Objective: The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic caused a range of mental health problems, particularly self-harm. Lockdowns are the usual methods of responding to these public health emergencies. However, the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on self-harm remains poorly characterized. This study aimed to investigate the influence of the COVID-19 pandemic on the incidence of self-harm. The findings may inform future policy development and strategies for managing pandemic-related mental health challenges. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted using several database searches: APA PsycINFO, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wan Fang. Published studies with data on the incidence of self-harm during visits to medical institutions, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic, were included. The pooled risk ratio (RR) value of self-harm incidence variation before and during the COVID-19 lockdown period, expressed as the comparison of clinical institution visits before and during the pandemic, was calculated. Results: Fifteen retrospective cohort studies with observational designs involving 253,600 participants were included. The pooled RR value of self-harm incidence variation was 1.386 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.205-1.595, I2 = 58.9%, p = 0.002). The subgroup analysis showed that "emergency department type" (p = 0.004) and "mean age of the sample" were the sources of the RR values' heterogeneity (p = 0.026). Conclusions: Our findings suggest that the lockdown during the COVID-19 pandemic was a risk factor for self-harm. Therefore, special attention should be paid to individuals visiting the emergency department and the middle-aged and elderly populations. The prospero registration: This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023373026), https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023373026.

Introduction: Despite common, serious, costly, and often fatal conditions affecting up to 50 % of older patients, delirium is often unrecognized and overlooked. We examine the accuracy of the 4AT for detecting older patients with delirium.Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and EMBASE databases from inception to April 2020 and updated to January 2022. Four independently reviewers extracted study data and assessed the methodological quality using the revised quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2). Pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity were generated using a bivariate random effects model. All statistical analyses were performed with STATA version 15.1 and Meta-DiSc version 1.4 software. Results: Eleven studies with 2789 participants were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.81-0.91) and 0.87 (95 % CI: 0.79-0.92), respectively, and the positive and negative likelihood ratios were 6.66 (95 % CI: 4.12-10.74) and 0.15 (95 % CI: 0.10-0.23), respectively. Deeks' test indicated no significant publication bias (t = 0.83, P = 0.43). Univariable meta-regression showed that patient selection and flow and timing significantly influenced the pooled sensitivity (P < 0.05), settings significantly influenced the pooled specificity (P < 0.05).Conclusion: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that 4AT is a sensitive and specific screening tool for delirium in older patients. Its brevity and simplicity support its use in routine clinical practice, particularly in time-poor settings. Clinicians should come to a conclusion based largely on the 4AT findings in conjunction with clinical judgment.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the most effective delivery format of cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) on insomnia in cancer patients. Methods: We searched five databases up to February 2021 for randomized clinical trials that compared CBT-I with inactive or active controls for insomnia in cancer patients. Outcomes were insomnia severity, sleep efficiency, sleep onset latency (SOL), wake after sleep onset (WASO), and total sleep time (TST). Pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses with the random-effects model were applied for data analyses. Results: Sixteen unique trials including 1523 participants met inclusion criteria. Compared with inactive control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (mean differences [MD] = -4.98 points, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -5.82 to -4.14), SOL (MD = -12.29 min, 95%CI: -16.48 to -8.09), and WASO (MD = -16.58 min, 95%CI: -22.00 to -11.15), while increasing sleep efficiency (MD = 7.62%, 95%CI: 5.82% to 9.41%) at postintervention. Compared with active control, CBT-I could significantly reduce insomnia severity (MD = -2.75 points, 95%CI: -4.28 to -1.21), SOL (MD = -13.56 min, 95%CI: -18.93 to -8.18), and WASO (MD = -6.99 min, 95%CI: -11.65 to -2.32) at postintervention. These effects diminished in short-term follow-up and almost disappeared in long-term follow-up. Most of the results were rated as "moderate" to "low" certainty of evidence. Network meta-analysis showed that group CBT-I had an increase in sleep efficiency of 10.61%, an increase in TST of 21.98 min, a reduction in SOL of 14.65 min, and a reduction in WASO of 24.30 min, compared with inactive control at postintervention, with effects sustained at short-term follow-up. Conclusions: CBT-I is effective for the management of insomnia in cancer patients postintervention, with diminished effects in short-term follow-up. Group CBT-I is the preferred choice based on postintervention and short-term effects. The low quality of evidence and limited sample size demonstrate the need for robust evidence from high-quality, large-scale trials providing long-term follow-up data.

Background: Evidence-based practice (EBP) implementation plays a crucial role in bridging the knowledge-action gaps and reducing health inequities. Little is known about its development in China. This study aims to provide an overview of the EBP implementation research progress in healthcare in China and identify gaps for future studies. Methods: We conducted a scoping review following the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methodology and the Cochrane Collaboration's guidance on living reviews. We performed a literature search in four Chinese databases (i.e., China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Database, The VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine) and three English databases (i.e., Ovid MEDLINE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and EMBASE), Google scholar, and Baidu scholar from 1996 to 2021. We included EBP implementation studies conducted in healthcare settings in China and were published in Chinese and English literature. The search will be run on a regular basis to monitor the development of new literature and determine when to update the review. Findings: Of the 11,276 records identified, we finally included 309 papers. The publications were on a sharp rise since 2013 and were predominantly from the nursing field (292/309, 94.50%). The commonly researched areas were symptom management (75/309, 24.27%), tube care (46/309, 14.89%), perioperative care (43/309, 13.92%), and fundamental care (43/309, 13.92%). Joanna Briggs Institute model was the most frequently used model to guide the implementation process (92/159, 59.75%). A median number of 8 people often comprised an implementation team, with 113 studies (36.57%) taking a multidisciplinary approach. 204 studies reported utilizing audit criteria to assist evaluation of evidence implementation rate with diversified methods measuring the criteria. Lack of knowledge, skills, and resources, and incomplete procedures or pathways were top barriers impeding EBP implementation. Leadership support was considered the most common facilitator. Education and training were the most frequently described implementation strategies for healthcare professionals and patients. Optimizing workflows and developing evaluation tools were the primary strategies adopted by organizations. 291 studies measured patient outcomes and 174 studies measured healthcare professional outcomes. Interpretation: To our knowledge, this scoping review is the first one to systematically examine the EBP implementation research progress in healthcare in China. Based on this review, we identified contributions that Chinese EBP implementation research made to the global community, and provided eight recommendations for Chinese researchers in conducting implementation studies in the future. Funding: None.

Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs), and 100% fruit juices are frequently consumed and have been documented that they could lead to serious disease burden. However, inconsistent evidence on the association between SSBs, ASBs, and 100% fruit juices consumption and mortality have been presented. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and PsycINFO were systematically searched. We conducted a random-effects meta-analysis and dose-response meta-analysis to assess the association and calculated the pooled hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval. And we evaluated the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Thirteen studies with 1,539,127 participants proved eligible. An SSB-consumption increase per 250 mL/day was associated with a 4% greater risk of all-cause mortality (5 more per 1000 persons; low certainty) and 8% greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (3 more per 1000 persons; low certainty). ASB-consumption increase per 250 mL/day demonstrated a 4% greater risk of all-cause mortality (5 more per 1000 persons; low certainty) and 4% greater risk of cardiovascular disease mortality (2 more per 1000 persons; low certainty). The association of SSBs and ASBs with cancer mortality was not significant, with a very low certainty of evidence. There was evidence of a linear dose-response association between SSB intake and cancer mortality, as well as between ASB intake and all-cause mortality and cancer mortality. We observed a non-linear dose-response association between ASB intake and CVD mortality and SSB intake and all-cause and CVD mortality. Low certainty of evidence demonstrated that per 250 mL/day consumption increase in SSBs and ASBs had a small impact on all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality but not on cancer mortality. The association of 100% fruit juice consumption with all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality was uncertain.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to grow worldwide, and systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) on COVID-19 can efficiently guide evidence-based clinical practice. However, SRs/MAs with weaknesses can mislead clinical practice and pose harm to patients, and too many useless SRs/MAs could pose confusion and waste sources. A "living" overview of SRs/MAs aims to provide an open, accessible and frequently updated resource summarizing the highest-level evidence of COVID-19, that can help evidence-users to quickly identify trusted evidence to guide the practice. This study aims to systematically give an overview SRs/MAs of COVID-19, assess their quality, and identify the best synthesis of evidence. Methods: Databases including Medline, EMBASE, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Biology Medicine (CBM) and WanFang were systematically searched on May 1, 2020 using relevant terms for identify SRs/MAs related to COVID-19. The study selection, data extraction and quality assessment will be performed by independent reviewers, and results will be crosschecked. The authoritative tools (AMSTAR-2, PRISMA and its extensions) will be used to assess the methodological quality and reporting quality of included SRs/MAs, and potential influence factors will be explored. The consistency of conclusions will be compared among reviews and the best evidence will be summarized. In addition, we will conduct exploratory meta-analyses (MAs) of individual studies when applicable. Data will be reported as number with (or) percentage, risk ratio (RR) or odds ratio (OR), mean difference (MD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) according to the specific results. R3.6.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 will be used to analyze and manage data. Results: The results of this overview will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. Conclusions: In this study, we will present for the first time, an overview of SRs/MAs, which provides a comprehensive, dynamic evidence landscape on prevalence, prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of COVID-19.