Dataset Information

Task shifting interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To evaluate evidence from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the use of task-shifting strategies for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). DESIGN:Systematic review of RCTs that utilised a task-shifting strategy in the management of CVD in LMICs. DATA SOURCES:We searched the following databases for relevant RCTs: PubMed from the 1940s, EMBASE from 1974, Global Health from 1910, Ovid Health Star from 1966, Web of Knowledge from 1900, Scopus from 1823, CINAHL from 1937 and RCTs from ClinicalTrials.gov. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:We focused on RCTs published in English, but without publication year. We included RCTs in which the intervention used task shifting (non-physician healthcare workers involved in prescribing of medications, treatment and/or medical testing) and non-physician healthcare providers in the management of CV risk factors and diseases (hypertension, diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, stroke, coronary artery disease or heart failure), as well as RCTs that were conducted in LMICs. We excluded studies that are not RCTs. RESULTS:Of the 2771 articles identified, only three met the predefined criteria. All three trials were conducted in practice-based settings among patients with hypertension (2 studies) and diabetes (1 study), with one study also incorporating home visits. The duration of the studies ranged from 3 to 12?months, and the task-shifting strategies included provision of medication prescriptions by nurses, community health workers and pharmacists and telephone follow-up posthospital discharge. Both hypertension studies reported a significant mean blood pressure reduction (2/1?mm?Hg and 30/15?mm?Hg), and the diabetes trial reported a reduction in the glycated haemoglobin levels of 1.87%. CONCLUSIONS:There is a dearth of evidence on the implementation of task-shifting strategies to reduce the burden of CVD in LMICs. Effective task-shifting interventions targeted at reducing the global CVD epidemic in LMICs are urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Ogedegbe G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4202019 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Task shifting interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Ogedegbe Gbenga G Gyamfi Joyce J Plange-Rhule Jacob J Surkis Alisa A Rosenthal Diana Margot DM Airhihenbuwa Collins C Iwelunmor Juliet J Cooper Richard R

BMJ open 20141016 10

<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate evidence from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for the use of task-shifting strategies for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review of RCTs that utilised a task-shifting strategy in the management of CVD in LMICs.<h4>Data sources</h4>We searched the following databases for relevant RCTs: PubMed from the 1940s, EMBASE from 1974, Global Health from 1910, Ovid Health Star ...[more]

PMID: 25324324

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOne of the potential strategies to improve health care delivery in understaffed low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is task sharing, where specific tasks are transferred from more qualified health care cadre to a lesser trained cadre. Dyslipidemia is a major risk factor for cardiovascular disease but often it is not managed appropriately.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review with the objective to identify and evaluate the effect of task sharing interventions on dyslipidemia in LMICs.MethodsPublished studies (randomized controlled trials and observational studies) were identified via electronic databases such as PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We searched the databases from inception to September 2016 and updated till 30 June 2017, using search terms related to task shifting, and cardiovascular disease prevention in LMICs. All eligible studies were summarized narratively, and potential studies were grouped for meta-analysis.ResultsAlthough our search yielded 2938 records initially and another 1628 in the updated search, only 15 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most of the studies targeted lifestyle modification and care coordination by involving nurses or allied health workers. Eight randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. Task sharing intervention were effective in lowering low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-6.90 mg/dL; 95% CI -11.81 to -1.99) and total cholesterol (-9.44 mg/dL; 95% CI -17.94 to -0.93) levels with modest effect size. However, there were no major differences in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.29 mg/dL; 95% CI -0.88 to 1.47) and triglycerides (-14.31 mg/dL; 95% CI -33.32 to 4.69). The overall quality of evidence based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation was either "low" or "very low".ConclusionAvailable data are not adequate to make recommendations on the role of task sharing strategies for the management of dyslipidemia in LMICs. However, the studies conducted in LMICs demonstrate the potential use of this strategy especially in terms of reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol levels. Our review calls for the need of well-designed and large-scale studies to demonstrate the effect of task-sharing strategy on lipid management in LMICs.

Project description:BackgroundOne potential solution to limited healthcare access in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is task-shifting- the training of non-physician healthcare workers (NPHWs) to perform tasks traditionally undertaken by physicians. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of studies involving task-shifting for the management of non-communicable disease (NCD) in LMIC.MethodsA search strategy with the following terms "task-shifting", "non-physician healthcare workers", "community healthcare worker", "hypertension", "diabetes", "cardiovascular disease", "mental health", "depression", "chronic obstructive pulmonary disease", "respiratory disease", "cancer" was conducted using Medline via Pubmed and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently reviewed the databases and extracted the data.FindingsOur search generated 7176 articles of which 22 were included in the review. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials and 15 were observational studies. Tasks performed by NPHWs included screening for NCDs and providing primary health care. The majority of studies showed improved health outcomes when compared with usual healthcare, including reductions in blood pressure, increased uptake of medications and lower depression scores. Factors such as training of NPHWs, provision of algorithms and protocols for screening, treatment and drug titration were the main enablers of the task-shifting intervention. The main barriers identified were restrictions on prescribing medications and availability of medicines. Only two studies described cost-effective analyses, both of which demonstrated that task-shifting was cost-effective.ConclusionsTask-shifting from physicians to NPHWs, if accompanied by health system re-structuring is a potentially effective and affordable strategy for improving access to healthcare for NCDs. Since the majority of study designs reviewed were of inadequate quality, future research methods should include robust evaluations of such strategies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Interventions to alleviate stigma are demonstrating effectiveness across a range of conditions, though few move beyond the pilot phase, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Implementation science offers tools to study complex interventions, understand barriers to implementation, and generate evidence of affordability, scalability, and sustainability. Such evidence could be used to convince policy-makers and donors to invest in implementation. However, the utility of implementation research depends on its rigor and replicability. Our objectives were to systematically review implementation studies of health-related stigma reduction interventions in LMICs and critically assess the reporting of implementation outcomes and intervention descriptions. METHODS:PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE were searched for evaluations of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs reporting at least one implementation outcome. Study- and intervention-level characteristics were abstracted. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was assessed using a five-item rubric, and the comprehensiveness of intervention description and specification was assessed using the 12-item Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR). RESULTS:A total of 35 eligible studies published between 2003 and 2017 were identified; of these, 20 (57%) used qualitative methods, 32 (91%) were type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies, and 29 (83%) were evaluations of once-off or pilot implementations. No studies adopted a formal theoretical framework for implementation research. Acceptability (20, 57%) and feasibility (14, 40%) were the most frequently reported implementation outcomes. The quality of reporting of implementation outcomes was low. The 35 studies evaluated 29 different interventions, of which 18 (62%) were implemented across sub-Saharan Africa, 20 (69%) focused on stigma related to HIV/AIDS, and 28 (97%) used information or education to reduce stigma. Intervention specification and description was uneven. CONCLUSION:Implementation science could support the dissemination of stigma reduction interventions in LMICs, though usage to date has been limited. Theoretical frameworks and validated measures have not been used, key implementation outcomes like cost and sustainability have rarely been assessed, and intervention processes have not been presented in detail. Adapted frameworks, new measures, and increased LMIC-based implementation research capacity could promote the rigor of future stigma implementation research, helping the field deliver on the promise of stigma reduction interventions worldwide.

Project description:ObjectiveDiabetes poses serious health threats and economic burdens to patients, especially in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). This systematic review searches for non-pharmacological interventions for the prevention of type-2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) among patients who are non-diabetic and pre-diabetic from LMICs.SettingsLMICs.ParticipantsAdult population aged over 18 years without having diabetes.Primary and secondary outcomesPrimary outcome is to measure the change in the incidence of T2DM. The secondary outcome is to measure changes in glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level, weight/body mass index (BMI), fasting glucose level and 2-hour glucose from baseline of the included randomised controlled trials.MethodsThis review has been conducted following the standard systematic review guidelines. A total of six electronic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched in February 2021 using a comprehensive search strategy.Two sets of independent reviewers performed screening, risk of bias (ROB) assessment using the Cochrane ROB tool and data extraction. Narrative coalescence of selected articles was demonstrated using tables. No meta-analysis was performed due to the lack of homogenous intervention strategies and study settings.ResultA total of five studies were included for the review with a combined population of 1734 from three countries. Three of the studies showed a significant reduction in T2DM incidence after the intervention of physical training and dietary modifications. Four of the studies also demonstrated a significant reduction of different secondary outcomes like weight, BMI, fasting and 2-hour plasma glucose and HbA1c. All the studies demonstrated a low ROB in most of the bias assessment domains with some unclear results in allocation concealments.ConclusionsEmphasising non-pharmacological interventions for T2DM prevention can improve health outcomes and lessen the economic burdens, which will be of paramount importance in LMICs.Systematic review registration numberCRD42020191507.

Project description:BackgroundDiabetic retinopathy is the most common ocular complication of diabetes and a cause of vision loss in adults. Diabetic retinopathy screening leading to early identification of the disease followed by timely treatment, can prevent vision loss in people living with diabetes. A key barrier to the implementation of screening services in low- and middle-income countries is the low number of ophthalmologists per million population. Interventions that shift screening to non-ophthalmology cadres have been implemented in programmes in low- and middle-income countries and are routinely used in high-income countries. The aim of this rapid review is to summarise the published literature reporting the effectiveness of task-shifting interventions for the detection of diabetic retinopathy by non-ophthalmologists in low- and middle-income countries.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting task-shifting interventions for diabetic retinopathy detection. The review will include studies published in the last 10 years in the English language. We will include any interventional or observational comparative study measuring outcomes in terms of participation or access to diabetic retinopathy detection services (uptake) and quality of diabetic retinopathy detection services (detection, severity, diagnostic accuracy). For included studies, cost-effectiveness of the task-shifting intervention will also be presented. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. The risk of bias assessment and data extraction will be carried out by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively.DiscussionDifferences in health systems organization, structure and resources will determine the need and success of task-shifting interventions for DR screening. The review will examine how these interventions have been used and/or tested in LMICs. The results will be of interest to policy makers and programme managers tasked with designing and implementing services to prevent and manage diabetes and its complications in similar settings.Systematic review registrationOSF: https://osf.io/dfhg6/ .

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of youth-led interventions for improving maternal-neonatal health and well-being of women and gender diverse childbearing people in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) is incomplete. We aimed to summarise the evidence on whether community level youth-led interventions can improve maternal and neonatal outcomes in LMICs.MethodsWe included experimental studies of youth-led interventions versus no intervention, standard care, or another intervention. Participants were women and gender diverse childbearing people during antepartum, intrapartum, and postpartum periods. MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Health, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library, and grey literature were searched to January 2023. All interventions addressing and targeting maternal-neonatal health and well-being that were youth-led and community level were included. Primary outcomes of interest were maternal death and neonatal death. We excluded based on population, intervention, comparison, and outcome (PICO) and design. Two reviewers independently extracted key information from each included study and assessed risk of bias. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed where there were sufficient data. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). A narrative synthesis was done for results that could not be pooled.ResultsOf the 8054 records retrieved, four trials (21 813 enrolled participants) met the inclusion criteria. The Cooperative for Assistance and Relieve Everywhere, Inc. (CARE) Community Score Card intervention compared to standard reproductive health services control did not significantly improve Antenatal Care coverage (difference-in-differences estimate β = 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI) = -0.11, 0.18, P = 0.610; one study, low certainty of evidence). The multi-component social mobilisation interventions compared to standard of care had no effect on adolescent/youth pregnancy (adjusted odds ratio estimate = 1.08; 95% CI = 0.87, 1.33; three studies; low certainty of evidence).ConclusionsYouth-led interventions in LMICs did not show a significant improvement in maternal outcomes. More studies are required to make more precise conclusions.RegistrationPROSPERO: CRD42021288798.

Project description:IntroductionTask shifting interventions are intended to both deliver clinically effective treatments to reduce disease burden and address health inequities or population vulnerability. Little is known about how health equity and population vulnerability are defined and measured in research focused on task shifting. This systematic review will address the following questions: Among task shifting interventions in high-income settings that have been studied using randomised controlled trials or variants, how are health inequity or population vulnerability identified and defined? What methods and indicators are used to describe, characterise and measure the population's baseline status and the intervention's impacts on inequity and vulnerability?Methods and analysisStudies were identified through database searches (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science). Eligible studies will be randomised controlled trials published since 2004, conducted in high-income countries, concerning task shifting interventions to treat any disease, in any population that may face health disadvantage as defined by the PROGRESS-Plus framework (place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, occupation, gender/sex, religion, social capital, socioeconomic position, age, disability, sexual orientation, other vulnerable groups). We will conduct independent and duplicate title and abstract screening, then identify related papers from the same programme of research through further database and manual searching. From each programme of research, we will extract study details, and definitions and measures of health equity or population vulnerability based on the PROGRESS-Plus framework. Two investigators will assess the quality of reporting and measurement related to health equity and vulnerability using a scale developed for this study. A narrative synthesis will highlight similarities and differences between the gathered studies and offer critical analyses and implications.Ethics and disseminationThis review does not involve primary data collection, does not constitute research on human subjects and is not subject to additional institutional ethics review or informed consent procedures. Dissemination will include open-access peer-reviewed publication and academic conference presentations.PROSPERO Registration Number CRD42017049959.

Project description:BackgroundTask-sharing interventions using non-physician health-care workers might be a potential diabetes management strategy in health systems that are constrained by physician shortages, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of task-sharing intervention strategies for managing type 2 diabetes in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from database inception to Sept 25, 2019, for studies that were randomised control trials or cluster randomised trials with task-shifted or task-shared interventions delivered to adults (≥18 years) by non-physician health workers versus usual care, done in LMICs with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood sugar (FBS) as outcome measures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the population average pooled mean difference for HbA1c and FBS with 95% CIs. Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018081015).FindingsWe found 4213 studies from the literature search, of which 46 (1·1%) were eligible for the narrative synthesis, including a total of 16 973 participants. 16 of these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. 24 studies with a total of 5345 participants were included in the meta-analysis of HbA1c and 18 studies with a total of 3287 participants for FBS. Interventions led to an average reduction in HbA1c when tasks were delivered by nurses (averaged pooled mean difference -0·54% [95% CI -0·89 to -0·18]; I2=80%) and pharmacists (-0·91% [-1·15 to -0·68]; I2=58%), but not when they were delivered by dietitians (-0·50% [-1·10 to 0·09]; I2=54%) or community health workers (0·05% [0·03 to 0·07]; I2=0%). A reduction in average FBS was also observed when interventions were delivered by pharmacists (average pooled mean difference -36·26 mg/dL [-52·60 to -19·92]; I2=78%) but not nurses (-7·46 mg/dL [-18·44 to 3·52]; I2=79%) or community health workers (-5·41 [-12·74 to 1·92]; I2=71%). Only one study reported on FBS when tasks were delivered by dietitians, with a mean difference of -35·00 mg/dL (-65·96 to -4·04).InterpretationTask sharing interventions with non-physician healthcare workers show moderate effectiveness in diabetes management in LMIC settings. Although relatively high heterogeneity limits the interpretation of the overall findings, interventions led by pharmacists and nurses in LMICs with relatively high physician density are effective strategies in the management of diabetes.FundingWellcome Trust-Department of Biotechnology India Alliance.

Dataset Information

Task shifting interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Publications

Task shifting interventions for cardiovascular risk reduction in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets