Dataset Information

Implementing lung health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a FRESH AIR systematic review and meta-synthesis.

ABSTRACT: The vast majority of patients with chronic respiratory disease live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Paradoxically, relevant interventions often fail to be effective particularly in these settings, as LMICs lack solid evidence on how to implement interventions successfully. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors critical to the implementation of lung health interventions in LMICs, and weigh their level of evidence.This systematic review followed Cochrane methodology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting standards. We searched eight databases without date or language restrictions in July 2019, and included all relevant original, peer-reviewed articles. Two researchers independently selected articles, critically appraised them (using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP)/Meta Quality Appraisal Tool (MetaQAT)), extracted data, coded factors (following the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR)), and assigned levels of confidence in the factors (via Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual)). We meta-synthesised levels of evidence of the factors based on their frequency and the assigned level of confidence (PROSPERO:CRD42018088687).We included 37 articles out of 9111 screened. Studies were performed across the globe in a broad range of settings. Factors identified with a high level of evidence were: 1) "Understanding needs of local users"; 2) ensuring "Compatibility" of interventions with local contexts (cultures, infrastructures); 3) identifying influential stakeholders and applying "Engagement" strategies; 4) ensuring adequate "Access to knowledge and information"; and 5) addressing "Resource availability". All implementation factors and their level of evidence were synthesised in an implementation tool.To conclude, this study identified implementation factors for lung health interventions in LMICs, weighed their level of evidence, and integrated the results into an implementation tool for practice. Policymakers, non-governmental organisations, practitioners, and researchers may use this FRESH AIR (Free Respiratory Evaluation and Smoke-exposure reduction by primary Health cAre Integrated gRoups) Implementation tool to develop evidence-based implementation strategies for related interventions. This could increase interventions' implementation success, thereby optimising the use of already-scarce resources and improving health outcomes.

SUBMITTER: Brakema EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7409813 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Implementing lung health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a FRESH AIR systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Brakema Evelyn A EA Vermond Debbie D Pinnock Hilary H Lionis Christos C Kirenga Bruce B An Pham Le PL Sooronbaev Talant T Chavannes Niels H NH van der Kleij M J J Rianne MJJR

The European respiratory journal 20200723 1

The vast majority of patients with chronic respiratory disease live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Paradoxically, relevant interventions often fail to be effective particularly in these settings, as LMICs lack solid evidence on how to implement interventions successfully. Therefore, we aimed to identify factors critical to the implementation of lung health interventions in LMICs, and weigh their level of evidence.This systematic review followed Cochrane methodology and Preferred Re ...[more]

PMID: 32341109

Similar Datasets

Project description:A third of the world's population uses solid fuel derived from plant material (biomass) or coal for cooking, heating, or lighting. These fuels are smoky, often used in an open fire or simple stove with incomplete combustion, and result in a large amount of household air pollution when smoke is poorly vented. Air pollution is the biggest environmental cause of death worldwide, with household air pollution accounting for about 3·5-4 million deaths every year. Women and children living in severe poverty have the greatest exposures to household air pollution. In this Commission, we review evidence for the association between household air pollution and respiratory infections, respiratory tract cancers, and chronic lung diseases. Respiratory infections (comprising both upper and lower respiratory tract infections with viruses, bacteria, and mycobacteria) have all been associated with exposure to household air pollution. Respiratory tract cancers, including both nasopharyngeal cancer and lung cancer, are strongly associated with pollution from coal burning and further data are needed about other solid fuels. Chronic lung diseases, including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and bronchiectasis in women, are associated with solid fuel use for cooking, and the damaging effects of exposure to household air pollution in early life on lung development are yet to be fully described. We also review appropriate ways to measure exposure to household air pollution, as well as study design issues and potential effective interventions to prevent these disease burdens. Measurement of household air pollution needs individual, rather than fixed in place, monitoring because exposure varies by age, gender, location, and household role. Women and children are particularly susceptible to the toxic effects of pollution and are exposed to the highest concentrations. Interventions should target these high-risk groups and be of sufficient quality to make the air clean. To make clean energy available to all people is the long-term goal, with an intermediate solution being to make available energy that is clean enough to have a health impact.

Project description:Background:Adjunctive psychological interventions for bipolar disorder have demonstrated better efficacy in preventing or delaying relapse and improving outcomes compared with pharmacotherapy alone. Aims:To evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions for bipolar disorder in low- and middle-income countries. Method:A systematic review was conducted using PubMed, PsycINFO, Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane database for systematic review, Cochrane central register of controlled trials, Latin America and Caribbean Center on Health Science Literature and African Journals Online databases with no restriction of language or year of publication. Methodological heterogeneity of studies precluded meta-analysis. Results:A total of 18 adjunctive studies were identified: psychoeducation (n = 14), family intervention (n = 1), group cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) (n = 2) and group mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) (n = 1). In total, 16 of the 18 studies were from upper-middle-income countries and none from low-income countries. All used mental health specialists or experienced therapists to deliver the intervention. Most of the studies have moderately high risk of bias. Psychoeducation improved treatment adherence, knowledge of and attitudes towards bipolar disorder and quality of life, and led to decreased relapse rates and hospital admissions. Family psychoeducation prevented relapse, decreased hospital admissions and improved medication adherence. CBT reduced both depressive and manic symptoms. MBCT reduced emotional dysregulation. Conclusions:Adjunctive psychological interventions alongside pharmacotherapy appear to improve the clinical outcome and quality of life of people with bipolar disorder in middle-income countries. Further studies are required to investigate contextual adaptation and the role of non-specialists in the provision of psychological interventions to ensure scalability and the efficacy of these interventions in low-income country settings. Declaration of interest:None.

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.

Dataset Information

Implementing lung health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a FRESH AIR systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Publications

Implementing lung health interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a FRESH AIR systematic review and meta-synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure