ObjectivesIn England, the NHS111 service provides assessment and triage by telephone for urgent health problems. A digital version of this service has recently been introduced. We aimed to systematically review the evidence on digital and online symptom checkers and similar services.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesWe searched Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Health Management Information Consortium, Web of Science and ACM Digital Library up to April 2018, supplemented by phrase searches for known symptom checkers and citation searching of key studies.Eligibility criteriaStudies of any design that evaluated a digital or online symptom checker or health assessment service for people seeking advice about an urgent health problem.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction and quality assessment (using the Cochrane Collaboration version of QUADAS for diagnostic accuracy studies and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute tool for observational studies) were done by one reviewer with a sample checked for accuracy and consistency. We performed a narrative synthesis of the included studies structured around pre-defined research questions and key outcomes.ResultsWe included 29 publications (27 studies). Evidence on patient safety was weak. Diagnostic accuracy varied between different systems but was generally low. Algorithm-based triage tended to be more risk averse than that of health professionals. There was very limited evidence on patients’ compliance with online triage advice. Study participants generally expressed high levels of satisfaction, although in mainly uncontrolled studies. Younger and more highly educated people were more likely to use these services.ConclusionsThe English ‘digital 111’ service has been implemented against a background of uncertainty around the likely impact on important outcomes. The health system may need to respond to short-term changes and/or shifts in demand. The popularity of online and digital services with younger and more educated people has implications for health equity.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018093564.

Background and objectives The last decade has witnessed increased recognition of the value of literature reviews for advancing understanding and decision making. This has been accompanied by an expansion in the range of methodological approaches and types of review. However, there remains uncertainty over definitions and search requirements beyond those for the ‘traditional’ systematic review. This study aims to characterise health related reviews by type and to provide recommendations on appropriate methods of information retrieval based on the available guidance. Methods A list of review types was generated from published typologies and categorised into ‘families’ based on their common features. Guidance on information retrieval for each review type was identified by searching pubmed, medline and Google Scholar, supplemented by scrutinising websites of review producing organisations. Results Forty‐eight review types were identified and categorised into seven families. Published guidance reveals increasing specification of methods for information retrieval; however, much of it remains generic with many review types lacking explicit requirements for the identification of evidence. Conclusions Defining review types and utilising appropriate search methods remain challenging. By familiarising themselves with a range of review methodologies and associated search methods, information specialists will be better equipped to select suitable approaches for future projects.

BackgroundGroup clinics are a form of delivering specialist-led care in groups rather than in individual consultations.ObjectiveTo examine the evidence for the use of group clinics for patients with chronic health conditions.DesignA systematic review of evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) supplemented by qualitative studies, cost studies and UK initiatives.Data sourcesWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature from 1999 to 2014. Systematic reviews and RCTs were eligible for inclusion. Additional searches were performed to identify qualitative studies, studies reporting costs and evidence specific to UK settings.Review methodsData were extracted for all included systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies using a standardised form. Quality assessment was performed for systematic reviews, RCTs and qualitative studies. UK studies were included regardless of the quality or level of reporting. Tabulation of the extracted data informed a narrative synthesis. We did not attempt to synthesise quantitative data through formal meta-analysis. However, given the predominance of studies of group clinics for diabetes, using common biomedical outcomes, this subset was subject to quantitative analysis.ResultsThirteen systematic reviews and 22 RCT studies met the inclusion criteria. These were supplemented by 12 qualitative papers (10 studies), four surveys and eight papers examining costs. Thirteen papers reported on 12 UK initiatives. With 82 papers covering 69 different studies, this constituted the most comprehensive coverage of the evidence base to date. Disease-specific outcomes – the large majority of RCTs examined group clinic approaches to diabetes. Other conditions included hypertension/heart failure and neuromuscular conditions. The most commonly measured outcomes for diabetes were glycated haemoglobin A1c(HbA1c), blood pressure and cholesterol. Group clinic approaches improved HbA1cand improved systolic blood pressure but did not improve low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. A significant effect was found for disease-specific quality of life in a few studies. No other outcome measure showed a consistent effect in favour of group clinics. Recent RCTs largely confirm previous findings. Health services outcomes – the evidence on costs and feasibility was equivocal. No rigorous evaluation of group clinics has been conducted in a UK setting. A good-quality qualitative study from the UK highlighted factors such as the physical space and a flexible appointment system as being important to patients. The views and attitudes of those who dislike group clinic provision are poorly represented. Little attention has been directed at the needs of people from ethnic minorities. The review team identified significant weaknesses in the included research. Potential selection bias limits the generalisability of the results. Many patients who could potentially be included do not consent to the group approach. Attendance is often interpreted liberally.LimitationsThis telescoped review, conducted within half the time period of a conventional systematic review, sought breadth in covering feasibility, appropriateness and meaningfulness in addition to effectiveness and cost-effectiveness and utilised several rapid-review methods. It focused on the contribution of recently published evidence from RCTs to the existing evidence base. It did not reanalyse trials covered in previous reviews. Following rapid review methods, we did not perform independent double data extraction and quality assessment.ConclusionsAlthough there is consistent and promising evidence for an effect of group clinics for some biomedical measures, this effect does not extend across all outcomes. Much of the evidence was derived from the USA. It is important to engage with UK stakeholders to identify NHS considerations relating to the implementation of group clinic approaches.Future workThe review team identified three research priorities: (1) more UK-centred evaluations using rigorous research designs and economic models with robust components; (2) clearer delineation of individual components within different models of group clinic delivery; and (3) clarification of the circumstances under which group clinics present an appropriate alternative to an individual consultation.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Article:Brereton, L., Clark, J., Ingleton, C. orcid.org/0000-0001-5489-1089 et al. (4 more authors) (2017) What do we know about different models of providing palliative care? Findings from a systematic review of reviews. Palliative Medicine. ISSN 0269-2163 https://doi.org/10.1177/0269216317701890 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ Reuse Unless indicated otherwise, fulltext items are protected by copyright with all rights reserved. The copyright exception in section 29 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows the making of a single copy solely for the purpose of non-commercial research or private study within the limits of fair dealing. The publisher or other rights-holder may allow further reproduction and re-use of this version -refer to the White Rose Research Online record for this item. Where records identify the publisher as the copyright holder, users can verify any specific terms of use on the publisher's website. TakedownIf you consider content in White Rose Research Online to be in breach of UK law, please notify us by emailing eprints@whiterose.ac.uk including the URL of the record and the reason for the withdrawal request. Review of models of palliative care1 What is already known about the topic? 1  Globally, as demand for palliative care is increasing amongst those with life-limiting illnesses, 2 there has been a rapid growth in specialist and generalist palliative care service provision with a 3 range of different of models of palliative care service provision being developed and 4 implemented internationally. 5 The published evidence has been synthesised in a number of reviews which have attempted to 6 identify the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of different models of palliative care. 7 There is no comprehensive overview of the current evidence base to support decision-making 8 based on the advantages and disadvantages of different models of palliative care or to identify 9 any gaps in the evidence base where more primary research is needed. 10What this paper adds? 11 The outcomes measured vary considerably, making meta-analysis impossible. None-the-less, 12 the available evidence indicates that irrespective of setting or patient characteristics, models of 13 palliative care appear to show benefits for patients and their carers, with no evidence for 14 negative effects. Some models of palliative care may reduce total healthcare costs.

No abstract