What is the contemporary prevalence of infertility in world populations and how do they differ by methodological and study characteristics? Pooled estimates of lifetime and period prevalence of 12-month infertility were 17.5% and 12.6%, respectively, but this varied by study population and methodological approach. Infertility affects millions of individuals worldwide. Accurate measures of its magnitude are needed to effectively address and manage the condition. There are distinct challenges and variation in how infertility is defined and measured, limiting comparability of estimates across studies. Further research is needed to understand whether and how differences in methodological approaches and study characteristics account for heterogeneity in estimates. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Six electronic databases, websites of relevant organizations, and conference proceedings were systematically searched. Searches were limited to those published between 1 January 1990 and 11 March 2021, with no language restrictions. Descriptive and random-effects meta-analysis models were used to examine range of estimates and generate estimates of pooled lifetime and period prevalence of 12-month infertility, respectively, among representative populations. Meta-regression using restricted maximum likelihood was applied to account for definitional and study characteristics and to obtain adjusted estimates. Risk of bias was assessed with a validated tool. The search yielded 12 241 unique records of which 133 studies met the criteria for the systematic review. There were 65 and 69 studies that provided data for lifetime and period prevalence of 12-month infertility, respectively. Five methodological approaches were identified: prospective time-to-pregnancy (TTP) design, current duration design, retrospective TTP design, self-reported infertility measure and constructed infertility measure. Ranges for lifetime (3.3–39.7%) and period estimates (1.6–34.0%) were similar and wide even after accounting for methodological and study characteristics. Pooled estimates of lifetime and period prevalence were 17.5% (95% CI: 15.0, 20.3, n = 37 studies, I² = 99.5%) and 12.6% (95% CI: 10.7, 14.6, n = 43 studies, I² = 99.8%), respectively, with some variation in magnitude by region and methodological approach, but with most CIs overlapping. Pooled estimates generated from meta-analysis were derived from 12-month infertility prevalence estimates that were heterogeneous across different domains, even after adjusting for definitional and study characteristics. The number of studies was small for certain strata from which pooled estimates were derived (e.g. there were only two studies for lifetime prevalence in Africa). While findings show a high prevalence of infertility globally and regionally, it also reveals variation in measures to ascertain and compare infertility prevalence. More systematic and comprehensive collection of data using a consistent definition is needed to improve infertility prevalence estimates at global, regional and country-levels. This work was supported by the World Health Organization. The authors have no conflicts of interest. PROSPERO CRD42020211704

This study sought to determine whether a flipped classroom that facilitated peer learning would improve undergraduate health sciences students' abilities to find, evaluate, and use appropriate evidence for research assignments.Students completed online ...

In 2019, the estimated prevalence of food insecurity for Black non-Hispanic households was higher than the national average due to health disparities exacerbated by forms of racial discrimination. During the COVID-19 pandemic, Black households have experienced higher rates of food insecurity when compared to other populations in the United States. The primary objectives of this review were to identify which risk factors have been investigated for an association with food insecurity, describe how food insecurity is measured across studies that have evaluated this outcome among African Americans, and determine which dimensions of food security (food accessibility, availability, and utilization) are captured by risk factors studied by authors. Food insecurity related studies were identified through a search of Google Scholar, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, MEDLINE^®, PsycINFO, Health Source: Nursing/Academic Edition, and Web of Science^™ (Clarivate), on May 20, 2021. Eligible studies were primary research studies, with a concurrent comparison group, published in English between 1995 and 2021. Ninety-eight relevant studies were included for data charting with 37 unique measurement tools, 115 risk factors, and 93 possible consequences of food insecurity identified. Few studies examined factors linked to racial discrimination, behaviour, or risk factors that mapped to the food availability dimension of food security. Infrequently studied factors, such as lifetime racial discrimination, socioeconomic status (SES), and income insecurity need further investigation while frequently studied factors such as age, education, race/ethnicity, and gender need to be summarized using a systematic review approach so that risk factor impact can be better assessed. Risk factors linked to racial discrimination and food insecurity need to be better understood in order to minimize health disparities among African American adults during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Objectives: Sepsis is associated with significant mortality. Telehealth may improve the quality of early sepsis care, but the use and impact of telehealth applications for sepsis remain unclear. We aim to describe the telehealth interventions that have been used to facilitate sepsis care, and to summarize the reported effect of telehealth on sepsis outcomes. Data Sources: We identified articles reporting telehealth use for sepsis using an English-language search of PubMed, CINAHL Plus (EBSCO), Academic Search Ultimate (EBSCO), APA PsycINFO (EBSCO), Public Health (ProQuest), and Web of Science databases with no restrictions on publication date. Study Selection: Included studies described the use of telehealth as an intervention for treating sepsis. Only comparative effectiveness analyses were included. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines, two investigators independently selected articles for inclusion and abstracted data. A random-effects subgroup analysis was conducted on patient survival treated with and without telehealth. Results: A total of 15 studies were included, involving 188,418 patients with sepsis. Thirteen studies used observational study designs, and the most common telehealth applications were provider-to-provider telehealth consultation and intensive care unit telehealth. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was significantly high. Telehealth use was associated with higher survival, especially in settings with low control group survival. The effect of telehealth on other care processes and outcomes were more varied and likely dependent on hospital-level factors. Conclusions: Telehealth has been used in diverse applications for sepsis care, and it may improve patient outcomes in certain contexts. Additional interventional trials and cost-based analyses would clarify the causal role of telehealth in improving sepsis outcomes.