Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
An official website of the United States government
The following reports are under development at one of the four ESP sites. If you would like to provide comments about the topic under development, 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.
KQ1: Among males, is there a clinical risk tool (eg, FRAX) that identify patients at highest risk of osteoporosis or major osteoporotic fracture?
KQ2: Among male Veterans, is there a combination of risk factors that identify patients at highest risk of osteoporosis or major osteoporotic fracture?
KQ3: What systems level interventions improve uptake of osteoporosis screening?
Populations:
KQ 1: Adult men, KQ 2: Adult male Veterans, KQ 3: Health care providers, adult patients, health system administrators and/or staff.
In studies that recruit populations with and without facture histories, 80% of recruited study population should have no prior identified low-trauma fracture.
For studies with mixed populations of men and women, we will include them if they conduct a subgroup analysis of men only.
Interventions:
KQ 1: Clinical risk assessment or fracture risk predations tools (eg, FRAX, GARVAN FRC, Q fracture, fracture risk calculator, Osteoporosis Screening tool [OST], male osteoporosis screening tool [MOST], Male Osteoporosis Risk Estimation Score [MORES]); combination of assessment tools and screening tests (eg, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-DXA)
KQ 2: Risk factor for osteoporosis (eg, medication use, smoking, body mass index) and clinical risk assessment or fracture risk predations tools.
KQ 3: System-level approaches targeting provider behaviors or systems operations to optimize uptake of osteoporosis screening (eg, clinical reminder systems; bone health clinics; provider education; tailored and/or bi-directional patient education such as IVR assessing individual risk scores; remote consultation; nurse/physician/pharmacist led interventions; clinician incentives, academic detailing; patient self-referral system)
Comparators:
KQ 1 & KQ 2: other risk assessment tools, bone mineral density testing via validated approach (eg, dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry-DXA)
KQ 3: usual care, other system-level approached, patient-focused interventions
Outcomes:
KQ 1 & KQ 2: fracture rates; bone mineral density
KQ 3: fracture rates, screening rates
Setting: Outpatient general medical settings (eg, geriatrics, family medicine, general internal medicine, integrative medicine, urgent care, emergency departments) or inpatient health care settings
We will conduct a primary search from inception to the current date of MEDLINE® (via PubMed®), Embase, and CINAHL. 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 librarian. We will also hand search key references for relevant citations that may not be captured by our database search.
KQ 1a: What are the effects of transformational coaching on health care team improvement and change efforts as compared to no transformational coaching on goal attainment (e.g., #QI projects reaching completion), adoption of QI strategies (e.g., increased appropriateness of documentation of screening), and change in team member knowledge?
KQ 1b: What are the types of outcomes used to assess the effect of transformational coaching in the existing literature?
KQ 2: What are the identified barriers and facilitators that impact the implementation and adoption of transformational coaching in a large health care system such as the VA?
Population(s): KQ 1: Established interdisciplinary health care delivery teams (including clinic or unit-level)
KQ 2: Any member of an interdisciplinary health-care delivery team which received transformational coaching (including clinic or unit-level)
Interventions: KQ 1a, 1b, and KQ 2:
1) clinical content-agnostic (not necessarily an expert in clinical topic/intervention)
2) coach is external to target of coaching (ie, not a member of health care delivery team being coached)
3) aims to catalyze and/or build capacity for sustained change and improvement, through activities such as assisting with goal setting, goal attainment, connection to system level resources for change, and/or improving efficiency and team dynamics around change/improvement processes
Comparator: KQ 1a & b: Any
KQ 2: NA
Outcome(s): KQ 1a: Must have at least one of the following:
1) Goal Attainment (ie, #QI projects reaching completion)
2) Adoption of QI strategies (ie, increased appropriateness of documentation of screening)
3) Change in team member knowledge
4) Team member self-efficacy
KQ 1b: Any
KQ 2: Evaluations of influencers or determinants of implementation and adoption of transformational coaching
Setting: Any health care system setting
We will conduct a primary search from inception to the current date of MEDLINE® (via Ovid), Embase (via Elsevier), and CINAHL complete (via EBSCO). 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 librarian. We will also hand search key references for relevant citations that may not be captured by our database search. When search terms are identified after the execution of the literature search, the terms will be searched independently and any relevant references will be added to the database.
Registration number: CRD42020169099
To inform diagnosis and/or treatment of GWI in the VHA by assisting in the planning for a state-of-the-art meeting on Gulf War Research and providing guidance for ORD funding priorities in Gulf War research.
KQ1: Which diagnostic tests (or test combinations) are candidates for distinguishing individuals diagnosed with GWI from individuals without GWI?
KQ2: Which biomarkers have been examined for their potential association with GWI, and which among them have been shown to be associated with GWI?
KQ3: Which ongoing or unpublished research studies examine diagnostic tests or biomarkers for potential association with GWI?
Population(s): Case definition: Veterans and civilian contractors who were deployed to the Persian Gulf region between Aug 2, 1990 and Nov 1991, and diagnosed with GWI (ie, according to either CDC/Fukuda 1998 or Kansas criteria, or other criteria). Include studies of international Veteran populations if they use any definition of Gulf War Illness (limited to English-language publications).
Comparator populations: Studies with any comparator populations (without GWI) will be included, but will be stratified by importance during the evidence synthesis phase, from most to least informative:
Exclude: children and birth outcomes of Gulf War Veterans.
Interventions: Measures of any of the following categories of biological functions/systems that are potential loci of dysfunction:
Exclude: Psychological/psychiatric assessments that do not include biological measurements (eg, questionnaires)
Comparator:
KQ1: Compares a test’s classification of GWI diagnosis with a reference standard’s classification (diagnosis of GWI according to Kansas or CDC/Fukuda 1998 criteria).
KQ 2&3: Compares Veterans clinically diagnosed with GWI vs. any comparator group (see comparator populations above)
Outcome(s): KQ1: Measures of diagnostic accuracy:
KQ 2: Measure of association between biological measurement and GWI
KQ3: Study objectives, status, outcome measures, and available findings.
We will conduct a primary review of the literature by systematically searching, reviewing, and analyzing the scientific evidence as it pertains to the research questions. To identify relevant articles, we will search Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid PsycINFO, Ovid EBM Reviews (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials), CINAHL, and AMED: Allied and Complementary Medicine Database. Search strategies will be developed in consultation with a research librarian, and will be peer reviewed by a second research librarian using the instrument for Peer Review of Search Strategies. The search strategy will include terms to identify Veterans from the Gulf War era (eg, Desert Shield, Desert Storm, Kuwait War, Operation GRANBY) combined with past and present terms to identify GWI, (eg, chronic multisymptom illness, chronic fatigue, Gulf War Syndrome). An English language limit will be used, however no limits on publication status nor study design will be imposed. To identify in-progress or unpublished studies, we will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We will review the bibliographies of relevant articles and contact experts to identify additional studies.
Registration number: CRD42020169101
The findings of this evidence review will bring to the attention of the VHA which metrics and therapies have been validated for this population. If no validated metrics or therapies can be found in the literature, specific gaps will be highlighted for future investigation.
KQ1: What is the prevalence of chronic pain in US Veterans or Servicemembers with a history of mTBI?
KQ2: What is the risk of suicide in US Veterans or Servicemembers with chronic pain and a history of mTBI?
KQ3: What are the benefits and harms of interventions to treat chronic pain in Veterans or Servicemembers with a history of mTBI?
Population(s): Veterans or Servicemembers with chronic pain and a history of mild TBI (Limited to US population for KQs 1 & 2, but not KQ3)
Interventions: KQ3: Pharmacologic, nonpharmacologic, and complementary and integrative health interventions
Comparator:
KQ1 & 2: mTBI injury type, direct comparisons to those with no mTBI history and/or no chronic pain, direct comparisons of US Veterans or Servicemembers and civilians
KQ3: Placebo, active comparator, usual care, wait-list control, pre-post
Outcome(s): KQ1: Prevalence, demographics, chronic pain types
KQ2: Suicide-related outcomes (including suicide, suicidal ideation/intent/plan, and suicidal self-directed harm)
KQ3: Benefits: Intermediate and patient outcomes, utilization (eg, reduced pain, mental health diagnosis/symptoms, opioid use; better QOL, functioning, treatment adherence)
Harms: AEs, SAEs, withdrawals due to AEs
General Search Strategy
Search strategies will be developed in consultation with a research librarian and will be peer reviewed by a second research librarian using the instrument for Peer Review of Search Strategies (PRESS). We will conduct a review of the literature by systematically searching, reviewing, and analyzing the scientific evidence as it pertains to the research questions. To identify relevant studies, we will search the following databases: Ovid Medline; Ovid EBM Reviews: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Ovid PsycINFO; CINAHL; Scopus (conference abstracts only); and Epistemonikos. To identify ongoing studies, we will also search Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP).
Registration number: CRD42020169079
Little is known about the impact of using medical scribes in specialty care or emergency departments within the VA. Section 507 of the 2018 VA MISSION Act, Medical Scribes Pilot, mandates a 2-year medical scribe pilot in the VA in specialty care and emergency department settings. The pilot involves hiring 40 medical scribes, half as VA employees and half as contracted employees. This pilot will begin in Quarter 2 of FY20 and will evaluate the impact of medical scribes on provider efficiency, patient volume, and patient satisfaction. A systematic review examining the effect of medical scribes in cardiology, orthopedic, or emergency department clinics would supplement findings from this pilot to inform future use of medical scribes in the VA.
The Section 507 Committee will use the findings of this evidence review alongside findings from the medical scribes pilot inform the use of medical scribes in the VA including considerations of budgeting, resource utilization, and services where medical scribes may be most beneficial.
KQ1: What is the effect of medical scribes in cardiology, orthopedic, or emergency department clinics?
KQ2: How do the effects of medical scribes vary based on differences in compensation structure (ie, contracted through vendor or employees of the institution), qualifications (ie, training, accreditation, experience), types of entries (ie, medical orders, medical history, coding [billing, diagnoses, complexity/comorbidities]), or setting (ie, rural, urban, access-challenged)?
Population(s): Adult patients and/or practitioners in cardiology, orthopedic, or emergency department clinics
Interventions: “Medical scribe” or document assistant program that involves navigation of electronic health record system (must provide some information about scribe responsibilities/duties)
Comparator: Any
Outcome(s): Clinic efficiency; patient and practitioner satisfaction; healthcare system outcomes (cost, time to train, turnover, errors, quality)
Setting: Effectiveness and characteristics of medical scribe interventions within cardiology, orthopedic, or emergency department settings.
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL
KQ1: How is culture of innovation defined in the literature?
KQ2a: What are key characteristics of programs to improve or establish a culture of innovation?
KQ2b: In assessments of these programs, what metrics are used to capture culture of innovation?
KQ2c: In assessments of these programs, what other outcomes or impacts are described?
Interventions: Programs designed to improve or establish a culture of innovation
Outcome(s): Culture of innovation, organizational innovation, organizational or workforce outcomes
Setting: Large healthcare systems in high-income countries
We will procure literature from databases including Ovid Medline, Business Source Complete, and PsycInfo using terms related to culture of innovation (eg, culture, climate, innovation, creativity).
Key Question #1: What are the effects of population and community-based prevention interventions on suicide attempts and suicide deaths?
Key Question #1a. What are the key/common components of the most effective interventions?
Key Question #1b: What strategies have been used to deliver, sustain, and improve the quality of the most effective interventions?
Key Question #1c: How do the effects vary by differences in community/setting and characteristics of individuals targeted?
Key Question #2: What are the potential unintended consequences of population and community-based prevention interventions?
Population(s): Veteran and non-Veteran populations of high school age or older
Interventions: Population and community-based interventions to prevent suicide
Excluding: (a) pharmacotherapy, (b) psychotherapy and therapeutic interventions that can be delivered only by licensed health care professionals, (c) legislation enacted to reduce suicide risk factors (eg, firearms, affordable housing, employment opportunities), and also excluding multi-component interventions that include (a) or (b) or (c) unless we can determine specific results of an eligible intervention alone or the add-on effects.
Comparator: Pre-intervention or concurrent comparative intervention or other control group
Outcome(s): Suicide attempts, suicide deaths, stigma, caregiver burden, healthcare utilization/help-seeking, switching suicide means, cost associated with developing and delivering the intervention
Exclude: only reports suicidal ideation
Setting: Community-based settings such as schools, workplace, prisons, and suicide hotspots in countries with very high Human Development Index
We will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
KQ1:
a.) Among adults, what are the effects of tele-urgent care for low acuity conditions on key clinical and health systems outcomes (ie, patient satisfaction, health care access, health care utilization, case resolution, cost, patient safety)?
b.) Does the impact of tele-urgent care for low acuity conditions differ by
1.) provider characteristics (ie, specialty, amount of telehealth experience, training) or
2.)mode of delivery (ie, telephone, video, web, short message service [SMS])?
KQ2:
a.) Among adults, what are the adverse effects (ie, inappropriate treatment, misdiagnosis, or delayed diagnosis; provider burnout) of tele-urgent care for low acuity conditions?
b.) Do the adverse effects of low acuity conditions differ by
1.) provider characteristics (ie, specialty, amount of telehealth experience, training) or
2.) mode of delivery (ie, telephone, video, web, short message service [SMS])?
Population(s): KQ1 & KQ2: Adults with low acuity but urgent conditions (≥18 years of age) and their families and caregivers.
KQ2 ONLY: Tele-urgent care providers (if included in harms)
Interventions: Tele-urgent care for low acuity conditions is defined as remotely delivered (eg, telephone, video conferencing) medical services indented to provide on-demand, initial treatment of illnesses or injuries of a less serious nature than those constituting emergencies (ie, urgent care, not routine primary care) and is initiated by a patient with a provider
Comparator: KQ1: Usual care/standard of care, waitlist control, other active comparator (eg, in-person care
KQ 2: No comparator required
Outcome(s): KQ1: Patient, provider, system outcomes (eg, patient satisfaction, health care access, health care utilization, case resolution, cost, and patient safety)
KQ 2: Key adverse effects associated with telehealth (eg, inappropriate treatment, misdiagnosis, delayed diagnosis, increase in resource costs; provider burnout)
We will conduct a primary search from inception to the current date of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), EMBASE (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO). 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 librarian. We will hand search previous systematic reviews conducted on this or a related topic for potential inclusion.
KQ1: What is the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery or thoracoscopic/laparoscopic surgery for esophagectomy for cancer?
KQ2: What is the cost-effectiveness of robot-assisted surgery compared to open surgery or thoracoscopic/laparoscopic surgery for esophagectomy for cancer?
Population(s): Adults undergoing esophagectomy for malignant disease
Interventions: Robot-assisted surgery
Comparator: Open surgery, laparoscopic, and/or thoracoscopic surgery
Outcome(s): Intraoperative (complications, estimated blood loss, operating room time); pathologic (margins, lymph node harvest); short-term (duration of hospitalization, reoperations, readmissions, complications); long-term (cancer-specific outcomes, quality of life); and cost.
We conducted broad searches using terms relating to “robotic surgery” or “esophagectomy” or “cancer.” We searched PubMed (1/1/13-5/5/20), Cochrane (1/1/13-5/11/20), Ovid Medline (1/1/13-5/5/20), and Embase (1/1/13-5/6/20).
