Dataset Information

A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Primary and community care are key settings for the effective management of long term conditions. We aimed to evaluate the pattern of health outcomes in chronic disease management interventions for adults with physical health problems implemented in primary or community care settings. METHODS:The methods were based on our previous review published in 2006. We performed database searches for articles published from 2006 to 2014 and conducted a systematic review with narrative synthesis using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care taxonomy to classify interventions and outcomes. The interventions were mapped to Chronic Care Model elements. The pattern of outcomes related to interventions was summarized by frequency of statistically significant improvements in health care provision and patient outcomes. RESULTS:A total of 9589 journal articles were retrieved from database searches and snowballing. After screening and verification, 165 articles that detailed 157 studies were included. There were few studies with Health Care Organization (1.9% of studies) or Community Resources (0.6% of studies) as the primary intervention element. Self-Management Support interventions (45.8% of studies) most frequently resulted in improvements in patient-level outcomes. Delivery System Design interventions (22.6% of studies) showed benefits in both professional and patient-level outcomes for a narrow range of conditions. Decision Support interventions (21.3% of studies) had impact limited to professional-level outcomes, in particular use of medications. The small number of studies of Clinical Information System interventions (8.9%) showed benefits for both professional- and patient-level outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:The published literature has expanded substantially since 2006. This review confirms that Self-Management Support is the most frequent Chronic Care Model intervention that is associated with statistically significant improvements, predominately for diabetes and hypertension.

SUBMITTER: Reynolds R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5759778 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care.

Reynolds Rebecca R Dennis Sarah S Hasan Iqbal I Slewa Jan J Chen Winnie W Tian David D Bobba Sangeetha S Zwar Nicholas N

BMC family practice 20180109 1

<h4>Background</h4>Primary and community care are key settings for the effective management of long term conditions. We aimed to evaluate the pattern of health outcomes in chronic disease management interventions for adults with physical health problems implemented in primary or community care settings.<h4>Methods</h4>The methods were based on our previous review published in 2006. We performed database searches for articles published from 2006 to 2014 and conducted a systematic review with narr ...[more]

PMID: 29316889

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrimary care providers manage the majority of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), although the most effective chronic disease management (CDM) strategies for these patients are unknown. We assessed the efficacy of CDM interventions used by primary care providers managing patients with CKD.MethodsThe Medline, Embase and Cochrane Central databases were systematically searched (inception to November 2014) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing education-based and computer-assisted CDM interventions targeting primary care providers managing patients with CKD in the community. The efficacy of CDM interventions was assessed using quality indicators [use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB), proteinuria measurement and achievement of blood pressure (BP) targets] and clinical outcomes (change in BP and glomerular filtration rate). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion, quality and extracted data. Random effects models were used to estimate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and weighted mean differences for outcomes of interest.ResultsFive studies (188 clinics; 494 physicians; 42 852 patients with CKD) were included. Two studies compared computer-assisted intervention strategies with usual care, two studies compared education-based intervention strategies with computer-assisted intervention strategies and one study compared both these intervention strategies with usual care. Compared with usual care, computer-assisted CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use among patients with CKD {pooled OR 1.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83-1.21]; I2 = 0.0%}. Similarly, education-related CDM interventions did not increase the likelihood of ACEI/ARB use compared with computer-assisted CDM interventions [pooled OR 1.12 (95% CI 0.77-1.64); I2 = 0.0%]. Inconsistencies in reporting methods limited further pooling of data.ConclusionsTo date, there have been very few randomized trials testing CDM interventions targeting primary care providers with the goal of improving care of people with CKD. Those conducted to date have shown minimal impact, suggesting that other strategies, or multifaceted interventions, may be required to enhance care for patients with CKD in the community.

Project description:ObjectiveProcess evaluations (PEs) alongside randomised controlled trials of complex interventions are valuable because they address questions of for whom, how and why interventions had an impact. We synthesised the methods used in PEs of primary care interventions, and their main findings on implementation barriers and facilitators.DesignSystematic review using the UK Medical Research Council guidance for PE as a guide.Data sourcesAcademic databases (MEDLINE, SCOPUS, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE and Global Health) were searched from 1998 until June 2018.Eligibility criteriaWe included PE alongside randomised controlled trials of primary care interventions which aimed to improve outcomes for patients with non-communicable diseases.Data extraction and synthesisTwo independent reviewers screened and conducted the data extraction and synthesis, with a third reviewer checking a sample for quality assurance.Results69 studies were included. There was an overall lack of consistency in how PEs were conducted and reported. The main weakness is that only 30 studies were underpinned by a clear intervention theory often facilitated by the use of existing theoretical frameworks. The main strengths were robust sampling strategies, and the triangulation of qualitative and quantitative data to understand an intervention's mechanisms. Findings were synthesised into three key themes: (1) a fundamental mismatch between what the intervention was designed to achieve and local needs; (2) the required roles and responsibilities of key actors were often not clearly understood; and (3) the health system context-factors such as governance, financing structures and workforce-if unanticipated could adversely impact implementation.ConclusionGreater consistency is needed in the reporting and the methods of PEs, in particular greater use of theoretical frameworks to inform intervention theory. More emphasis on formative research in designing interventions is needed to align the intervention with the needs of local stakeholders, and to minimise unanticipated consequences due to context-specific barriers.Prospero registration numberCRD42016035572.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough primary health care (PHC) is a key component of all health care systems, services are not always readily available, accessible or affordable. This systematic review examines effective strategies to enhance access to best practice processes of PHC in three domains: chronic disease management, prevention and episodic care.MethodsAn extensive search of bibliographic data bases to identify peer and non-peer reviewed literature was undertaken. Identified papers were screened to identify and classify intervention studies that measured the impact of strategies (singly or in combination) on change in use or the reach of services in defined population groups (evaluated interventions).ResultsThe search identified 3,148 citations of which 121 were intervention studies and 75 were evaluated interventions. Evaluated interventions were found in all three domains: prevention (n?=?45), episodic care (n?=?19), and chronic disease management (n?=?11). They were undertaken in a number of countries including Australia (n?=?25), USA (n?=?25), and UK (n?=?15). Study quality was ranked as high (31% of studies), medium (61%) and low (8%). The 75 evaluated interventions tested a range of strategies either singly (n?=?46 studies) or as a combination of two (n?=?20) or more strategies (n?=?9). Strategies targeted both health providers and patients and were categorised to five groups: practice re-organisation (n?=?43 studies), patient support (n?=?29), provision of new services (n?=?19), workforce development (n?=?11), and financial incentives (n?=?9). Strategies varied by domain, reflecting the complexity of care needs and processes. Of the 75 evaluated interventions, 55 reported positive findings with interventions using a combination of strategies more likely to report positive results.ConclusionsThis review suggests that multiple, linked strategies targeting different levels of the health care system are most likely to improve access to best practice PHC. The proposed changes in the structure of PHC in Australia may provide opportunities to investigate the factors that influence access to best practice PHC and to develop and implement effective, evidence based strategies to address these.

Project description:IntroductionChronic kidney disease (CKD) is widely prevalent, associated with morbidity and mortality, but may be lessened with timely implementation of evidence-based strategies including blood pressure (BP) control. Nonetheless, an evidence-practice gap persists. We synthesize the evidence for clinician-facing interventions to improve hypertension management in CKD patients in primary care.MethodsElectronic databases and related publications were queried for relevant studies. We used a conceptual model to address heterogeneity of interventions. We conducted a quantitative synthesis of interventions on blood pressure (BP) outcomes and a narrative synthesis of other CKD relevant clinical outcomes. Planned subgroup analyses were performed by (1) study design (randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized studies (NRS)); (2) intervention type (guideline-concordant decision support, shared care, pharmacist-facing); and (3) use of behavioral/implementation theory.ResultsOf 2704 manuscripts screened, 73 underwent full-text review; 22 met inclusion criteria. BP target achievement was reported in 15 and systolic BP reduction in 6 studies. Among RCTs, all interventions had a significant effect on BP control, (pooled OR 1.21; 95% CI 1.07 to 1.38). Subgroup analysis by intervention type showed significant effects for guideline-concordant decision support (pooled OR 1.19; 95% CI 1.12 to 1.27) but not shared care (pooled OR 1.71; 95% CI 0.96 to 3.03) or pharmacist-facing interventions (pooled OR 1.04; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.34). Subgroup analysis finding was replicated with pooling of RCTs and NRS. The five contributing studies showed large and significant reduction in systolic BP (pooled WMD - 3.86; 95% CI - 7.2 to - 0.55). Use of a behavioral/implementation theory had no impact, while RCTs showed smaller effect sizes than NRS.DiscussionProcess-oriented implementation strategies used with guideline-concordant decision support was a promising implementation approach. Better reporting guidelines on implementation would enable more useful synthesis of the efficacy of CKD clinical interventions integrated into primary care.Prospero registration numberCRD42018102441.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent pain management recommendations emphasize leveraging interdisciplinary teams. We aimed to identify key features of interdisciplinary team structures and processes associated with improved pain outcomes for patients experiencing chronic pain in primary care settings.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL for randomized studies published after 2009. Included studies had to report patient-reported pain outcomes (e.g., BPI total pain, GCPS pain intensity, RMDQ pain-related disability), include primary care as an intervention setting, and demonstrate some evidence of teamwork or teaming; specifically, they needed to involve at least two clinicians interacting with each other and with patients in an ongoing process over at least two timepoints. We assessed study quality with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. We narratively synthesized intervention team structures and processes, comparing among interventions that reported a clinically meaningful improvement in patient-reported pain outcomes defined by the minimal clinically important difference (MCID).ResultsWe included 13 total interventions in our review, of which eight reported a clinically meaningful improvement in at least one patient-reported pain outcome. No included studies had an overall high risk of bias. We identified the role of a care manager as a common structural feature of the interventions with some clinical effect on patient-reported pain. The team processes involving clinicians varied across interventions reporting clinically improved pain outcomes. However, when analyzing team processes involving patients, six of the interventions with some clinical effect on pain relied on pre-scheduled phone calls for continuous patient follow-up.DiscussionOur review suggests that interdisciplinary interventions incorporating teamwork and teaming can improve patient-reported pain outcomes in comparison to usual care. Given the current evidence, future interventions might prioritize care managers and mechanisms for patient follow-up to help bridge the gap between clinical guidelines and the implementation of interdisciplinary, team-based chronic pain care.

Project description:IntroductionThere is a considerable implementation gap in managing early stage chronic kidney disease (CKD) in primary care despite the high prevalence and risk for increased morbidity and mortality associated with CKD. This systematic review aims to synthesise the evidence of efficacy of implementation interventions aimed at primary care practitioners (PCPs) to improve CKD identification and management. We further aim to describe the interventions' behavioural change components.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a systematic review of studies from 2000 to October 2017 that evaluate implementation interventions targeting PCPs and which include at least one clinically meaningful CKD outcome. We will search several electronic data bases and conduct reference mining of related systematic reviews and publications. An interdisciplinary team will independently and in duplicate, screen publications, extract data and assess the risk of bias. Clinical outcomes will include all clinically meaningful medical management outcomes relevant to CKD management in primary care such as blood pressure, chronic heart disease and diabetes target achievements. Quantitative evidence synthesis will be performed, where possible. Planned subgroup analyses include by (1) study design, (2) length of follow-up, (3) type of intervention, (4) type of implementation strategy, (5) whether a behavioural or implementation theory was used to guide study, (6) baseline CKD severity, (7) patient minority status, (8) study location and (9) academic setting or not.Ethics and disseminationApproval by research ethics board is not required since the review will only include published and publicly accessible data. Review findings will inform a future trial of an intervention to promote uptake of CKD diagnosis and treatment guidelines in our primary care setting and the development of complementary tools to support its successful adoption and implementation. We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed journal and develop accessible summaries of the results.Prospero registration numberCRD42018102441.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS:We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS:Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS:Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:Community-based health workers (CBHWs) are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of the community they serve. Recently, considerable attention has been drawn to CBHWs in promoting healthy behaviors and health outcomes among vulnerable populations who often face health inequities.We performed a systematic review to synthesize evidence concerning the types of CBHW interventions, the qualification and characteristics of CBHWs, and patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of such interventions in vulnerable populations with chronic, noncommunicable conditions.We undertook 4 electronic database searches-PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane-and hand searched reference collections to identify randomized controlled trials published in English before August 2014.We screened a total of 934 unique citations initially for titles and abstracts. Two reviewers then independently evaluated 166 full-text articles that were passed onto review processes. Sixty-one studies and 6 companion articles (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) met eligibility criteria for inclusion.Four trained research assistants extracted data by using a standardized data extraction form developed by the authors. Subsequently, an independent research assistant reviewed extracted data to check accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions among the study team members. Each study was evaluated for its quality by 2 research assistants who extracted relevant study information. Interrater agreement rates ranged from 61% to 91% (average 86%). Any discrepancies in terms of quality rating were resolved through team discussions.All but 4 studies were conducted in the United States. The 2 most common areas for CBHW interventions were cancer prevention (n?=?30) and cardiovascular disease risk reduction (n?=?26). The roles assumed by CBHWs included health education (n?=?48), counseling (n?=?36), navigation assistance (n?=?21), case management (n?=?4), social services (n?=?7), and social support (n?=?18). Fifty-three studies provided information regarding CBHW training, yet CBHW competency evaluation (n?=?9) and supervision procedures (n?=?24) were largely underreported. The length and duration of CBHW training ranged from 4 hours to 240 hours with an average of 41.3 hours (median: 16.5 hours) in 24 studies that reported length of training. Eight studies reported the frequency of supervision, which ranged from weekly to monthly. There was a trend toward improvements in cancer prevention (n?=?21) and cardiovascular risk reduction (n?=?16). Eight articles documented cost analyses and found that integrating CBHWs into the health care delivery system was associated with cost-effective and sustainable care.Interventions by CBHWs appear to be effective when compared with alternatives and also cost-effective for certain health conditions, particularly when partnering with low-income, underserved, and racial and ethnic minority communities. Future research is warranted to fully incorporate CBHWs into the health care system to promote noncommunicable health outcomes among vulnerable populations.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-management intervention aims to facilitate an individual's ability to make lifestyle changes. The effectiveness of this intervention in non-dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is limited. In this study, we applied a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether self-management intervention improves renoprotection for non-dialysis chronic kidney disease.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive search for randomized controlled trials addressing our objective. We searched for studies up to May 12, 2018. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality and extracted characteristics and outcomes among patients with CKD within the intervention phase for each trial. Meta-regression and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore heterogeneity.ResultsWe identified 19 studies with a total of 2540 CKD patients and a mean follow-up of 13.44 months. Compared with usual care, self-management intervention did not show a significant difference for risk of all-cause mortality (5 studies, 1662 participants; RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.86; I2 = 0%), risk of dialysis (5 studies, 1565 participants; RR 1.35; 95% CI 0.84 to 2.19; I2 = 0%), or change in eGFR (8 studies, 1315 participants; SMD -0.01; 95% CI -0.23 to 0.21; I2 = 64%). Moreover, self-management interventions were associated with a lower 24 h urinary protein excretion (4 studies, 905 participants; MD - 0.12 g/24 h; 95% CI -0.21 to - 0.02; I2 = 3%), a lower blood pressure level (SBP: 7 studies, 1201 participants; MD - 5.68 mmHg; 95%CI - 9.68 to - 1.67; I2 = 60%; DBP: 7 studies, 1201 participants; MD - 2.64 mmHg, 95% CI -3.78 to - 1.50; I2 = 0%), a lower C-reactive Protein (CRP) level (3 studies, 123 participants; SMD -2.8; 95% CI -2.90 to - 2.70; I2 = 0%) and a longer distance on the 6-min walk (3 studies, 277 participants; SMD 0.70; 95% CI 0.45 to 0.94; I2 = 0%) when compared with the control group.ConclusionsWe observed that self-management intervention was beneficial for urine protein decline, blood pressure level, exercise capacity and CRP level, compared with the standard treatment, during a follow-up of 13.44 months in patients with CKD non-dialysis. However, it did not provide additional benefits for renal outcomes and all-cause mortality.

Dataset Information

A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care.

Publications

A systematic review of chronic disease management interventions in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets