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.
Chronic Pain and TBI in Combat Veterans (protocol under development)
Developing a Culture of Innovation (protocol under development)
Gulf War Illness Diagnostic Tools and Biomarkers (protocol under development)
Medical Scribes (protocol under development)
Tele-urgent Care for Low Acuity Conditions (protocol under development)
Screening for Male Osteoporosis
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
General Search Strategy
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.
Gulf War Illness – A Systematic Review of Therapeutic Interventions and Management Strategies
Background/Objectives of Review
The Gulf War Research Program would use the findings of this evidence review to inform the planning for a state-of-the-art meeting on Gulf War Research and to provide guidance for ORD funding priorities in Gulf War research. The War Related Illness and Injury Study Center would utilize the summary to communicate to providers, patients, and other stakeholders about evidence-based treatments in its education and clinical care activities.
KQ1: Evidence on effectiveness/harms: What are the benefits and harms of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions and management strategies for Veterans with GWI?
KQ2: Evidence about subgroups: Do the effectiveness or harms of the interventions/strategies differ among subgroups of Veterans with GWI, such as female Veterans or cases defined by specific criteria, in comparison with Veterans with GWI overall?
KQ3: Emerging research: What interventions for GWI have been examined in
a) noncomparative studies only?
b) ongoing/unpublished trials or cohort studies?
Population(s): We will include studies of Veterans with GWI who were deployed to the Persian Gulf region between Aug 2, 1990 - Nov 1991. We will include studies of international veteran populations (but limit to English-language publications). We will include studies of civilian contractors present during the conflict, if available. We will also include studies of Veterans with GWI whose deployment status is unclear (eg, if diagnosis was made according to CDC/Fukuda 1998 criteria).
Interventions: Pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions or management strategies for Gulf War Illness
Comparator: Comparators include another active intervention, placebo, or usual care.
Outcome(s): Outcomes of interest are the 3 symptom domains that occur in both the CDC and Kansas case definitions: cognitive function, fatigue, and pain.
Other outcomes of interest:
Additional symptom domains used in the Kansas case definition (sleep, mood, musculoskeletal, gastrointestinal, respiratory, dermatological)
Global outcomes (eg, QOL and measures of function)
Adverse effects of treatment
General Search Strategy
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.5 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 identifying Gulf War Illness, (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.
Models and Tools for Care Coordination Implementation
Background/Objectives of Review
The Coordinated Care and Integrated Case Management (CC&ICM) initiative has implemented several tools for identification and stratification of Veterans who may benefit from various levels of care coordination services. They are currently piloting these tools at 12 VHA sites, and have plans to evaluate these tools in the near future. CC&ICM would like to better understand the evidence on other tools to evaluate and guide implementation of care coordination models, and which types of models have been effective (and in which health care setting). Results from this review will be used by CC&ICM to help guide selection and implementation of VA care coordination models and tools.
For community-dwelling adults with ambulatory care sensitive conditions (at higher risk of having repeat hospitalization of emergency department [ED] visits):
KQ1: What are the key characteristics of care coordination models (of varying levels) that aim to reduce hospitalization or ED visits?
KQ2: What is the effect of implementing these care coordination models on hospitalizations, ED visits, and patient experience (eg, CAHPS)?
KQ3: What are the characteristics of settings in which effective models have been implemented?
KQ4: Among effective models, which approaches/tools have been used to:
Measure patient trust or working alliance?
Measure team integration?
Improve communication between patients and providers?
Population(s): Community-dwelling adults, Veterans and non-Veterans
Interventions: Models of care coordination that involve outpatient care
Outcome(s): Hospitalization, ED visits, patient experience
Setting: Outpatient (including clinics, home and community settings)
General Search Strategy
MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Database, AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center, and VA ESP reports
Robot-assisted Procedures in General Surgery: Cholecystectomy, Inguinal and Ventral Hernia Repairs
KQ1: What is the clinical effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery or conventional laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy or hernia surgery?
KQ2: What is the cost-effectiveness of robotic-assisted surgery compared to open surgery or conventional laparoscopic surgery for cholecystectomy or hernia surgery?
Population(s): Adults undergoing general surgery including cholecystectomy for benign disease, inguinal hernias and ventral hernias (<10 cm, >=10 cm, complex repairs).
Interventions: Robotic-assisted surgery
Comparator: Open surgery or conventional laparoscopic surgery
Outcome(s): Cholecystectomy: Perioperative (length of stay, complications, estimated blood loss, operating room time); short term (readmission, reintervention, hernia occurrence, pain, narcotic use, return to work), long term (hernia occurrence, quality of life); and cost.
Inguinal and ventral hernia: Perioperative (length of stay, complications, estimated blood loss, operating room time); short term (readmission, reintervention, hernia recurrence, pain, narcotic use, return to work), long term (hernia recurrence, pain, quality of life); and cost.
General Search Strategy
We conducted broad searches using terms relating to “robotic surgery” or “cholecystectomy” or “incisional hernia surgery” or “inguinal hernia surgery”. For cholecystectomy, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase from inception through 8/21/19; For inguinal and incisional hernias, we search Medline, PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane from inception to 9/3/19.
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:
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
General Search Strategy
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.