IntroductionPulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is an important risk factor for chronic respiratory disease due to residual lung damage. Yet, the WHO End TB strategy does not mention post-TB chronic lung disorders (PTBLDs) and programmatic interventions to address PTBLD are lacking. This study assessed the scope of current guidelines and evidence on PTBLD to inform policy and research action.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Eight databases (TRIP, International Guideline Library, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, Global Health, Cochrane Library) were searched for records on PTBLD published between 1 January 1990 and 1 December 2017. Non-English records, case series, conference abstracts and letters to editors were excluded. Data were extracted and charted on publication year, location, PTBLD condition(s) and main study outcome.ResultsA total of 212 guidelines and 3661 articles were retrieved. After screening, only three international TB guidelines mentioned TB sequelae, but none described how to identify or manage the condition. A total of 156 articles addressed PTBLD: 54 (35%) mentioned unspecified TB sequelae; 47 (30%) specific post-TB conditions including aspergillosis, bronchial stenosis or bronchiectasis; 52 (33%) post-TB obstructive disorders or lung function impairment; and 20 (13%) post-TB respiratory symptoms or chest X-ray abnormalities. The first two groups mostly assessed surgery or ventilation techniques for patient management, while the last two groups typically assessed prevalence or predictors of disease.ConclusionThis is the first review to provide a comprehensive overview of the current literature on PTBLD. The scope of evidence around the burden of PTBLD warrants inclusion and recognition of the problem in international TB guidelines. Research is now needed on early detection of PTBLD and patient management options that are suitable for high-burden TB countries.

The aim of this review is to systematically describe and quantify the effects of PA interventions on alcohol and other drug use outcomes, and to identify any apparent effect of PA dose and type, possible mechanisms of effect, and any other aspect of intervention delivery (e.g. key behaviour change processes), within a framework to inform the design and evaluation of future interventions. Systematic searches were designed to identify published and grey literature on the role of PA for reducing the risk of progression to alcohol and other drug use (PREVENTION), supporting individuals to reduce alcohol and other drug use for harm reduction (REDUCTION), and promote abstinence and relapse prevention during and after treatment of alcohol and other drug use (TREATMENT). Searches identified 49,518 records, with 49,342 excluded on title and abstract. We screened 176 full text articles from which we included 32 studies in 32 papers with quantitative results of relevance to this review. Meta-analysis of two studies showed a significant effect of PA on prevention of alcohol initiation (risk ratio [RR]: 0.72, 95%CI: 0.61 to 0.85). Meta-analysis of four studies showed no clear evidence for an effect of PA on alcohol consumption (Standardised Mean Difference [SMD]: 0.19, 95%, Confidence Interval −0.57 to 0.18). We were unable to quantitatively examine the effects of PA interventions on other drug use alone, or in combination with alcohol use, for prevention, reduction or treatment. Among the 19 treatment studies with an alcohol and other drug use outcome, there was a trend for promising short-term effect but with limited information about intervention fidelity and exercise dose, there was a moderate to high risk of bias. We identified no studies reporting the cost-effectiveness of interventions. More rigorous and well-designed research is needed. Our novel approach to the review provides a clearer guide to achieve this in future research questions addressed to inform policy and practice for different populations and settings.

Context Medical underperformance puts patient safety at risk. Remediation, the process that seeks to ‘remedy’ underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice, is therefore a crucially important area of medical education. However, although remediation is used in health care systems globally, there is limited evidence for the particular models or strategies employed. The purpose of this study was to conduct a realist review to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety. Method We conducted a realist literature review consistent with RAMESES standards. We developed a programme theory of remediation by carrying out a systematic search of the literature and through regular engagement with a stakeholder group. We searched bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, HMIC, CINAHL, ERIC, ASSIA and DARE) and conducted purposive supplementary searches. Relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory were extracted and synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations (CMOcs). Results A 141 records were included. The majority of the studies were from North America (64%). 29 CMOcs were identified. Remediation programmes are effective when a doctor's insight and motivation are developed and behaviour change reinforced. Insight can be developed by providing safe spaces, using advocacy to promote trust and framing feedback sensitively. Motivation can be enhanced by involving the doctor in remediation planning, correcting causal attribution, goal setting and destigmatising remediation. Sustained change can be achieved by practising new behaviours and skills, and through guided reflection. Conclusion Remediation can work when it creates environments that trigger behaviour change mechanisms. Our evidence synthesis provides detailed recommendations on tailoring implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors.

Background The NHS policy of constructing multispecialty community providers (MCPs) rests on a complex set of assumptions about how health systems can replace hospital use with enhanced primary care for people with complex, chronic or multiple health problems, while contributing savings to health-care budgets. Objectives To use policy-makers’ assumptions to elicit an initial programme theory (IPT) of how MCPs can achieve their outcomes and to compare this with published secondary evidence and revise the programme theory accordingly. Design Realist synthesis with a three-stage method: (1) for policy documents, elicit the IPT underlying the MCP policy, (2) review and synthesise secondary evidence relevant to those assumptions and (3) compare the programme theory with the secondary evidence and, when necessary, reformulate the programme theory in a more evidence-based way. Data sources Systematic searches and data extraction using (1) the Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) database for policy statements and (2) topically appropriate databases, including MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts (ASSIA). A total of 1319 titles and abstracts were reviewed in two rounds and 116 were selected for full-text data extraction. We extracted data using a formal data extraction tool and synthesised them using a framework reflecting the main policy assumptions. Results The IPT of MCPs contained 28 interconnected context–mechanism–outcome relationships. Few policy statements specified what contexts the policy mechanisms required. We found strong evidence supporting the IPT assumptions concerning organisational culture, interorganisational network management, multidisciplinary teams (MDTs), the uses and effects of health information technology (HIT) in MCP-like settings, planned referral networks, care planning for individual patients and the diversion of patients from inpatient to primary care. The evidence was weaker, or mixed (supporting some of the constituent assumptions but not others), concerning voluntary sector involvement, the effects of preventative care on hospital admissions and patient experience, planned referral networks and demand management systems. The evidence about the effects of referral reductions on costs was equivocal. We found no studies confirming that the development of preventative care would reduce demands on inpatient services. The IPT had overlooked certain mechanisms relevant to MCPs, mostly concerning MDTs and the uses of HITs. Limitations The studies reviewed were limited to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries and, because of the large amount of published material, the period 2014–16, assuming that later studies, especially systematic reviews, already include important earlier findings. No empirical studies of MCPs yet existed. Conclusions Multidisciplinary teams are a central mechanism by which MCPs (and equivalent networks and organisations) work, provided that the teams include the relevant professions (hence, organisations) and, for care planning, individual patients. Further primary research would be required to test elements of the revised logic model, in particular about (1) how MDTs and enhanced general practice compare and interact, or can be combined, in managing referral networks and (2) under what circumstances diverting patients from in-patient to primary care reduces NHS costs and improves the quality of patient experience. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016038900. Funding The National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and supported by the NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula.

Background An underperforming doctor puts patient safety at risk. Remediation is an intervention intended to address underperformance and return a doctor to safe practice. Used in health-care systems all over the world, it has clear implications for both patient safety and doctor retention in the workforce. However, there is limited evidence underpinning remediation programmes, particularly a lack of knowledge as to why and how a remedial intervention may work to change a doctor’s practice. Objectives To (1) conduct a realist review of the literature to ascertain why, how, in what contexts, for whom and to what extent remediation programmes for practising doctors work to restore patient safety; and (2) provide recommendations on tailoring, implementation and design strategies to improve remediation interventions for doctors. Design A realist review of the literature underpinned by the Realist And MEta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards quality and reporting standards. Data sources Searches of bibliographic databases were conducted in June 2018 using the following databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PsycINFO, Education Resources Information Center, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, and Health Management Information Consortium. Grey literature searches were conducted in June 2019 using the following: Google Scholar (Google Inc., Mountain View, CA, USA), OpenGrey, NHS England, North Grey Literature Collection, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence Evidence, Electronic Theses Online Service, Health Systems Evidence and Turning Research into Practice. Further relevant studies were identified via backward citation searching, searching the libraries of the core research team and through a stakeholder group. Review methods Realist review is a theory-orientated and explanatory approach to the synthesis of evidence that seeks to develop programme theories about how an intervention produces its effects. We developed a programme theory of remediation by convening a stakeholder group and undertaking a systematic search of the literature. We included all studies in the English language on the remediation of practising doctors, all study designs, all health-care settings and all outcome measures. We extracted relevant sections of text relating to the programme theory. Extracted data were then synthesised using a realist logic of analysis to identify context–mechanism–outcome configurations. Results A total of 141 records were included. Of the 141 studies included in the review, 64% related to North America and 14% were from the UK. The majority of studies (72%) were published between 2008 and 2018. A total of 33% of articles were commentaries, 30% were research papers, 25% were case studies and 12% were other types of articles. Among the research papers, 64% were quantitative, 19% were literature reviews, 14% were qualitative and 3% were mixed methods. A total of 40% of the articles were about junior doctors/residents, 31% were about practicing physicians, 17% were about a mixture of both (with some including medical students) and 12% were not applicable. A total of 40% of studies focused on remediating all areas of clinical practice, including medical knowledge, clinical skills and professionalism. A total of 27% of studies focused on professionalism only, 19% focused on knowledge and/or clinical skills and 14% did not specify. A total of 32% of studies described a remediation intervention, 16% outlined strategies for designing remediation programmes, 11% outlined remediation models and 41% were not applicable. Twenty-nine context–mechanism–outcome configurations were identified. Remediation programmes work when they develop doctors’ insight and motivation, and reinforce behaviour change. Strategies such as providing safe spaces, using advocacy to develop trust in the remediation process and carefully framing feedback create contexts in which psychological safety and professional dissonance lead to the development of insight. Involving the remediating doctor in remediation planning can provide a perceived sense of control in the process and this, alongside correcting causal attribution, goal-setting, destigmatising remediation and clarity of consequences, helps motivate doctors to change. Sustained change may be facilitated by practising new behaviours and skills and through guided reflection. Limitations Limitations were the low quality of included literature and limited number of UK-based studies. Future work Future work should use the recommendations to optimise the delivery of existing remediation programmes for doctors in the NHS. Study registration This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42018088779. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 9, No. 11. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.