Chronic pain, defined as persistent or recurring pain or pain lasting longer than 3 months, is a common childhood problem. The objective of this study was to conduct an updated systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of chronic pain (ie, overall, headache, abdominal pain, back pain, musculoskeletal pain, multisite/general pain, and other) in children and adolescents. EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched for publications between January 1, 2009, and June 30, 2023. Studies reporting population-based estimates of chronic nondisease related pain prevalence in children or adolescents (age ≤ 19 years) were included. Two independent reviewers screened articles based on a priori protocol. One hundred nineteen studies with a total of 1,043,878 children (52.0% female, mean age 13.4 years [SD 2.4]) were included. Seventy different countries were represented, with the highest number of data points of prevalence estimates coming from Finland and Germany (n = 19 each, 4.3%). The overall prevalence of chronic pain in children and adolescents was 20.8%, with the highest prevalence for headache and musculoskeletal pain (25.7%). Overall, and for all types of pain except for back pain and musculoskeletal pain, there were significant differences in the prevalence between boys and girls, with girls having a higher prevalence of pain. There was high heterogeneity (I² 99.9%). Overall risk of bias was low to moderate. In summary, approximately 1 in 5 children and adolescents experience chronic pain and prevalence varies by pain type; for most types, there is higher pain prevalence among girls than among boys. Findings echo and expand upon the systematic review conducted in 2011.

Objective: The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific maternal mortality and severe morbidity during the postpartum period. Introduction: Many women continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes in the postpartum period; however, limited work has explored the timing of when women die or present complications during this period globally. Inclusion criteria: This review considered studies that reported on women after birth up to 6 weeks postpartum and included data on mortality and/or morbidity on the first day, days 2–7, and days 8–42. Studies that reported solely on high-risk women (eg, those with antenatal or intrapartum complications) were excluded, but mixed population samples were included (eg, low-risk and high-risk women). Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and searches were updated on May 11, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by at least 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. Quantitative data were pooled, where possible. Identified studies were used to obtain the summary estimate (proportion) for each time point. Maternal mortality was calculated as the maternal deaths during a given period over the total number of maternal deaths known during the postpartum period. For cause-specific analysis, number of deaths due to a specific cause was the numerator, while the total number of women who died due to the same cause in that period was the denominator. Random effects models were run to pool incidence proportion for relative risk of overall maternal deaths. Subgroup analysis was conducted according to country income classification and by date (ie, data collection before or after 2010). Where statistical pooling was not possible, the findings were reported narratively. Results: A total of 32 studies reported on maternal outcomes from 17 reports, all reporting on mixed populations. Most maternal deaths occurred on the first day (48.9%), with 24.5% of deaths occurring between days 2 and 7, and 24.9% occurring between days 8 and 42. Maternal mortality due to postpartum hemorrhage and embolism occurred predominantly on the first day (79.1% and 58.2%, respectively). Most deaths due to postpartum eclampsia and hypertensive disorders occurred within the first week (44.3% on day 1 and 37.1% on days 2–7). Most deaths due to infection occurred between days 8 and 42 (61.3%). Due to heterogeneity, maternal morbidity data are described narratively, with morbidity predominantly occurring within the first 2 weeks. The mean critical appraisal score across all included studies was 85.9% (standard deviation = 13.6%). Conclusion: Women experience mortality throughout the entire postpartum period, with the highest mortality rate on the first day. Access to high-quality care during the postpartum period, including enhanced frequency and quality of postpartum assessments during the first 42 days after birth, is essential to improving maternal outcomes and to continue reducing maternal mortality and morbidity worldwide. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42020187341

Objective: The objective of this review was to determine the timing of overall and cause-specific neonatal mortality and severe morbidity during the postnatal period (1-28 days). Introduction: Despite significant focus on improving neonatal outcomes, many newborns continue to die or experience adverse health outcomes. While evidence on neonatal mortality and severe morbidity rates and causes are regularly updated, less is known on the specific timing of when they occur in the neonatal period. Inclusion criteria: This review considered studies that reported on neonatal mortality daily in the first week; weekly in the first month; or day 1, days 2-7, and days 8-28. It also considered studies that reported on timing of severe neonatal morbidity. Studies that reported solely on preterm or high-risk infants were excluded, as these infants require specialized care. Due to the available evidence, mixed samples were included (eg, both preterm and full-term infants), reflecting a neonatal population that may include both low-risk and high-risk infants. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL were searched for published studies on December 20, 2019, and updated on May 10, 2021. Critical appraisal was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by 2 reviewers using a study-specific data extraction form. All conflicts were resolved through consensus or discussion with a third reviewer. Where possible, quantitative data were pooled in statistical meta-analysis. Where statistical pooling was not possible, findings were reported narratively. Results: A total of 51 studies from 36 articles reported on relevant outcomes. Of the 48 studies that reported on timing of mortality, there were 6,760,731 live births and 47,551 neonatal deaths with timing known. Of the 34 studies that reported daily deaths in the first week, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on the first day (first 24 hours, 38.8%), followed by day 2 (24-48 hours, 12.3%). Considering weekly mortality within the first month (n = 16 studies), the first week had the highest mortality (71.7%). Based on data from 46 studies, the highest proportion of deaths occurred on day 1 (39.5%), followed closely by days 2-7 (36.8%), with the remainder occurring between days 8 and 28 (23.0%). In terms of causes, birth asphyxia accounted for the highest proportion of deaths on day 1 (68.1%), severe infection between days 2 and 7 (48.1%), and diarrhea between days 8 and 28 (62.7%). Due to heterogeneity, neonatal morbidity data were described narratively. The mean critical appraisal score of all studies was 84% (SD = 16%). Conclusion: Newborns experience high mortality throughout the entire postnatal period, with the highest mortality rate in the first week, particularly on the first day. Ensuring regular high-quality postnatal visits, particularly within the first week after birth, is paramount to reduce neonatal mortality and severe morbidity.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). Background: Parents of preterm infants increasingly use their smartphone to search for health information. In a recent review, websites targeted towards parents with infants in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (NICU) were found to have poor to moderate quality educational material; however, there is a dearth of literature regarding mobile applications (apps) for NICU parents. Objective: To identify and evaluate apps targeting parents of infants in the NICU for quality of information, usability, and credibility. Methods: We systematically searched Apple App Store and Google Play using 49 key terms (e.g. “preterm infant”) on July 26-August 18, 2017. English apps targeting NICU parents that cost less than $20 were included. Apps for healthcare professionals, e-books/magazines, or non-relevant results were excluded. Three tools were used for evaluation: Mobile Application Rating Scale (MARS) to measure quality; Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool for Audiovisual Materials (PEMAT-AV) to measure the app’s content usability; and Trust it or Trash It to measure credibility. Results: Initial search yielded 6579 apps, with 49 apps eligible after title and description screening. A total of 27 apps met the eligibility criteria with 9 apps available in both app stores; of those, the app with the most recent update date was chosen to be included in the analysis. Thus, 18 unique apps were included for final analysis. Using MARS, seven apps (38.8%) received a good score on overall quality (i.e. 4.0 out of 5.0), with none receiving an excellent score. Eight apps (44.4%) received a PEMAT-AV score between 51-75% on the understandability subscale and eight apps (44.4%) received 76%-100% on the actionability subscale. Trust It or Trash It deemed 13 apps (72.2%) as ‘trash’ for reasons including no identification of sources or lack of current information, with only 5 (27.7%) deemed trustworthy. Reviewer’s expert evaluation found 16 apps contained content that matched information provided by multiple sources however, most apps did not meet other objective measurement items to support credibility. When comparing the MARS overall quality and subjective quality scores with trustworthiness of apps, there was no statistically significant difference. A statistically significant difference was found between the two MARS quality scores, indicating that on average apps were ranked significantly lower on subjective quality compared to overall quality measures. Conclusions: This evaluation revealed that of the available apps targeting NICU parents, less than half should be considered as acceptable educational material. Over two-thirds of the apps were found to have issues regarding credibility and just over a quarter were considered good quality. The apps currently available for NICU parents remain lacking and of concern in terms of quality and credibility. Clinical Trial: Richardson B, Dol J, Rutledge K, et al. Evaluation of smart-device applications targeted to parents of infants in the neonatal intensive care unit: a systematic review. PROSPERO. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017072548. Published 2017. Accessed June 5, 2018.

Background: Health researchers are increasingly using social media in a professional capacity, and the applications of social media for health researchers are vast. However, there is currently no published evidence synthesis of the ways in which health researchers use social media professionally, and uncertainty remains as to how best to harness its potential. Objective: This scoping review aimed to explore how social media is used by health researchers professionally, as reported in the literature. Methods: The scoping review methodology guided by Arksey and O’Malley and Levac et al was used. Comprehensive searches based on the concepts of health research and social media were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, and Web of Science databases, with no limitations applied. Articles were screened at the title and abstract level and at full text by two reviewers. One reviewer extracted data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence. Results: A total of 8359 articles were screened at the title and abstract level, of which 719 were also assessed at full text for eligibility. The 414 articles identified for inclusion were published in 278 different journals. Studies originated from 31 different countries, with the most prevalent being the United States (52.7% [218/414]). The health discipline of the first authors varied, with medicine (33.3% [138/414]) being the most common. A third of the articles covered health generally, with 61 health-specific topics. Papers used a range of social media platforms (mean 1.33 [SD 0.7]). A quarter of the articles screened reported on social media use for participant recruitment (25.1% [104/414]), followed by practical ways to use social media (15.5% [64/414]), and use of social media for content analysis research (13.3% [55/414]). Articles were categorized as celebratory (ie, opportunities for engagement, 72.2% [299/414]), contingent (ie, opportunities and possible limitations, 22.7% [94/414]) and concerned (ie, potentially harmful, 5.1% [21/414]). Conclusions: Health researchers are increasingly publishing on their use of social media for a range of professional purposes. Although most of the sentiment around the use of social media in health research was celebratory, the uses of social media varied widely. Future research is needed to support health researchers to optimize their social media use.

Ng period for mothers that requires physical, emotional and social adjustment to new norms and expectations. In recent years, there has been an increase in the use of mHealth by new mothers who are seeking health information through online or mobile applications. While there have been systematic reviews on the impact of mHealth interventions on maternal and newborn health in low- and middle-income countries, the impact of these interventions on maternal psychosocial health outcomes in high-income countries remains uncertain. Inclusion criteria: This review considered studies of mHealth education interventions targeting mothers in high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank) during the perinatal period. Interventions must have started between the antenatal period (conception through birth) through six weeks postpartum. All experimental study designs were included. Outcomes included self-efficacy, social support, postpartum anxiety and postpartum depression. Methods: PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Embase were searched for published studies in English on December 16, 2018. Gray literature was also searched for non-peer reviewed articles, including Google Scholar, mHealth intelligence and clinical trials databases. Critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers using standardized critical appraisal instruments from JBI. Quantitative data were extracted from included studies independently by two reviewers using the standardized data extraction tool from JBI. All conflicts were solved through consensus with a third reviewer. Quantitative data were, where possible, pooled in statistical meta-analysis using RevMan. Where statistical pooling was not possible, findings were reported narratively. Results: Of the 1,607 unique articles identified, 106 full-text papers were screened and 24 articles were critically appraised, with 21 included in the final review. Eleven were quasi-experimental and 10 were randomized controlled trials. The mHealth intervention approach varied, with text message and mobile applications being the most common. Length of intervention ranged from four weeks to six months. The topics of the mHealth intervention varied widely, with the most common topic being postpartum depression. Mothers who received an mHealth intervention targeting postpartum depression showed a decreased score on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale when measured post-intervention (odds ratio = –6.01, 95% confidence interval = –8.34 to –3.67, p < 0.00001). The outcomes related to self-efficacy, social support and anxiety showed mixed findings of effectiveness (beneficial and no change) across the studies identified. Conclusions: This review provides insight into the effectiveness of mHealth interventions targeting mothers in high-income countries in the perinatal period to enhance four psychosocial outcomes: self-efficacy, social support, anxiety and depression. Despite a wide variety of outcome measurements used, the predominant findings suggest that there are insufficient data to conclude that mHealth interventions can improve self-efficacy and anxiety outcomes. Potential benefits on social support were related to interventions targeting postnatal behaviors. Postpartum depression was the mostly commonly reported outcome. Findings related to the comparison of pre-post outcomes and intervention versus control demonstrated that mHealth interventions targeting postpartum depression were associated with a reduction in postpartum depression....