Patient participation in medication reviews is desirable but not evidence-based: a systematic literature review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Willeboordse F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4256610 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient participation in medication reviews is desirable but not evidence-based: a systematic literature review.
Willeboordse Floor F Hugtenburg Jacqueline G JG Schellevis François G FG Elders Petra J M PJ
British journal of clinical pharmacology 20141201 6
<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of this systematic literature review is to investigate which types of patient participation in medication reviews have been practiced and what is known about the effects of patient participation within the medication review process.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic literature review was performed in multiple databases using an extensive selection and quality assessment procedure.<h4>Results</h4>In total, 37 articles were included and most were assessed with a weak or moderate qual ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundUse of cardiovascular medication has increased over time, especially for primary and secondary prevention, with polypharmacy common.MethodsReview of published systematic reviews of the factors and outcomes associated with adherence to cardiovascular medication using MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases. Quality was assessed using the AMSTAR tool.ResultsOf 789 systematic reviews identified, 45 met the inclusion criteria and passed the quality assessment; 34 focused on factors associated with adherence, and 11 on outcomes. High heterogeneity, both between and within reviews, precluded meta-analysis and so a pooled estimate of adherence levels could not be derived. Adherence was associated with disease factors, therapy factors, healthcare factors, patient factors and social factors, though with some inconsistencies. In total, 91% of reviews addressing outcomes reported that low adherence was associated with poorer clinical and economic endpoints.ConclusionsFactors from across five key domains relate to non-adherence to cardiovascular medications, and may contribute to poorer clinical outcomes. Interventions to improve adherence should be developed to address modifiable factors and targeted at those at highest risk of non-adherence. Adherence research is highly heterogeneous to-date and efforts to standardize this should be implemented to improve comparability.
| S-EPMC6459362 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To assess the level of equivocation among level 1 evidence in ulcerative colitis and Crohn's disease and determine whether any predisposing factors are present. METHOD:MEDLINE, Embase, CINHAL and Cochrane were searched from 2006 to 2017. Papers were scored using AMSTAR and categorised into surgical (S), medical (M) or medical and surgical (MS) groups. The ability of each paper to make a recommendation and conclusiveness in doing so was recorded. RESULTS:278 papers were assessed. 82% (n=227) could make a recommendation, 18% (n=51) could not. There was a significant difference in ability to provide a recommendation between S and M (P=0.003) but not MS and M (P=0.022) nor S and MS (P=0.79). Where a recommendation was made, S papers were more likely to be tempered than M papers (P=0.014) but not MS papers (P=0.987). CONCLUSIONS:Surgical meta-evidence within the inflammatory bowel disease domain is more than twice as likely as medical meta-evidence to be unable to provide a recommendation for clinical practice. Where a recommendation was made, surgical reviews were twice as likely to temper their conclusion.
| S-EPMC5778281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The degree to which patients participate in their care can have a positive impact on health outcomes. This review aimed to map the current literature on patient participation behaviours in interactions with physicians and the extent to which differences in these behaviours can be explained by socio-economic status (SES). SEARCH STRATEGY:Four electronic databases were searched from 1980 onwards using key words related to socio-economic status and patient participation behaviours. STUDY SELECTION:Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened by two reviewers, with the second reviewer screening 20% of all entries. DATA EXTRACTION:Data on year of publication, country, patient population, setting, patient participation behaviour studied, and SES measure used were extracted. MAIN RESULTS:Forty-nine studies were included in the review. Most studies were conducted in the United States, and the most commonly studied patient participation behaviour was involvement in decision making. Most studies measured SES using education as an indicator, with very few studies using occupation as a measure. Many studies did not report on participants' medical condition or study setting. Patient participation in their health-care appointment increased with increasing SES in 24 studies, although in 27 studies no significant association was found. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS:Current literature was found to be mainly US-centric. Many studies did not specify participants' medical condition or in what setting the study was undertaken. More studies are needed on less commonly studied patient participation behaviours. It would be helpful for further studies to also include a wider range of SES indicators.
| S-EPMC6803421 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundUntil now, the use of technology in health care was driven mostly by the assumptions about the benefits of electronic health (eHealth) rather than its evidence. It is noticeable that the magnitude of evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth is not proportionate to the number of interventions that are regularly conducted. Reliable evidence generated through comprehensive evaluation of eHealth interventions may accelerate the growth of eHealth for long-term successful implementation and help to experience eHealth benefits in an enhanced way.ObjectiveThis study aimed to understand how the evidence of effectiveness and efficiency of eHealth can be generated through evaluation. Hence, we aim to discern (1) how evaluation is conducted in distinct eHealth intervention phases, (2) the aspects of effectiveness and efficiency that are typically evaluated during eHealth interventions, and (3) how eHealth interventions are evaluated in practice.MethodsA systematic literature review was conducted to explore the evaluation methods for eHealth interventions. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. We searched Google Scholar and Scopus for the published papers that addressed the evaluation of eHealth or described an eHealth intervention study. A qualitative analysis of the selected papers was conducted in several steps.ResultsWe intended to see how the process of evaluation unfolds in distinct phases of an eHealth intervention. We revealed that in practice and in several conceptual papers, evaluation is performed at the end of the intervention. There are some studies that discuss the importance of conducting evaluation throughout the intervention; however, in practice, we found no case study that followed this. For our second research question, we discovered aspects of efficiency and effectiveness that are proposed to be assessed during interventions. The aspects that were recurrent in the conceptual papers include clinical, human and social, organizational, technological, cost, ethical and legal, and transferability. However, the case studies reviewed only evaluate the clinical and human and social aspects. At the end of the paper, we discussed a novel approach to look into the evaluation. Our intention was to stir up a discussion around this approach with the hope that it might be able to gather evidence in a comprehensive and credible way.ConclusionsThe importance of evidence in eHealth has not been discussed as rigorously as have the diverse evaluation approaches and evaluation frameworks. Further research directed toward evidence-based evaluation can not only improve the quality of intervention studies but also facilitate successful long-term implementation of eHealth in general. We conclude that the development of more robust and comprehensive evaluation of eHealth studies or an improved validation of evaluation methods could ease the transferability of results among similar studies. Thus, the resources can be used for supplementary research in eHealth.
| S-EPMC6286426 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in.MethodsSixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews.ResultsVeterinary librarians' highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs.ConclusionsThe surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.
| S-EPMC6774563 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cochrane reviewers are strongly encouraged to evaluate the quality of evidence for the most important outcomes by using the GRADE approach and to report these results in a Summary of Findings (SoF) table. We aimed to assess whether outcomes reported in the SoF table of Cochrane reviews could be considered patient-important outcomes (PIOs) and the quality of the available evidence for these outcomes.We performed a methodological review of Cochrane reviews published between March 2011 and September 2014. For a random sample of Cochrane reviews reporting a SoF table, we extracted all outcomes reported in this table and evaluated whether they could be considered PIOs (i.e., mortality, other clinical events, adverse events, function, pain, quality of life and therapeutic decisions). Then, we collected the quality of evidence for every outcome in these SoF tables.We included 290 reviews issued by 47 of the 53 Cochrane Review Groups. Every SoF table included a median of 5 outcomes, for a total of 1414 outcomes; 1089 (77%) could be considered PIOs. Almost all reviews (n = 278, 96%) included at least one PIO in their SoF table. The quality of evidence for the outcomes was high for 12% (n = 168), moderate for 28% (n = 402) and low or very low for 45% (n = 640). Less than one quarter of reviews (n = 63) included at least one PIO with high-quality evidence that favoured a benefit of the experimental intervention evaluated in half of them (n = 34 reviews).Many outcomes reported in the SoF table of recent Cochrane reviews can be considered PIOs. However, the quality of available evidence remains limited for these outcomes.
| S-EPMC5886560 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the determinants of the participation rate in breast cancer screening programs by conducting a systematic review of reviews.MethodsWe conducted a systematic search in PubMed via Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane identifying the literature up to April 2019. Out of 2258 revealed unique abstracts, we included 31 reviews, from which 25 were considered as systematic. We applied the Walsh & McPhee Systems Model of Clinical Preventive Care to systematize the determinants of screening participation.ResultsThe reviews, mainly in high-income settings, reported a wide range for breast cancer screening participation rate: 16-90%. The determinants of breast cancer screening participation were simple low-cost interventions such as invitation letters, basic information on screening, multiple reminders, fixed appointments, prompts from healthcare professionals, and healthcare organizational factors (e.g. close proximity to screening facility). More complex interventions (such as face-to-face counselling or home visits), mass media or improved access to transport should not be encouraged by policy makers unless other information appears. The repeated participation in mammography screening was consistently high, above 62%. Previous positive experience with screening influenced the repeated participation in screening programs. The reviews were inconsistent in the use of terminology related to breast cancer screening participation, which may have contributed to the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes.ConclusionsThis study shows that consistent findings of systematic reviews bring more certainty into the conclusions on the effects of simple invitation techniques, fixed appointments and prompts, as well as healthcare organizational factors on promoting participation rate in screening mammography.
| S-EPMC8167916 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeA number of potential determinants of medication non-adherence have been described so far. However, the heterogenic quality of existing publications poses the need for the use of a rigorous methodology in building a list of such determinants. The purpose of this study was a systematic review of current research on determinants of patient adherence on the basis of a recently agreed European consensus taxonomy and terminology.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, IPA, and PsycINFO were systematically searched for systematic reviews published between 2000/01/01 and 2009/12/31 that provided determinants on non-adherence to medication. The searches were limited to reviews having adherence to medication prescribed by health professionals for outpatient as a major topic.ResultsFifty-one reviews were included in this review, covering 19 different disease categories. In these reviews, exclusively assessing non-adherence to chronic therapies, 771 individual factor items were identified, of which most were determinants of implementation, and only 47-determinants of persistence with medication. Factors with an unambiguous effect on adherence were further grouped into 8 clusters of socio-economic-related factors, 6 of healthcare team- and system-related factors, 6 of condition-related factors, 6 of therapy-related factors, and 14 of patient-related factors. The lack of standardized definitions and use of poor measurement methods resulted in many inconsistencies.ConclusionsThis study provides clear evidence that medication non-adherence is affected by multiple determinants. Therefore, the prediction of non-adherence of individual patients is difficult, and suitable measurement and multifaceted interventions may be the most effective answer toward unsatisfactory adherence. The limited number of publications assessing determinants of persistence with medication, and lack of those providing determinants of adherence to short-term treatment identify areas for future research.
| S-EPMC3722478 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for patients with cancer; however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration, and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. OBJECTIVES:To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. METHODS:Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full-text review. A total of 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (ie, participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. RESULTS:Mean AMSTAR score = 7.66/11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate-to-vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. LIMITATIONS:Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.
| S-EPMC5679711 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Systematic-review methodologies provide objectivity and transparency to the process of collecting and synthesizing scientific evidence in reaching conclusions on specific research questions. There is increasing interest in applying these procedures to address environmental health questions. OBJECTIVES: The goal was to develop a systematic-review framework to address environmental health questions by extending approaches developed for clinical medicine to handle the breadth of data relevant to environmental health sciences (e.g., human, animal, and mechanistic studies). METHODS: The Office of Health Assessment and Translation (OHAT) adapted guidance from authorities on systematic-review and sought advice during development of the OHAT Approach through consultation with technical experts in systematic review and human health assessments, as well as scientific advisory groups and the public. The method was refined by considering expert and public comments and through application to case studies. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Here we present a seven-step framework for systematic review and evidence integration for reaching hazard identification conclusions: 1) problem formulation and protocol development, 2) search for and select studies for inclusion, 3) extract data from studies, 4) assess the quality or risk of bias of individual studies, 5) rate the confidence in the body of evidence, 6) translate the confidence ratings into levels of evidence, and 7) integrate the information from different evidence streams (human, animal, and "other relevant data" including mechanistic or in vitro studies) to develop hazard identification conclusions. CONCLUSION: The principles of systematic review can be successfully applied to environmental health questions to provide greater objectivity and transparency to the process of developing conclusions.
| S-EPMC4080517 | biostudies-other