OBJECTIVE: the academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest. DESIGN AND SETTING: a meta-research: systematic review of reviews. INFORMATION SOURCES: PubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Any peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: Abstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted. RISK OF BIAS: for articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods. RESULTS: 2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality. DISCUSSION: This meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods. INTERPRETATION: Flaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as 'systematic reviews', many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in 'real time'. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020188822.

Aim: This systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesizes the evidence on the provision of fundamental nursing care to hospitalized patients with a highly infectious virus and the effectiveness of adaptations to overcome barriers to care. Design: Systematic review. Data Sources: in July 2020, we searched Medline, PsycINFO (OvidSP), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), BNI (ProQuest), WHO COVID-19 Database (https://search.bvsalud.org/) MedRxiv (https://www.medrxiv.org/), bioRxiv (https://www.biorxiv.org/) and also Google Scholar, TRIP database and NICE Evidence, forwards citation searching and reference checking of included papers, from 2016 onwards. Review Methods: We included quantitative and qualitative research reporting (i) the views, perceptions and experiences of patients who have received fundamental nursing care whilst in hospital with COVID-19, MERS, SARS, H1N1 or EVD or (ii) the views, perceptions and experiences of professional nurses and non-professionally registered care workers who have provided that care. We included review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents. One reviewer performed data extraction and quality appraisal and was checked by another person. Results: of 3086 references, we included 64 articles; 19 empirical research and 45 review articles, commentaries, protocols and guidance documents spanning five pandemics. Four main themes (and 11 sub-themes) were identified. Barriers to delivering fundamental care were wearing personal protective equipment, adequate staffing, infection control procedures and emotional challenges of care. These barriers were addressed by multiple adaptations to communication, organization of care, staff support and leadership. Conclusion: to prepare for continuation of the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemics, evaluative studies of adaptations to fundamental healthcare delivery must be prioritized to enable evidence-based care to be provided in future. Impact: Our review identifies the barriers nurses experience in providing fundamental care during a pandemic, highlights potential adaptations that address barriers and ensure positive healthcare experiences and draws attention to the need for evaluative research on fundamental care practices during pandemics.

IntroductionPatient experience of nursing care is correlated with safety, clinical effectiveness, care quality, treatment outcomes and service use. Effective nursing care includes actions to develop nurse–patient relationships and deliver physical and psychosocial care to patients. The high risk of transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus compromises nursing care. No evidence-based nursing guidelines exist for patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, leading to potential variations in patient experience, outcomes, quality and costs.Methods and analysiswe aim to recruit 840 in-patient participants treated for infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus from 14 UK hospitals, to a cluster randomised controlled trial, with embedded process and economic evaluations, of care as usual and a fundamental nursing care protocol addressing specific areas of physical, relational and psychosocial nursing care where potential variation may occur, compared with care as usual. Our coprimary outcomes are patient-reported experience (Quality from the Patients’ Perspective; Relational Aspects of Care Questionnaire); secondary outcomes include care quality (pressure injuries, falls, medication errors); functional ability (Barthell Index); treatment outcomes (WHO Clinical Progression Scale); depression Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2), anxiety General Anxiety Disorder-2 (GAD-2), health utility (EQ5D) and nurse-reported outcomes (Measure of Moral Distress for Health Care Professionals). For our primary analysis, we will use a standard generalised linear mixed-effect model adjusting for ethnicity of the patient sample and research intensity at cluster level. We will also undertake a planned subgroup analysis to compare the impact of patient-level ethnicity on our primary and secondary outcomes and will undertake process and economic evaluations.Ethics and disseminationResearch governance and ethical approvals are from the UK National Health Service Health Research Authority Research Ethics Service. Dissemination will be open access through peer-reviewed scientific journals, study website, press and online media, including free online training materials on the Open University’s FutureLearn web platform.Trial registration numberISRCTN13177364; Pre-results.

BACKGROUND: Missed hospital outpatient appointments is a commonly reported problem in healthcare services around the world; for example, they cost the National Health Service (NHS) in the UK millions of pounds every year and can cause operation and scheduling difficulties worldwide. In 2002, the World Health Organization (WHO) published a report highlighting the need for a model of care that more readily meets the needs of people with chronic conditions. Patient-initiated appointment systems may be able to meet this need at the same time as improving the efficiency of hospital appointments. OBJECTIVES: to assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with consultant-led appointment systems for people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and six other databases. We contacted authors of identified studies and conducted backwards and forwards citation searching. We searched for current/ongoing research in two trial registers. Searches were run on 13 March 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials, published and unpublished in any language that compared the use of patient-initiated appointment systems to consultant-led appointment systems for adults with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in secondary care if they reported one or more of the following outcomes: physical measures of health status or disease activity (including harms), quality of life, service utilisation or cost, adverse effects, patient or clinician satisfaction, or failures of the 'system'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened all references at title/abstract stage and full-text stage using prespecified inclusion criteria. We resolved disagreements though discussion. Two review authors independently completed data extraction for all included studies. We discussed and resolved discrepancies with a third review author. Where needed, we contacted authors of included papers to provide more information. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care 'Risk of bias' tool, resolving any discrepancies with a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: the 17 included randomised trials (3854 participants; mean age 41 to 76 years; follow-up 12 to 72 months) covered six broad health conditions: cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, psoriasis and inflammatory bowel disease. The certainty of the evidence using GRADE ratings was mainly low to very low. The results suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to anxiety (odds ratio (OR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.12; 5 studies, 1019 participants; low-certainty evidence) or depression (OR 0.79 95% CI 0.51 to 1.23; 6 studies, 1835 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. The results also suggest that patient-initiated clinics may make little or no difference to quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 7 studies, 1486 participants; low-certainty evidence) compared to the consultant-led appointment system. Results for service utilisation (contacts) suggest there may be little or no difference in service utilisation in terms of contacts between the patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment groups; however, the effect is not certain as the rate ratio ranged from 0.68 to 3.83 across the studies (median rate ratio 1.11, interquartile (IQR) 0.93 to 1.37; 15 studies, 3348 participants; low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if service utilisation (costs) are reduced in the patient-initiated compared to the consultant-led appointment groups (8 studies, 2235 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The results suggest that adverse events such as relapses in some conditions (inflammatory bowel disease and cancer) may have little or no reduction in the patient-initiated appointment group in comparison with the consultant-led appointment group (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.14; 3 studies, 888 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results are unclear about any differences the intervention may make to patient satisfaction (SMD 0.05, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.52; 2 studies, 375 participants) because the certainty of the evidence is low, as each study used different questions to collect their data at different time points and across different health conditions. Some areas of risk of bias across all the included studies was consistently high (i.e. for blinding of participants and personnel and blinding of outcome assessment, other areas were largely of low risk of bias or were affected by poor reporting making the assessment unclear). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on patient anxiety, depression and quality of life compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Other aspects of disease status and experience also appear to show little or no difference between patient-initiated and consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on service utilisation in terms of service contact and there is uncertainty about costs compared to consultant-led appointment systems. Patient-initiated appointment systems may have little or no effect on adverse events such as relapse or patient satisfaction compared to consultant-led appointment systems.

BACKGROUND: Robopets are small animal-like robots which have the appearance and behavioural characteristics of pets. OBJECTIVE: to bring together the evidence of the experiences of staff, residents and family members of interacting with robopets and the effects of robopets on the health and well-being of older people living in care homes. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative and quantitative research. DATA SOURCES: We searched 13 electronic databases from inception to July 2018 and undertook forward and backward citation chasing. METHODS: Eligible studies reported the views and experiences of robopets from residents, family members and staff (qualitative studies using recognised methods of qualitative data collection and analysis) and the effects of robopets on the health and well-being of care home residents (randomised controlled trials, randomised crossover trials and cluster randomised trials). Study selection was undertaken independently by two reviewers. We used the Wallace criteria and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool to assess the quality of the evidence. We developed a logic model with stakeholders and used this as a framework to guide data extraction and synthesis. Where appropriate, we used meta-analysis to combine effect estimates from quantitative studies. RESULTS: Nineteen studies (10 qualitative, 2 mixed methods and 7 randomised trials) met the inclusion criteria. Interactions with robopets were described as having a positive impact on aspects of well-being including loneliness, depression and quality of life by residents and staff, although there was no corresponding statistically significant evidence from meta-analysis for these outcomes. Meta-analysis showed evidence of a reduction in agitation with the robopet "Paro" compared to control (-0.32 [95% CI -0.61 to -0.04, p = 0.03]). Not everyone had a positive experience of robopets. CONCLUSIONS: Engagement with robopets appears to have beneficial effects on the health and well-being of older adults living in care homes, but not all chose to engage. Whether the benefits can be sustained are yet to be investigated. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Robopets have the potential to benefit people living in care homes, through increasing engagement and interaction. With the robopet acting as a catalyst, this engagement and interaction may afford comfort and help reduce agitation and loneliness.

The aim of this systematic review was to explore the effects and experiences of parent-to-parent support in neonatal intensive care from the perspectives of those giving, receiving, or implementing support. Electronic database searches (14 databases; February 2018) were supplemented with forward and backward citation chasing. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers. Fourteen studies (6 quantitative and 8 qualitative) met our inclusion criteria. Four major themes were identified in the qualitative literature: ‘trust’, ‘hope’, ‘information’, and ‘connecting’. Quantitative studies showed parent-to-parent support increased perceptions of support, reduced maternal stress, and increased mothers' confidence in the ability to care for their baby. Whilst the rich qualitative evidence suggested mostly positive experiences of parent-to-parent support from all perspectives, robust trial evidence was lacking. Furthermore, differences in models for implementing parent-to-parent support provided limited opportunities to develop recommendations to guide best practice. The protocol for this study was registered on PROSPERO, registration number CRD42018090569.

BACKGROUND: Parents of babies admitted to neonatal units experience an arduous emotional journey. Feelings of helplessness, fear, sadness, guilt, grief and anger are common. These feelings can lead to anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress which may persist long after discharge from the unit. Support from a parent with first-hand experience able to empathise with problems and challenges may help. This systematic review will identify quantitative and qualitative evidence to address the role of parent-to-parent support interventions for families of babies cared for in neonatal units, and combine the findings in an integrated synthesis. METHODS: We are working in collaboration with a study-specific Parent Advisory Group (PAG) of parents who have relevant and varied lived experience of having a baby in neonatal care and those who have been involved in providing peer support. With the PAG, we will carry out a systematic review bringing together all existing research on parent-to-parent support for parents of babies cared for in neonatal units. This will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The protocol has been produced in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol extension (PRISMA-P). We have co-produced a plain language protocol summary with the PAG which details the different stages of the project, and this is available via our website ( http://clahrc-peninsula.nihr.ac.uk/research/parent-to-parent-support ) for anyone interested in learning more about the detail of the project. DISCUSSION: all outputs will be available on the NIHR CLAHRC South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC) website and promoted via PenCLAHRC networks as well as organisations that have been contacted throughout the project. PAG members will be involved in writing and reviewing the academic paper and final report and in co-producing dissemination products such as plain language summaries. The PAG will influence the main conclusions of the systematic review, aid interpretation and help to communicate results in the most appropriate ways. We will hold an impact conference with representatives from neonatal units, national neonatal networks, commissioners of services and parents to discuss what the findings mean for clinical practice and service provision. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018090569.

OBJECTIVES: Between 4% and 25% of school-aged children complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) severe enough to interfere with their daily activities. METHODS: We carried out a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in eleven databases and 2 trials registries from inception to June 2016. An update search was run in November 2017. All screening was performed by 2 independent reviewers. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and the evidence assessed using GRADE. We included any dietary, pharmacological or psychosocial intervention for RAP, defined by Apley or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria, in children and adolescents. RESULTS: We included 55 RCTs, involving 3572 children with RAP (21 dietary, 15 pharmacological, 19 psychosocial, and 1 multiarm). We found probiotic diets, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and hypnotherapy were reported to reduce pain in the short-term and there is some evidence of medium term effectiveness. There was insufficient evidence of effectiveness for all other dietary interventions and psychosocial therapies. There was no robust evidence of effectiveness for pharmacological interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Overall the evidence base for treatment decisions is poor. These data suggest that probiotics, CBT, and hypnotherapy could be considered as part of holistic management of children with RAP. The evidence regarding relative effectiveness of different strains of probiotics is currently insufficient to guide clinical practice. The lack of evidence of effectiveness for any drug suggests that there is little justification for their use outside of well-conducted clinical trials. There is an urgent need for high-quality RCTs to provide evidence to guide management of this common condition.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of the original Cochrane review, last published in 2009 (Huertas-Ceballos 2009). Recurrent abdominal pain (RAP), including children with irritable bowel syndrome, is a common problem affecting between 4% and 25% of school-aged children. For the majority of such children, no organic cause for their pain can be found on physical examination or investigation. Many dietary inventions have been suggested to improve the symptoms of RAP. These may involve either excluding ingredients from the diet or adding supplements such as fibre or probiotics. OBJECTIVES: to examine the effectiveness of dietary interventions in improving pain in children of school age with RAP. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers, together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors, in June 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dietary interventions with placebo or no treatment in children aged five to 18 years with RAP or an abdominal pain-related, functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria (Rasquin 2006). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We grouped dietary interventions together by category for analysis. We contacted study authors to ask for missing information and clarification, when needed. We assessed the quality of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 RCTs, reported in 27 papers with a total of 1453 participants. Fifteen of these studies were not included in the previous review. All 19 RCTs had follow-up ranging from one to five months. Participants were aged between four and 18 years from eight different countries and were recruited largely from paediatric gastroenterology clinics. The mean age at recruitment ranged from 6.3 years to 13.1 years. Girls outnumbered boys in most trials. Fourteen trials recruited children with a diagnosis under the broad umbrella of RAP or functional gastrointestinal disorders; five trials specifically recruited only children with irritable bowel syndrome. The studies fell into four categories: trials of probiotic-based interventions (13 studies), trials of fibre-based interventions (four studies), trials of low FODMAP (fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols) diets (one study), and trials of fructose-restricted diets (one study).We found that children treated with probiotics reported a greater reduction in pain frequency at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.55, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.98 to -0.12; 6 trials; 523 children). There was also a decrease in pain intensity in the intervention group at the same time point (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.15; 7 studies; 575 children). However, we judged the evidence for these outcomes to be of low quality using GRADE due to an unclear risk of bias from incomplete outcome data and significant heterogeneity.We found that children treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (odds ratio (OR) 1.63, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.47; 7 studies; 722 children). The estimated number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) was eight, meaning that eight children would need to receive probiotics for one to experience improvement in pain in this timescale. We judged the evidence for this outcome to be of moderate quality due to significant heterogeneity.Children with a symptom profile defined as irritable bowel syndrome treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than those given placebo (OR 3.01, 95% CI 1.77 to 5.13; 4 studies; 344 children). Children treated with probiotics were more likely to experience improvement in pain at three to six months postintervention compared to those receiving placebo (OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.43; 2 studies; 224 children). We judged the evidence for these two outcomes to be of moderate quality due to small numbers of participants included in the studies.We found that children treated with fibre-based interventions were not more likely to experience an improvement in pain at zero to three months postintervention than children given placebo (OR 1.83, 95% CI 0.92 to 3.65; 2 studies; 136 children). There was also no reduction in pain intensity compared to placebo at the same time point (SMD -1.24, 95% CI -3.41 to 0.94; 2 studies; 135 children). We judged the evidence for these outcomes to be of low quality due to an unclear risk of bias, imprecision, and significant heterogeneity.We found only one study of low FODMAP diets and only one trial of fructose-restricted diets, meaning no pooled analyses were possible.We were unable to perform any meta-analyses for the secondary outcomes of school performance, social or psychological functioning, or quality of daily life, as not enough studies included these outcomes or used comparable measures to assess them.With the exception of one study, all studies reported monitoring children for adverse events; no major adverse events were reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Overall, we found moderate- to low-quality evidence suggesting that probiotics may be effective in improving pain in children with RAP. Clinicians may therefore consider probiotic interventions as part of a holistic management strategy. However, further trials are needed to examine longer-term outcomes and to improve confidence in estimating the size of the effect, as well as to determine the optimal strain and dosage. Future research should also explore the effectiveness of probiotics in children with different symptom profiles, such as those with irritable bowel syndrome.We found only a small number of trials of fibre-based interventions, with overall low-quality evidence for the outcomes. There was therefore no convincing evidence that fibre-based interventions improve pain in children with RAP. Further high-quality RCTs of fibre supplements involving larger numbers of participants are required. Future trials of low FODMAP diets and other dietary interventions are also required to facilitate evidence-based recommendations.

Background: Between 4% and 25% of school-aged children at some stage complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) of sufficient severity to interfere with their daily lives. When no clear organic cause is found, the children are managed with reassurance and simple measures; a large range of pharmacological interventions have been recommended for use in these children. Objectives: to determine the effectiveness of pharmacological interventions for RAP in children of school age. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other electronic databases up to June 2016. We also searched two trials registers and contacted researchers of published studies. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials involving children aged five to 18 years old with RAP or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder, as defined by the Rome III criteria (Rasquin 2006). The interventions were any pharmacological intervention compared to placebo, no treatment, waiting list, or standard care. The primary outcome measures were pain intensity, pain duration or pain frequency, and improvement in pain. The secondary outcome measures were school performance, social or psychological functioning, and quality of daily life. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently screened titles, abstracts, and potentially relevant full-text reports for eligible studies. Two review authors extracted data and performed a 'Risk of bias' assessment. We used the GRADE approach to rate the overall quality of the evidence. We deemed a meta-analysis to be not appropriate as the studies were significantly heterogeneous. We have consequently provided a narrative summary of the results. Main results: This review included 16 studies with a total of 1024 participants aged between five and 18 years, all of whom were recruited from paediatric outpatient clinics. Studies were conducted in seven countries: seven in the USA, four in Iran, and one each in the UK, Switzerland, Turkey, Sri Lanka, and India. Follow-up ranged from two weeks to four months. The studies examined the following interventions to treat RAP: tricyclic antidepressants, antibiotics, 5-HT4 receptor agonists, antispasmodics, antihistamines, H2 receptor antagonists, serotonin antagonists, selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, a dopamine receptor antagonist, and a hormone. Although some single studies reported that treatments were effective, all of these studies were either small or had key methodological weaknesses with a substantial risk of bias. None of these 'positive' results have been reproduced in subsequent studies. We judged the evidence of effectiveness to be of low quality. No adverse effects were reported in these studies. Authors' conclusions: There is currently no convincing evidence to support the use of drugs to treat RAP in children. Well-conducted clinical trials are needed to evaluate any possible benefits and risks of pharmacological interventions. In practice, if a clinician chooses to use a drug as a 'therapeutic trial', they and the patient need to be aware that RAP is a fluctuating condition and any 'response' may reflect the natural history of the condition or a placebo effect, rather than drug efficacy.

BACKGROUND: This review supersedes the original Cochrane review first published in 2008 (Huertas-Ceballos 2008).Between 4% and 25% of school-aged children complain of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) severe enough to interfere with their daily activities. No organic cause for this pain can be found on physical examination or investigation for the majority of such children. Although many children are managed by reassurance and simple measures, a large range of psychosocial interventions involving cognitive and behavioural components have been recommended. OBJECTIVES: to determine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for reducing pain in school-aged children with RAP. SEARCH METHODS: in June 2016 we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight other databases, and two trials registers. We also searched the references of identified studies and relevant reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing psychosocial therapies with usual care, active control, or wait-list control for children and adolescents (aged 5 to 18 years) with RAP or an abdominal pain-related functional gastrointestinal disorder defined by the Rome III criteria were eligible for inclusion. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Five review authors independently selected studies, assessed them for risk of bias, and extracted relevant data. We also assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: This review includes 18 randomised controlled trials (14 new to this version), reported in 26 papers, involving 928 children and adolescents with RAP between the ages of 6 and 18 years. The interventions were classified into four types of psychosocial therapy: cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), hypnotherapy (including guided imagery), yoga, and written self-disclosure. The studies were carried out in the USA, Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, Germany, and Brazil. The majority of the studies were small and short term; only two studies included more than 100 participants, and only five studies had follow-up assessments beyond six months. Small sample sizes and the degree of assessed risk of performance and detection bias in many studies led to the overall quality of the evidence being rated as low to very low for all outcomes.For CBT compared to control, we found evidence of treatment success postintervention (odds ratio (OR) 5.67, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 27.32; Z = 2.16; P = 0.03; 4 studies; 175 children; very low-quality evidence), but no evidence of treatment success at medium-term follow-up (OR 3.08, 95% CI 0.93 to 10.16; Z = 1.85; P = 0.06; 3 studies; 139 children; low-quality evidence) or long-term follow-up (OR 1.29, 95% CI 0.50 to 3.33; Z = 0.53; P = 0.60; 2 studies; 120 children; low-quality evidence). We found no evidence of effects of intervention on pain intensity scores measured postintervention (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.33, 95% CI -0.74 to 0.08; 7 studies; 405 children; low-quality evidence), or at medium-term follow-up (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.85 to 0.20; 4 studies; 301 children; low-quality evidence).For hypnotherapy (including studies of guided imagery) compared to control, we found evidence of greater treatment success postintervention (OR 6.78, 95% CI 2.41 to 19.07; Z = 3.63; P = 0.0003; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence) as well as reductions in pain intensity (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.41 to -0.61; Z = 4.97; P < 0.00001; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence) and pain frequency (SMD -1.28, 95% CI -1.84 to -0.72; Z = 4.48; P < 0.00001; 4 studies; 146 children; low-quality evidence). The only study of long-term effect reported continued benefit of hypnotherapy compared to usual care after five years, with 68% reporting treatment success compared to 20% of controls (P = 0.005).For yoga therapy compared to control, we found no evidence of effectiveness on pain intensity reduction postintervention (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.05; Z = 1.69; P = 0.09; 3 studies; 122 children; low-quality evidence).The single study of written self-disclosure therapy reported no benefit for pain.There was no evidence of effect from the pooled analyses for any type of intervention on the secondary outcomes of school performance, social or psychological functioning, and quality of daily life.There were no adverse effects for any of the interventions reported. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: the data from trials to date provide some evidence for beneficial effects of CBT and hypnotherapy in reducing pain in the short term in children and adolescents presenting with RAP. There was no evidence for the effectiveness of yoga therapy or written self-disclosure therapy. There were insufficient data to explore effects of treatment by RAP subtype.Higher-quality, longer-duration trials are needed to fully investigate the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions. Identifying the active components of the interventions and establishing whether benefits are sustained in the long term are areas of priority. Future research studies would benefit from employing active control groups to help minimise potential bias from wait-list control designs and to help account for therapist and intervention time.

AIM/BACKGROUND: to describe the two-stage prioritization process being used by the UK National Institute for Health Research's Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care for the South-West Peninsula (or PenCLAHRC) - a joint health service and university partnership and reflect on implications for the wider context of priority setting in health-care research. METHOD: PenCLAHRC's process establishes the priorities of Stakeholders including service users across a regional health system for locally relevant health services research and implementation. Health research questions are collected from clinicians, academics and service users in Devon and Cornwall (UK) using a web-based question formulation tool. There is a two-stage prioritization process which uses explicit criteria and a wide Stakeholder group, including service users to identify important research questions relevant to the south-west peninsula locality. RESULTS: to date, a wide variety of health research topics have been prioritized by the PenCLAHRC Stakeholders. The research agenda reflects the interests of academics, clinicians and service users in the local area. Potential challenges to implementation of the process include time constraints, variable quality of questions (including the language of research) and initiating and maintaining engagement in the process. Shared prioritization of local health research needs can be achieved between Stakeholders from a wide range of perspectives. CONCLUSIONS: the processes developed have been successful and, with minor changes, will continue to be used during subsequent rounds of prioritization. Engagement of Stakeholders in establishing a research agenda encourages the most relevant health questions to be asked and may improve implementation of research findings and take up by service users.

© 2014 SEBDA. Childhood psychiatric disorders are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including poor academic attainment. For some children these difficulties are recognised through school Special Educational Need procedures (SEN) but many others may remain unidentified and/or unsupported. In Britain, government data suggests disproportionate representation of children with a SEN among children permanently excluded from school. This review asks whether school-aged children with impairing psychopathology were more likely to be excluded from school than those without. Databases covering education, social sciences, psychology and medicine were searched, experts were contacted and bibliographies of key papers were hand-searched. Studies were included if the population covered school-aged children, and if validated diagnostic measures had been used to assess psychopathology. Children with impairing psychopathology had greater odds of exclusion compared to the rest of the school-age population: odds ratios range from 1.13 (95% CI: 0.55–2.33) to 45.6 (95% CI: 3.8–21.3). These findings however need to be considered in light of the paucity of the literature and methodological weaknesses discussed.

OBJECTIVE: Elderly residents with dementia commonly exhibit increased agitation at mealtimes. This interferes with eating and can be distressing for both the individual and fellow residents. This review examines the effectiveness of mealtime interventions aimed at improving behavioral symptoms in elderly people living with dementia in residential care. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, HMIC, AMED (OvidSP); CDSR, CENTRAL, DARE (Cochrane Library, Wiley); CINAHL (EBSCOhost); British Nursing Index (NHS Evidence); ASSIA (ProQuest); Social Science Citation Index (Web of Knowledge); EThOS (British Library); Social Care Online and OpenGrey from inception to November 2012. Forward and backward citation chases, hand searches of other review articles identified in the search, and key journals. TYPES OF STUDY: all comparative studies were included. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by 2 reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. Data were not suitable for meta-analysis so narrative synthesis was carried out. RESULTS: a total of 6118 articles were identified in the original search. Eleven articles were finally included. Mealtime interventions were categorized into 4 types: music, changes to food service, dining environment alteration, and group conversation. Study quality was poor, making it difficult to reach firm conclusions. Although all studies showed a trend in favor of the intervention, only 6 reported a statistically significant improvement in behavioral symptoms. Four studies suggest cumulative or lingering effects of music on agitated and aggressive behaviors. CONCLUSION: There is some evidence to suggest that mealtime interventions improve behavioral symptoms in elderly people with dementia living in residential care, although weak study designs limit the generalizability of the findings. Well designed, controlled trials are needed to further understand the utility of mealtime interventions in this setting.

Objective: to determine the effectiveness of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) on psychological and physical outcomes for people with vascular disease. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Data sources: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, British Nursing Index, Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Central, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Policy and Practice, and HMIC from inception to January 2013. Review methods: Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results: Nine articles (from eight original randomised controlled trials) met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. In total, 578 participants were enrolled across the trials, with participants presenting with prehypertension/hypertension (n. = 3 trials), type 1 or 2 diabetes (n. = 2), heart disease (n. = 2) and stroke (n. = 1). Meta-analyses, using standardised mean differences, showed evidence of reductions in stress (- 0.36; 95% CI - 0.67 to - 0.09; p. = 0.01), depression (- 0.35; 95% CI - 0.53 to - 0.16; p. = 0.003) and anxiety (- 0.50; 95% CI - 0.70 to - 0.29; p. < 0.001). Effects on physical outcomes (blood pressure, albuminuria, stress hormones) were mixed. Conclusion: Whilst populations with vascular disease appear to derive a range of psychological benefits from MBSR/MBCT intervention, the effects on physical parameters of disease are not yet established. More robust studies, with longer term follow-up, are required to ascertain full effectiveness of such intervention. © 2014.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications are commonly used to manage the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Several large studies have demonstrated an association between treatment with antipsychotics and increased morbidity and mortality in people with dementia. AIMS: to assess the effectiveness of interventions used to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotics to the elderly with dementia in residential care. METHOD: Systematic searches were conducted in 12 electronic databases. Reference lists of all included studies and forward citation searching using Web of Science were also conducted. All quantitative studies with a comparative research design and studies in which recognized methods of qualitative data collection were used were included. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by 2 reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by 1 reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. RESULTS: Twenty-two quantitative studies (reported in 23 articles) were included evaluating the effectiveness of educational programs (n = 11), in-reach services (n = 2), medication review (n = 4), and multicomponent interventions (n = 5). No qualitative studies meeting our inclusion criteria were identified. Eleven studies were randomized or controlled in design; the remainder were uncontrolled before and after studies. Beneficial effects were seen in 9 of the 11 studies with the most robust study design with reductions in antipsychotic prescribing levels of between 12% and 20%. Little empirical information was provided on the sustainability of interventions. CONCLUSION: Interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medications to people with dementia resident in care homes may be effective in the short term, but longer more robust studies are needed. For prescribing levels to be reduced in the long term, the culture and nature of care settings and the availability and feasibility of nondrug alternatives needs to be addressed.

BACKGROUND: Limited attention has been paid in the literature to multiple component fall prevention interventions that comprise two or more fixed combinations of fall prevention interventions that are not individually tailored following a risk assessment. The study objective was to determine the effect of multiple component interventions on fall rates, number of fallers and fall-related injuries among older people and to establish effect sizes of particular intervention combinations. METHODS: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Cochrane, AMED, UK Clinical Research Network Study Portfolio, Current Controlled Trials register and Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials register were systematically searched to August 2013 for randomised controlled trials targeting those aged 60 years and older with any medical condition or in any setting that compared multiple component interventions with no intervention, placebo or usual clinical care on the outcomes reported falls, number that fall or fall-related injuries. Included studies were appraised using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Estimates of fall rate ratio and risk ratio were pooled across studies using random effects meta-analysis. Data synthesis took place in 2013. RESULTS: Eighteen papers reporting 17 trials were included (5034 participants). There was a reduction in the number of people that fell (pooled risk ratio = 0.85, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.80 to 0.91) and the fall rate (pooled rate ratio = 0.80, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.89) in favour of multiple component interventions when compared with controls. There was a small amount of statistical heterogeneity (I(2) =20%) across studies for fall rate and no heterogeneity across studies examining number of people that fell. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials found evidence that multiple component interventions that are not tailored to individually assessed risk factors are effective at reducing both the number of people that fall and the fall rate. This approach should be considered as a service delivery option.

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: to determine the effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for RAP in children of school age.

Childhood psychiatric disorders are associated with a wide range of adverse outcomes including poor academic attainment. For some children these difficulties are recognised through school Special Educational Need procedures (SEN) but many others may remain unidentified and/or unsupported. In Britain, government data suggests disproportionate representation of children with a SEN among children permanently excluded from school. This review asks whether school-aged children with impairing psychopathology were more likely to be excluded from school than those without. Databases covering education, social sciences, psychology and medicine were searched, experts were contacted and bibliographies of key papers were hand-searched. Studies were included if the population covered school-aged children, and if validated diagnostic measures had been used to assess psychopathology. Children with impairing psychopathology had greater odds of exclusion compared to the rest of the school-age population: odds ratios range from 1.13 (95% CI: 0.55-2.33) to 45.6 (95% CI: 3.8-21.3). These findings however need to be considered in light of the paucity of the literature and methodological weaknesses discussed. © 2014 © 2014 SEBDA.

OBJECTIVE: to examine the impact of gardens and outdoor spaces on the mental and physical well-being of people with dementia who are resident in care homes and understand the views of people with dementia, their carers, and care home staff on the value of gardens and outdoor spaces. DESIGN: Systematic review. METHODS: Fourteen databases were searched from inception to February 2013. Forward and backward citation chasing of included articles was conducted; 38 relevant organizations were contacted to identify unpublished reports. Titles, abstracts, and full texts were screened independently by 2 reviewers in a 2-stage process and were discussed with a third reviewer where necessary. Results were synthesized narratively. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included: 9 quantitative, 7 qualitative, and 1 mixed methods. The quantitative studies were of poor quality but suggested decreased levels of agitation were associated with garden use. The views and experiences of the garden are discussed in relation to themes of how the garden was used, nature of interactions, impact/effect of the gardens, mechanisms/how the garden was thought to have an effect, and negatives (such as perception of the garden as a hazard and the limited staff time). CONCLUSION: There are promising impacts on levels of agitation in care home residents with dementia who spend time in a garden. Future research would benefit from a focus on key outcomes measured in comparable ways with a separate focus on what lies behind limited accessibility to gardens within the residential care setting.

The need to improve the nutrition of the elderly living in long term care has long been recognised, but how this can best be achieved, and whether (and which) intervention is successful in reducing morbidity is less well understood. The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of mealtime interventions for the elderly living in residential care. Mealtime interventions were considered as those that aimed to change/improve the mealtime routine, practice, experience or environment. Following comprehensive searches, review and appraisal, 37 articles were included. Inadequate reporting in over half of the articles limited data quality appraisal. Mealtime interventions were categorised into five types: changes to food service, food improvement, dining environment alteration, staff training and feeding assistance. Meta-analysis found inconsistent evidence of effects on body weight of changes to food service (0.5 kg; 95% CI: -1.1 to 2.2; p=0.51), food improvement interventions (0.4 kg; 95% CI: -0.8 to 1.7; p=0.50) or alterations to dining environment (1.5 kg; 95% CI: -0.7 to 2.8; p=0.23). Findings from observational studies within these intervention types were mixed, but generally positive. Observational studies also found positive effects on food/caloric intake across all intervention types, though meta-analyses of randomised studies showed little evidence of any effects on food/caloric intake in food improvement studies (-5 kcal; 95% CI: -36 to 26; p=0.74). There was some evidence of an effect on daily energy intakes within dining environment studies (181 kcal/day, 95% CI: -5 to 367, p=0.06). The need to improve the nutrition of the elderly living in residential long term care is well recognised. This review found some evidence that simple intervention around various aspects of mealtime practices and the mealtime environment can result in favourable nutritional outcomes. Further large scale pragmatic trials, however, are still required to establish full efficacy of such interventions.

BACKGROUND: the cost to the NHS of missed or inappropriate hospital appointments is considerable. Alternative methods of appointment scheduling might be more flexible to patients' needs without jeopardising health and service quality. The objective was to systematically review evidence of patient initiated clinics in secondary care on patient reported outcomes among patients with chronic/recurrent conditions. METHODS: Seven databases were searched from inception to June 2013. Hand searching of included studies references was also conducted. Studies comparing the effects of patient initiated clinics with traditional consultant led clinics in secondary care for patients with long term chronic or recurrent diseases on health related quality of life and/or patient satisfaction were included. Data was extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second. Results were synthesised narratively. RESULTS: Seven studies were included in the review, these covered a total of 1,655 participants across three conditions: breast cancer, inflammatory bowel disease and rheumatoid arthritis. Quality of reporting was variable. Results showed no significant differences between the intervention and control groups for psychological and health related quality of life outcomes indicating no evidence of harm. Some patients reported significantly more satisfaction using patient-initiated clinics than usual care (p

This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: to assess the effects of patient-initiated appointment systems compared with usual care in people with chronic or recurrent conditions managed in the secondary care setting. In particular, we are interested in whether these appointment systems can effectively manage disease without causing harm to patients and whether costs related to the provision of the service can be reduced compared with usual care.

BACKGROUND: Routine follow-up following uncomplicated surgery is being delivered by telephone in some settings. Telephone consultations may be preferable to patients and improve outpatient resource use. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of telephone consultations with face to face follow-up consultations, in patients discharged from hospital following surgery. METHODS: Seven electronic databases (including Medline, Embase and PsycINFO) were searched from inception to July 2011. Comparative studies of any design in which routine follow-up via telephone was compared with face to face consultation in patients discharged from hospital after surgery were included. Study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal were performed independently by two reviewers with consensus reached by discussion and involvement of a third reviewer where necessary. RESULTS: Five papers (four studies; 865 adults) met the inclusion criteria. The studies were of low methodological quality and reported dissimilar outcomes precluding any formal synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: There has been very little comparative evaluation of different methods of routine follow-up care in patients discharged from hospital following surgery. Further work is needed to establish a role for telephone consultation in this patient group.

BACKGROUND: Missed or inappropriate hospital appointments cost the UK National Health Service millions of pounds each year and delay treatment for other patients. Innovative methods of appointment scheduling that are more flexible to patient needs, may improve service quality and preserve resources. METHODS: a systematic review of the evidence for the clinical effectiveness of patient initiated clinics in managing long term care for people with chronic or recurrent conditions in secondary care. Seven databases were searched including MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (using the OVID interface), the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews and CENTRAL, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (via the Web of Science interface) from inception to June 2013. Studies comparing patient initiated clinics with traditional consultant-led clinics in secondary care for people with long term chronic or recurrent diseases were included. Included studies had to provide data on clinical or resource use outcomes. Data were extracted and checked by two reviewers using a piloted, standardised data extraction form. RESULTS: Eight studies (n = 1927 individuals) were included. All were conducted in the UK. There were few significant differences in clinical outcomes between the intervention and control groups. In some instances, using the patient initiated clinics model was associated with savings in time and resource use. The risk of harm from using the patient initiated clinic model of organising outpatient care is low. Studies with longer follow-up periods are needed to assess the long term costs and the ongoing risk of potential harms. CONCLUSIONS: the UK policy context is ripe for evidence-based, patient-centred services to be implemented, especially where the use of health care resources can be optimised without reducing the quality of care. Implementation of patient initiated clinics should remain cautious, with importance placed on ongoing evaluation of long term outcomes and costs.

Objective: to compare the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the rate of acute paediatric hospital admissions. Design: Systematic review. Data sources: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index Expanded from inception to September 2010; hand searches of the reference lists of included papers and other review papers identified in the search. Review methods: Controlled trials were included. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. Results: Seven papers were included. There is some evidence to suggest that short stay units may reduce admission rates. However, there is a general lack of detail in the reporting of interventions and the methods used in their evaluation which precludes detailed interpretation and extrapolation of the results. The authors found no evidence that the use of algorithms and guidelines to manage the admission decision was effective in reducing acute admission rates. Furthermore, the authors were unable to locate any eligible papers reporting the effects on admission rates of admission decision by paediatric consultant, telephone triage by paediatric consultant or the establishment of next day emergency paediatric clinics. Conclusion: There is little published evidence upon which to base an optimal strategy for reducing paediatric admission rates. The evidence that does exist is subject to substantial bias. There is a pressing need for high quality, well conducted research to enable informed service change.

OBJECTIVE: to compare the effectiveness of interventions aimed at reducing the rate of acute paediatric hospital admissions. DESIGN: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index Expanded from inception to September 2010; hand searches of the reference lists of included papers and other review papers identified in the search. REVIEW METHODS: Controlled trials were included. Articles were screened for inclusion independently by two reviewers. Data extraction and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. RESULTS: Seven papers were included. There is some evidence to suggest that short stay units may reduce admission rates. However, there is a general lack of detail in the reporting of interventions and the methods used in their evaluation which precludes detailed interpretation and extrapolation of the results. The authors found no evidence that the use of algorithms and guidelines to manage the admission decision was effective in reducing acute admission rates. Furthermore, the authors were unable to locate any eligible papers reporting the effects on admission rates of admission decision by paediatric consultant, telephone triage by paediatric consultant or the establishment of next day emergency paediatric clinics. CONCLUSION: There is little published evidence upon which to base an optimal strategy for reducing paediatric admission rates. The evidence that does exist is subject to substantial bias. There is a pressing need for high quality, well conducted research to enable informed service change.

Our objective was to compare the effects on mental and physical wellbeing, health related quality of life and long-term adherence to physical activity, of participation in physical activity in natural environments compared with physical activity indoors. We conducted a systematic review using the following data sources: Medline, Embase, Psychinfo, GreenFILE, SportDISCUS, the Cochrane Library, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Arts and Humanities Citation Index, Conference Proceedings Citation Index--Science and BIOSIS from inception to June 2010. Internet searches of relevant Web sites, hand searches of relevant journals, and the reference lists of included papers and other review papers identified in the search were also searched for relevant information. Controlled trials (randomized and nonrandomized) were included. To be eligible trials had to compare the effects of outdoor exercise initiatives with those conducted indoors and report on at least one physical or mental wellbeing outcome in adults or children. Screening of articles for inclusion, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by one reviewer and checked by a second with discrepancies resolved by discussion with a third if necessary. Due to the heterogeneity of identified studies a narrative synthesis was performed. Eleven trials (833 adults) were included. Most participants (6 trials; 523 adults) were young students. Study entry criteria and methods were sparsely reported. All interventions consisted of a single episode of walking or running indoors with the same activity at a similar level conducted outdoors on a separate occasion. A total of 13 different outcome measures were used to evaluate the effects of exercise on mental wellbeing, and 4 outcome measures were used to assess attitude to exercise. Most trials (n = 9) showed some improvement in mental wellbeing on one or other of the outcome measures. Compared with exercising indoors, exercising in natural environments was associated with greater feelings of revitalization and positive engagement, decreases in tension, confusion, anger, and depression, and increased energy. However, the results suggested that feelings of calmness may be decreased following outdoor exercise. Participants reported greater enjoyment and satisfaction with outdoor activity and declared a greater intent to repeat the activity at a later date. None of the identified studies measured the effects of physical activity on physical wellbeing or the effect of natural environments on exercise adherence. The hypothesis that there are added beneficial effects to be gained from performing physical activity outdoors in natural environments is very appealing and has generated considerable interest. This review has shown some promising effects on self-reported mental wellbeing immediately following exercise in nature which are not seen following the same exercise indoors. However, the interpretation and extrapolation of these findings is hampered by the poor methodological quality of the available evidence and the heterogeneity of outcome measures employed. The review demonstrates the paucity of high quality evidence on which to base recommendations and reveals an undoubted need for further research in this area. Large, well designed, longer term trials in populations who might benefit most from the potential advantages of outdoor exercise are needed to fully elucidate the effects on mental and physical wellbeing. The influence of these effects on the sustainability of physical activity initiatives also awaits investigation.