Informing the development of Australia's National Eating Disorders Research and Translation Strategy: a rapid review methodology

被引:13
作者
Aouad, Phillip [1 ,2 ,7 ]
Bryant, Emma [1 ,2 ]
Maloney, Danielle [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Marks, Peta [1 ,2 ]
Le, Anvi [4 ]
Russell, Haley [1 ,2 ]
Hay, Phillipa
Miskovic-Wheatley, Jane [1 ,2 ]
Touyz, Stephen [1 ,2 ]
Maguire, Sarah [1 ,2 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Inside Out Inst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Sydney Local Hlth Dist, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[3] New South Wales Hlth, Sydney Local Hlth Dist, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[4] Healthcare Management Advisors, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Western Sydney Univ, Translat Hlth Res Inst, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[6] Univ Sydney, Sch Psychol, Fac Sci, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[7] Univ Sydney, Charles Perkins Ctr D17, Fac Med & Hlth, Cent Clin Sch, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
关键词
Eating disorders; Mental health; Policy; Research; Research translation; Rapid review; Australia; ANOREXIA-NERVOSA; HEALTH;
D O I
10.1186/s40337-022-00556-3
中图分类号
B849 [应用心理学];
学科分类号
040203 ;
摘要
Background Eating disorders (EDs) are highly complex mental illnesses associated with significant medical complications. There are currently knowledge gaps in research relating to the epidemiology, aetiology, treatment, burden, and outcomes of eating disorders. To clearly identify and begin addressing the major deficits in the scientific, medical, and clinical understanding of these mental illnesses, the Australian Government Department of Health in 2019 funded the InsideOut Institute (IOI) to develop the Australian Eating Disorder Research and Translation Strategy, the primary aim of which was to identify priorities and targets for building research capacity and outputs. A series of rapid reviews (RR) were conducted to map the current state of knowledge, identify evidence gaps, and inform development of the national research strategy. Published peer-reviewed literature on DSM-5 listed EDs, across eight knowledge domains was reviewed: (1) population, prevalence, disease burden, Quality of Life in Western developed countries; (2) risk factors; (3) co-occurring conditions and medical complications; (4) screening and diagnosis; (5) prevention and early intervention; (6) psychotherapies and relapse prevention; (7) models of care; (8) pharmacotherapies, alternative and adjunctive therapies; and (9) outcomes (including mortality). While RRs are systematic in nature, they are distinct from systematic reviews in their aim to gather evidence in a timely manner to support decision-making on urgent or high-priority health concerns at the national level. Results Three medical science databases were searched as the primary source of literature for the RRs: Science Direct, PubMed and OVID (Medline). The search was completed on 31st May 2021 (spanning January 2009-May 2021). At writing, a total of 1,320 articles met eligibility criteria and were included in the final review. Conclusions For each RR, the evidence has been organised to review the knowledge area and identify gaps for further research and investment. The series of RRs (published separately within the current series) are designed to support the development of research and translation practice in the field of EDs. They highlight areas for investment and investigation, and provide researchers, service planners and providers, and research funders rapid access to quality current evidence, which has been synthesised and organised to assist decision-making.
引用
收藏
页数:12
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Abbott M., 2004, EDUC ECON, V12, P251, DOI [10.1080/0964529042000258608, DOI 10.1080/0964529042000258608]
[2]  
American Psychiatric Association, 2000, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT, V4, DOI 10.1176/dsm10.1176/appi.books.9780890420249.dsm-iv-tr
[3]  
American Psychiatric Association, 2013, DIAGN STAT MAN MENT, P70
[4]   To what extent is health and medical research funding associated with the burden of disease in Australia? [J].
Aoun, S .
AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2004, 28 (01) :80-86
[5]   Power failure: why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience [J].
Button, Katherine S. ;
Ioannidis, John P. A. ;
Mokrysz, Claire ;
Nosek, Brian A. ;
Flint, Jonathan ;
Robinson, Emma S. J. ;
Munafo, Marcus R. .
NATURE REVIEWS NEUROSCIENCE, 2013, 14 (05) :365-376
[6]   The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: a systematic review [J].
Eriksen, Mette Brandt ;
Frandsen, Tove Faber .
JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2018, 106 (04) :420-431
[7]   Prognostic factors and outcome in anorexia nervosa: a follow-up study [J].
Errichiello, Luca ;
Iodice, Davide ;
Bruzzese, Dario ;
Gherghi, Marco ;
Senatore, Ignazio .
EATING AND WEIGHT DISORDERS-STUDIES ON ANOREXIA BULIMIA AND OBESITY, 2016, 21 (01) :73-82
[8]   Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews [J].
Garritty, Chantelle ;
Gartlehner, Gerald ;
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara ;
King, Valerie J. ;
Hamel, Candyce ;
Kamel, Chris ;
Affengruber, Lisa ;
Stevens, Adrienne .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 130 :13-22
[9]   Psychological, pharmacological, and combined treatments for binge eating disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Ghaderi, Ata ;
Odeberg, Jenny ;
Gustafssoros, Sanna ;
Rastam, Maria ;
Brolund, Agneta ;
Pettersson, Agneta ;
Parling, Thomas .
PEERJ, 2018, 6
[10]   What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review [J].
Haby, Michelle M. ;
Chapman, Evelina ;
Clark, Rachel ;
Barreto, Jorge ;
Reveiz, Ludovic ;
Lavis, John N. .
HEALTH RESEARCH POLICY AND SYSTEMS, 2016, 14