Process outcomes:
Performance outcomes (eg, time required for supplement administration)
Patient outcomes:
Patient-level harms among patients exposed to automated delivery of nutrition (eg, all-cause mortality, pressure injury, falls, organ damage, aspiration, refeeding syndrome (ie, consuming calories too quickly after starvation), failure to thrive diagnosis, medication-nutrition interactions
KQ2:
Primary purpose of evaluation is to explore the experiences and attitudes of hospital staff (eg, nursing, pharmacy, food service, dietetics) who interact with some aspect of implementing and delivering the automated delivery of nutrition
We will conduct a primary search from inception to the current date of MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase, and CINAHL from inception to January 16, 2022. We will use a combination of MeSH keywords and selected free-text terms to search titles and abstracts. To ensure completeness, search strategies will be developed in consultation with an expert medical librarian. We will hand-search previous systematic reviews conducted on this or a related topic for potential inclusion.
KQ1: Are transition to practice programs for newly graduated, entry-to-practice registered nurses (RNs) effective for improving organizational, nurse, and patient outcomes?
KQ2: What are the components and implementation characteristics of effective transition to practice programs for newly graduated, entry-to-practice RNs?
Population(s): Newly graduated, entry-to-practice RNs in the first 12 months of employment following graduation and/or licensure for entry to practice
Interventions: Transition to practice or nurse residency programs specifically designed for newly graduated, entry-to-practice RNs to provide support or preceptorship during the first 12 months of employment following graduation and/or licensure for entry to practice
Comparator: Any comparator (eg, usual care, active comparator, historical controls)
Outcome(s):
Key question 1:
Key question 2:
Setting: Any healthcare setting; programs implemented in countries listed on the 2022 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development to approximate US healthcare delivery context.
We will conduct searches from 1/1/10 to the current date of PubMed/MEDLINE and CINAHL Plus. We will use a combination of MeSH keywords and selected free-text terms to search titles and abstracts (eg, “Education, Nursing, Graduate”, “graduate nurse transition”, “transition to practice”). To ensure completeness, search strategies will be developed in consultation with an expert medical librarian. We will hand search references from previous, relevant systematic reviews for potential inclusion.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024511257
KQ1: What communication strategies, tools, and/or approaches used for shared decision making (SDM) in lung cancer screening are reported in the literature?
KQ2: What is the effectiveness and comparative effectiveness of communication strategies, tools, and or approaches used to enhance SDM for lung cancer screening?
b. Does effectiveness vary by patient (i) or clinical setting (ii) characteristics:
i. ie, age, race/ethnicity, comorbidities, current smoking status, socioeconomic status (SES)/education, residency: geographic region, rural/urban
ii. Primary care, smoking cessation, prevention clinics, public forums
KQ3: What are the harms of the communication strategies, tools, and or approaches used to enhance SDM for lung cancer screening?
KQ4: What are the barriers and facilitators of implementing different communication strategies, tools, and/or approaches for lung cancer screening SDM?
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024517093
KQ1: Among adults diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and prescribed psychostimulant medications, what is the incidence of misuse of the prescribed medications, the incidence of diversion of the prescribed medications, and the incidence of substance use disorders (SUD) in this population?
KQ2: Among adults diagnosed with ADHD with a co-occurring substance use disorder (SUD), what are the benefits and harms of non-stimulant ADHD pharmacological and/or nonpharmacological treatment of ADHD compared to ADHD psychostimulant medications?
KQ1: What are the characteristics of published research studies on moral injury in adults?
KQ2: How has published literature on moral injury changed over time?
KQ3: How many studies include moral injury as an outcome measure?
Population: KQ1&KQ2: Adults with or at risk for moral injury; KQ3: Any
Intervention: Any or none
Comparator: Any or none
Outcomes: KQ1&KQ2: Any; KQ3: Moral injury
Study Design: KQ1&KQ3: Research studies; KQ2: Any publication type
The aim of this synthesis is to develop evidence maps that provide a visual overview of the distribution of evidence for the role of anti-inflammatory dietary patterns on the prevention and management of chronic health conditions, excluding diabetes, obesity, and cardiovascular disease, with accompanying narrative that helps stakeholders interpret the state of the evidence to inform policy and clinical decision-making. We will focus on conditions where anti-inflammatory diet and related interventions are not yet established as one standard of care.
Participants/population: We will include systematic and umbrella reviews that either focused on adult populations or examined both adult and pediatric populations but reported results specifically for adults.
Intervention(s)/exposure(s): Anti-inflammatory dietary patterns, including Mediterranean, DASH (not DASH low sodium), MIND, and plant-based/vegetarian. Diets that focus on supplements, specific ingredients (eg, olive oil), eating habits, or are generic without a specific diet intervention (eg, terms like “dietary support," “process,” “dietary factors”) and dietary patterns that are not considered anti-inflammatory are excluded.
Comparator(s): No restrictions
Context: No restrictions
Outcome(s): We will include clinically relevant outcomes (including biomarkers) for conditions of interest.
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024537730
KQ1: Among Veterans enrolled in HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH), Healthcare for Homeless Veterans (HCHV), Grants and Per Diem (GPD), Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF), Domiciliary Care for Homeless Veterans (DCHV), Homeless Veteran Community Employment Services (HVCES), Compensated Work Therapy (CWT), Health Care for Reentry Veterans (HCRV) and Veteran Justice Outreach (VJO), what is the effect of receiving primary care (patient aligned care teams [PACT] and/or homeless patient aligned care teams [HPACT]) on Veteran reported, clinical, health service use and housing outcomes?
KQ2: Among Veterans experiencing homelessness or at-risk for homelessness, what is the effectiveness of primary care (patient aligned care teams [PACT] and/or homeless patient aligned care teams [HPACT]) on Veteran reported, clinical, health service use and housing outcomes?
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024547851
KQ1: What are the contextual factors for implementation of the Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) model in outpatient settings?
KQ2:
2a. What is the effect of implementing support strategies on reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of AFHS in outpatient settings?
2b. Are there differences in reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance based on patient or system factors (such as gender, race/ethnicity, rurality, etc)?
KQ1: What approaches have been used to integrate mental or behavioral health care into specialty medical care settings?
KQ2: Does integration of mental or behavioral health care into specialty medical care settings improve patient-important outcomes or health service delivery outcomes?
Participants/population: Adult patients in outpatient specialty medical care settings (oncology, neurology, sleep, infectious disease, cardiology, pulmonary, endocrinology, urology, hepatology, nephrology, and geriatric care) with co-occurring mental or behavioral health conditions/symptoms.
Intervention(s)/exposure(s): Approaches or models for integration of mental or behavioral health care into specialty care settings. Approaches should include one or more of the following components: co-location of behavioral health and medical specialty care services, active referral (“warm hand-off”) between services, case/care management, screening and/or brief interventions for mental and behavioral health concerns within a specialty medical care setting. Approaches consisting only of passive referral (eg, provision of contact information for a behavioral health care provider) will be ineligible.
Comparator(s): Usual care (ie, specialty care without integrated mental or behavioral health services or with passive referrals only), alternative approaches
Outcome(s): Study characteristics (eg, type of specialty care setting, integration approach, intervention components, outcomes assessed), patient-important and health service delivery outcomes (eg, mental health condition severity, health-related quality of life, satisfaction with care, access to behavioral health care, wait times, engagement/retention, successful referrals, staff workload, staff satisfaction).
Context: Outpatient specialty medical care settings
KQ1a: What is the effect of teach-back on patient and provider outcomes?
KQ1b: Does the effect of teach-back vary based on clinical context (eg, hospital discharge, perioperative visit), intervention characteristic (eg, mode, content, interventionist), or patient characteristics (eg, education level, age)?
KQ2: What is the effect of strategies to increase use of teach-back on key implementation outcomes (eg, adoption, penetration, sustainability)?
Participants/population:
KQ1: Adult patients or their caregivers*; clinicians** delivering care to adult patients
KQ2: Health care organizations, clinics, teams, or clinicians; patients with or without their caregivers
*Caregiver includes any non-paid, informal individual providing supportive care
**Clinician is defined as health care provider (ie, MD, APP), pharmacist, psychologist, nurse, licensed clinical social worker, or other professionally trained clinical personnel
Intervention(s)/exposure(s):
KQ1: Single clinical synchronous, bi-directional encounter-based interaction using teach-back* by a clinician; must include demonstration of understanding of medical information or skills by repeating the information back to the clinician with or without demonstration of specific skill or behavior.
KQ2: Implementation strategies employed to improve the uptake or use of teach-back by a clinician.
*Include if labeled as “teach-back” but does not include specific intervention description as outlined above. “Teach-back” must be described as part of the intervention as opposed to a strategy used to evaluate an intervention. “Teach-back” must occur in the context of a real-time human interaction though initial education delivery may be delivered via recorded information.
Comparator(s):
KQ1: Usual care, other types of health education delivered by a clinician to a patient or their caregiver
KQ2: No implementation support, comparison between implementation strategies
Context:
Inpatient ward, outpatient clinics
Any country
Outcome(s):
KQ1: Proximal/intermediate outcomes:
KQ2: Implementation outcomes such as adoption, reach/penetration, adherence to teach-back/fidelity, sustained use, acceptability, feasibility
