BackgroundStudies of the associations between soft drinks and the risk of cancer showed inconsistent results. No previous published systematic reviews and meta-analysis has investigated a dose-response association between exposure dose and cancer risk or assessed the certainty of currently available evidence. Therefore, we aim to demonstrate the associations and assessed the certainty of the evidence to show our confidence in the associations.MethodsWe searched Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from inception to Jun 2022, to include relevant prospective cohort studies. We used a restricted cubic spline model to conduct a dose-response meta-analysis and calculated the absolute effect estimates to present the results. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.ResultsForty-two articles including on 37 cohorts enrolled 4,518,547 participants were included. With low certainty evidence, increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 17% greater risk of breast cancer, a 10% greater risk of colorectal cancer, a 30% greater risk of biliary tract cancer, and a 10% greater risk of prostate cancer; increased consumption of artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs)re per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 16% greater risk of leukemia; increased consumption of 100% fruit juice per 250 mL/day was significantly associated with a 31% greater risk of overall cancer, 22% greater risk of melanoma, 2% greater risk of squamous cell carcinoma, and 29% greater risk of thyroid cancer. The associations with other specific cancer were no significant. We found linear dose-response associations between consumption of SSBs and the risk of breast and kidney cancer, and between consumption of ASBs and 100% fruit juices and the risk of pancreatic cancer.ConclusionsAn increment in consumption of SSBs of 250 mL/day was positively associated with increased risk of breast, colorectal, and biliary tract cancer. Fruit juices consumption was also positively associated with the risk of overall cancer, thyroid cancer, and melanoma. The magnitude of absolute effects, however, was small and mainly based on low or very low certainty of evidence. The association of ASBs consumption with specific cancer risk was uncertain.

Interprofessional primary care (IPPC) teams are promoted as an alternative to single profession physician practices in primary care with focus on preventive care and chronic disease management. Characteristics of teams can have an impact on their performance. We synthesized quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods evidence addressing the design of IPPC teams. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PAIS using search terms focused on IPPC teams. Studies were included if they discussed the influence of team structure, organization, financial arrangements, or policies and procedures, or either health care processes or outputs, health outcomes, or costs, and were conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or New Zealand between 2003 and 2016. We screened 11,707 titles, 5366 abstracts, and selected 77 full text articles (38 qualitative, 31 quantitative and 8 mixed-methods). Literature focused on the implications of team characteristics on team processes, such as teamwork, collaboration, or satisfaction of patients or providers. Despite heterogeneity of contexts, some trends are observable: shared space, common vision and goals, clear definitions of roles, and leadership as important to good teamwork. The impacts of these on health care outputs or patient health are not clear. To move the state of knowledge beyond perception of what works well for IPPC teams, researchers should focus on quantitative causal inference about the linkages between team characteristics and patient health.

Multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) are considered the gold standard of cancer care in many healthcare systems, but a clear definition of their format, scope of practice and operational criteria is still lacking. The aims of this review were to assess the impact of MDTs on patient outcomes in cancer care and identify their objectives, organisation and ability to engage patients in their care. We conducted a systematic review of the literature in the Medline database. Fifty-one peer-reviewed papers were selected from November 2005 to June 2012. MDTs resulted in better clinical and process outcomes for cancer patients, with evidence of improved survival among colorectal, head and neck, breast, oesophageal and lung cancer patients in the study period. Also, it was observed that MDTs have been associated with changes in clinical diagnostic and treatment decision-making with respect to urological, pancreatic, gastro-oesophageal, breast, melanoma, bladder, colorectal, prostate, head and neck and gynaecological cancer. Evidence is consistent in showing positive consequences for patients’ management in multiple dimensions, which should encourage the development of structured multidisciplinary care, minimum standards and exchange of best practices.

Objectives To review the literature on interventions to improve team effectiveness and identify their ‘evidence based’-level. Methods Major data bases (PubMed, Web of Science, PsycInfo and Cochrane Library) were systematically searched for all relevant papers. Inclusion criteria were: peer-reviewed papers, published in English between January 1990 and April 2008, which present empirically based studies focussing on interventions to improve team effectiveness in health care. A data abstraction form was developed to summarize each paper. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Scale was used to assess the level of empirical evidence. Results Forty-eight papers were included in this review. Three categories of interventions were identified: training, tools, and organisational interventions. Target groups were mostly multidisciplinary teams in acute care. The majority of the studies found a positive association between the intervention and non-technical team skills. Most articles presented research with a low level of evidence. Positive results in combination with a moderate or high level of evidence were found for some specific interventions: Simulation training, Crew Resource Management training, Team-based training and projects on Continuous quality improvement. Conclusions There are only some studies available with high quality evidence on interventions to improve team effectiveness. These studies show that team training can improve the effectiveness of multidisciplinary teams in acute (hospital) care.