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.
What is the scope and breadth of the literature on women Veteran’s health published since 2015?
Participants/population: Individuals who identify as women or who have female reproductive or sexual anatomy
AND, who have served in the armed forces including national guard and reserves
(Note: Women Veterans (WV) must comprise >75% of study population OR study must report results separately for WV as sub-group analysis or otherwise report results separately for women; total n must be at least 50 unless is a qualitative study or methods development)
OR, health care team members who provide care to women Veterans if focus of article is on provision of care to women Veteran population
Intervention(s)/exposure(s): Any or none
Comparator(s): Any or none
Outcome(s): Any
Context: Health care and health conditions relevant to women Veterans, including social determinants of health
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
KQ: What recent research has investigated applications of AI-based tools and approaches to improve clinical care?
Population: Adult patients in any clinical care setting
Intervention: Prospectively implemented AI-based tool or approach intended to improve direct patient care or healthcare administration (eg, use of large language model to summarize clinical notes from community provider)
Comparator: Non-AI-based approach (eg, manual summarization and entry of clinical notes from community provider)
Outcomes: Performance/accuracy (area under receiver operating characteristic curve, agreement or error rates, efficiency, etc)
Healthcare quality/safety (healthcare-acquired infection rate, complication rate, patient satisfaction, etc)
Implementation outcomes (barriers and facilitators, uptake, healthcare staff satisfaction, etc)
Study Design: Comparative studies (multiple-group or before-after designs) published 2017–present
PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024531179
KQ1: What are the benefits and harms of dextrose prolotherapy for acute and chronic musculoskeletal pain?
KQ2: Do benefits and harms of dextrose prolotherapy vary by:
KQ3: What are the costs of dextrose prolotherapy for healthcare systems and patients?
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?
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)?
Participants/population: Adults aged 65 and older, or outpatient systems, providers, or staff that serve these individuals.
Intervention(s)/exposure(s):
KQ1: Implementation of the AFHS model, defined as assessing and acting on each of the “4Ms”: What Matters, Medication, Mentation, and Mobility.
KQ2:
Strategies to support implementation of the AFHS model
We will exclude non-AFHS models, models that don’t self-identify as AFHS, or strategies focusing on supporting any other model of care not self-identified as AFHS modes; models not implementing all 4Ms; interventions for students/trainees who are not offering unsupervised patent care; and educational interventions only assessing changes in knowledge or attitudes but that do not assess implementation
Comparator(s): Any or no comparator
Outcome(s):
KQ1:
Multi-level/Multi-sector perspectives or interventions
Multi-level partner characteristics
External Environment - Drivers of Equity
Implementation and Sustainability infrastructure
KQ2:
Reach
Effectiveness
Adoption
Implementation
Maintenance
Context: For both KQ1 and KQ2, we will focus on outpatient care settings, including convenient care clinics non-urgent care walk-in clinics, or dental settings. We will exclude studies that take place in urgent care clinics; emergency department, post-acute care settings, long-term care settings, surgical centers, transitional care settings, or any studies that don’t explicitly take place in outpatient convenient care clinics or non-urgent care walk-in clinics.
