Systematic reviews related to this topic

loading
15 References (15 articles) loading Revert Studify

Systematic review

Unclassified

Continuing education meetings and workshops: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

blocked
Journal The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
Year 2021
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 11 Broad syntheses 81 Broad syntheses (11 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 81 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 81 Primary studies 81 Primary studies (81 references)

Loading references information
Background: Educational meetings are used widely by health personnel to provide continuing medical education and to promote implementation of innovations or translate new knowledge to change practice within healthcare systems. Previous reviews have concluded that educational meetings can result in small changes in behaviour, but that effects vary considerably. Investigations into which characteristics of educational meetings might lead to greater impact have yielded varying results, and factors that might explain heterogeneity in effects remain unclear. This is the second update of this Cochrane Review. Objectives: • To assess the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. • To investigate factors that might explain the heterogeneity of these effects. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ERIC, Science Citation Index Expanded (ISI Web of Knowledge), and Social Sciences Citation Index (last search in November 2016). Selection criteria: We sought randomised trials examining the effects of educational meetings on professional practice and patient outcomes. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. One review author assessed the certainty of evidence (GRADE) and discussed with a second review author. We included studies in the primary analysis that reported baseline data and that we judged to be at low or unclear risk of bias. For each comparison of dichotomous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as risk difference adjusted for baseline compliance. We expressed adjusted risk difference values as percentages, and we noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. For continuous outcomes, we measured treatment effect as per cent change relative to the control group mean post test, adjusted for baseline performance; we expressed values as percentages and noted that values greater than zero favour educational meetings. We report means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and, when appropriate, medians and interquartile ranges to facilitate comparisons to previous versions of this review. We analysed professional and patient outcomes separately and analysed 22 variables that were hypothesised a priori to explain heterogeneity. We explored heterogeneity by using univariate meta-regression and by inspecting violin plots. Main results: We included 215 studies involving more than 28,167 health professionals, including 142 new studies for this update. Educational meetings as the single intervention or the main component of a multi-faceted intervention compared with no intervention. • Probably slightly improve compliance with desired practice when compared with no intervention (65 comparisons, 7868 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 6.79%, 95% CI 6.62% to 6.97%; median 4.00%; interquartile range 0.29% to 13.00%); 28 comparisons, 2577 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 44.36%, 95% CI 41.98% to 46.75%; median 20.00%; interquartile range 6.00% to 65.00%)). • Probably slightly improve patient outcomes compared with no intervention (15 comparisons, 2530 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 3.30%, 95% CI 3.10% to 3.51%; median 0.10%; interquartile range 0.00% to 4.00%); 28 comparisons, 2294 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 8.35%, 95% CI 7.46% to 9.24%; median 2.00%; interquartile range -1.00% to 21.00%)). The certainty of evidence for this comparison is moderate. Educational meetings alone compared with other interventions. • May improve compliance with desired practice when compared with other interventions (6 studies, 1402 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes (adjusted risk difference 9.99%, 95% CI 9.47% to 10.52%; median 16.5%; interquartile range 0.80% to 16.50%); 2 studies, 72 health professionals for continuous outcomes (adjusted relative percentage change 12.00%, 95% CI 9.16% to 14.84%; median 12.00%; interquartile range 0.00% to 24.00%)). No studies met the inclusion criteria for patient outcome measurements. The certainty of evidence for this comparison is low. Interactive educational meetings compared with didactic (lecture-based) educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (3 studies, 370 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 192 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 54 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Any other comparison of different formats and durations of educational meetings. • We are uncertain of effects on compliance with desired practice (1 study, 19 health professionals for dichotomous outcomes; 1 study, 20 health professionals for continuous outcomes) or on patient outcomes (1 study, 113 health professionals for continuous outcomes), as the certainty of evidence is very low. Factors that might explain heterogeneity of effects. Meta-regression suggests that larger estimates of effect are associated with studies judged to be at high risk of bias, with studies that had unit of analysis errors, and with studies in which the unit of analysis was the provider rather than the patient. Improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with: shorter meetings; poor baseline compliance; better attendance; shorter follow-up; professionals provided with additional take-home material; explicit building of educational meetings on theory; targeting of low- versus high-complexity behaviours; targeting of outcomes with high versus low importance; goal of increasing rather than decreasing behaviour; teaching by opinion leaders; and use of didactic versus interactive teaching methods. Pre-specified exploratory analyses of behaviour change techniques suggest that improved compliance with desired practice may be associated with use of a greater number of behaviour change techniques; goal-setting; provision of feedback; provision for social comparison; and provision for social support. Compliance may be decreased by the use of follow-up prompts, skills training, and barrier identification techniques. Authors' conclusions: Compared with no intervention, educational meetings as the main component of an intervention probably slightly improve professional practice and, to a lesser extent, patient outcomes. Educational meetings may improve compliance with desired practice to a greater extent than other kinds of behaviour change interventions, such as text messages, fees, or office systems. Our findings suggest that multi-strategy approaches might positively influence the effects of educational meetings. Additional trials of educational meetings compared with no intervention are unlikely to change the review findings; therefore we will not further update this review comparison in the future. However, we note that randomised trials comparing different types of education are needed.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Patient reminder and recall interventions to improve immunization rates

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2018
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 76 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference) 6 Broad syntheses 76 Broad syntheses (6 references)

This article includes 75 Primary studies 76 Primary studies (75 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Immunization rates for children and adults are rising, but coverage levels have not reached optimal goals. As a result, vaccine-preventable diseases still occur. In an era of increasing complexity of immunization schedules, rising expectations about the performance of primary care, and large demands on primary care providers, it is important to understand and promote interventions that work in primary care settings to increase immunization coverage. One common theme across immunization programs in many nations involves the challenge of implementing a population-based approach and identifying all eligible recipients, for example the children who should receive the measles vaccine. However, this issue is gradually being addressed through the availability of immunization registries and electronic health records. A second common theme is identifying the best strategies to promote high vaccination rates. Three types of strategies have been studied: (1) patient-oriented interventions, such as patient reminder or recall, (2) provider interventions, and (3) system interventions, such as school laws. One of the most prominent intervention strategies, and perhaps best studied, involves patient reminder or recall systems. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various types of patient reminder and recall interventions to improve receipt of immunizations. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL to January 2017. We also searched grey literature and trial registers to January 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series evaluating immunization-focused patient reminder or recall interventions in children, adolescents, and adults who receive immunizations in any setting. We included no-intervention control groups, standard practice activities that did not include immunization patient reminder or recall, media-based activities aimed at promoting immunizations, or simple practice-based awareness campaigns. We included receipt of any immunizations as eligible outcome measures, excluding special travel immunizations. We excluded patients who were hospitalized for the duration of the study period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We present results for individual studies as relative rates using risk ratios, and risk differences for randomized trials, and as absolute changes in percentage points for controlled before-after studies. We present pooled results for randomized trials using the random-effects model. MAIN RESULTS: The 75 included studies involved child, adolescent, and adult participants in outpatient, community-based, primary care, and other settings in 10 countries.Patient reminder or recall interventions, including telephone and autodialer calls, letters, postcards, text messages, combination of mail or telephone, or a combination of patient reminder or recall with outreach, probably improve the proportion of participants who receive immunization (risk ratio (RR) of 1.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.23 to 1.35; risk difference of 8%) based on moderate certainty evidence from 55 studies with 138,625 participants.Three types of single-method reminders improve receipt of immunizations based on high certainty evidence: the use of postcards (RR 1.18, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.30; eight studies; 27,734 participants), text messages (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.44; six studies; 7772 participants), and autodialer (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.32; five studies; 11,947 participants). Two types of single-method reminders probably improve receipt of immunizations based on moderate certainty evidence: the use of telephone calls (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.54; seven studies; 9120 participants) and letters to patients (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; 27 studies; 81,100 participants).Based on high certainty evidence, reminders improve receipt of immunizations for childhood (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.29; risk difference of 8%; 23 studies; 31,099 participants) and adolescent vaccinations (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.42; risk difference of 7%; 10 studies; 30,868 participants). Reminders probably improve receipt of vaccinations for childhood influenza (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.99; risk difference of 22%; five studies; 9265 participants) and adult influenza (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.43; risk difference of 9%; 15 studies; 59,328 participants) based on moderate certainty evidence. They may improve receipt of vaccinations for adult pneumococcus, tetanus, hepatitis B, and other non-influenza vaccinations based on low certainty evidence although the confidence interval includes no effect of these interventions (RR 2.08, 95% CI 0.91 to 4.78; four studies; 8065 participants). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Patient reminder and recall systems, in primary care settings, are likely to be effective at improving the proportion of the target population who receive immunizations.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of cap and co-payment on rational use of medicines.

Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 5 Broad syntheses 36 Broad syntheses (5 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 36 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 36 Primary studies 36 Primary studies (36 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Growing expenditures on prescription medicines represent a major challenge to many health systems. Cap and co-payment policies are intended as an incentive to deter unnecessary or marginal utilisation, and to reduce third-party payer expenditures by shifting parts of the financial burden from insurers to patients, thus increasing their financial responsibility for prescription medicines. Direct patient payment policies include caps (maximum numbers of prescriptions or medicines that are reimbursed), fixed co-payments (patients pay a fixed amount per prescription or medicine), co-insurance (patients pay a percentage of the price), ceilings (patients pay the full price or part of the cost up to a ceiling, after which medicines are free or are available at reduced cost) and tier co-payments (differential co-payments usually assigned to generic and brand medicines). This is the first update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of cap and co-payment (cost-sharing) policies on use of medicines, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes and costs (expenditures). SEARCH METHODS: For this update, we searched the following databases and websites: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Library; MEDLINE, Ovid; EMBASE, Ovid; IPSA, EBSCO; EconLit, ProQuest; Worldwide Political Science Abstracts, ProQuest; PAIS International, ProQuest; INRUD Bibliography; WHOLIS, WHO; LILACS), VHL; Global Health Library WHO; PubMed, NHL; SCOPUS; SciELO, BIREME; OpenGrey; JOLIS Library Network; OECD Library; World Bank e-Library; World Health Organization, WHO; World Bank Documents & Reports; International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), WHO; ClinicalTrials.gov, NIH. We searched all databases during January and February 2013, apart from SciELO, which we searched in January 2012, and ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov, which we searched in March 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We defined policies in this review as laws, rules or financial or administrative orders made by governments, non-government organisations or private insurers. We included randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, interrupted time series studies, repeated measures studies and controlled before-after studies of cap or co-payment policies for a large jurisdiction or system of care. To be included, a study had to include an objective measure of at least one of the following outcomes: medicine use, healthcare utilisation, health outcomes or costs (expenditures). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study limitations. We reanalysed time series data for studies with sufficient data, if appropriate analyses were not reported. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 full-text articles (17 new) reporting evaluations of 39 different interventions (one study - Newhouse 1993 - comprises five papers). We excluded from this update eight controlled before-after studies included in the previous version of this review, because they included only one site in their intervention or control groups. Five papers evaluated caps, and six evaluated a cap with co-insurance and a ceiling. Six evaluated fixed co-payment, two evaluated tiered fixed co-payment, 10 evaluated a ceiling with fixed co-payment and 10 evaluated a ceiling with co-insurance. Only one evaluation was a randomised trial. The certainty of the evidence was found to be generally low to very low.Increasing the amount of money that people pay for medicines may reduce insurers' medicine expenditures and may reduce patients' medicine use. This may include reductions in the use of life-sustaining medicines as well as medicines that are important in treating chronic conditions and medicines for asymptomatic conditions. These types of interventions may lead to small decreases in or uncertain effects on healthcare utilisation. We found no studies that reliably reported the effects of these types of interventions on health outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The diversity of interventions and outcomes addressed across studies and differences in settings, populations and comparisons made it difficult to summarise results across studies. Cap and co-payment polices may reduce the use of medicines and reduce medicine expenditures for health insurers. However, they may also reduce the use of life-sustaining medicines or medicines that are important in treating chronic, including symptomatic, conditions and, consequently, could increase the use of healthcare services. Fixed co-payment with a ceiling and tiered fixed co-payment may be less likely to reduce the use of essential medicines or to increase the use of healthcare services.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Interventions for increasing the proportion of health professionals practising in rural and other underserved areas.

Authors Grobler L , Marais BJ , Mabunda S
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2015
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central

This article is included in 6 Broad syntheses 1 Broad syntheses (6 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 1 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 1 Primary study 1 Primary studies (1 reference)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: The inequitable distribution of health professionals, within countries, poses an important obstacle to the optimal functioning of health services. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of interventions aimed at increasing the proportion of health professionals working in rural and other underserved areas. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, including specialised register of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group; March 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to March 2014), EMBASE (1988 to March 2014), CINAHL (1982 to March 2014), LILACS (February 2014), Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (up to April 2014), Global Health (March 2014) and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (June 2013). We also searched reference lists of all papers and relevant reviews identified, and contacted authors of relevant papers regarding any further published or unpublished work. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials, non-randomised trials, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series studies evaluating the effects of various interventions (e.g. educational, financial, regulatory or support strategies) on the recruitment or retention, or both, of health professionals in underserved areas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts of potentially relevant studies for eligibility. Two review authors independently extracted data from eligible studies. MAIN RESULTS: For this first update of the original review, we screened 8945 records for eligibility. We retrieved and assessed the full text of 125 studies. Only one study met the inclusion criteria of the review. This interrupted time series study, conducted in Taiwan, found that the implementation of a National Health Insurance scheme in 1995 was associated with improved equity in the geographic distribution of physicians and dentists. We judged the certainty of the evidence provided by this one study very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently limited reliable evidence regarding the effects of interventions aimed at addressing the inequitable distribution of health professionals. Well-designed studies are needed to confirm or refute findings of observational studies of educational, financial, regulatory and supportive interventions that might influence healthcare professionals' decisions to practice in underserved areas. Governments and medical schools should ensure that when interventions are implemented, their impacts are evaluated using scientifically rigorous methods to establish the true effects of these measures on healthcare professional recruitment and retention in rural and other underserved settings.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Traditional birth attendant training for improving health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2012
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central 3ie Systematic Reviews

This article is included in 4 Broad syntheses 6 Broad syntheses (4 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 6 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 9 Primary studies 6 Primary studies (9 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Between the 1970s and 1990s, the World Health Organization promoted traditional birth attendant (TBA) training as one strategy to reduce maternal and neonatal mortality. To date, evidence in support of TBA training is limited but promising for some mortality outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of TBA training on health behaviours and pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 June 2012), citation alerts from our work and reference lists of studies identified in the search. SELECTION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCT), comparing trained versus untrained TBAs, additionally trained versus trained TBAs, or women cared for/living in areas served by TBAs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three authors independently assessed study quality and extracted data in the original and first update review. Three authors and one external reviewer independently assessed study quality and two extracted data in this second update. MAIN RESULTS: Six studies involving over 1345 TBAs, more than 32,000 women and approximately 57,000 births that examined the effects of TBA training for trained versus untrained TBAs (one study) and additionally trained TBA training versus trained TBAs (five studies) are included in this review. These studies consist of individual randomised trials (two studies) and cluster-randomised trials (four studies). The primary outcomes across the sample of studies were perinatal deaths, stillbirths and neonatal deaths (early, late and overall). Trained TBAs versus untrained TBAs: one cluster-randomised trial found a significantly lower perinatal death rate in the trained versus untrained TBA clusters (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.83), lower stillbirth rate (adjusted OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.83) and lower neonatal death rate (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.82). This study also found the maternal death rate was lower but not significant (adjusted OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.22). Additionally trained TBAs versus trained TBAs: three large cluster-randomised trials compared TBAs who received additional training in initial steps of resuscitation, including bag-valve-mask ventilation, with TBAs who had received basic training in safe, clean delivery and immediate newborn care. Basic training included mouth-to-mouth resuscitation (two studies) or bag-valve-mask resuscitation (one study). There was no significant difference in the perinatal death rate between the intervention and control clusters (one study, adjusted OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.02) and no significant difference in late neonatal death rate between intervention and control clusters (one study, adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.47, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.11). The neonatal death rate, however, was 45% lower in intervention compared with the control clusters (one study, 22.8% versus 40.2%, adjusted RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.92). We conducted a meta-analysis on two outcomes: stillbirths and early neonatal death. There was no significant difference between the additionally trained TBAs versus trained TBAs for stillbirths (two studies, mean weighted adjusted RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28) or early neonatal death rate (three studies, mean weighted adjusted RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.01).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results are promising for some outcomes (perinatal death, stillbirth and neonatal death). However, most outcomes are reported in only one study. A lack of contrast in training in the intervention and control clusters may have contributed to the null result for stillbirths and an insufficient number of studies may have contributed to the failure to achieve significance for early neonatal deaths. Despite the additional studies included in this updated systematic review, there remains insufficient evidence to establish the potential of TBA training to improve peri-neonatal mortality.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Strategies for integrating primary health services in low- and middle-income countries at the point of delivery

blocked
Journal Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Year 2011
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central 3ie Systematic Reviews

This article is included in 9 Broad syntheses 8 Broad syntheses (9 references)

This article includes 8 Primary studies 8 Primary studies (8 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: In some low- and middle-income countries, separate vertical programmes deliver specific life-saving interventions but can fragment services. Strategies to integrate services aim to bring together inputs, organisation, and delivery of particular functions to increase efficiency and people's access. We examined the evidence on the effectiveness of integration strategies at the point of delivery (sometimes termed 'linkages'), including integrated delivery of tuberculosis (TB), HIV/AIDS and reproductive health programmes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of strategies to integrate primary health care services on healthcare delivery and health status in low- and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) 2010, Issue 3, part of the The Cochrane Library. www.thecochranelibrary.com, including the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group Specialised Register (searched 15 September  2010); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to August Week 5 2010) (searched 10 September  2010); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2010 Week 35) (searched 10 September  2010); CINAHL, EBSCO (1980 to present) (searched 20 September 2010); Sociological Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1952 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); Social Services Abstracts, CSA Illumina (1979 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); POPLINE (1970 to current) (searched 10 September  2010); International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, Webspirs (1951 to current) (searched 01 July 2008); HealthStar (1975 to September 2005), Cab Health (1972 to 1999), and reference lists of articles. We also searched the World Health Organization (WHOLIS) library database, handsearched relevant WHO publications, and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before and after studies, and interrupted time series analyses of integration strategies, including strengthening linkages, in primary health care services. Health services in high-income countries, private public partnerships, and hospital inpatient care were excluded as were programmes promoting the integrated management of childhood illnesses. The main outcomes were indicators of healthcare delivery, user views, and health status. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The statistical results of individual studies are reported and summarised. MAIN RESULTS: Five randomised trials and four controlled before and after studies were included. The interventions were complex. Five studies added an additional component, or linked a new component, to an existing service, for example, adding family planning or HIV counselling and testing to routine services. The evidence from these studies indicated that adding on services probably increases service utilisation but probably does not improve health status outcomes, such as incident pregnancies. Four studies compared integrated services to single, special services. Based on the included studies, fully integrating sexually transmitted infection (STI) and family planning, and maternal and child health services into routine care as opposed to delivering them as special 'vertical' services may decrease utilisation, client knowledge of and satisfaction with the services and may not result in any difference in health outcomes, such as child survival. Integrating HIV prevention and control at facility and community level improved the effectiveness of certain services (STI treatment in males) but resulted in no difference in health seeking behaviour, STI incidence, or HIV incidence in the population. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is some evidence that 'adding on' services (or linkages) may improve the utilisation and outputs of healthcare delivery. However, there is no evidence to date that a fuller form of integration improves healthcare delivery or health status. Available evidence suggests that full integration probably decreases the knowledge and utilisation of specific services and may not result in any improvements in health status. More rigorous studies of different strategies to promote integration over a wider range of services and settings are needed. These studies should include economic evaluation and the views of clients as clients' views will influence the uptake of integration strategies at the point of delivery and the effectiveness on community health of these strategies.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Lay health workers in primary and community health care for maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2010
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central 3ie Systematic Reviews RxForChange

This article is included in 12 Broad syntheses 82 Broad syntheses (12 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 82 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 88 Primary studies 82 Primary studies (88 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Lay health workers (LHWs) are widely used to provide care for a broad range of health issues. Little is known, however, about the effectiveness of LHW interventions. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of LHW interventions in primary and community health care on maternal and child health and the management of infectious diseases. SEARCH STRATEGY: For the current version of this review we searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (including citations uploaded from the EPOC and the CCRG registers) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 1 Online) (searched 18 February 2009); MEDLINE, Ovid (1950 to February Week 1 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid (February 13 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); EMBASE, Ovid (1980 to 2009 Week 05) (searched 18 February 2009); AMED, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 19 February 2009); British Nursing Index and Archive, Ovid (1985 to February 2009) (searched 17 February 2009); CINAHL, Ebsco 1981 to present (searched 07 February 2010); POPLINE (searched 25 February 2009); WHOLIS (searched 16 April 2009); Science Citation Index and Social Sciences Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) (1975 to present) (searched 10 August 2006 and 10 February 2010). We also searched the reference lists of all included papers and relevant reviews, and contacted study authors and researchers in the field for additional papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of any intervention delivered by LHWs (paid or voluntary) in primary or community health care and intended to improve maternal or child health or the management of infectious diseases. A 'lay health worker' was defined as any health worker carrying out functions related to healthcare delivery, trained in some way in the context of the intervention, and having no formal professional or paraprofessional certificate or tertiary education degree. There were no restrictions on care recipients. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standard form and assessed risk of bias. Studies that compared broadly similar types of interventions were grouped together. Where feasible, the study results were combined and an overall estimate of effect obtained. MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. These showed considerable diversity in the targeted health issue and the aims, content, and outcomes of interventions. The majority were conducted in high income countries (n = 55) but many of these focused on low income and minority populations. The diversity of included studies limited meta-analysis to outcomes for four study groups. These analyses found evidence of moderate quality of the effectiveness of LHWs in promoting immunisation childhood uptake (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.37; P = 0.0004); promoting initiation of breastfeeding (RR = 1.36, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.61; P < 0.00001), any breastfeeding (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.39; P = 0.0004), and exclusive breastfeeding (RR 2.78, 95% CI 1.74 to 4.44; P <0.0001); and improving pulmonary TB cure rates (RR 1.22 (95% CI 1.13 to 1.31) P <0.0001), when compared to usual care. There was moderate quality evidence that LHW support had little or no effect on TB preventive treatment completion (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.09; P = 0.99). There was also low quality evidence that LHWs may reduce child morbidity (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.99; P = 0.03) and child (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.03; P = 0.07) and neonatal (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.02; P = 0.07) mortality, and increase the likelihood of seeking care for childhood illness (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.05; P = 0.20). For other health issues, the evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions regarding effectiveness, or to enable the identification of specific LHW training or intervention strategies likely to be most effective. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: LHWs provide promising benefits in promoting immunisation uptake and breastfeeding, improving TB treatment outcomes, and reducing child morbidity and mortality when compared to usual care. For other health issues, evidence is insufficient to draw conclusions about the effects of LHWs.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2008
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central RxForChange

This article is included in 8 Broad syntheses 17 Broad syntheses (8 references)

This article includes 19 Primary studies 17 Primary studies (19 references)

Loading references information
Background: The primary care specialist interface is a key organisational feature of many health care systems. Patients are referred to specialist care when investigation or therapeutic options are exhausted in primary care and more specialised care is needed. Referral has considerable implications for patients, the health care system and health care costs. There is considerable evidence that the referral processes can be improved. Objectives: To estimate the effectiveness and efficiency of interventions to change outpatient referral rates or improve outpatient referral appropriateness. Search strategy: We conducted electronic searches of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group specialised register (developed through extensive searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Healthstar and the Cochrane Library) (February 2002) and the National Research Register. Updated searches were conducted in MEDLINE and the EPOC specialised register up to October 2007. Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials, controlled clinical trials, controlled before and after studies and interrupted time series of interventions to change or improve outpatient referrals. Participants were primary care physicians. The outcomes were objectively measured provider performance or health outcomes. Data collection and analysis: A minimum of two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Main results: Seventeen studies involving 23 separate comparisons were included. Nine studies (14 comparisons) evaluated professional educational interventions. Ineffective strategies included: passive dissemination of local referral guidelines (two studies), feedback of referral rates (one study) and discussion with an independent medical adviser (one study). Generally effective strategies included dissemination of guidelines with structured referral sheets (four out of five studies) and involvement of consultants in educational activities (two out of three studies). Four studies evaluated organisational interventions (patient management by family physicians compared to general internists, attachment of a physiotherapist to general practices, a new slot system for referrals and requiring a second 'in-house' opinion prior to referral), all of which were effective. Four studies (five comparisons) evaluated financial interventions. One study evaluating change from a capitation based to mixed capitation and fee-for-service system and from a fee-for-service to a capitation based system (with an element of risk sharing for secondary care services) observed a reduction in referral rates. Modest reductions in referral rates of uncertain significance were observed following the introduction of the general practice fundholding scheme in the United Kingdom (UK). One study evaluating the effect of providing access to private specialists demonstrated an increase in the proportion of patients referred to specialist services but no overall effect on referral rates. Authors' conclusions: There are a limited number of rigorous evaluations to base policy on. Active local educational interventions involving secondary care specialists and structured referral sheets are the only interventions shown to impact on referral rates based on current evidence. The effects of 'in-house' second opinion and other intermediate primary care based alternatives to outpatient referral appear promising. Copyright © 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration. Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes

blocked
Journal Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online)
Year 2007
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central RxForChange

This article is included in 13 Broad syntheses 69 Broad syntheses (13 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 69 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 74 Primary studies 69 Primary studies (74 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: Educational outreach visits (EOVs) have been identified as an intervention that may improve the practice of healthcare professionals. This type of face-to-face visit has been referred to as university-based educational detailing, academic detailing, and educational visiting. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of EOVs on health professional practice or patient outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update, we searched the Cochrane EPOC register to March 2007. In the original review, we searched multiple bibliographic databases including MEDLINE and CINAHL. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials of EOVs that reported an objective measure of professional performance or healthcare outcomes. An EOV was defined as a personal visit by a trained person to healthcare professionals in their own settings. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. We used bubble plots and box plots to visually inspect the data. We conducted both quantitative and qualitative analyses. We used meta-regression to examine potential sources of heterogeneity determined a priori. We hypothesised eight factors to explain variation across effect estimates. In our primary visual and statistical analyses, we included only studies with dichotomous outcomes, with baseline data and with low or moderate risk of bias, in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to no intervention. MAIN RESULTS: We included 69 studies involving more than 15,000 health professionals. Twenty-eight studies (34 comparisons) contributed to the calculation of the median and interquartile range for the main comparison. The median adjusted risk difference (RD) in compliance with desired practice was 5.6% (interquartile range 3.0% to 9.0%). The adjusted RDs were highly consistent for prescribing (median 4.8%, interquartile range 3.0% to 6.5% for 17 comparisons), but varied for other types of professional performance (median 6.0%, interquartile range 3.6% to 16.0% for 17 comparisons). Meta-regression was limited by the large number of potential explanatory factors (eight) with only 31 comparisons, and did not provide any compelling explanations for the observed variation in adjusted RDs. There were 18 comparisons with continuous outcomes, with a median adjusted relative improvement of 21% (interquartile range 11% to 41%). There were eight trials (12 comparisons) in which the intervention included an EOV and was compared to another type of intervention, usually audit and feedback. Interventions that included EOVs appeared to be slightly superior to audit and feedback. Only six studies evaluated different types of visits in head-to-head comparisons. When individual visits were compared to group visits (three trials), the results were mixed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: EOVs alone or when combined with other interventions have effects on prescribing that are relatively consistent and small, but potentially important. Their effects on other types of professional performance vary from small to modest improvements, and it is not possible from this review to explain that variation.

Systematic review

Unclassified

Can working with the private for-profit sector improve utilization of quality health services by the poor? A systematic review of the literature.

blocked
Journal International journal for equity in health
Year 2007
Links Pubmed DOI PubMed Central 3ie Systematic Reviews RxForChange

This article is included in 6 Broad syntheses 52 Broad syntheses (6 references) 1 Structured summary of systematic reviews 52 Structured summaries of systematic reviews (1 reference)

This article includes 52 Primary studies 52 Primary studies (52 references)

Loading references information
BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in the role of the private for-profit sector in health service provision in low- and middle-income countries. The private sector represents an important source of care for all socioeconomic groups, including the poorest and substantial concerns have been raised about the quality of care it provides. Interventions have been developed to address these technical failures and simultaneously take advantage of the potential for involving private providers to achieve public health goals. Limited information is available on the extent to which these interventions have successfully expanded access to quality health services for poor and disadvantaged populations. This paper addresses this knowledge gap by presenting the results of a systematic literature review on the effectiveness of working with private for-profit providers to reach the poor. METHODS: The search topic of the systematic literature review was the effectiveness of interventions working with the private for-profit sector to improve utilization of quality health services by the poor. Interventions included social marketing, use of vouchers, pre-packaging of drugs, franchising, training, regulation, accreditation and contracting-out. The search for published literature used a series of electronic databases including PubMed, Popline, HMIC and CabHealth Global Health. The search for grey and unpublished literature used documents available on the World Wide Web. We focused on studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on utilization and/or quality of services and which provided information on the socioeconomic status of the beneficiary populations. RESULTS: A total of 2483 references were retrieved, of which 52 qualified as impact evaluations. Data were available on the average socioeconomic status of recipient communities for 5 interventions, and on the distribution of benefits across socioeconomic groups for 5 interventions. CONCLUSION: Few studies provided evidence on the impact of private sector interventions on quality and/or utilization of care by the poor. It was, however, evident that many interventions have worked successfully in poor communities and positive equity impacts can be inferred from interventions that work with types of providers predominantly used by poor people. Better evidence of the equity impact of interventions working with the private sector is needed for more robust conclusions to be drawn.