Suboptimal sleep causes cognitive decline and probably accelerates Alzheimer's Disease (AD) progression. Several sleep interventions have been tested in established AD dementia cases. However early intervention is needed in the course of AD at Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI) or mild dementia stages to help prevent decline and maintain good quality of life. This systematic review aims to summarize evidence on sleep interventions in MCI and mild AD dementia. Seven databases were systematically searched for interventional studies where ≥ 75% of participants met diagnostic criteria for MCI/mild AD dementia, with a control group and validated sleep outcome measures. Studies with a majority of participants diagnosed with Moderate to Severe AD were excluded. After removal of duplicates, 22,133 references were returned in two separate searches (August 2019 and September 2020). 325 full papers were reviewed with 18 retained. Included papers reported 16 separate studies, total sample (n = 1,056), mean age 73.5 years. 13 interventions were represented: Cognitive Behavioural Therapy – Insomnia (CBT‐I), A Multi‐Component Group Based Therapy, A Structured Limbs Exercise Programme, Aromatherapy, Phase Locked Loop Acoustic Stimulation, Transcranial Stimulation, Suvorexant, Melatonin, Donepezil, Galantamine, Rivastigmine, Tetrahydroaminoacridine and Continuous Positive Airway Pressure (CPAP). Psychotherapeutic approaches utilising adapted CBT‐I and a Structured Limbs Exercise Programme each achieved statistically significant improvements in the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index with one study reporting co‐existent improved actigraphy variables. Suvorexant significantly increased Total Sleep Time and Sleep Efficiency whilst reducing Wake After Sleep Onset time. Transcranial Stimulation enhanced cortical slow oscillations and spindle power during daytime naps. Melatonin significantly reduced sleep latency in two small studies and sleep to wakefulness transitions in a small sample. CPAP demonstrated efficacy in participants with Obstructive Sleep Apnoea. Evidence to support other interventions was limited. Whilst new evidence is emerging, there remains a paucity of evidence for sleep interventions in MCI and mild AD highlighting a pressing need for high quality experimental studies exploring alternative sleep interventions.

Background: Collaboration between parents and speech and language therapists (SLTs) is seen as a key element in family‐centred models. Collaboration can have positive impacts on parental and children's outcomes. However, collaborative practice has not been well described and researched in speech and language therapy for children and may not be easy to achieve. It is important that we gain a deeper understanding of collaborative practice with parents, how it can be achieved and how it can impact on outcomes. This understanding could support practitioners in daily practice with regard to achieving collaborative practice with parents in different contexts.Aims: To set a research agenda on collaborative practice between parents and SLTs in order to generate evidence regarding what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent.Methods & Procedures: A realist evaluation approach was used to make explicit what collaborative practice with parents entails. The steps suggested by the RAMESES II project were used to draft a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. This process generates explicit hypotheses which form a potential research agenda.Discussion & Conclusions: A preliminary programme theory of collaborative practice with parents was drafted using a realist approach. Potential contextual factors (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O) were presented which could be configured into causal mechanisms to help explain what works for whom in what circumstances. CMO configurations were drafted, based on the relevant literature, which serve as exemplars to illustrate how this methodology could be used. In order to debate, test and expand our hypothesized programme theory for collaborative practice with parents, further testing against a broader literature is required alongside research to explore the functionality of the configurations across contexts. This paper highlights the importance of further research on collaborative practice with parents and the potential value of realist evaluation methodology. What this paper adds: Current policy in education, health and social care advocates for family‐centred care and collaborative practice with parents. Thereby, collaborative practice is the preferred practice for SLTs and parents. In this paper, we explore collaborative practice and use a realist evaluation approach to achieve the aim of setting a research agenda in this area. Researchers use realist evaluation, a methodology originally developed by Pawson and Tilley in the 1990s, to explore the causal link between interventions and outcomes, summarized as what works, how, for whom, in what circumstances and to what extent. Realist evaluation provides a framework to explore configurations between contexts (C), mechanisms (M) and outcomes (O). We used this methodology to take a first step at making explicit what collaborative practice is and how it might be achieved in different contexts. We did this by drafting a preliminary programme theory about collaborative practice, where we made explicit what context factors and mechanisms might influence outcomes in collaborative practice between parents and SLTs. Based on this programme theory, we argue for the need to develop a research agenda on collaborative practice with parents of children with speech, language and communication needs. The steps between a programme theory and a research agenda could entail exploring each CMO, or step in the programme theory, and evaluating it against the existing literature—both within and beyond speech and language therapy—to see how far it stands up. In this way, gaps could be identified that could be converted into research questions that would stimulate debate about a research agenda on collaborative practice. Understanding how collaborative practice can be achieved in different contexts could support SLTs to use mechanisms to optimise collaborative practice intentionally and tailor interventions to the specific needs of families, thereby enhancing collaborative practice between parents and SLTs.

Background. The impact of head and neck cancer (HNC) in long-term survivors differs widely among individuals, and a significant number of them suffer from the negative effects of disease, whereas others report significant positive effect. This systematic review investigated the evidence the implications of treatment for HNC and subsequent development of Benefit Finding (BF) or Posttraumatic Growth (PTG). Purpose. To understand how differing medical, psychological and social characteristics of HNC may lead to BF/PTG and subsequently inform post-treatment interventions to encourage positive outcomes. Method. In February 2012, five databases including Pubmed, and Psych Info, were searched, for peer-reviewed English-language publications. Search strings included key words pertaining to HNC, BF, and PTG. One thousand three hundred and sixty three publications were identified, reviewed, and reduced following Cochrane guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria specified by a group of maxillofacial consultants and psychologists. Publications were then quality assessed using the CASP Cohort Critical Appraisal tool. Findings. Five manuscripts met the search and selection criteria, and were sourced for review. All studies were identified as being level IIb evidence which is a medium level of quality. The majority of studies investigated benefit finding (80%) and were split between recruiting participant via cancer clinics and postal survey. They focused on the medical, psychological and social characteristics of the patient following completion of treatment for HNC. Conclusion. Demographic factors across the papers showed similar patterns of relationships across BF and PTG; that higher education/qualification and cohabitation/marriage are associated with increased BF/PTG. Similarly, overlap with disease characteristics and psychosocial factors where hope and optimism were both positively correlated with increased reported BF/PTG.

Background: Microplastics, produced through degradation of environmental plastic pollution, have been detected in human tissues including placenta and fetal meconium. Cell culture and animal studies have demonstrated potential reproductive toxicity of these particles; however, their association with adverse fertility or pregnancy outcomes in humans is not known.Objectives: To synthesise evidence for the presence of microplastics in human reproductive tissue and their associations with environmental exposures and reproductive outcomes.Search Strategy: MEDLINE, Embase, Emcare, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov and ICTRP were searched from inception to 03/02/2023.Selection Criteria: Studies of human participants, assessing presence of microplastics in reproductive tissues, environmental exposures to microplastics, and fertility‐ or pregnancy‐related outcomes.Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers selected studies and extracted data on study characteristics, microplastics detected, environmental exposures and reproductive outcomes. Narrative synthesis was performed due to methodological heterogeneity.Main Results: Of 1094 citations, seven studies were included, covering 96 participants. Microplastics composed of 16 different polymer types were detected in both placental and meconium samples. Two studies reported associations between lifestyle factors (daily water intake, use of scrub cleanser or toothpaste, bottled water and takeaway food) and placental microplastics. One study reported associations between meconium microplastics and reduced microbiota diversity. One reported placental microplastic levels correlated with reduced birthweights and 1‐minute Apgar scores.Conclusions: There is a need for high‐quality observational studies to assess the effects of microplastics on human reproductive health.

Background: The Child Talk study aimed to develop an evidence-based framework to support the decision-making of speech and language therapists (SLTs) as they design and plan interventions appropriate to the needs of individual children with primary speech and language impairments and their families. The need for early identification and effective intervention for these children continues to be a government policy priority because of the link between children’s early speech and language skills and their broader well-being and outcomes in later life. The first phase of Child Talk sought to map and describe current SLT practice for these children; identify and summarise the existing research evidence relating to practice; and investigate the perspectives of parents, early years practitioners, preschool children and ‘underserved’ communities on speech and language therapy. The second phase of Child Talk focused on the development of a toolkit – assessment tools, outcome measures and a data set – to support future service and economic evaluations of the framework.Methods: Child Talk adopted a mixed-methods design. Quantitative methods included surveys and investigated the prevalence and patterns of intervention usage; qualitative data collection methods included focus groups, interviews and reflection to investigate participants’ perspectives and understandings of interventions. Data analysis methods included descriptive and inferential statistics, thematic and content analysis and framework analysis. Participants were recruited nationally through six NHS sites, professional bodies, parent groups and advertising. Participants included SLTs (n = 677), parents (n = 84), preschool children (n = 24), early years practitioners (n = 31) and ‘underserved’ communities (n = 52).Key findings: Speech and language therapy interventions were characterised in terms of nine themes, viewed as comprehensive and inclusive by practitioners. Relevant assessments, interventions and outcome domains were identified for the nine themes. Areas of tacit knowledge and underspecified processes contributed to variability in the detail of the framework. Systematic reviews identified 58 relevant and robust studies (from 55,271 papers retrieved from the initial literature search). The number of studies relevant to each theme varied from 1 to 33. Observational data on preschool children’s perspectives on speech and language therapy interventions revealed the dynamic nature of their interaction with different activities and people within therapy sessions. Parents’ experiences of speech and language therapy were generally positive although some reported that the rationale for therapy was not always clear. Parental perspectives in underserved communities suggested that, although parents were confident about how to support children’s language development, they were less informed about the nature of language impairments and the function of speech and language therapy. The availability of information regarding resources directed towards speech and language therapy services was poor. In particular, services lacked both a culture of collecting outcome data routinely and measures of professional input and costs associated with their activities.Conclusion: A descriptive framework of SLT practice has been developed to support the discussions between therapists and families when making decisions regarding the selection of interventions and outcome measures. Further research is needed to address gaps in the intervention framework and evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in improving outcomes for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments.Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013006369.Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme.