Previous reviews have demonstrated that shift work and long work hours are associated with increased risk for chronic conditions. However, these reviews did not comprehensively assessed the body of evidence, and some were not conducted in a systematic manner. A better understanding of the health consequences of shift work and long work hours will aid in creating policy and practice recommendations. This review revisits the epidemiologic evidence on the association of shift work and long work hours with chronic conditions with particular emphasis on assessing the quality of the evidence. We conducted a systematic review of systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SR-MA) that assessed the link between shift work or long work hours and chronic conditions (PROSPERO CRD42019122084). We evaluated the risk of bias of each SR-MA using AMSTAR v2 and assessed the overall evidence for each condition using the GRADE approach. We included 48 reviews covering cancers, cardiovascular diseases, metabolic syndrome and related conditions, pregnancy complications, depression, hypertension, and injuries. On average, only 7 of 16 AMSTAR items were fulfilled. Few SR-MAs had a registered protocol and nearly all failed to conduct a comprehensive search. We found moderate grade evidence linking shift work to breast cancer and long work hours to stroke. We found low grade evidence linking both shift work and long work hours with low to moderate increase in risk for some pregnancy complications and cardiovascular diseases. Low grade evidence also link long work hours and depression. Moderate grade evidence suggest that shift work and long work hours increase the risk of breast cancer and stroke, but the evidence is unclear on other chronic conditions. There is a need for high-quality studies to address this gap. Stakeholders should be made aware of these increased risks, and additional screening and prevention should be considered, particularly for workers susceptible to breast cancer and stroke.

Introduction: HIV self-testing (HIV-ST) is an effective means of improving HIV testing rates. Low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) are taking steps to include HIV-ST into their national HIV/AIDS programs but very few reviews have focused on implementation in LMIC. We performed a scoping review to describe and synthesize existing literature on implementation outcomes of HIV-ST in LMIC. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of Medline, Embase, Global Health, Web of Science, and Scopus, supplemented by searches in HIVST.org and other grey literature databases (done 23 September 2020) and included articles if they reported at least one of the following eight implementation outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, adoption, feasibility, fidelity, cost, penetration, or sustainability. Both quantitative and qualitative results were extracted and synthesized in a narrative manner. Results and discussion: Most (75%) of the 206 included articles focused on implementation in Africa. HIV-ST was found to be acceptable and appropriate, perceived to be convenient and better at maintaining confidentiality than standard testing. The lack of counselling and linkage to care, however, was concerning to stakeholders. Peer and online distribution were found to be effective in improving adoption. The high occurrence of user errors was a common feasibility issue reported by studies, although, diagnostic accuracy remained high. HIV-ST was associated with higher program costs but can still be cost-effective if kit prices remain low and HIV detection improves. Implementation fidelity was not always reported and there were very few studies on, penetration, and sustainability. Conclusions: Evidence supports the acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility of HIV-ST in the LMIC context. Costs and user error rates are threats to successful implementation. Future research should address equity through measuring penetration and potential barriers to sustainability including distribution, cost, scale-up, and safety.

The United Nations has called for countries to improve access to mobility devices when needed. The World Health Organization has published guidelines on the provision of manual wheelchairs in less-resourced settings. Yet little is known about the extent to which appropriate wheelchairs are available and provided according to international guidelines. This study’s purpose was to describe wheelchair users’ experiences receiving services and acquiring wheelchair skills in urban and peri-urban areas of Kenya and the Philippines. Local researchers in Nairobi and Manila interviewed 48 adult basic wheelchair users, with even distribution of those who had and had not received wheelchair services along with their wheelchair. Recordings were transcribed in the local language and translated into English. The study team coded transcripts for predetermined and emergent themes, using Atlas-ti software. A qualitative content analysis approach was taken with the WHO service delivery process as an organizing framework. Wheelchair users frequently described past experiences with ill-fitting wheelchairs and little formal training to use wheelchairs effectively. Through exposure to multiple wheelchairs and self-advocacy, they learned to select wheelchairs suitable for their needs. Maintenance and repair services were often in short supply. Participants attributed shorter duration of wheelchair use to lack of repair. Peer support networks emerged as an important source of knowledge, resources and emotional support. Most participants acknowledged that they received wheelchairs that would have been difficult or impossible for them to pay for, and despite challenges, they were grateful to have some means of mobility. Four themes emerged as critical for understanding the implementation of wheelchair services: barriers in the physical environment, the need for having multiple chairs to improve access, perceived social stigma, and the importance of peer support. Interventions are needed to provide wheelchairs services efficiently, at scale, in an environment facilitating physical access and peer support, and reduced social stigma. Not applicable since this was a descriptive study.

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is an effective intervention for reducing risk of HIV infection and is a key component for HIV elimination efforts in the US.^1-3 As of 2023, 2 daily oral PrEP regimens has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) was approved in 2012, while emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF) was approved in 2019.^4,5 While efficacy trials demonstrated that the 2 regimens are comparable in terms of effects for HIV prevention and overall safety,^6-8 data from the DISCOVER trial^7,8 showed that individuals taking TAF for PrEP had better bone and kidney health markers than those taking TDF. Further, those in the TAF arm had greater weight gain, while those in the TDF arm experienced greater declines in total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) during follow-up.⁸ These findings are consistent with studies in people with HIV who demonstrated elevations in weight, total cholesterol, and LDL-C levels associated with TAF use for HIV antiretroviral therapy.^9-13

Aims: Employers in the United States incur substantial costs associated with substance use disorders. Our goal was to examine the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to reduce the adverse effects of drug misuse in the workplace. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of studies that evaluated the effectiveness of recommended workplace interventions for opioids and related drugs: employee education, drug testing, employee assistance programs, supervisor training, written workplace drug-free policy, and restructuring employee health benefit plans. We searched PubMed MEDLINE, EMBASE (embase.com), PsycINFO (Ebsco), ABI Inform Global, Business Source Premier, EconLit, CENTRAL, Web of Science (Thomson Reuters), Scopus (Elsevier), Proquest Dissertations, and Epistemonikos from inception through May 8, 2019, with no date or language restrictions. We included randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies, and cross-sectional studies with no language or date restrictions. The Downs and Black questionnaire was used to assess the quality of included studies. The results were reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: In all, 27 studies met our inclusion criteria and were included in the systematic review. Results were mixed, with each intervention shown to be effective in at least one study, but none showing effectiveness in over 50% of studies. Studies examining the impact of interventions on workplace injuries or accidents were more commonly reported to be effective. Although four studies were randomized controlled trials, the quality of all included studies was “fair” or “poor.” Conclusions: Despite the opioid epidemic, high-quality studies evaluating the effectiveness of employer-led interventions to prevent or reduce the adverse effects of substance use are lacking. Higher quality and mixed methods studies are needed to determine whether any of the interventions are generalizable and whether contextual adaptations are needed. In the meantime, there is a reason to believe that commonly recommended, employer-led interventions may be effective in some environments.