Dataset Information

Managing patients with multimorbidity: systematic review of interventions in primary care and community settings.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CAB Health, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, and the Cochrane EPOC (effective practice and organisation of care) register (searches updated in April 2011).

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses reporting on interventions to improve outcomes for people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings. Multimorbidity was defined as two or more chronic conditions in the same individual. Outcomes included any validated measure of physical or mental health and psychosocial status, including quality of life outcomes, wellbeing, and measures of disability or functional status. Also included were measures of patient and provider behaviour, including drug adherence, utilisation of health services, acceptability of services, and costs.

Data selection

Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed study quality. As meta-analysis of results was not possible owing to heterogeneity in participants and interventions, a narrative synthesis of the results from the included studies was carried out.

Results

10 studies examining a range of complex interventions totalling 3407 patients with multimorbidity were identified. All were randomised controlled trials with a low risk of bias. Two studies described interventions for patients with specific comorbidities. The remaining eight studies focused on multimorbidity, generally in older patients. Consideration of the impact of socioeconomic deprivation was minimal. All studies involved complex interventions with multiple components. In six of the 10 studies the predominant component was a change to the organisation of care delivery, usually through case management or enhanced multidisciplinary team work. In the remaining four studies, intervention components were predominantly patient oriented. Overall the results were mixed, with a trend towards improved prescribing and drug adherence. The results indicated that it is difficult to improve outcomes in this population but that interventions focusing on particular risk factors in comorbid conditions or functional difficulties in multimorbidity may be more effective. No economic analyses were included, although the improvements in prescribing and risk factor management in some studies could provide potentially important cost savings.

Conclusions

Evidence on the care of patients with multimorbidity is limited, despite the prevalence of multimorbidity and its impact on patients and healthcare systems. Interventions to date have had mixed effects, although are likely to be more effective if targeted at risk factors or specific functional difficulties. A need exists to clearly identify patients with multimorbidity and to develop cost effective and specifically targeted interventions that can improve health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Smith SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3432635 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, presents significant challenges to patients, healthcare providers and health systems. Despite this, there is ongoing uncertainty about the most effective ways to manage patients with multimorbidity. This review updated and narrowed the focus of a previous Cochrane review and aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings, compared to usual care.MethodsWe searched eight databases and two trials registers up to 9 September 2019. Two review authors independently screened potentially eligible titles and selected studies, extracted data, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). Interventions were grouped by their predominant focus into care-coordination/self-management support, self-management support and medicines management. Main outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, but the synthesis was predominantly narrative.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs with 4753 participants, the majority being older adults with at least three conditions. There were eight care-coordination/self-management support studies, four self-management support studies and four medicines management studies. There was little or no evidence of an effect on primary outcomes of HRQoL (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, I2 = 39%) and mental health or on secondary outcomes with a small number of studies reporting that care coordination may improve patient experience of care and self-management support may improve patient health behaviours. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low due to significant variation in study participants and interventions.ConclusionsThere are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity, despite the growing number of RCTs conducted in this area. Our findings suggest that future research should consider patient experience of care, optimising medicines management and targeted patient health behaviours such as exercise.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence that integrated diabetes care interventions can substantially improve clinical outcomes is mixed. However, previous systematic reviews have not focussed on clinical effectiveness where the endocrinologist was actively involved in guiding diabetes management.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases and grey literature published in English language up to 25 January 2021. Reviewed articles included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies testing the effectiveness on clinical outcomes after ≥6 months intervention in non-pregnant adults (age ≥ 18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Two reviewers independently extracted data and completed a risk of bias assessment. Appropriate meta-analyses for each outcome from RCTs and pre-post studies were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q and publication bias assessed using Doi plots. Studies were not pooled to estimate the cost-effectiveness as the cost outcomes were not comparable across trials/studies.ResultsWe reviewed 4 RCTs and 12 pre-post studies. The integrated care model of diabetes specialists working with primary care health professionals had a positive impact on HbA1c in both RCTs and pre-post studies and on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and weight in pre-post studies. In the RCTs, interventions reduced HbA1c (-0.10% [-0.15 to -0.05]) (-1.1 mmol/mol [-1.6 to -0.5]), versus control. Pre-post studies demonstrated improvements in HbA1c (-0.77% [-1.12 to -0.42]) (-8.4 mmol/mol [-12.2 to -4.6]), systolic blood pressure (-3.30 mmHg [-5.16 to -1.44]), diastolic blood pressure (-3.61 mmHg [-4.82 to -2.39]), total cholesterol (-0.33 mmol/L [-0.52 to -0.14]) and weight (-2.53 kg [-3.86 to -1.19]). In a pre-post study with no control group only 4% patients experienced hypoglycaemia after one year of intervention compared to baseline.ConclusionsIntegrated interventions with an active endocrinologist involvement can result in modest improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and weight management. Although the improvements per clinical outcome are modest, there is possible net improvements at a holistic level.

Project description:ObjectivesPoorly controlled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major international health problem. Our aim was to assess the effectiveness of healthcare interventions, specifically targeting patients with poorly controlled T2DM, which seek to improve glycaemic control and cardiovascular risk in primary care settings.DesignSystematic review.SettingPrimary care and community settings.Included studiesRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) targeting patients with poor glycaemic control were identified from Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and SCOPUS. Poor glycaemic control was defined as HbA1c over 59 mmol/mol (7.5%).InterventionsInterventions were classified as organisational, patient-oriented, professional, financial or regulatory.OutcomesPrimary outcomes were HbA1c, blood pressure and lipid control. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility, extracted data and assessed study quality. Meta-analyses were undertaken where appropriate using random-effects models. Subgroup analysis explored the effects of intervention type, baseline HbA1c, study quality and study duration. Meta-regression analyses were undertaken to investigate identified heterogeneity.ResultsForty-two RCTs were identified, including 11 250 patients, with most undertaken in USA. In general, studies had low risk of bias. The main intervention types were patient-directed (48%) and organisational (48%). Overall, interventions reduced HbA1c by -0.34% (95% CI -0.46% to -0.22%), but meta-analyses had high statistical heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses suggested that organisational interventions and interventions on those with baseline HbA1c over 9.5% had better improvements in HbA1c. Meta-regression analyses suggested that only interventions on those with population HbA1c over 9.5% were more effective. Interventions had a modest improvement of blood pressure and lipids, although baseline levels of control were generally good.ConclusionsThis review suggests that interventions for T2DM, in primary care, are better targeted at individuals with very poor glycaemic control and that organisational interventions may be more effective.

Project description:Diagnostic uncertainty is one of the largest contributory factors to the occurrence of diagnostic errors across most specialties in medicine and arguably uncertainty is greatest in primary care due to the undifferentiated symptoms primary care physicians are often presented with. Physicians can respond to diagnostic uncertainty in various ways through the interplay of a series of cognitive, emotional and ethical reactions. The consequences of such uncertainty however can impact negatively upon the primary care practitioner, their patients and the wider healthcare system. Understanding the nature of the existing empirical literature in relation to managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary medical care is a logical and necessary first step in order to understand what solutions are already available and/or to aid the development of any training or feedback aimed at better managing this uncertainty. This review is the first to characterize the existing empirical literature on managing diagnostic uncertainty in primary care.Sixteen databases were systematically searched from inception to present with no restrictions. Hand searches of relevant websites and reference lists of included studies were also conducted. Two authors conducted abstract/article screening and data extraction. PRISMA guidelines were adhered to.Ten studies met the inclusion criteria. A narrative and conceptual synthesis was undertaken under the premises of critical reviews. Results suggest that studies have focused on internal factors (traits, skills and strategies) associated with managing diagnostic uncertainty with only one external intervention identified. Cognitive factors ranged from the influences of epistemological viewpoints to practical approaches such as greater knowledge of the patient, utilizing resources to hand and using appropriate safety netting techniques. Emotional aspects of uncertainty management included clinicians embracing uncertainty and working with provisional diagnoses. Ethical aspects of uncertainty management centered on communicating diagnostic uncertainties with patients. Personality traits and characteristics influenced each of the three domains.There is little empirical evidence on how uncertainty is managed in general practice. However we highlight how the extant literature can be conceptualised into cognitive, emotional and ethical aspects of uncertainty which may help clinicians be more aware of their own biases as well as provide a platform for future research.PROSPERO registration: CRD42015027555.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence supporting the effectiveness of care management programs for complex patients has been inconclusive. However, past reviews have not focused on complexity primarily defined by multimorbidity and healthcare utilization. We conducted a systematic review of care management interventions targeting the following three patient groups: adults with two or more chronic medical conditions, adults with at least one chronic medical condition and concurrent depression, and adults identified based solely on high past or predicted healthcare utilization. METHODS:Eligible studies were identified from PubMed, published between 06/01/2005 and 05/31/2015, and reported findings from a randomized intervention that tested a comprehensive, care management intervention. Identified interventions were grouped based on the three "complex" categories of interest (described above). Two investigators extracted data using a structured abstraction form and assessed RCT quality. RESULTS:We screened 989 article titles for eligibility from which 847 were excluded. After reviewing the remaining 142 abstracts, 83 articles were excluded. We reviewed the full-text of 59 full-text articles and identified 15 unique RCTs for the final analysis. Of these 15 studies, two focused on patients with two or more chronic medical conditions, seven on patients with at least one chronic medical condition and depression, and six on patients with high past or predicted healthcare utilization. Measured outcomes included utilization, chronic disease measures, and patient-reported outcomes. The seven studies targeting patients with at least one chronic medical condition and depression demonstrated significant improvement in depression symptoms (ranging from 9.2 to 48.7% improvement). Of the six studies that focused on high utilizers, two showed small reductions in utilization. The quality of the research methodology in most of the studies (12/15) was rated fair or poor. CONCLUSIONS:Interventions were more likely to be successful when patients were selected based on having at least one chronic medical condition and concurrent depression, and when patient-reported outcomes were assessed. Future research should focus on the role of mental health in complex care management, finding better methods for identifying patients who would benefit most from care management, and determining which intervention components are needed for which patients.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 50% of depressed primary care patients referred to mental health services do not initiate mental health treatment. The most promising interventions for increasing depression treatment initiation in primary care settings remain unclear. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of publicly available databases from inception through August 2017 to identify interventions designed to increase depression treatment initiation. Two authors independently selected, extracted data, and rated risk of bias from included studies. Eligible studies used a randomized or pre-post design and assessed depression treatment initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 mental health visit or antidepressant fill) among adults, the majority of whom met criteria for depression. Interventions were classified as simple or complex and sub-classified into intervention strategies that were graded for strength of evidence. RESULTS:Of 9516 articles identified, we included 14 unique studies representing 16 (4 simple and 12 complex) interventions and 8 treatment initiation strategies. We found low to moderate strength of evidence for collaborative/integrated care (3 studies), treatment preference matching (2 studies), and case management (2 studies) strategies. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the benefit of cultural tailoring (2 studies), motivation (alone, with reminders or with cultural tailoring (5 studies)), education (1 study), and shared decision-making strategies (1 study). Overall, we found moderate strength of evidence for complex interventions (8 of 12 complex interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects on treatment initiation). DISCUSSION:Collaborative/integrated care, preference treatment matching, and case management strategies had the best evidence for improving depression treatment initiation, but none of the strategies had high strength of evidence. While primary care settings can consider using some of these strategies when referring depressed patients to treatment, our review highlights the need for further rigorous research in this area.