PurposeLean is a widely used quality improvement methodology initially developed and used in the automotive and manufacturing industries but recently expanded to the healthcare sector. This systematic literature review seeks to independently assess the effect of Lean or Lean interventions on worker and patient satisfaction, health and process outcomes, and financial costs.Data sourcesWe conducted a systematic literature review of Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, Web of Science, ABI/Inform, ERIC, EMBASE and SCOPUS.Study selectionPeer reviewed articles were included if they examined a Lean intervention and included quantitative data. Methodological quality was assessed using validated critical appraisal checklists. Publically available data collected by the Saskatchewan Health Quality Council and the Saskatchewan Union of Nurses were also analysed and reported separately.Data extractionData on design, methods, interventions and key outcomes were extracted and collated.Results of data synthesisOur electronic search identified 22 articles that passed methodological quality review. Among the accepted studies, 4 were exclusively concerned with health outcomes, 3 included both health and process outcomes and 15 included process outcomes. Our study found that Lean interventions have: (i) no statistically significant association with patient satisfaction and health outcomes; (ii) a negative association with financial costs and worker satisfaction and (iii) potential, yet inconsistent, benefits on process outcomes like patient flow and safety.ConclusionWhile some may strongly believe that Lean interventions lead to quality improvements in healthcare, the evidence to date simply does not support this claim. More rigorous, higher quality and better conducted scientific research is required to definitively ascertain the impact and effectiveness of Lean in healthcare settings.

BackgroundAdhering to weight loss interventions is difficult for many people. The majority of those who are overweight or obese and attempt to lose weight are simply not successful. The objectives of this study were 1) to quantify overall adherence rates for various weight loss interventions and 2) to provide pooled estimates for factors associated with improved adherence to weight loss interventions.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of all studies published between January 2004 and August 2015 that reviewed weight loss intervention adherence.ResultsAfter applying inclusion and exclusion criteria and checking the methodological quality, 27 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The overall adherence rate was 60.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 53.6–67.2). The following three main variables were found to impact adherence: 1) supervised attendance programs had higher adherence rates than those with no supervision (rate ratio [RR] 1.65; 95% CI 1.54–1.77); 2) interventions that offered social support had higher adherence than those without social support (RR 1.29; 95% CI 1.24–1.34); and 3) dietary intervention alone had higher adherence than exercise programs alone (RR 1.27; 95% CI 1.19–1.35).ConclusionA substantial proportion of people do not adhere to weight loss interventions. Programs supervising attendance, offering social support, and focusing on dietary modification have better adherence than interventions not supervising attendance, not offering social support, and focusing exclusively on exercise.

BackgroundMedication nonadherence is a global problem that requires urgent attention. Primary nonadherence occurs when a patient consults with a medical doctor, receives a referral for medical therapy but never fills the first dispensation for the prescription medication. Nonadherence to chronic disease medications costs the USA ~$290 billion (USD) every year in avoidable health care costs. In Canada, it is estimated that 5.4% of all hospitalizations are due to medication nonadherence.ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to quantify the extent of primary nonadherence for four of the most common chronic disease medications. The second objective was to identify factors associated with primary nonadherence to chronic disease medications.Materials and methodsWe conducted an extensive systematic literature review of eight databases with a wide range of keywords. We identified relevant articles for primary nonadherence to antihypertensives, lipid-lowering agents, hypoglycemics, and antidepressants. After further screening and assessment of methodologic quality, relevant data were extracted and analyzed using a random-effects model.ResultsTwenty-four articles were included for our meta-analysis after full review and assessment for risk of bias. The pooled primary nonadherence rate for the four chronic disease medications was 14.6% (95% CI: 13.1%–16.2%). Primary medication nonadherence was higher for lipid-lowering medications among the four chronic disease medications assessed (20.8%; 95% CI: 16.0%–25.6%). The rates in North America (17.0%; 95% CI: 14.4%–19.5%) were twice those from Europe (8.5%; 95% CI: 7.1%–9.9%). The absence of social support (20%; 95% CI: 14.4%–26.6%) was the most common sociodemographic variable associated with chronic disease medication primary nonadherence.ConclusionEvidence suggests that a considerable percentage of patients do not initially fill their medications for treatable chronic diseases or conditions. This represents a major health care problem that can be successfully addressed. Efforts should be directed toward proper medication counseling, patient social support, and clinical follow-up, especially when the indications for the prescribed medication aim to provide primary prevention.

ObjectiveTo determine if antidepressant drug usage is associated with cognitive impairment or dementia, including Alzheimer disease (AD).MethodWe conducted a systematic search of Medline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. An initial screen by abstracts and titles was performed, and relevant full articles were then reviewed and assessed for their methodologic quality. Crude effect estimates were extracted from the included articles and a pooled estimate was obtained using a random effects model.ResultsFive articles were selected from an initial pool of 4,123 articles. Use of antidepressant drugs was associated with a significant twofold increase in the odds of some form of cognitive impairment or dementia (OR = 2.17). Age was identified as a likely modifier of the association between antidepressant use and some form of cognitive impairment or AD/dementia. Studies that included participants with an average age equal to or greater than 65 years showed an increased odds of some form of cognitive impairment with antidepressant drug usage (OR = 1.65), whereas those with participants less than age 65 revealed an even stronger association (OR = 3.25).ConclusionsAntidepressant drug usage is associated with AD/dementia and this is particularly evident if usage begins before age 65. This association may arise due to confounding by depression or depression severity. However, biological mechanisms potentially linking antidepressant exposure to dementia have been described, so an etiological effect of antidepressants is possible. With this confirmation that an association exists, clarification of underlying etiologic pathways requires urgent attention.

Human papillomavirus (HPV) is the most commonly sexually transmitted infection in the world and the primary cause of cervical cancer. Canada introduced publicly funded HPV vaccination programs in 2006. The objectives of this study are twofold and aim to (1) determine the levels and (2) examine the various factors influencing vaccine uptake among the general Canadian population. A literature search was conducted on seven databases, followed by screening, methodological quality review (using modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), and data extraction. Pooled meta-analysis and a subgroup analysis were conducted stratifying by a number of variables (age, sex, type of program, and method of payment) determined apriori. A total of 718 peer-reviewed articles were initially identified with 12 remaining after screening and underwent methodological quality review. HPV vaccination uptake in Canada varied from 12.40% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.77–20.26) to 88.20% (95% CI 85.72–90.39). The pooled random effects model showed the HPV vaccination uptake to be 55.92% (95% CI 44.87–66.65). The subgroup analysis showed that vaccination uptake was 66.95% (95% CI 55.00–77.89) in participants ≤ 18 years as compared to 13.58% (95% CI 10.93–16.46) in participants > 18 years. Uptake for females was higher 57.23% (95% CI: 45.40–68.66) when compared to that of 47.01% (95% CI: 0.82–97.75) in males. HPV vaccine uptake among school-based programs was 69.62% (95% CI 57.27–80.68) as compared to 18.66% (95% CI 6.66–34.92) for community-based programs. Vaccination uptake for publicly funded programs was significantly higher 66.95% (95% CI 55.00–77.89) when compared to 13.58% (95% CI 10.92–16.46) for programs where participants had to pay out of pocket. To prevent infections and reduce the burden of HPV-related diseases (including cervical cancer), communities should be made aware and encouraged to vaccinate their children. There is a documented need to direct effort and focus interventions toward improving HPV vaccination uptake in Canada.