Dataset Information

How Can We Improve Osteoporosis Care? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Quality Improvement Strategies for Osteoporosis.

ABSTRACT: Although osteoporosis affects 10 million people in the United States, screening and treatment rates remain low. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of quality improvement strategies to improve osteoporosis screening (bone mineral density [BMD]/dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA] testing) and/or treatment (pharmacotherapy) initiation rates. We developed broad literature search strategies for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to select relevant studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes of BMD/DXA testing and/or osteoporosis treatment. Forty-three randomized clinical studies met inclusion criteria. For increasing BMD/DXA testing in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated several efficacious strategies, including orthopedic surgeon or fracture clinic initiation of osteoporosis evaluation or management (risk difference 44%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 26%-63%), fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 23%-64%), multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 24%, 95% CI 15%-32%), and patient education and/or activation (risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6%-26%). For increasing osteoporosis treatment in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated significant efficacy for interventions of fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 20%, 95% CI 1%-40%) and multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 12%, 95% CI 6%-17%). The only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis findings demonstrated significant improvement of osteoporosis care for patient populations including individuals without prior fracture was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education, for increasing the outcome of BMD testing (risk difference 13%, 95% CI 7%-18%). The meta-analyses findings were limited by small number of studies in each analysis; high between-study heterogeneity; sensitivity to removal of individual studies; and unclear risk of bias of included studies. Despite the limitations of the current body of evidence, our findings indicate there are several strategies that appear worthwhile to enact to try to improve osteoporosis screening and/or treatment rates. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

SUBMITTER: Nayak S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6129396 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How Can We Improve Osteoporosis Care? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Quality Improvement Strategies for Osteoporosis.

Nayak Smita S Greenspan Susan L SL

Journal of bone and mineral research : the official journal of the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research 20180503 9

Although osteoporosis affects 10 million people in the United States, screening and treatment rates remain low. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of quality improvement strategies to improve osteoporosis screening (bone mineral density [BMD]/dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA] testing) and/or treatment (pharmacotherapy) initiation rates. We developed broad literature search strategies for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and applied inclusion/ex ...[more]

PMID: 29637658

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues.MethodsPubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors.ResultsFrom 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions.ConclusionsThis review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.

Project description:BackgroundTo identify the strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients in the design, delivery, and evaluation of health services.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, Scopus, PsychINFO, Social Science Abstracts, EBSCO, and ISI Web of Science from 1990 to 2016 for empirical studies addressing the active participation of patients, caregivers, or families in the design, delivery and evaluation of health services to improve quality of care. Thematic analysis was used to identify (1) strategies and contextual factors that enable optimal engagement of patients, (2) outcomes of patient engagement, and (3) patients' experiences of being engaged.ResultsForty-eight studies were included. Strategies and contextual factors that enable patient engagement were thematically grouped and related to techniques to enhance design, recruitment, involvement and leadership action, and those aimed to creating a receptive context. Reported outcomes ranged from educational or tool development and informed policy or planning documents (discrete products) to enhanced care processes or service delivery and governance (care process or structural outcomes). The level of engagement appears to influence the outcomes of service redesign-discrete products largely derived from low-level engagement (consultative unidirectional feedback)-whereas care process or structural outcomes mainly derived from high-level engagement (co-design or partnership strategies). A minority of studies formally evaluated patients' experiences of the engagement process (n?=?12; 25%). While most experiences were positive-increased self-esteem, feeling empowered, or independent-some patients sought greater involvement and felt that their involvement was important but tokenistic, especially when their requests were denied or decisions had already been made.ConclusionsPatient engagement can inform patient and provider education and policies, as well as enhance service delivery and governance. Additional evidence is needed to understand patients' experiences of the engagement process and whether these outcomes translate into improved quality of care.RegistrationN/A (data extraction completed prior to registration on PROSPERO).

Project description:BackgroundInsomnia is common. However, no systematic reviews have examined the effect of exercise on patients with primary and secondary insomnia, defined as both sleep disruption and daytime impairment. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the effectiveness/efficacy of exercise in patients with insomnia.MethodsWe searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify all randomized controlled trials that examined the effects of exercise on various sleep parameters in patients with insomnia. All participants were diagnosed with insomnia, using standard diagnostic criteria or predetermined criteria and standard measures. Data on outcome measures were subjected to meta-analyses using random-effects models. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach were used to assess the quality of the individual studies and the body of evidence, respectively.ResultsWe included nine studies with a total of 557 participants. According to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (mean difference [MD], 2.87 points lower in the intervention group; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.95 points lower to 1.79 points lower; low-quality evidence) and the Insomnia Severity Index (MD, 3.22 points lower in the intervention group; 95% CI, 5.36 points lower to 1.07 points lower; very low-quality evidence), exercise was beneficial. However, exercise interventions were not associated with improved sleep efficiency (MD, 0.56% lower in the intervention group; 95% CI, 3.42% lower to 2.31% higher; moderate-quality evidence). Only four studies noted adverse effects. Most studies had a high or unclear risk of selection bias.DiscussionOur findings suggest that exercise can improve sleep quality without notable adverse effects. Most trials had a high risk of selection bias. Higher quality research is needed.

Dataset Information

How Can We Improve Osteoporosis Care? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Quality Improvement Strategies for Osteoporosis.

Publications

How Can We Improve Osteoporosis Care? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Quality Improvement Strategies for Osteoporosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets