Traditional and complementary medicines are increasingly considered possible options for prevention and symptomatic treatment of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19. With renewed attention on these therapies from researchers and policy makers alike, the well-documented challenges of evaluating their safety and efficacy are once again of global concern. Between 2005 and 2018, the World Health Organization conducted a series of surveys, in which 88 percent of responding member states confirmed that their biggest challenge in traditional medicine was the need for technical guidance on research and evaluation. As a first step in pursuing this need, our commentary summarizes thirteen international and regional guidance documents by three broad categories on evaluating safety, efficacy, and product quality for market-based approval and distribution of these treatments. We highlight the paucity of updated international recommendations on these subjects and identify gaps that could inform the current evidence base. All available guidance note the need for evidence surrounding the efficacy of these treatments and practices but are also quick to caution against methodological difficulties in the conduct of such evaluations. Evidence suggests that improved evaluation methods on efficacy and effectiveness are crucial toward expanding future research into establishing the cost-effectiveness of these therapies, in the context of shifting acceptance, interest, and integration of traditional medicines into health systems, and as another step toward Universal Health Coverage.

Background: The evidence base for behavioural activation (BA) is mainly grounded in the individual delivery method, with much less known about the impact of group delivery. Aims: To conduct a pilot study of behavioural activation in groups (BAG) for depression delivered in a routine service setting, in order to explore acceptability, effectiveness and predictors of outcome. Methods: The manualized group treatment format was delivered in a Primary Care mental health setting, at step three of an Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) service. BAG was facilitated by cognitive behavioural psychotherapists, and outcome measures (depression, anxiety and functional impairment) were taken at each session. Seventy-three participants were referred and treated within nine groups. Results: BAG was an acceptable treatment generating a low drop-out rate (7%). Significant pre–post differences were found across all measures. There was a moderate to large depression effect size (d+ = 0.74), and 20% met the criteria for a reliable recovery in depression. Greater severity of initial depression and attendance of at least four BAG sessions predicted better outcomes. Conclusions: BAG appears to be an effective depression treatment option that shows some clinical promise. Further larger and more controlled studies are nevertheless required.

Background: The evidence supporting the use of new, or established, interventions may be derived from either (or both) experimental or observational study designs. Although a rigorous examination of the evidence base for clinical and cost-effectiveness is essential, it is never sufficient, and those undertaking a health technology assessment (HTA) also have to exercise judgments.

Methods: The basis for this discussion is largely from the author's experience as chairman of the national Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).

Results: The judgments necessary for HTA to make are twofold. Scientific judgments relate to the interpretation of the science. Social value judgments are concerned with the ethical principles, preferences, culture, and aspirations of society.

Conclusions: How scientific and social value judgments might be most appropriately captured is a challenge for all HTA agencies. Although competent HTA bodies should be able to exercise scientific judgments they have no legitimacy to impose their own social values. These must ultimately be informed by the general public.

This study examines the baseline characteristics and changes in health status and cost of use of health services associated with use of publicly funded home support services. The analysis includes 122 people 75 years of age or more who were eligible for home support services. Over a 6-month period, one third of the sample used home support services for more than 1hr/week; these seniors had higher rates of depression and cognitive impairment, lower levels of physical and emotional functioning, and less effective coping styles than those who used fewer services. Cognitive impairment explained 17 per cent of the variation in use of home support services. At 6 months, use of home support services for more than 1hr/week by seniors with higher levels of need was associated with lower cost of use of health services and lower levels of improvement in health status. These findings suggest the need for further research to identify efficacious ways of providing home support services to this population to enhance their health status using available resources.

This study determined the effects and costs of a multifactorial, interdisciplinary team approach to falls prevention. Randomized controlled trial of 109 older adults who are at risk for falls. This was a six-month multifactorial and evidence-based prevention strategy involving an interdisciplinary team. The primary outcome was number of falls during the six-month follow-up. At six months, no difference in the mean number of falls between groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the intervention effectively reduced falls in men (75–84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history. Number of slips and trips was greatly reduced; and emotional health had a greater improvement in role functioning related to emotional health in the intervention group. Quality of life was improved, slips and trips were reduced, as were falls among males (75–84 years old) with a fear of falling or negative fall history.

As a clinically-effective nutritionist faced with needing to find the answer to a clinical question quickly it is necessary to search the best evidence efficiently. The requirements are to: (1) avoid having lots of papers to read; (2) be able to access this information at one's place of work; (3) restrict reading to trials and systematic reviews of trials. If a decision has to be made while on the ward, the best resource is probably an easy-to-use book, Clinical Evidence. This resource is also available on-line, but there may not be access to the Internet on the ward. If a little more time is available, and access to the Internet, the following plan is suggested: (1) work out what the question is and highlight the search terms; (2) using the best search engine available, search MEDLINE from 1990 for titles and abstracts of papers containing the search terms, this is the search strategy (limit the search by publication type by requesting randomised controlled trials only, English language only and human only); (3) if more or less than approximately ten hits are obtained, alter the limits of the search (not the search strategy); (4) read the abstract, or full paper where available, of the relevant hits and appraise this evidence.

Summary

The discipline of evidence-based prescribing is relatively new to nurses and other non-medical prescribers. The introduction of clinical governance, which emphasises accountability, quality and efficiency, means that it is no longer acceptable to base clinical decisions on personal opinion. Prescribing itself is just one stage in making a rational treatment decision, which requires a fully structured approach. This article will highlight some of the considerations that the prescriber has to take into account, including: the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of treatment options, how to check the evidence, the benefits or harms of a treatment and, the patient's own involvement in the treatment plan.

In the present climate of limited resources and long waiting lists, it is not surprising that there is more emphasis on making sure that psychological treatments are not only clinically sound but also cost-effective. One solution to this is to provide time-limited, focused interventions such as cognitive therapy. Another obvious solution is to deliver treatment in groups rather than individually. However, what evidence is there that therapy can be delivered as effectively in groups as individually? This review will look at which different formats have been tried, what the advantages and disadvantages of those formats might be, which client groups have been targeted for cognitive- behavioural group therapy (CBGT), and whether a group format in general offers any advantages over individual CBT. Outcome studies and their implications for the use of CBGT are considered. Results suggest that, in most client groups, there is little difference in efficacy between group and individual CBT, although there is some evidence that results for some types of patient can be disappointing in CBGT. It may be that the best compromise in terms of cost- effectiveness between quality of therapy and quantity of patients treated is offered by large-scale psychoeducational didactic group therapy.