BACKGROUND: The funding of primary care is subject to intense debate internationally. Three main funding models predominate: capitation, pay-for-performance, and fee-for-service. A number of systematic reviews regarding the effect of primary care funding structures have been published, but not synthesized through an equity lens. Given the urgent need for evaluating funding models and addressing inequalities, a reliable, synthesized evidence base concerning the effects of funding on inequalities is imperative.
AIMS: This umbrella review aims to systematically evaluate all systematic reviews available on the effect of different primary care funding models in high-income countries on inequalities in funding, access, outcomes, or experience from inception until 2024.
METHODS: Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane) and a machine learning living evidence map were searched. Abstracts and titles were double screened, before two authors independently screened full texts, extracted data, and performed quality assessments utilizing the AMSTAR2 tool.
FINDINGS: The search identified 2480 unique articles, of which 14 were included in the final review. Only one review compared reimbursement systems; capitation systems were more equitable between ethnic groups compared to pay-for-performance in terms of primary care access, continuity, and quality. Twelve reviews reviewed the impact of the introduction of pay-for-performance models, predominantly focusing on the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK. Synthesized findings suggest that QOF's introduction coincided with reduced socioeconomic health inequalities in the UK overall, but not in Scotland. Overall, inequalities in age narrowed, but inequalities measured by sex widened. One review found evidence that targeting funding for minority groups, with poorer health, was effective. A further review found that introducing privately provided general practices in Sweden and allowing patients to choose these over public-owned options generally benefitted those with higher income and lower health needs. We identify a range of gaps in the literature, which should inform future research.
BACKGROUND: As a source of readily available evidence, rigorously synthesized and interpreted by expert clinicians and methodologists, clinical guidelines are part of an evidence-based practice toolkit, which, transformed into practice recommendations, have the potential to improve both the process of care and patient outcomes. In Brazil, the process of development and updating of the clinical guidelines for the Brazilian Unified Health System (Sistema Único de Saúde, SUS) is already well systematized by the Ministry of Health. However, the implementation process of those guidelines has not yet been discussed and well structured. Therefore, the first step of this project and the primary objective of this study was to summarize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies used to promote clinical practice guideline implementation and dissemination.
METHODS: This overview used systematic review methodology to locate and evaluate published systematic reviews regarding strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation and adhered to the PRISMA guidelines for systematic review (PRISMA).
RESULTS: This overview identified 36 systematic reviews regarding 30 strategies targeting healthcare organizations, healthcare providers and patients to promote guideline implementation. The most reported interventions were educational materials, educational meetings, reminders, academic detailing and audit and feedback. Care pathways-single intervention, educational meeting-single intervention, organizational culture, and audit and feedback-both strategies implemented in combination with others-were strategies categorized as generally effective from the systematic reviews. In the meta-analyses, when used alone, organizational culture, educational intervention and reminders proved to be effective in promoting physicians' adherence to the guidelines. When used in conjunction with other strategies, organizational culture also proved to be effective. For patient-related outcomes, education intervention showed effective results for disease target results at a short and long term.
CONCLUSION: This overview provides a broad summary of the best evidence on guideline implementation. Even if the included literature highlights the various limitations related to the lack of standardization, the methodological quality of the studies, and especially the lack of conclusion about the superiority of one strategy over another, the summary of the results provided by this study provides information on strategies that have been most widely studied in the last few years and their effectiveness in the context in which they were applied. Therefore, this panorama can support strategy decision-making adequate for SUS and other health systems, seeking to positively impact on the appropriate use of guidelines, healthcare outcomes and the sustainability of the SUS.
The COVID-19 pandemic identifies the problems of preventing respiratory illnesses in seniors, especially frail multimorbidity seniors in nursing homes and Long-Term Care Facilities (LCTFs). Medline and Embase were searched for nursing homes, long-term care facilities, respiratory tract infections, disease transmission, infection control, mortality, systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For seniors, there is strong evidence to vaccinate against influenza, SARS-CoV-2 and pneumococcal disease, and evidence is awaited for effectiveness against COVID-19 variants and when to revaccinate. There is strong evidence to promptly introduce comprehensive infection control interventions in LCFTs: no admissions from inpatient wards with COVID-19 patients; quarantine and monitor new admissions in single-patient rooms; screen residents, staff and visitors daily for temperature and symptoms; and staff work in only one home. Depending on the vaccination situation and the current risk situation, visiting restrictions and meals in the residents' own rooms may be necessary, and reduce crowding with individual patient rooms. Regional LTCF administrators should closely monitor and provide staff and PPE resources. The CDC COVID-19 tool measures 33 infection control indicators. Hand washing, social distancing, PPE (gowns, gloves, masks, eye protection), enhanced cleaning of rooms and high-touch surfaces need comprehensive implementation while awaiting more studies at low risk of bias. Individual ventilation with HEPA filters for all patient and common rooms and hallways is needed.
BACKGROUND: Antenatal care (ANC) and postnatal care (PNC) are critical opportunities for women, babies and parents/families to receive quality care and support from health services. Community-based interventions may improve the accessibility, availability, and acceptance of this vital care. For example, community mobilization strategies have been used to involve and collaborate with women, families and communities to improve maternal and newborn health.
OBJECTIVE: To synthesize existing reviews of evidence on community mobilization strategies that strengthen support for appropriate and timely use of ANC and PNC.
METHODS: Six databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO) were searched for published reviews that describe community mobilization related strategies for ANC and/or PNC. Reviews were eligible for inclusion if they described any initiatives or strategies targeting the promotion of ANC and/or PNC uptake that included an element of community mobilization in a low- or middle-income country (LMIC), published after 2000. Included reviews were critically appraised according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Evidence Syntheses. This review of reviews was conducted following JBI guidelines for undertaking and reporting umbrella reviews.
RESULTS: In total 23 papers, representing 22 reviews were included. While all 22 reviews contained some description of community mobilization and ANC/PNC, 13 presented more in-depth details on the community mobilization processes and relevant outcomes. Seventeen reviews focused on ANC, four considered both ANC and PNC, and only one focused on PNC. Overall, 16 reviews reported at least one positive association between community mobilization activities and ANC/PNC uptake, while five reviews presented primary studies with no statistically significant change in ANC uptake and one included a primary study with a decrease in use of antenatal facilities. The community mobilization activities described by the reviews ranged from informative, passive communication to more active, participatory approaches that included engaging individuals or consulting local leaders and community members to develop priorities and action plans.
CONCLUSIONS: While there is considerable momentum around incorporating community mobilization activities in maternal and newborn health programs, such as improving community support for the uptake of ANC and PNC, there is limited evidence on the processes used. Furthermore, the spectrum of terminology and variation in definitions should be harmonized to guide the implementation and evaluation efforts.
BACKGROUND: One target of the Sustainable Development Goals is to achieve "universal health coverage, including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all". A fundamental concern of governments in striving for this goal is how to finance such a health system. This concern is very relevant for low-income countries.
OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of financial arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on financial arrangements, and informing refinements in the framework for financial arrangements presented in the overview.
METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language, or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of financial arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment, or financial burden of patients, e.g. out-of-pocket payment, catastrophic disease expenditure) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 reviews and included 15 in this overview, on: collection of funds (2 reviews), insurance schemes (1 review), purchasing of services (1 review), recipient incentives (6 reviews), and provider incentives (5 reviews). The reviews were published between 2008 and 2015; focused on 13 subcategories; and reported results from 276 studies: 115 (42%) randomised trials, 11 (4%) non-randomised trials, 23 (8%) controlled before-after studies, 51 (19%) interrupted time series, 9 (3%) repeated measures, and 67 (24%) other non-randomised studies. Forty-three per cent (119/276) of the studies included in the reviews took place in low- and middle-income countries. Collection of funds: the effects of changes in user fees on utilisation and equity are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether aid delivered under the Paris Principles (ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability) improves health outcomes compared to aid delivered without conforming to those principles (very low-certainty evidence). Insurance schemes: community-based health insurance may increase service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether social health insurance improves utilisation of health services or health outcomes (very low-certainty evidence). Purchasing of services: it is uncertain whether increasing salaries of public sector healthcare workers improves the quantity or quality of their work (very low-certainty evidence). Recipient incentives: recipient incentives may improve adherence to long-term treatments (low-certainty evidence), but it is uncertain whether they improve patient outcomes. One-time recipient incentives probably improve patient return for start or continuation of treatment (moderate-certainty evidence) and may improve return for tuberculosis test readings (low-certainty evidence). However, incentives may not improve completion of tuberculosis prophylaxis, and it is uncertain whether they improve completion of treatment for active tuberculosis. Conditional cash transfer programmes probably lead to an increase in service utilisation (moderate-certainty evidence), but their effects on health outcomes are uncertain. Vouchers may improve health service utilisation (low-certainty evidence), but the effects on health outcomes are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence). Introducing a restrictive cap may decrease use of medicines for symptomatic conditions and overall use of medicines, may decrease insurers' expenditures on medicines (low-certainty evidence), and has uncertain effects on emergency department use, hospitalisations, and use of outpatient care (very low-certainty evidence). Reference pricing, maximum pricing, and index pricing for drugs have mixed effects on drug expenditures by patients and insurers as well as the use of brand and generic drugs. Provider incentives: the effects of provider incentives are uncertain (very low-certainty evidence), including: the effects of provider incentives on the quality of care provided by primary care physicians or outpatient referrals from primary to secondary care, incentives for recruiting and retaining health professionals to serve in remote areas, and the effects of pay-for-performance on provider performance, the utilisation of services, patient outcomes, or resource use in low-income countries.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Research based on sound systematic review methods has evaluated numerous financial arrangements relevant to low-income countries, targeting different levels of the health systems and assessing diverse outcomes. However, included reviews rarely reported social outcomes, resource use, equity impacts, or undesirable effects. We also identified gaps in primary research because of uncertainty about applicability of the evidence to low-income countries. Financial arrangements for which the effects are uncertain include external funding (aid), caps and co-payments, pay-for-performance, and provider incentives. Further studies evaluating the effects of these arrangements are needed in low-income countries. Systematic reviews should include all outcomes that are relevant to decision-makers and to people affected by changes in financial arrangements.
OBJECTIVE: To describe policy interventions that have the objective to reduce ED use and to estimate their effectiveness.
METHODS: Narrative review by searching three electronic databases for scientific literature review papers published between 2010 and October 2015. The quality of the included studies was assessed with AMSTAR, and a narrative synthesis of the retrieved papers was applied.
RESULTS: Twenty-three included publications described six types of interventions: (1) cost sharing; (2) strengthening primary care; (3) pre-hospital diversion (including telephone triage); (4) coordination; (5) education and self-management support; (6) barriers to access emergency departments. The high number of interventions, the divergent methods used to measure outcomes and the different populations complicate their evaluation. Although approximately two-thirds of the primary studies showed reductions in ED use for most interventions the evidence showed contradictory results.
CONCLUSION: Despite numerous publications, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that aim to reduce ED use remains insufficient. Studies on more homogeneous patient groups with a clearly described intervention and control group are needed to determine for which specific target group what type of intervention is most successful and how the intervention should be designed. The effective use of ED services in general is a complex and multi-factorial problem that requires integrated interventions that will have to be adapted to the specific context of a country with a feedback system to monitor its (un-)intended consequences. Yet, the co-location of GP posts and emergency departments seems together with the introduction of telephone triage systems the preferred interventions to reduce inappropriate ED visits while case-management might reduce the number of ED attendances by frequent ED users.
Pay-for-performance (P4P) has been widely used around the world seeking to improve health outcomes, and in Brazil it is the basis of the National Program for Improving Access and Quality (PMAQ). The literature published between 1998 and January 2013 that evaluated the effectiveness of P4P to produce results or patterns of access and quality in health was scrutinized. A total of 138 studies, with the inclusion of a further 41 studies (14 systematic reviews, 07 clinical trials and 20 observational studies) were retrieved and analyzed Among the more rigorous studies, favorable conclusions for P4P were less frequent, whereas observational studies were more favorable to positive effects of P4P on the quality of, and access to, health services. Methodological limitations of observational studies may have contributed to these results, but the range of results is more linked to the conceptual and contextual aspects of the use of the P4P schemes reviewed, the heterogeneity of P4P models and results. P4P can be helpful in promoting the achievement of objectives in health care systems, especially in the short term and for specific actions requiring less effort of health care providers, but should be used with caution and with a rigorous planning model, also considering undesirable or adverse effects.
OBJECTIVES: There are various interventions for guideline implementation in clinical practice, but the effects of these interventions are generally unclear. We conducted a systematic review to identify effective methods of implementing clinical research findings and clinical guidelines to change physician practice patterns, in surgical and general practice. STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review of reviews. METHODS: We searched electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed) for systematic reviews published in English that evaluated the effectiveness of different implementation methods. Two reviewers independently assessed eligibility for inclusion and methodological quality, and extracted relevant data. RESULTS: Fourteen reviews covering a wide range of interventions were identified. The intervention methods used include: audit and feedback, computerized decision support systems, continuing medical education, financial incentives, local opinion leaders, marketing, passive dissemination of information, patient-mediated interventions, reminders, and multifaceted interventions. Active approaches, such as academic detailing, led to greater effects than traditional passive approaches. According to the findings of 3 reviews, 71% of studies included in these reviews showed positive change in physician behavior when exposed to active educational methods and multifaceted interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Active forms of continuing medical education and multifaceted interventions were found to be the most effective methods for implementing guidelines into general practice. Additionally, active approaches to changing physician performance were shown to improve practice to a greater extent than traditional passive methods. Further primary research is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of these methods in a surgical setting.
BACKGROUND: Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States.
PURPOSE: To review the effectiveness and safety of pharmacotherapy and behavioral interventions for tobacco cessation.
DATA SOURCES: 5 databases and 8 organizational Web sites were searched through 1 August 2014 for systematic reviews, and PubMed was searched through 1 March 2015 for trials on electronic nicotine delivery systems.
STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers examined 114 articles to identify English-language reviews that reported health, cessation, or adverse outcomes.
DATA EXTRACTION: One reviewer abstracted data from good- and fair-quality reviews, and a second checked for accuracy.
DATA SYNTHESIS: Fifty-four reviews were included. Behavioral interventions increased smoking cessation at 6 months or more (physician advice had a pooled risk ratio [RR] of 1.76 [95% CI, 1.58 to 1.96]). Nicotine replacement therapy (RR, 1.60 [CI, 1.53 to 1.68]), bupropion (RR, 1.62 [CI, 1.49 to 1.76]), and varenicline (RR, 2.27 [CI, 2.02 to 2.55]) were also effective for smoking cessation. Combined behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions increased cessation by 82% compared with minimal intervention or usual care (RR, 1.82 [CI, 1.66 to 2.00]). None of the drugs were associated with major cardiovascular adverse events. Only 2 trials addressed efficacy of electronic cigarettes for smoking cessation and found no benefit. Among pregnant women, behavioral interventions benefited cessation and perinatal health; effects of nicotine replacement therapy were not significant.
LIMITATION: Evidence published after each review's last search date was not included.
CONCLUSION: Behavioral and pharmacotherapy interventions improve rates of smoking cessation among the general adult population, alone or in combination. Data on the effectiveness and safety of electronic nicotine delivery systems are limited.
PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) rely on available evidence when devising and implementing pharmaceutical policies. Aim of the review To provide a critical overview of systematic reviews of pharmaceutical policies, with particular focus on the relevance of such reviews in low- and middle-income countries. Methods A search for systematic reviews (SRs) of studies of the interventions of interest was conducted until May 2009 in MEDLINE, EconLit, CINAHL, the Cochrane site, ProQuest, EMBASE, JOLIS, ISI Web of Science, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, International Network for Rational Use of Drugs, National Technical Information Service, Public Affairs Information Service, SourceOECD, the System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe, and the WHO library database. The search was updated to July 2013, based on the yields of the initial search strategy. Results 20 SRs that met all inclusion criteria were retrieved in full text. Four SRs were subsequently rejected on the basis of quality considerations and the findings of 16 SRs were extracted and their applicability in LMICs considered. Of these, 5 were Cochrane Reviews. All included SRs were published in English. SRs related to registration and classification policies, marketing policies, prescribing policies, reimbursement policies, policies on price and payments, co-payments and caps and multi-component policies were retrieved. No SRs related to patent and profit policies, sales and dispensing policies, policies that regulate the provision of health insurance, or policies on patient information were retrieved. Conclusion Only one of the systematic reviews retrieved utilised a study conducted in a developing country. The direct applicability of the evidence from these SRs in LMICs is limited. However, as middle-income countries move towards universal health coverage, the multi-component policies that govern reimbursement for medicines, and which impose caps on payments and co-payments by patients, may become more applicable. As such they will have direct implications for the practice of clinical pharmacy in such settings. Considerable effort will be needed to systemically review the available primary evidence from studies conducted in developing country settings, where such data exist.
The funding of primary care is subject to intense debate internationally. Three main funding models predominate: capitation, pay-for-performance, and fee-for-service. A number of systematic reviews regarding the effect of primary care funding structures have been published, but not synthesized through an equity lens. Given the urgent need for evaluating funding models and addressing inequalities, a reliable, synthesized evidence base concerning the effects of funding on inequalities is imperative.
AIMS:
This umbrella review aims to systematically evaluate all systematic reviews available on the effect of different primary care funding models in high-income countries on inequalities in funding, access, outcomes, or experience from inception until 2024.
METHODS:
Three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane) and a machine learning living evidence map were searched. Abstracts and titles were double screened, before two authors independently screened full texts, extracted data, and performed quality assessments utilizing the AMSTAR2 tool.
FINDINGS:
The search identified 2480 unique articles, of which 14 were included in the final review. Only one review compared reimbursement systems; capitation systems were more equitable between ethnic groups compared to pay-for-performance in terms of primary care access, continuity, and quality. Twelve reviews reviewed the impact of the introduction of pay-for-performance models, predominantly focusing on the Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF) in the UK. Synthesized findings suggest that QOF's introduction coincided with reduced socioeconomic health inequalities in the UK overall, but not in Scotland. Overall, inequalities in age narrowed, but inequalities measured by sex widened. One review found evidence that targeting funding for minority groups, with poorer health, was effective. A further review found that introducing privately provided general practices in Sweden and allowing patients to choose these over public-owned options generally benefitted those with higher income and lower health needs. We identify a range of gaps in the literature, which should inform future research.
