Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Smith SM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6703144 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Interventions for improving outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.
Smith Susan M SM Wallace Emma E O'Dowd Tom T Fortin Martin M
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews 20160314
<h4>Background</h4>Many people with chronic disease have more than one chronic condition, which is referred to as multimorbidity. The term comorbidity is also used but this is now taken to mean that there is a defined index condition with other linked conditions, for example diabetes and cardiovascular disease. It is also used when there are combinations of defined conditions that commonly co-exist, for example diabetes and depression. While this is not a new phenomenon, there is greater recogni ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8092473 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8527775 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in patients with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, 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 criteriaRandomised 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 selectionTwo 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.Results10 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.ConclusionsEvidence 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.
| S-EPMC3432635 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC5724222 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Multimorbidity is increasingly the primary concern of healthcare systems globally with substantial implications for patient outcomes and resource cost. A critical knowledge gap exists as to the magnitude of multimorbidity in primary care practice in low and middle income countries with available information limited to prevalence. In India, primary care forms the bulk of the health care delivery being provided through both public (community health center) and private general practice setting. We undertook a study to identify multimorbidity patterns and relate these patterns to severity among primary care attendees in Odisha state of India. A total of 1649 patients attending 40 primary care facilities were interviewed using a structured multimorbidity assessment questionnaire. Multimorbidity patterns (dyad and triad) were identified for 21 chronic conditions, functional limitation was assessed as a proxy measure of severity and the mean severity score for each pattern, was determined after adjusting for age. The leading dyads in younger age group i.e. 18-29 years were acid peptic disease with arthritis/ chronic back ache/tuberculosis /chronic lung disease, while older age groups had more frequent combinations of hypertension + arthritis/ chronic lung disease/vision difficulty, and arthritis + chronic back ache. The triad of acid peptic disease + arthritis + chronic backache was common in men in all age groups. Tuberculosis and lung diseases were associated with significantly higher age-adjusted mean severity score (poorer functional ability). Among men, arthritis, chronic backache, chronic lung disease and vision impairment were observed to have highest severity) whereas women reported higher severity for combinations of hypertension, chronic back ache and arthritis. Given the paucity of studies on multimorbidity patterns in low and middle income countries, future studies should seek to assess the reproducibility of our findings in other populations and settings. Another task is the potential implications of different multimorbidity clusters for designing care protocols, as currently the protocols are disease specific, hardly taking comorbidity into account.
| S-EPMC5598947 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC4676908 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study examined the impact of multimorbidity on severe COVID-19 outcomes in community and long-term care (LTC) settings, alone and in interaction with age and sex.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all Ontarians who tested positive for COVID-19 between January-2020 and May-2021 with follow-up until June 2021. We used cox regression to evaluate the adjusted impact of multimorbidity, individual characteristics, and interactions on time to hospitalization and death (any cause).Results24.5% of the cohort had 2 or more pre-existing conditions. Multimorbidity was associated with 28% to 170% shorter time to hospitalization and death, respectively. However, predictors of hospitalization and death differed for people living in community and LTC. In community, increasing multimorbidity and age predicted shortened time to hospitalization and death. In LTC, we found none of the predictors examined were associated with time to hospitalization, except for increasing age that predicted reduced time to death up to 40.6 times. Sex was a predictor across all settings and outcomes: among male the risk of hospitalization or death was higher shortly after infection (e.g. HR for males at 14 days = 30.3) while among female risk was higher for both outcome in the longer term (e.g. HR for males at 150 days = 0.16). Age and sex modified the impact of multimorbidity in the community.ConclusionCommunity-focused public health measures should be targeted and consider sociodemographic and clinical characteristics such as multimorbidity. In LTC settings, further research is needed to identify factors that may contribute to improved outcomes.
| S-EPMC10043958 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether neighbours who share the same family physicians have better cardiovascular and health care outcomes.DesignRetrospective cohort study using administrative health databases.SettingOntario.ParticipantsThe study population included 2,690,482 adult patients cared for by 1710 family physicians.InterventionsAdult residents of Ontario were linked to their family physicians and the geographic distance between patients in the same panel or list was calculated. Using distance between patients within a panel to stratify physicians into quintiles of panel proximity, physicians and patients from close-proximity practices were compared with those from more-distant-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized incidence rates and hazard ratios from cause-specific hazards regression models were determined.Main outcome measuresThe occurrence of a major cardiovascular event during a 5-year follow-up period (2008 to 2012).ResultsPatients of panels in the closest-proximity quintile lived an average of 3.9 km from the 10 closest patients in their panel compared with 12.4 km for the 10 closest patients of panels in the distant-proximity quintile. After adjusting for various patient and physician characteristics, patients in the most-distant-proximity practices had a 24% higher rate of cardiovascular events (adjusted hazard ratio=1.24 [95% CI 1.20 to 1.28], P<.001) than patients in the closest-proximity practices. Age- and sex-standardized all-cause mortality and total per patient health care costs were also lowest in the closest-proximity quintile. In sensitivity analyses restricted to large urban communities and to White long-term residents, results were similar.ConclusionThe better cardiovascular outcomes observed in close-proximity panels may be related to a previously unrecognized mechanism of social connectedness that extends the effectiveness of primary care practitioners.
| S-EPMC9470188 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9104489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGoal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.Design and settingCluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.ParticipantsAdults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission.InterventionsGeneral practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation 6 months later. The control group received usual care planning.Outcome measuresHealth-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and healthcare use. All consultations were video-recorded or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients.ResultsFifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years, 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared with 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 min in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting and felt it delivered more patient-centred care, and they highlighted the importance of training.ConclusionsThis goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248305; Post-results.
| S-EPMC6561432 | biostudies-literature