To conduct a systematic literature review to determine if there were any intervention strategies that had any measurable effect on acute-care hospitalizations among community-dwelling adults with dementia. DESIGN:: Studies were identified by a professional research librarian and content experts. SETTING:: Community dwelling. PARTICIPANTS:: Participants were diagnosed with dementia, severity ranging from mild to severe, and were recruited from health care and community agencies. MEASUREMENTS:: A study met the inclusion criteria if it: (a) was published in English; (b) included a control or comparison group; (c) published outcome data from the intervention under study; (d) reported hospitalization as one of the outcomes; (e) included community-dwelling older adults; and (f) enrolled participants with dementia. Ten studies met all inclusion criteria. RESULTS:: Of the 10 studies included, most assessed health services use (ie, hospitalizations) as a secondary outcome. Participants were recruited from a range of health care and community agencies, and most were diagnosed with dementia with severity ratings ranging from mild to severe. Most intervention strategies consisted of face-to-face assessments of the persons living with dementia, their caregivers, and the development and implementation of a care plan. A significant reduction in hospital admissions was not found in any of the included studies, although 1 study did observe a reduction in hospital days. CONCLUSIONS:: The majority of studies included hospitalizations as a secondary outcome. Only 1 intervention was found to have an effect on hospitalizations. Future work would benefit from strategies specifically designed to reduce and prevent acute hospitalizations in persons with dementia.
PURPOSE: Results of case management designed for patients with dementia and their caregivers in community-based primary health care (CBPHC) were inconsistent. Our objective was to identify the relationships between key outcomes of case management and barriers to implementation. METHODS: We conducted a systematic mixed studies review (including quantitative and qualitative studies). Literature search was performed in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, and Cochrane Library (1995 up to August 2012). Case management intervention studies were used to assess clinical outcomes for patients, service use, caregiver outcomes, satisfaction, and cost-effectiveness. Qualitative studies were used to examine barriers to case management implementation. Patterns in the relationships between barriers to implementation and outcomes were identified using the configurational comparative method. The quality of studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. RESULTS: Forty-three studies were selected (31 quantitative and 12 qualitative). Case management had a limited positive effect on behavioral symptoms of dementia and length of hospital stay for patients and on burden and depression for informal caregivers. Interventions that addressed a greater number of barriers to implementation resulted in increased number of positive outcomes. Results suggested that high-intensity case management was necessary and sufficient to produce positive clinical outcomes for patients and to optimize service use. Effective communication within the CBPHC team was necessary and sufficient for positive outcomes for caregivers. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and managers who implement case management in CBPHC should take into account high-intensity case management (small caseload, regular proactive patient follow-up, regular contact between case managers and family physicians) and effective communication between case managers and other CBPHC professionals and services.
OBJECTIVES: In this evidence review we evaluated outpatient case management (CM) as an intervention strategy for chronic illness management. We summarized the existing evidence related to the effectiveness of CM in improving patient-centered outcomes, quality of care, and resource utilization in adults with chronic medical illness and complex care needs. We also assessed the effectiveness of CM according to patient and intervention characteristics.
DATA SOURCES: Articles were identified from searches of the MEDLINE(®), CINAHL(®), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. The databases were searched through August 2011.
REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers evaluated abstracts and articles against prespecified inclusion criteria. Eligible studies were quality rated and data were extracted, entered into tables, and summarized. Due to the heterogeneity of outcomes, meta-analyses were not conducted. Systematic reviews were retrieved for reference, but data from pooled results of published reviews were not included in our analysis.
RESULTS: Of the 5,645 citations identified, we screened and reviewed 1,201 full-length articles and included 153 articles representing 109 studies. Many of the published trials of CM examined programs that targeted specific patient conditions, and the approaches to CM were diverse. Overall, the interventions tested in the studies were associated with only small changes in patient-centered outcomes, quality of care, and resource utilization. While CM can improve some types of health care utilization, there are minimal effects on overall costs of care. For selected populations, the characteristics of successful interventions included intense CM with greater contact time, longer duration, face-to-face visits, and integration with patients' usual care providers.
CONCLUSIONS: Recognizing the heterogeneity of study populations, interventions, and outcomes, we sought to elucidate the conditions under which CM was effective. We found that CM had limited impact on patient-centered outcomes, quality of care, and resource utilization among patients with chronic medical illness.
BACKGROUND: In many countries, national, regional and local inter- and intra-agency collaborations have been introduced to improve health outcomes. Evidence is needed on the effectiveness of locally developed partnerships which target changes in health outcomes and behaviours.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interagency collaboration between local health and local government agencies on health outcomes in any population or age group.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Public Health Group Specialised Register, AMED, ASSIA, CENTRAL, CINAHL, DoPHER, EMBASE, ERIC, HMIC, IBSS, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, OpenGrey, PsycINFO, Rehabdata, Social Care Online, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, TRoPHI and Web of Science from 1966 through to January 2012. 'Snowballing' methods were used, including expert contact, citation tracking, website searching and reference list follow-up.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials (CCTs), controlled before-and-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series (ITS) where the study reported individual health outcomes arising from interagency collaboration between health and local government agencies compared to standard care. Studies were selected independently in duplicate, with no restriction on population subgroup or disease.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed risk of bias for each study.
MAIN RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified (28,212 participants). Only two were considered to be at low risk of bias. Eleven studies contributed data to the meta-analyses but a narrative synthesis was undertaken for all 16 studies. Six studies examined mental health initiatives, of which one showed health benefit, four showed modest improvement in one or more of the outcomes measured but no clear overall health gain, and one showed no evidence of health gain. Four studies considered lifestyle improvements, of which one showed some limited short-term improvements, two failed to show health gains for the intervention population, and one showed more unhealthy lifestyle behaviours persisting in the intervention population. Three studies considered chronic disease management and all failed to demonstrate health gains. Three studies considered environmental improvements and adjustments, of which two showed some health improvements and one did not.
Meta-analysis of three studies exploring the effect of collaboration on mortality showed no effect (pooled relative risk of 1.04 in favour of control, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.17). Analysis of five studies (with high heterogeneity) looking at the effect of collaboration on mental health resulted in a standardised mean difference of -0.28, a small effect favouring the intervention (95% CI -0.51 to -0.06). From two studies, there was a statistically significant but clinically modest improvement in the global assessment of function symptoms score scale, with a pooled mean difference (on a scale of 1 to 100) of -2.63 favouring the intervention (95% CI -5.16 to -0.10).
For physical health (6 studies) and quality of life (4 studies) the results were not statistically significant, the standardised mean differences were -0.01 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.07) and -0.08 (95% CI -0.44 to 0.27), respectively.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collaboration between local health and local government is commonly considered best practice. However, the review did not identify any reliable evidence that interagency collaboration, compared to standard services, necessarily leads to health improvement. A few studies identified component benefits but these were not reflected in overall outcome scores and could have resulted from the use of significant additional resources. Although agencies appear enthusiastic about collaboration, difficulties in the primary studies and incomplete implementation of initiatives have prevented the development of a strong evidence base. If these weaknesses are addressed in future studies (for example by providing greater detail on the implementation of programmes; using more robust designs, integrated process evaluations to show how well the partners of the collaboration worked together, and measurement of health outcomes) it could provide a better understanding of what might work and why. It is possible that local collaborative partnerships delivering environmental Interventions may result in health gain but the evidence base for this is very limited.
Evaluations of interagency collaborative arrangements face many challenges. The results demonstrate that collaborative community partnerships can be established to deliver interventions but it is important to agree goals, methods of working, monitoring and evaluation before implementation to protect programme fidelity and increase the potential for effectiveness.
To conduct a systematic literature review to determine if there were any intervention strategies that had any measurable effect on acute-care hospitalizations among community-dwelling adults with dementia.
DESIGN:
: Studies were identified by a professional research librarian and content experts.
SETTING:
: Community dwelling.
PARTICIPANTS:
: Participants were diagnosed with dementia, severity ranging from mild to severe, and were recruited from health care and community agencies.
MEASUREMENTS:
: A study met the inclusion criteria if it: (a) was published in English; (b) included a control or comparison group; (c) published outcome data from the intervention under study; (d) reported hospitalization as one of the outcomes; (e) included community-dwelling older adults; and (f) enrolled participants with dementia. Ten studies met all inclusion criteria.
RESULTS:
: Of the 10 studies included, most assessed health services use (ie, hospitalizations) as a secondary outcome. Participants were recruited from a range of health care and community agencies, and most were diagnosed with dementia with severity ratings ranging from mild to severe. Most intervention strategies consisted of face-to-face assessments of the persons living with dementia, their caregivers, and the development and implementation of a care plan. A significant reduction in hospital admissions was not found in any of the included studies, although 1 study did observe a reduction in hospital days.
CONCLUSIONS:
: The majority of studies included hospitalizations as a secondary outcome. Only 1 intervention was found to have an effect on hospitalizations. Future work would benefit from strategies specifically designed to reduce and prevent acute hospitalizations in persons with dementia.
