Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.

IF 3.5 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Alex Todhunter-Brown, Lorna Booth, Pauline Campbell, Brenda Cheer, Julie Cowie, Andrew Elders, Suzanne Hagen, Karen Jankulak, Helen Mason, Clare Millington, Margaret Ogden, Charlotte Paterson, Davina Richardson, Debs Smith, Jonathan Sutcliffe, Katie Thomson, Claire Torrens, Doreen McClurg
{"title":"Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.","authors":"Alex Todhunter-Brown, Lorna Booth, Pauline Campbell, Brenda Cheer, Julie Cowie, Andrew Elders, Suzanne Hagen, Karen Jankulak, Helen Mason, Clare Millington, Margaret Ogden, Charlotte Paterson, Davina Richardson, Debs Smith, Jonathan Sutcliffe, Katie Thomson, Claire Torrens, Doreen McClurg","doi":"10.3310/PLTR9622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. <b>Scoping review:</b> We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. <b>Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness:</b> For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. <b>Economic synthesis:</b> Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. <b>Systematic review of implementation factors:</b> Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps.</p><p><strong>Scoping review: </strong>651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations.</p><p><strong>Effectiveness systematic reviews: </strong>studies explored service delivery models (<i>n</i> = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (<i>n</i> = 32), wider children's workforce (<i>n</i> = 21), continence teams (<i>n</i> = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (<i>n</i> = 42); complementary therapies (<i>n</i> = 15); and psychosocial interventions (<i>n</i> = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children.</p><p><strong>Study registration: </strong>This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in <i>Health Technology Assessment</i>; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.</p>","PeriodicalId":12898,"journal":{"name":"Health technology assessment","volume":"28 5","pages":"1-266"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11017632/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health technology assessment","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/PLTR9622","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Up to 30% of children have constipation at some stage in their life. Although often short-lived, in one-third of children it progresses to chronic functional constipation, potentially with overflow incontinence. Optimal management strategies remain unclear.

Objective: To determine the most effective interventions, and combinations and sequences of interventions, for childhood chronic functional constipation, and understand how they can best be implemented.

Methods: Key stakeholders, comprising two parents of children with chronic functional constipation, two adults who experienced childhood chronic functional constipation and four health professional/continence experts, contributed throughout the research. We conducted pragmatic mixed-method reviews. For all reviews, included studies focused on any interventions/strategies, delivered in any setting, to improve any outcomes in children (0-18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of chronic functional constipation (excluding studies of diagnosis/assessment) included. Dual reviewers applied inclusion criteria and assessed risk of bias. One reviewer extracted data, checked by a second reviewer. Scoping review: We systematically searched electronic databases (including Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature) (January 2011 to March 2020) and grey literature, including studies (any design) reporting any intervention/strategy. Data were coded, tabulated and mapped. Research quality was not evaluated. Systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness: For each different intervention, we included existing systematic reviews judged to be low risk of bias (using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews), updating any meta-analyses with new randomised controlled trials. Where there was no existing low risk of bias systematic reviews, we included randomised controlled trials and other primary studies. The risk of bias was judged using design-specific tools. Evidence was synthesised narratively, and a process of considered judgement was used to judge certainty in the evidence as high, moderate, low, very low or insufficient evidence. Economic synthesis: Included studies (any design, English-language) detailed intervention-related costs. Studies were categorised as cost-consequence, cost-effectiveness, cost-utility or cost-benefit, and reporting quality evaluated using the consensus health economic criteria checklist. Systematic review of implementation factors: Included studies reported data relating to implementation barriers or facilitators. Using a best-fit framework synthesis approach, factors were synthesised around the consolidated framework for implementation research domains.

Results: Stakeholders prioritised outcomes, developed a model which informed evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps.

Scoping review: 651 studies, including 190 randomised controlled trials and 236 primary studies, conservatively reported 48 interventions/intervention combinations.

Effectiveness systematic reviews: studies explored service delivery models (n = 15); interventions delivered by families/carers (n = 32), wider children's workforce (n = 21), continence teams (n = 31) and specialist consultant-led teams (n = 42); complementary therapies (n = 15); and psychosocial interventions (n = 4). One intervention (probiotics) had moderate-quality evidence; all others had low to very-low-quality evidence. Thirty-one studies reported evidence relating to cost or resource use; data were insufficient to support generalisable conclusions. One hundred and six studies described implementation barriers and facilitators.

Conclusions: Management of childhood chronic functional constipation is complex. The available evidence remains limited, with small, poorly conducted and reported studies. Many evidence gaps were identified. Treatment recommendations within current clinical guidelines remain largely unchanged, but there is a need for research to move away from considering effectiveness of single interventions. Clinical care and future studies must consider the individual characteristics of children.

Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019159008.

Funding: This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 128470) and is published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 28, No. 5. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

用于治疗儿童慢性功能性便秘的策略:SUCCESS 证据综述。
背景:多达 30% 的儿童在一生中的某个阶段会出现便秘。虽然便秘通常持续时间较短,但有三分之一的儿童会发展为慢性功能性便秘,并可能伴有溢出性尿失禁。最佳治疗策略仍不明确:确定治疗儿童慢性功能性便秘最有效的干预措施以及干预措施的组合和顺序,并了解如何才能最好地实施这些措施:主要利益相关者,包括两名慢性功能性便秘儿童的家长、两名经历过儿童慢性功能性便秘的成年人和四名卫生专业人员/尿失禁专家,在整个研究过程中做出了贡献。我们进行了务实的混合方法综述。在所有综述中,纳入的研究均侧重于在任何环境下实施的干预/策略,以改善临床诊断为慢性功能性便秘的儿童(0-18 岁)的任何结果(不包括诊断/评估研究)。双审稿人采用纳入标准并评估偏倚风险。一名审稿人提取数据,由第二名审稿人进行核对。范围界定审查:我们系统地检索了电子数据库(包括医学文献分析与检索系统在线版、Excerpta Medica 数据库、护理与联合健康文献累积索引)(2011 年 1 月至 2020 年 3 月)和灰色文献,包括报告任何干预/策略的研究(任何设计)。对数据进行了编码、制表和绘图。未对研究质量进行评估。对有效性证据进行系统回顾:对于每种不同的干预措施,我们都纳入了被判定为低偏倚风险的现有系统性综述(使用系统性综述偏倚风险评估工具),并用新的随机对照试验更新了任何荟萃分析。在没有低偏倚风险系统综述的情况下,我们纳入了随机对照试验和其他主要研究。使用特定设计工具对偏倚风险进行判断。对证据进行叙述性综合,并采用深思熟虑的判断过程,将证据的确定性判断为高、中、低、极低或证据不足。经济综述:纳入的研究(任何设计、英语)详细说明了与干预相关的成本。研究被分为成本-后果、成本-效益、成本-效用或成本-效益四类,并使用共识卫生经济标准检查表对报告质量进行评估。对实施因素进行系统回顾:纳入的研究报告了与实施障碍或促进因素有关的数据。采用最合适框架综合法,围绕实施研究领域的综合框架对各种因素进行综合:利益相关者对结果进行了优先排序,建立了一个为证据综合提供信息的模型,并确定了证据差距:有效性系统综述:研究探讨了服务提供模式(n = 15);由家庭/照护者(n = 32)、更广泛的儿童工作者(n = 21)、尿失禁团队(n = 31)和专家顾问主导的团队(n = 42)提供的干预;辅助疗法(n = 15);以及社会心理干预(n = 4)。其中一项干预措施(益生菌)的证据质量为中等;所有其他干预措施的证据质量为低至极低。31 项研究报告了与成本或资源使用相关的证据;数据不足以支持可推广的结论。106 项研究描述了实施障碍和促进因素:儿童慢性功能性便秘的治疗非常复杂。结论:儿童慢性功能性便秘的治疗非常复杂,现有的证据仍然有限,研究规模小、开展不充分、报告不完整。发现了许多证据缺口。现行临床指南中的治疗建议在很大程度上保持不变,但研究需要从考虑单一干预措施的有效性转向考虑其他干预措施的有效性。临床护理和未来的研究必须考虑儿童的个体特征:本研究注册号为 PROSPERO CRD42019159008:本奖项由美国国家健康与护理研究所(NIHR)健康技术评估项目资助(NIHR奖项编号:128470),全文发表于《健康技术评估》第28卷第5期。如需了解更多奖项信息,请参阅 NIHR Funding and Awards 网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health technology assessment
Health technology assessment 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Technology Assessment (HTA) publishes research information on the effectiveness, costs and broader impact of health technologies for those who use, manage and provide care in the NHS.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信