DOI: 10.5061/dryad.31zcrjdjj
title: Exploring the inclusion of dental providers on interprofessional healthcare teams treating patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a rapid review

description: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is the third leading cause of
 death in the world. Emerging concepts like One Health, integrated
 models for COPD, and associations between oral and respiratory health are
 innovative ways to approach COPD treatment. This study explored
 contemporary evidence on the inclusion of dental providers on
 interprofessional healthcare teams treating patients with COPD. The first
 objective was to explore the current state of interprofessional care for
 COPD treatment, and the second objective was to explore dentistry used in
 interprofessional care scenarios. A rapid review was conducted from
 March–June 2020 using Scopus and PubMed. Upon assessing for duplication
 and relevance, 85 articles remained for Objective 1, and 194 for Objective
 2. The literature strongly suggests that dental providers should be
 included on interprofessional healthcare teams to best approach COPD as a
 multi-morbid, chronic disease. The papers collected for review claim that
 educational and clinical hospital programs should implement
 interprofessional collaboration when treating chronic diseases. Healthcare
 teams can utilize the expertise of professionals outside the medical field
 to better understand their patients’ needs. Healthcare administration
 should consult a One Health framework when developing COPD treatment
 guidelines. These proposed recommendations are feasible and transferable
 to the Canadian healthcare system; however, it is anticipated that
 implementation will be gradual. The collaborative nature of a One Health
 approach exposes novel ways to develop treatment guidelines that
 effectively address the burden of COPD.
description: A rapid literature review was conducted from January through June
 2020. Rapid reviews are a synthesis of the most current evidence in the
 literature by exercising elements of systematic reviews in a timely
 fashion to inform and support public health decision-making. Papers
 describing interprofessional care approaches to treat COPD were
 categorised as Objective 1, and interprofessional care approaches
 incorporating dentistry were categorised as Objective 2. We gathered
 papers based on each objective by following a sequence of steps:
 literature search, appraisal, synthesis, and analysis. Papers collected at
 each step were screened by all authors and reviewed by the senior author
 (SLS) to assess for bias and accuracy. The articles were analysed through
 a One Health framework, which focuses on the importance of comprehensive,
 holistic care.  <strong>Literature
 search </strong><br> A literature search for each objective
 was conducted on PubMed and Scopus. Inclusion criteria included primary
 and secondary studies and practise guidelines published between January
 2015-May 2020 in either Canada or the United States. Given the nature of a
 rapid review and the relatively novel topic of this paper, any range
 shorter than five years may not have produced many results. Papers were
 excluded if they did not mention any keywords in the title or abstract,
 were not written in English, were not accessible electronically, were not
 available in full text, were classified as grey literature, and were not
 final publications. Search query strings and collected articles were
 documented on a Microsoft Excel document and Mendeley citation management
 software. Duplicate papers were removed. For the remaining articles,
 titles and abstracts were assessed for eligibility by the lead author
 (NIN), which included whether the paper aligned with the aim of this study
 or not. The literature search step is summarized in Figure 1. Search query
 strings for Objectives 1 and 2 are shown in Table 1. The last search was
 run on the databases on May 1st, 2020.
 <strong>Appraisal</strong><br> Appraisal
 checklists specific to each article type were used from the Critical
 Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) developed by Oxford Centre for Triple
 Value Healthcare. Examples include checklists for systematic reviews,
 cohort studies, and qualitative studies. We used the CASP checklists to
 assess the quality of study methods to determine if the findings of the
 eligible articles are trustworthy and meaningful. Articles were examined
 in more detail during this step. As a result, 12 were removed for
 Objective 1 and 58 for Objective 2 because they did not align with
 inclusion or exclusion criteria, or the aim of this study. 
 <strong>Synthesis</strong><br> Relevant data
 from the appraised papers for each objective were extracted based on the
 aim(s), population/setting(s), methods, results, limitations, relevance to
 the aim, and applicability to the Canadian healthcare context. The
 co-authors established conclusions and recommendations for each objective
 by evaluating the commonalities and differences across the studies,
 weighting the results by their methodological quality, and assessing their
 relevance to One Health principles.
 <strong>Analysis</strong><br> These conclusions
 were then analysed for feasibility within the Canadian healthcare context
 using McMaster University’s Applicability and Transferability Tool. The
 tool is designed to capture important issues related to proposed policy or
 program interventions within a given healthcare context.
description: Dryad Data Repository - Appraisal Section: This spreadsheet
 represents the 'Appraisal' section of our rapid review. It
 reveals the quality of the literature assessed by using tables modeled
 after CASP checklists. Adapted from: CASP: Critical
 Appraisal Skills Programme at Oxford. CASP Checklists. http://casp-uk.net/casp-tools-checklists/. Accessed December 8, 2019. Case Report Supplemental Analysis Guidelines: Garg R, Lakhan SE, Dhanasekaran AK. How to review a case report. J Med Case Rep. 2016;10(1):88. doi:10.1186/s13256-016-0853-3 WIDER Framework: Albrecht L, Archibald M, Arseneau D, Scott SD. Development of a checklist to assess the quality of reporting of knowledge translation interventions using the Workgroup for Intervention Development and Evaluation Research (WIDER) recommendations. Implement Sci. 2013;8(1):52. doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-52 Dryad Data Repository - Synthesis Section: This spreadsheet represents the 'Synthesis' section of our rapid review. It reveals the characteristics of the literature for which the data was extracted.  Adapted from: Dobbins M. Rapid Review Guidebook Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review.; 2017. PRISMA Checklist: This spreadsheet represents the reporting guidelines. We used a modified PRISMA checklist for our rapid review methodology. Adapted from: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535, doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2535