Dataset Information

The Role of Health Technologies in Multicomponent Primary Care Interventions: Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Several countries around the world have implemented multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care, as a way of strengthening their health systems to cope with an aging chronically ill population and rising costs. Some of these efforts have included technology-based enhancements as one of the features to support the overall intervention, but their details and impacts have not been explored.

Objective

This study aimed to identify the role of digital/health technologies within wider multifeature interventions that are aimed at enhancing primary care, and to describe their aims and stakeholders, types of technologies used, and potential impacts.

Methods

A systematic review was performed following Cochrane guidelines. An electronic search, conducted on May 30, 2019, was supplemented with manual and grey literature searches in December 2019, to identify multicomponent interventions that included at least one technology-based enhancement. After title/abstract and full text screening, selected articles were assessed for quality based on their study design. A descriptive narrative synthesis was used for analysis and presentation of the results.

Results

Of 37 articles, 14 (38%) described the inclusion of a technology-based innovation as part of their multicomponent interventions to enhance primary care. The most commonly identified technologies were the use of electronic health records, data monitoring technologies, and online portals with messaging platforms. The most common aim of these technologies was to improve continuity of care and comprehensiveness, which resulted in increased patient satisfaction, increased primary care visits compared to specialist visits, and the provision of more health prevention education and improved prescribing practices. Technologies seem also to increase costs and utilization for some parameters, such as increased consultation costs and increased number of drugs prescribed.

Conclusions

Technologies and digital health have not played a major role within comprehensive innovation efforts aimed at enhancing primary care, reflecting that these technologies have not yet reached maturity or wider acceptance as a means for improving primary care. Stronger policy and financial support, and advocacy of key stakeholders are needed to encourage the introduction of efficient technological innovations, which are backed by evidence-based research, so that digital technologies can fulfill the promise of supporting strong sustainable primary care.

SUBMITTER: Jimenez G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7834942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:Primary care nurses and allied health clinicians are potential providers of opportunistic preventive care. This systematic review aimed to summarise evidence for the effectiveness of practice change interventions in increasing nurse or allied health professional provision of any of five preventive care elements (ask, assess, advise, assist, and/or arrange) for any of four behavioural risks (smoking, inadequate nutrition, alcohol overconsumption, physical inactivity) within a primary care setting.A search of Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases was undertaken to locate controlled intervention trials published between 1992 and May 2014 that provided practice change interventions to primary care nurses and/or allied health professionals to increase preventive care. The effect of interventions aimed at increasing the provision of any of the five care elements for any of the four behavioural risks was examined. A narrative synthesis was utilised.From 8109 articles, seven trials met the inclusion criteria. All trials bar one, assessed multi-strategic practice change interventions (three to five strategies) focused on care by nurses (six trials) or mixed nursing/allied health clinicians. One trial examined care provision for all four risks, five trials examined care for smoking only, and one trial examined care for alcohol consumption only. For the six trials reporting significance testing (excludes one smoking care trial), significant effects favouring the intervention group were reported in at least one trial for smoking risk assessment (2/4 trials reported an effect for at least one analysis of an assessment outcome), brief advice (2/3), assistance (2/2), and arranging referral (2/3); alcohol risk assessment (1/2) and brief advice (1/2); inadequate nutrition risk assessment (1/1); and physical inactivity risk assessment and brief advice (1/1). When the number of analyses undertaken within trials focusing on smoking care was considered, the results were less promising (e.g. of the 15 analyses conducted on brief advice variables across three trials, four showed a positive effect).Evidence for the effect of practice change interventions on preventive care by primary care nurses or allied health providers is inconclusive given the small number of trials and inconsistency of results between and within trials.None.

Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.MethodsWe searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014.Inclusion criteria(1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.ResultsSixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg - 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5-45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3-36 months and 6-80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care.DiscussionCompared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.

Project description: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.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Nearly 50% of depressed primary care patients referred to mental health services do not initiate mental health treatment. The most promising interventions for increasing depression treatment initiation in primary care settings remain unclear. METHODS:We performed a systematic search of publicly available databases from inception through August 2017 to identify interventions designed to increase depression treatment initiation. Two authors independently selected, extracted data, and rated risk of bias from included studies. Eligible studies used a randomized or pre-post design and assessed depression treatment initiation (i.e., ≥ 1 mental health visit or antidepressant fill) among adults, the majority of whom met criteria for depression. Interventions were classified as simple or complex and sub-classified into intervention strategies that were graded for strength of evidence. RESULTS:Of 9516 articles identified, we included 14 unique studies representing 16 (4 simple and 12 complex) interventions and 8 treatment initiation strategies. We found low to moderate strength of evidence for collaborative/integrated care (3 studies), treatment preference matching (2 studies), and case management (2 studies) strategies. However, there was insufficient evidence to determine the benefit of cultural tailoring (2 studies), motivation (alone, with reminders or with cultural tailoring (5 studies)), education (1 study), and shared decision-making strategies (1 study). Overall, we found moderate strength of evidence for complex interventions (8 of 12 complex interventions demonstrated statistically significant effects on treatment initiation). DISCUSSION:Collaborative/integrated care, preference treatment matching, and case management strategies had the best evidence for improving depression treatment initiation, but none of the strategies had high strength of evidence. While primary care settings can consider using some of these strategies when referring depressed patients to treatment, our review highlights the need for further rigorous research in this area.

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.