Dataset Information

Effects of continuity of care on health outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus and/or hypertension: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The rising prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as diabetes mellitus (DM) and hypertension (HT) has placed a tremendous burden on healthcare systems around the world, resulting in a call for more effective service delivery models. Better continuity of care (CoC) has been associated with improved health outcomes. This review examines the association between CoC and health outcomes in patients with DM and/or HT.

Methods

This was a systematic review with searches carried out on 13 March 2021 through PubMed, Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL plus, clinical trials registry and bibliography reviews. Eligibility criteria were: published in English; from 2000 onwards; included adult DM and/or HT patients; examined CoC as their main intervention/exposure; and utilised quantifiable outcome measures (categorised into health indicators and service utilisation). The study quality was evaluated with Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) appraisal checklists.

Results

Initial searching yielded 21,090 results with 42 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. High CoC was associated with reduced hospitalisation (16 out of 18 studies), emergency room attendances (eight out of eight), mortality rate (six out of seven), disease-related complications (seven out of seven), and healthcare expenses (four out of four) but not with blood pressure (two out of 13), lipid profile (one out of six), body mass index (zero out of three). Six out of 12 studies on diabetic outcomes reported significant improvement in haemoglobin A1c by higher CoC. Variations in the classification of continuity of care and outcome definition were identified, making meta-analyses inappropriate. CASP evaluation rated most studies fair in quality, but found insufficient adjustment on confounders, selection bias and short follow-up period were common limitations of current literatures.

Conclusion

There is evidence of a strong association between higher continuity of care and reduced mortality rate, complication risks and health service utilisation among DM and/or HT patients but little to no improvement in various health indicators. Significant methodological heterogeneity in how CoC and patient outcomes are assessed limits the ability for meta-analysis of findings. Further studies comprising sufficient confounding adjustment and standardised definitions are needed to provide stronger evidence of the benefits of CoC on patients with DM and/or HT.

SUBMITTER: Chan KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8254900 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Integrated care interventions for chronic conditions can lead to improved outcomes, but it is not clear when and why this is the case. This study aims to answer the following two research questions: First, what are the context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes? Second, what are the relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes of integrated care for people with type 2 diabetes?A systematic literature search was conducted for the period 2003-2013 in Cochrane and PubMed. Articles were included when they focussed on integrated care and type 2 diabetes, and concerned empirical research analysing the implementation of an intervention. Data extraction was performed using a common data extraction table. The quality of the studies was assessed with the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The CMO model (context + mechanism?=?outcome) was used to study the relationship between context factors (described by the barriers and facilitators encountered in the implementation process and categorised at the six levels of the Implementation Model), mechanisms (defined as intervention types and described by their number of Chronic Care Model (sub-)components) and outcomes (the intentional and unintentional effects triggered by mechanism and context).Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Most reported barriers to the implementation process were found at the organisational context level and most facilitators at the social context level. Due to the low number of articles reporting comparable quantitative outcome measures or in-depth qualitative information, it was not possible to make statements about the relationship between context, mechanisms and outcomes.Efficient resource allocation should entail increased investments at the organisational context level where most barriers are expected to occur. It is likely that investments at the social context level will also help to decrease the development of barriers at the organisational context level, especially by increasing staff involvement and satisfaction. If future research is to adequately inform practice and policy regarding the impact of these efforts on health outcomes, focus on the actual relationships between context, mechanisms and outcomes should be actively incorporated into study designs.

Project description:BackgroundVietnam is undergoing a rapid epidemiological transition with a considerable burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs), especially hypertension and diabetes (T2DM). Continuity of care (COC) is widely acknowledged as a benchmark for an efficient health system. This study aimed to determine the COC level for hypertension and T2DM within and across care levels and to investigate its associations with health outcomes and disease control.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted on 602 people with T2DM and/or hypertension managed in primary care settings. We utilized both the Nijmegen continuity of care questionnaire (NCQ) and the Bice - Boxerman continuity of care index (COCI) to comprehensively measure three domains of COC: interpersonal, informational, and management continuity. ANOVA, paired-sample t-test, and bivariate and multivariable logistic regression analysis were performed to examine the predictors of COC.ResultsMean values of COC indices were: NCQ: 3.59 and COCI: 0.77. The proportion of people with low NCQ levels was 68.8%, and that with low COCI levels was 47.3%. Primary care offered higher informational continuity than specialists (p < 0.01); management continuity was higher within the primary care team than between primary and specialist care (p < 0.001). Gender, living areas, hospital admission and emergency department encounters, frequency of health visits, disease duration, blood pressure and blood glucose levels, and disease control were demonstrated to be statistically associated with higher levels of COC.ConclusionsContinuity of primary care is not sufficiently achieved for hypertension and diabetes mellitus in Vietnam. Strengthening robust primary care services, improving the collaboration between healthcare providers through multidisciplinary team-based care and integrated care approach, and promoting patient education programs and shared decision-making interventions are priorities to improve COC for chronic care.

Project description:BackgroundLow health literacy is considered a potential barrier to improving health outcomes in people with diabetes and other chronic conditions, although the evidence has not been previously systematically reviewed.ObjectiveTo identify, appraise, and synthesize research evidence on the relationships between health literacy (functional, interactive, and critical) or numeracy and health outcomes (i.e., knowledge, behavioral and clinical) in people with diabetes.MethodsEnglish-language articles that addressed the relationship between health literacy or numeracy and at least one health outcome in people with diabetes were identified by two reviewers through searching six scientific databases, and hand-searching journals and reference lists.FindingsSeven hundred twenty-three citations were identified and screened, 196 were considered, and 34 publications reporting data from 24 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. Consistent and sufficient evidence showed a positive association between health literacy and diabetes knowledge (eight studies). There was a lack of consistent evidence on the relationship between health literacy or numeracy and clinical outcomes, e.g., A1C (13 studies), self-reported complications (two studies), and achievement of clinical goals (one study); behavioral outcomes, e.g., self-monitoring of blood glucose (one study), self-efficacy (five studies); or patient-provider interactions (i.e., patient-physician communication, information exchange, decision-making, and trust), and other outcomes. The majority of the studies were from US primary care setting (87.5 %), and there were no randomized or other trials to improve health literacy.ConclusionsLow health literacy is consistently associated with poorer diabetes knowledge. However, there is little sufficient or consistent evidence suggesting that it is independently associated with processes or outcomes of diabetes-related care. Based on these findings, it may be premature to routinely screen for low health literacy as a means for improving diabetes-related health-related outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between gestational diabetes mellitus and adverse outcomes of pregnancy after adjustment for at least minimal confounding factors.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesWeb of Science, PubMed, Medline, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, from 1 January 1990 to 1 November 2021.Review methodsCohort studies and control arms of trials reporting complications of pregnancy in women with gestational diabetes mellitus were eligible for inclusion. Based on the use of insulin, studies were divided into three subgroups: no insulin use (patients never used insulin during the course of the disease), insulin use (different proportions of patients were treated with insulin), and insulin use not reported. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the status of the country (developed or developing), quality of the study, diagnostic criteria, and screening method. Meta-regression models were applied based on the proportion of patients who had received insulin.Results156 studies with 7 506 061 pregnancies were included, and 50 (32.1%) showed a low or medium risk of bias. In studies with no insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, women with gestational diabetes mellitus had increased odds of caesarean section (odds ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.32), preterm delivery (1.51, 1.26 to 1.80), low one minute Apgar score (1.43, 1.01 to 2.03), macrosomia (1.70, 1.23 to 2.36), and infant born large for gestational age (1.57, 1.25 to 1.97). In studies with insulin use, when adjusted for confounders, the odds of having an infant large for gestational age (odds ratio 1.61, 1.09 to 2.37), or with respiratory distress syndrome (1.57, 1.19 to 2.08) or neonatal jaundice (1.28, 1.02 to 1.62), or requiring admission to the neonatal intensive care unit (2.29, 1.59 to 3.31), were higher in women with gestational diabetes mellitus than in those without diabetes. No clear evidence was found for differences in the odds of instrumental delivery, shoulder dystocia, postpartum haemorrhage, stillbirth, neonatal death, low five minute Apgar score, low birth weight, and small for gestational age between women with and without gestational diabetes mellitus after adjusting for confounders. Country status, adjustment for body mass index, and screening methods significantly contributed to heterogeneity between studies for several adverse outcomes of pregnancy.ConclusionsWhen adjusted for confounders, gestational diabetes mellitus was significantly associated with pregnancy complications. The findings contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the adverse outcomes of pregnancy related to gestational diabetes mellitus. Future primary studies should routinely consider adjusting for a more complete set of prognostic factors.Review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021265837.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare coordination and continuity of care conceptualize all care providers and organizations involved in health care to ensure the right care at the right time. However, systematic evidence synthesis is lacking in the care coordination of health services. This scoping review synthesizes evidence on different levels of care coordination of primary health care (PHC) and primary care.MethodsWe conducted a scoping review of published evidence on healthcare coordination. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Google Scholar were searched until 30 November 2022 for studies that describe care coordination/continuity of care in PHC and primary care. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to select studies. We analysed data using a thematic analysis approach and explained themes adopting a multilevel (individual, organizational, and system) analytical framework.ResultsA total of 56 studies were included in the review. Most studies were from upper-middle-income or high-income countries, primarily focusing on continuity/care coordination in primary care. Ten themes were identified in care coordination in PHC/primary care. Four themes under care coordination at the individual level were the continuity of services, linkage at different stages of health conditions (from health promotion to rehabilitation), health care from a life-course (conception to elderly), and care coordination of health services at places (family to hospitals). Five themes under organizational level care coordination included interprofessional, multidisciplinary services, community collaboration, integrated care, and information in care coordination. Finally, a theme under system-level care coordination was related to service management involving multisectoral coordination within and beyond health systems.ConclusionsContinuity and coordination of care involve healthcare provisions from family to health facility throughout the life-course to provide a range of services. Several issues could influence multilevel care coordination, including at the individual (services or users), organizational (providers), and system (departments and sectors) levels. Health systems should focus on care coordination, ensuring types of care per the healthcare needs at different stages of health conditions by a multidisciplinary team. Coordinating multiple technical and supporting stakeholders and sectors within and beyond health sector is also vital for the continuity of care especially in resource-limited health systems and settings.