OBJECTIVES: Globally, healthcare policy promotes supported self-management as a strategy for people with long-term conditions. This meta-review aimed to explore how people with hypertension make sense of their condition, to assess the effectiveness of supported self-management in hypertension, and to identify effective components of support.
METHODS: From a search of eight databases (January 1993-October 2012; update June 2017) we included systematic syntheses of qualitative studies of patients' experiences, and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of supported self-management on blood pressure and medication adherence. We used meta-ethnography, meta-Forest plots and narrative analysis to synthesise the data.
RESULTS: Six qualitative and 29 quantitative reviews provided data from 98 and 446 unique studies, respectively. Self-management support consistently reduced SBP (by between 2 and 6 mmHg), and DBP (by between 1 and 5 mmHg). Information about hypertension and treatment, home BP monitoring (HBPM) and feedback (including telehealth) were widely used in effective interventions. Patients' perceptions of a disease with multiple symptoms contrasted with the professional view of an asymptomatic condition. HBPM, in the context of a supportive patient-professional relationship, changed perceptions of the significance of symptoms and fostered confidence in ability to self-manage hypertension.
CONCLUSION: Our systematic qualitative and quantitative meta-reviews tell complementary stories. Supported self-management can improve blood pressure control. Interventions are complex and encompass a broad range of support strategies. HBPM (with or without telehealth) within the context of a supportive patient-professional partnership can bridge the gap between medical and lay perspectives of hypertension and enable effective self-management.
Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and resource inefficiency which impact upon the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health care services are increasingly utilizing reminder systems to manage these negative effects. This study explores the effectiveness of reminder systems for promoting attendance, cancellations, and rescheduling of appointments across all health care settings and for particular patient groups and the contextual factors which indicate that reminders are being employed sub-optimally. We used three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence. Firstly, using pre-existing models and theories, we developed a conceptual framework to inform our understanding of the contexts and mechanisms which influence reminder effectiveness. Secondly, we performed a review following Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidelines to investigate the effectiveness of different methods of reminding patients to attend health service appointments. Finally, to supplement the effectiveness information, we completed a review informed by realist principles to identify factors likely to influence non-attendance behaviors and the effectiveness of reminders. We found consistent evidence that all types of reminder systems are effective at improving appointment attendance across a range of health care settings and patient populations. Reminder systems may also increase cancellation and rescheduling of unwanted appointments. “Reminder plus”, which provides additional information beyond the reminder function may be more effective than simple reminders (ie, date, time, place) at reducing non-attendance at appointments in particular circumstances. We identified six areas of inefficiency which indicate that reminder systems are being used sub-optimally. Unless otherwise indicated, all patients should receive a reminder to facilitate attendance at their health care appointment. The choice of reminder system should be tailored to the individual service. To optimize appointment and reminder systems, health care services need supportive administrative processes to enhance attendance, cancellation, rescheduling, and re-allocation of appointments to other patients.
BACKGROUND: Missed appointments are an avoidable cost and a resource inefficiency that impact on the health of the patient and treatment outcomes. Health-care services are increasingly utilising reminder systems to counter these negative effects.
OBJECTIVES: This project explores the differential effect of reminder systems for different segments of the population for improving attendance, cancellation and rescheduling of appointments.
DESIGN: Three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence relating to theoretical explanations for appointment behaviour (review 1), the effectiveness of different approaches to reminding patients to attend health service appointments (review 2) and factors likely to influence non-attendance (review 3).
DATA SOURCES: Database searches were conducted on Allied and Complementary Medicine, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature Plus with Full Text, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE (via NHS Evidence from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012), Health Management Information Consortium database, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, The King’s Fund Library Catalogue, Maternity and Infant Care, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, SPORTDiscus and Web of Science from 1 January 2000 to January/February 2012. Supplementary screening of references of included studies was conducted to identify additional potentially relevant studies. Conceptual papers were identified for review 1, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews for review 2 and a range of quantitative and qualitative research designs for review 3.
METHODS: We conducted three inter-related reviews of quantitative and qualitative evidence, involving a review of conceptual frameworks of reminder systems and adherence behaviours, a review of the reminder effectiveness literature and a review informed by realist principles to explain the contexts and mechanisms that explain reminder effectiveness. A preliminary conceptual framework was developed to show how reminder systems work, for whom they work and in which circumstances. Six themes emerged that potentially influence the effectiveness of the reminder or whether or not patients would attend their appointment, namely the reminder–patient interaction, reminder accessibility, health-care settings, wider social issues, cancellation and rebookings, and distal/proxy attributes. Standardised review methods were used to investigate the effectiveness of reminders to promote attendance, cancellation or rebooking across all outpatient settings. Finally, a review informed by realist principles was undertaken, using the conceptual framework to explain the context and mechanisms that influence how reminders support attendance, cancellation and rebooking.
RESULTS: A total of 466 papers relating to 463 studies were identified for reviews 2 and 3. Findings from 31 RCTs and 11 separate systematic reviews (review 2 only) revealed that reminder systems are consistently effective at reducing non-attendance at appointments, regardless of health-care setting or patient subgroups. Simple reminders that provide details of timing and location of appointments are effective for increasing attendance at appointments. Reminders that provide additional information over and above the date, time and location of the appointment (‘reminder plus’) may be more effective than simple reminders at reducing non-attendance and may be particularly useful for first appointments and screening appointments; simple reminders may be appropriate thereafter for most patients the majority of the time. There was strong evidence that the timing of reminders, between 1 and 7 days prior to the appointment, has no effect on attendance; substantial numbers of patients do not receive their reminder; reminders promote cancellation of appointments; inadequate structural factors prevent patients from cancelling appointments; and few studies investigated factors that influence the effectiveness of reminder systems for population subgroups.
LIMITATIONS: Generally speaking, the systematic review method seeks to provide a precise answer to a tightly focused question, for which there is a high degree of homogeneity within the studies. A wide range of population types, intervention, comparison and outcomes is included within the RCTs we identified. However, use of this wider approach offers greater analytical capability in terms of understanding contextual and mechanistic factors that would not have been evident in a more narrowly focused review and increases confidence that the findings will have relevance in a wide range of service settings.
CONCLUSIONS: Simple reminders or ‘reminder plus’ should be sent to all patients in the absence of any clear contraindication. Other reminder alternatives may be relevant for key groups of patients: those from a deprived background, ethnic minorities, substance abusers and those with comorbidities and/or illnesses. We are developing a practice guideline that may help managers to further tailor their reminder systems for their service and client groups. We recommend future research activities in three main areas. First, more studies should routinely consider the potential for differential effects of reminder systems between patient groups in order to identify any inequalities and remedies. Second, ‘reminder plus’ systems appear promising, but there is a need for further research to understand how they influence attendance behaviour. Third, further research is required to identify strategies to ‘optimise’ reminder systems and compare performance with current approaches.
FUNDING: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic disease on healthcare services worldwide is growing and the increased development of educational interventions which help patients to better manage their own conditions is evident internationally. OBJECTIVES: This paper reports on findings of a review of Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions designed to improve patients' knowledge and skills to manage chronic disease, with particular reference to nursing contribution and practice. METHODS: Thirty Cochrane systematic reviews were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and summarised. FINDINGS: The majority of reviews included in this paper were judged by Cochrane reviewers to provide inadequate evidence (n=18, 60%) of the effectiveness of the interventions reviewed. Information on the professional delivering the interventions was often not available, although 77% (23) of reviews mentioned that nurses were involved in a proportion of studies. CONCLUSION: Educational programmes have definite benefits for patients suffering from asthma and are promising for interventions in areas such as diabetes mellitus, epilepsy and mental health. However, it still is not clear what the active ingredients of many successful interventions are.
There is now a plethora of different quality improvement strategies (QIS) for optimizing health care, some clinician/patient driven, others manager/policy-maker driven. Which of these are most effective remains unclear despite expressed concerns about potential for QIS-related patient harm and wasting of resources. The objective of this study was to review published literature assessing the relative effectiveness of different QIS. Data sources comprising PubMed Clinical Queries, Cochrane Library and its Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and HealthStar were searched for studies of QIS between January 1985 and February 2008 using search terms based on an a priori QIS classification suggested by experts. Systematic reviews of controlled trials were selected in determining effect sizes for specific QIS, which were compared as a narrative meta-review. Clinician/patient driven QIS were associated with stronger evidence of efficacy and larger effect sizes than manager/policy-maker driven QIS. The most effective strategies (>10% absolute increase in appropriate care or equivalent measure) included clinician-directed audit and feedback cycles, clinical decision support systems, specialty outreach programmes, chronic disease management programmes, continuing professional education based on interactive small-group case discussions, and patient-mediated clinician reminders. Pay-for-performance schemes directed to clinician groups and organizational process redesign were modestly effective. Other manager/policy-maker driven QIS including continuous quality improvement programmes, risk and safety management systems, public scorecards and performance reports, external accreditation, and clinical governance arrangements have not been adequately evaluated with regard to effectiveness. QIS are heterogeneous and methodological flaws in much of the evaluative literature limit validity and generalizability of results. Based on current best available evidence, clinician/patient driven QIS appear to be more effective than manager/policy-maker driven QIS although the latter have, in many instances, attracted insufficient robust evaluations to accurately determine their comparative effectiveness.
Globally, healthcare policy promotes supported self-management as a strategy for people with long-term conditions. This meta-review aimed to explore how people with hypertension make sense of their condition, to assess the effectiveness of supported self-management in hypertension, and to identify effective components of support.
METHODS:
From a search of eight databases (January 1993-October 2012; update June 2017) we included systematic syntheses of qualitative studies of patients' experiences, and systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of supported self-management on blood pressure and medication adherence. We used meta-ethnography, meta-Forest plots and narrative analysis to synthesise the data.
RESULTS:
Six qualitative and 29 quantitative reviews provided data from 98 and 446 unique studies, respectively. Self-management support consistently reduced SBP (by between 2 and 6 mmHg), and DBP (by between 1 and 5 mmHg). Information about hypertension and treatment, home BP monitoring (HBPM) and feedback (including telehealth) were widely used in effective interventions. Patients' perceptions of a disease with multiple symptoms contrasted with the professional view of an asymptomatic condition. HBPM, in the context of a supportive patient-professional relationship, changed perceptions of the significance of symptoms and fostered confidence in ability to self-manage hypertension.
CONCLUSION:
Our systematic qualitative and quantitative meta-reviews tell complementary stories. Supported self-management can improve blood pressure control. Interventions are complex and encompass a broad range of support strategies. HBPM (with or without telehealth) within the context of a supportive patient-professional partnership can bridge the gap between medical and lay perspectives of hypertension and enable effective self-management.