Background: Telehealth technologies can enhance patients' and their families' access to high-quality resources in home-based palliative care. Nurses are deeply involved in delivering telehealth in home-based palliative care. However, no previous integrative systematic reviews have synthesized evidence on nurses' roles, facilitators, and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Objective: This integrative systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the roles of nurses and the multilevel facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care, which could inform future policy development, research, and clinical practice. Methods: This integrative systematic review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We systematically searched articles published from January 1, 2014, to May 2024 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. We included English-language; peer-reviewed; original; and qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that centered on nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles. Furthermore, 3 authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of articles. The entities to extract were identified by research questions of interest regardless of the type of study. We applied a convergent synthesis approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative data. Guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0, we synthesized the facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Results: This integrative systematic review identified 4819 unique articles, including 34 papers encompassing 29 unique primary research studies. Innovations were mainly delivered by nurses (n=8) and nurse-involved multiprofessional teams (n=18). The roles of nurses in telehealth home-based palliative care involve palliative care nurses, community nurses, nurse coordinators, nurse coaches or nurse navigators, and nurse case managers. Guided by CFIR 2.0, facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered, telehealth, home-based palliative care were identified to 6 implementation levels and 20 constructs. The key facilitators included the COVID-19 pandemic, cost avoidance to the health care system, engagement of patients and their family caregivers, and so on. The barriers included a lack of reimbursement and payment mechanisms, technical problems, insufficiently trained health care providers, and so on. Conclusions: This integrative systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurses' evolving roles in telehealth home-based palliative care and identifies multilevel facilitators and barriers to nurse-delivered, home-based palliative care implementation. With the empowerment of telehealth technologies, nurses could establish a stronger professional identity and develop leadership in home-based palliative care. Nurses should leverage influence to promote nursing practice, clinical management, and policy support in the implementation of telehealth home-based palliative care. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024541038; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024541038.

Background: Telehealth technologies can enhance patients' and their families' access to high-quality resources in home-based palliative care. Nurses are deeply involved in delivering telehealth in home-based palliative care. However, no previous integrative systematic reviews have synthesized evidence on nurses' roles, facilitators, and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Objective: This integrative systematic review aimed to provide a comprehensive understanding of the roles of nurses and the multilevel facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care, which could inform future policy development, research, and clinical practice. Methods: This integrative systematic review was conducted using Joanna Briggs Institute methodological guidance. We followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. We systematically searched articles published from January 1, 2014, to May 2024 in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library. We included English-language; peer-reviewed; original; and qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies that centered on nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to assess the quality of the included articles. Furthermore, 3 authors independently assessed eligibility, extracted data, and assessed the quality of articles. The entities to extract were identified by research questions of interest regardless of the type of study. We applied a convergent synthesis approach to integrate quantitative and qualitative data. Guided by the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0, we synthesized the facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered telehealth in home-based palliative care. Results: This integrative systematic review identified 4819 unique articles, including 34 papers encompassing 29 unique primary research studies. Innovations were mainly delivered by nurses (n=8) and nurse-involved multiprofessional teams (n=18). The roles of nurses in telehealth home-based palliative care involve palliative care nurses, community nurses, nurse coordinators, nurse coaches or nurse navigators, and nurse case managers. Guided by CFIR 2.0, facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-delivered, telehealth, home-based palliative care were identified to 6 implementation levels and 20 constructs. The key facilitators included the COVID-19 pandemic, cost avoidance to the health care system, engagement of patients and their family caregivers, and so on. The barriers included a lack of reimbursement and payment mechanisms, technical problems, insufficiently trained health care providers, and so on. Conclusions: This integrative systematic review synthesizes evidence on nurses' evolving roles in telehealth home-based palliative care and identifies multilevel facilitators and barriers to nurse-delivered, home-based palliative care implementation. With the empowerment of telehealth technologies, nurses could establish a stronger professional identity and develop leadership in home-based palliative care. Nurses should leverage influence to promote nursing practice, clinical management, and policy support in the implementation of telehealth home-based palliative care. Trial registration: PROSPERO CRD42024541038; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024541038.

Objective:To compare the benefits and harms of drug treatments for adults with type 2 diabetes, adding non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (including finerenone) and tirzepatide (a dual glucose dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP)/glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonist) to previously existing treatment options. Design:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Data sources:Ovid Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central up to 14 October 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies:Eligible randomised controlled trials compared drugs of interest in adults with type 2 diabetes. Eligible trials had a follow-up of 24 weeks or longer. Trials systematically comparing combinations of more than one drug treatment class with no drug, subgroup analyses of randomised controlled trials, and non-English language studies were deemed ineligible. Certainty of evidence was assessed following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluation) approach. Results:The analysis identified 816 trials with 471 038 patients, together evaluating 13 different drug classes; all subsequent estimates refer to the comparison with standard treatments. Sodium glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors (odds ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.94; high certainty) and GLP-1 receptor agonists (0.88, 0.82 to 0.93; high certainty) reduce all cause death; non-steroidal mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists, so far tested only with finerenone in patients with chronic kidney disease, probably reduce mortality (0.89, 0.79 to 1.00; moderate certainty); other drugs may not. The study confirmed the benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, admission to hospital for heart failure, and end stage kidney disease. Finerenone probably reduces admissions to hospital for heart failure and end stage kidney disease, and possibly cardiovascular death. Only GLP-1 receptor agonists reduce non-fatal stroke; SGLT-2 inhibitors are superior to other drugs in reducing end stage kidney disease. GLP-1 receptor agonists and probably SGLT-2 inhibitors and tirzepatide improve quality of life. Reported harms were largely specific to drug class (eg, genital infections with SGLT-2 inhibitors, severe gastrointestinal adverse events with tirzepatide and GLP-1 receptor agonists, hyperkalaemia leading to admission to hospital with finerenone). Tirzepatide probably results in the largest reduction in body weight (mean difference -8.57 kg; moderate certainty). Basal insulin (mean difference 2.15 kg; moderate certainty) and thiazolidinediones (mean difference 2.81 kg; moderate certainty) probably result in the largest increases in body weight. Absolute benefits of SGLT-2 inhibitors, GLP-1 receptor agonists, and finerenone vary in people with type 2 diabetes, depending on baseline risks for cardiovascular and kidney outcomes (https://matchit.magicevidence.org/230125dist-diabetes). Conclusions:This network meta-analysis extends knowledge beyond confirming the substantial benefits with the use of SGLT-2 inhibitors and GLP-1 receptor agonists in reducing adverse cardiovascular and kidney outcomes and death by adding information on finerenone and tirzepatide. These findings highlight the need for continuous assessment of scientific progress to introduce cutting edge updates in clinical practice guidelines for people with type 2 diabetes.

This meta-analytic study investigates the effectiveness of different interventions in alleviating loneliness among Chinese older adults aged 50 years and above. We searched eight English databases, four Chinese databases, and grey literature. Thirty-four studies, including four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 30 quasi-experimental studies, were eventually included in the meta-analysis (n = 3843). Quality appraisal indicated risks of bias in the included studies. The pooled effect size was large and significant (Hedge's g = 0.84, 95% CI [0.54, 1.15]), indicating the effectiveness of interventions in reducing loneliness. However, the effect size may be overestimated due to publication bias. Moderation analyses showed significant differences in effect sizes by study designs and regions of studies. Network meta-analysis (NMA) indicated that hybrid and psychological interventions appeared to be advantageous over others. In addition, group-based delivery modes can add extra benefits to the interventions. This study adds to the knowledge of the effectiveness of current interventions in reducing Chinese older people's loneliness. However, the findings need to be interpreted with caution due to the relatively low study quality, considerable heterogeneity, and publication bias. Despite the limitations, this study offers valuable insights for future research, practice, and policy-making in reducing older people's loneliness.

Background:Pharmacotherapy provides an option for adults with overweight and obesity to reduce their bodyweight if lifestyle modifications fail. We summarised the latest evidence for the benefits and harms of weight-lowering drugs. Methods:This systematic review and network meta-analysis included searches of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library (CENTRAL) from inception to March 23, 2021, for randomised controlled trials of weight-lowering drugs in adults with overweight and obesity. We performed frequentist random-effect network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation frameworks to rate the certainty of evidence, calculate the absolute effects, categorise interventions, and present the findings. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD 42021245678. Findings:14 605 citations were identified by our search, of which 132 eligible trials enrolled 48 209 participants. All drugs lowered bodyweight compared with lifestyle modification alone; all subsequent numbers refer to comparisons with lifestyle modification. High to moderate certainty evidence established phentermine-topiramate as the most effective in lowering weight (odds ratio [OR] of ≥5% weight reduction 8·02, 95% CI 5·24 to 12·27; mean difference [MD] of percentage bodyweight change -7·98, 95% CI -9·27 to -6·69) followed by GLP-1 receptor agonists (OR 6·33, 95% CI 5·00 to 8·00; MD -5·79, 95% CI -6·34 to -5·25). Naltrexone-bupropion (OR 2·69, 95% CI 2·10 to 3·44), phentermine-topiramate (2·40, 1·68 to 3·44), GLP-1 receptor agonists (2·22, 1·74 to 2·84), and orlistat (1·71, 1·42 to 2·05) were associated with increased adverse events leading to drug discontinuation. In a post-hoc analysis, semaglutide, a GLP-1 receptor agonist, showed substantially larger benefits than other drugs with a similar risk of adverse events as other drugs for both likelihood of weight loss of 5% or more (OR 9·82, 95% CI 7·09 to 13·61) and percentage bodyweight change (MD -11·40, 95% CI -12·51 to -10·29). Interpretation:In adults with overweight and obesity, phentermine-topiramate and GLP-1 receptor agonists proved the best drugs in reducing weight; of the GLP-1 agonists, semaglutide might be the most effective.