BACKGROUND: Hypertension commonly co-exists with depression and is associated with adverse health outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether combination treatment can improve the outcomes of patients with comorbid hypertension and depression.
METHODS: We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through July 2021 using PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data. RCTs on patients with an antihypertensive outcome and data on mean blood pressure differences were extracted for both intervention and control groups. Continuous and dichotomous measures of outcomes were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by random or fixed effects. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any existing heterogeneous sources.
RESULTS: A total of 27 RCTs with 2606 participants were included. Combination treatment significantly improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 11.27 mmHg (WMD = -11.27, 95% CI: -14.12 to -8.43), I2 = 95.4%), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 8.21 mmHg (WMD = -8.21, 95% CI: -10.73 to -5.69), I2 = 96.9%), and antihypertensive efficiency by 42% (RR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.32 to 1.52, I2 = 0.0%) compared with in the control group. Combination treatment improved SBP and DBP levels in patients aged <65 years compared with those in patients aged ≥65 years (p = 0.020 and 0.007, respectively).
CONCLUSION: Pooled evidence suggests that combination treatment significantly improves both blood pressure levels and antihypertensive efficiency in hypertensive patients with depression. Elderly patients with comorbid hypertension and depression may require a more collaborative approach to improve their outcome.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD42020213430. Registered on November 08, 2020.
BACKGROUND: Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) is a multidimensional interdisciplinary diagnostic process focused on determining an older person's medical, psychological and functional capability in order to develop a co-ordinated and integrated care plan. CGA is not limited simply to assessment, but also directs a holistic management plan for older people, which leads to tangible interventions. While there is established evidence that CGA reduces the likelihood of death and disability in acutely unwell older people, the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor health outcomes is less clear.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older adults at risk of poor health outcomes in terms of mortality, nursing home admission, hospital admission, emergency department visits, serious adverse events, functional status, quality of life and resource use, when compared to usual care.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, three trials registers (WHO ICTRP, ClinicalTrials.gov and McMaster Aging Portal) and grey literature up to April 2020; we also checked reference lists and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials that compared CGA for community-dwelling, frail, older people at risk of poor healthcare outcomes to usual care in the community. Older people were defined as 'at risk' either by being frail or having another risk factor associated with poor health outcomes. Frailty was defined as a vulnerability to sudden health state changes triggered by relatively minor stressor events, placing the individual at risk of poor health outcomes, and was measured using objective screening tools. Primary outcomes of interest were death, nursing home admission, unplanned hospital admission, emergency department visits and serious adverse events. CGA was delivered by a team with specific gerontological training/expertise in the participant's home (domiciliary Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (dCGA)) or other sites such as a general practice or community clinic (community Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (cCGA)).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted study characteristics (methods, participants, intervention, outcomes, notes) using standardised data collection forms adapted from the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) data collection form. Two review authors independently assessed the risk of bias for each included study and used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for outcomes of interest.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies involving 7893 participants across 10 countries and four continents. Regarding selection bias, 12/21 studies used random sequence generation, while 9/21 used allocation concealment. In terms of performance bias, none of the studies were able to blind participants and personnel due to the nature of the intervention, while 14/21 had a blinded outcome assessment. Eighteen studies were at low risk of attrition bias, and risk of reporting bias was low in 7/21 studies. Fourteen studies were at low risk of bias in terms of differences of baseline characteristics. Three studies were at low risk of bias across all domains (accepting that it was not possible to blind participants and personnel to the intervention). CGA probably leads to little or no difference in mortality during a median follow-up of 12 months (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.76 to 1.02; 18 studies, 7151 participants (adjusted for clustering); moderate-certainty evidence). CGA results in little or no difference in nursing home admissions during a median follow-up of 12 months (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.14; 13 studies, 4206 participants (adjusted for clustering); high-certainty evidence). CGA may decrease the risk of unplanned hospital admissions during a median follow-up of 14 months (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70 to 0.99; 6 studies, 1716 participants (adjusted for clustering); low-certainty evidence). The effect of CGA on emergency department visits is uncertain and evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.59; 3 studies, 873 participants (adjusted for clustering)). Only two studies (1380 participants; adjusted for clustering) reported serious adverse events (falls) with no impact on the risk; however, evidence was very low certainty (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.17).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: CGA had no impact on death or nursing home admission. There is low-certainty evidence that community-dwelling, frail, older people who undergo CGA may have a reduced risk of unplanned hospital admission. Further studies examining the effect of CGA on emergency department visits and change in function and quality of life using standardised assessments are required.
BACKGROUND: Interventions that enable people to remain in their own home as they age are of interest to stakeholders, yet detailed information on effective interventions is scarce. Our objective was to systematically search and synthesise evidence for the effectiveness of community-based, aged care interventions in delaying or avoiding admission to residential aged care.
METHOD: Nine databases were searched from January 2000 to February 2018 for English publications. Reference lists of relevant publications were searched. The databases yielded 55,221 citations and 50 citations were gleaned from other sources. Where there was sufficient homogeneity of study design, population, intervention and measures, meta-analyses were performed. Studies were grouped by the type of intervention: complex multifactorial interventions, minimal/single focus interventions, restorative programs, or by the target population (e.g. participants with dementia).
RESULTS: Data from 31 randomised controlled trials (32 articles) that met our inclusion criteria were extracted and analysed. Compared to controls, complex multifactorial interventions in community aged care significantly improved older adults' ability to remain living at home (risk difference - 0.02; 95% CI -0.03, - 0.00; p = 0.04). Commonalities in the 13 studies with complex interventions were the use of comprehensive assessment, regular reviews, case management, care planning, referrals to additional services, individualised interventions, frequent client contact if required, and liaison with General Practitioners. Complex interventions did not have a significantly different effect on mortality. Single focus interventions did not show a significant effect in reducing residential aged care admissions (risk difference 0, 95% CI -0.01, 0.01; p = 0.71), nor for mortality or quality of life. Subgroup analysis of complex interventions for people with dementia showed significant risk reduction for residential aged care admissions (RD -0.05; 95% CI -0.09, -0.01; p = 0.02). Compared to controls, only interventions targeting participants with dementia had a significant effect on improving quality of life (SMD 3.38, 95% CI 3.02, 3.74; p < 0.000001).
CONCLUSIONS: Where the goal is to avoid residential aged care admission for people with or without dementia, there is evidence for multifactorial, individualised community programs. The evidence suggests these interventions do not result in greater mortality and hence are safe. Minimal, single focus interventions will not achieve the targeted outcomes.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registration CRD42016050086 .
BACKGROUND: Diabetes self-management involves adherence to healthy daily habits typically involving blood glucose monitoring, medication, exercise, and diet. To support self-management, some providers have begun testing remote interventions for monitoring and assisting patients between clinic visits. Although some studies have shown success, there are barriers to widespread adoption.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to identify and classify barriers to adoption of remote health for management of type 2 diabetes.
METHODS: The following 6 electronic databases were searched for articles published from 2010 to 2015: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL, Cochrane Central, Northern Light Life Sciences Conference Abstracts, and Scopus (Elsevier). The search identified studies involving remote technologies for type 2 diabetes self-management. Reviewers worked in teams of 2 to review and extract data from identified papers. Information collected included study characteristics, outcomes, dropout rates, technologies used, and barriers identified.
RESULTS: A total of 53 publications on 41 studies met the specified criteria. Lack of data accuracy due to input bias (32%, 13/41), limitations on scalability (24%, 10/41), and technology illiteracy (24%, 10/41) were the most commonly cited barriers. Technology illiteracy was most prominent in low-income populations, whereas limitations on scalability were more prominent in mid-income populations. Barriers identified were applied to a conceptual model of successful remote health, which includes patient engagement, patient technology accessibility, quality of care, system technology cost, and provider productivity. In total, 40.5% (60/148) of identified barrier instances impeded patient engagement, which is manifest in the large dropout rates cited (up to 57%).
CONCLUSIONS: The barriers identified represent major challenges in the design of remote health interventions for diabetes. Breakthrough technologies and systems are needed to alleviate the barriers identified so far, particularly those associated with patient engagement. Monitoring devices that provide objective and reliable data streams on medication, exercise, diet, and glucose monitoring will be essential for widespread effectiveness. Additional work is needed to understand root causes of high dropout rates, and new interventions are needed to identify and assist those at the greatest risk of dropout. Finally, future studies must quantify costs and benefits to determine financial sustainability.
BACKGROUND: Shared care has been used in the management of many chronic conditions with the assumption that it delivers better care than primary or specialty care alone; however, little is known about the effectiveness of shared care.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of shared care health service interventions designed to improve the management of chronic disease across the primary/specialty care interface. This is an update of a previously published review.Secondary questions include the following:1. Which shared care interventions or portions of shared care interventions are most effective?2. What do the most effective systems have in common?
SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library to 12 October 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA: One review author performed the initial abstract screen; then two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We considered randomised controlled trials (RCTs), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after studies (CBAs) and interrupted time series analyses (ITS) evaluating the effectiveness of shared care interventions for people with chronic conditions in primary care and community settings. The intervention was compared with usual care in that setting.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. We conducted a meta-analysis of results when possible and carried out a narrative synthesis of the remainder of the results. We presented the results in a 'Summary of findings' table, using a tabular format to show effect sizes for all outcome types.
MAIN RESULTS: We identified 42 studies of shared care interventions for chronic disease management (N = 18,859), 39 of which were RCTs, two CBAs and one an NRCT. Of these 42 studies, 41 examined complex multi-faceted interventions and lasted from six to 24 months. Overall, our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions ranged from moderate to high certainty. Results showed probably few or no differences in clinical outcomes overall with a tendency towards improved blood pressure management in the small number of studies on shared care for hypertension, chronic kidney disease and stroke (mean difference (MD) 3.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.68 to 5.25)(based on moderate-certainty evidence). Mental health outcomes improved, particularly in response to depression treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.40, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.22 to 1.62; six studies, N = 1708) and recovery from depression (RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.57 to 4.26; 10 studies, N = 4482) in studies examining the 'stepped care' design of shared care interventions (based on high-certainty evidence). Investigators noted modest effects on mean depression scores (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.29, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.20; six studies, N = 3250). Differences in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), processes of care and participation and default rates in shared care services were probably limited (based on moderate-certainty evidence). Studies probably showed little or no difference in hospital admissions, service utilisation and patient health behaviours (with evidence of moderate certainty).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review suggests that shared care improves depression outcomes and probably has mixed or limited effects on other outcomes. Methodological shortcomings, particularly inadequate length of follow-up, may account in part for these limited effects. Review findings support the growing evidence base for shared care in the management of depression, particularly stepped care models of shared care. Shared care interventions for other conditions should be developed within research settings, with account taken of the complexity of such interventions and awareness of the need to carry out longer studies to test effectiveness and sustainability over time.
BACKGROUND: Community-based health workers (CBHWs) are frontline public health workers who are trusted members of the community they serve. Recently, considerable attention has been drawn to CBHWs in promoting healthy behaviors and health outcomes among vulnerable populations who often face health inequities.
OBJECTIVES: We performed a systematic review to synthesize evidence concerning the types of CBHW interventions, the qualification and characteristics of CBHWs, and patient outcomes and cost-effectiveness of such interventions in vulnerable populations with chronic, noncommunicable conditions.
SEARCH METHODS: We undertook 4 electronic database searches-PubMed, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane-and hand searched reference collections to identify randomized controlled trials published in English before August 2014.
SELECTION: We screened a total of 934 unique citations initially for titles and abstracts. Two reviewers then independently evaluated 166 full-text articles that were passed onto review processes. Sixty-one studies and 6 companion articles (e.g., cost-effectiveness analysis) met eligibility criteria for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four trained research assistants extracted data by using a standardized data extraction form developed by the authors. Subsequently, an independent research assistant reviewed extracted data to check accuracy. Discrepancies were resolved through discussions among the study team members. Each study was evaluated for its quality by 2 research assistants who extracted relevant study information. Interrater agreement rates ranged from 61% to 91% (average 86%). Any discrepancies in terms of quality rating were resolved through team discussions.
MAIN RESULTS: All but 4 studies were conducted in the United States. The 2 most common areas for CBHW interventions were cancer prevention (n = 30) and cardiovascular disease risk reduction (n = 26). The roles assumed by CBHWs included health education (n = 48), counseling (n = 36), navigation assistance (n = 21), case management (n = 4), social services (n = 7), and social support (n = 18). Fifty-three studies provided information regarding CBHW training, yet CBHW competency evaluation (n = 9) and supervision procedures (n = 24) were largely underreported. The length and duration of CBHW training ranged from 4 hours to 240 hours with an average of 41.3 hours (median: 16.5 hours) in 24 studies that reported length of training. Eight studies reported the frequency of supervision, which ranged from weekly to monthly. There was a trend toward improvements in cancer prevention (n = 21) and cardiovascular risk reduction (n = 16). Eight articles documented cost analyses and found that integrating CBHWs into the health care delivery system was associated with cost-effective and sustainable care.
CONCLUSIONS: Interventions by CBHWs appear to be effective when compared with alternatives and also cost-effective for certain health conditions, particularly when partnering with low-income, underserved, and racial and ethnic minority communities. Future research is warranted to fully incorporate CBHWs into the health care system to promote noncommunicable health outcomes among vulnerable populations. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print February 18, 2016: e1-e26. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2015.302987).
Importance: Collaborative care is an intensive care model involving several health care professionals working together, typically a physician, a case manager, and a mental health professional. Meta-analyses of aggregate data have shown that collaborative care is particularly effective in people with depression and comorbid chronic physical conditions. However, only participant-level analyses can rigorously test whether the treatment effect is influenced by participant characteristics, such as chronic physical conditions. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the effectiveness of collaborative care for depression is moderated by the presence, type, and number of chronic physical conditions. DATA SOURCES: Data were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL Complete, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and references from relevant systematic reviews. The search and collection of eligible studies was ongoing until May 22, 2015. STUDY SELECTION: This was an update to a previous meta-analysis. Two independent reviewers were involved in the study selection process. Randomized clinical trials that compared the effectiveness of collaborative care with usual care in adults with depression and reported measured changes in depression severity symptoms at 4 to 6 months after randomization were included in the analysis. Key search terms included <i>depression, dysthymia, anxiety, panic, phobia, obsession, compulsion, posttraumatic, care management, case management, collaborative care, enhanced care</i>, and <i>managed care</i>. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Individual participant data on baseline demographics and chronic physical conditions as well as baseline and follow-up depression severity symptoms were requested from authors of the eligible studies. One-step meta-analysis of individual participant data using appropriate mixed-effects models was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Continuous outcomes of depression severity symptoms measured using self-reported or observer-rated measures. RESULTS: Data sets from 31 randomized clinical trials including 36 independent comparisons (N = 10 962 participants) were analyzed. Individual participant data analyses found no significant interaction effects, indicating that the presence (interaction coefficient, 0.02 [95%CI, −0.10 to 0.13]), numbers (interaction coefficient, 0.01 [95%CI, −0.01 to 0.02]), and types of chronic physical conditions do not influence the treatment effect. Conclusions and Relevance: There is evidence that collaborative care is effective for people with depression alone and also for people with depression and chronic physical conditions. Existing guidance that recommends limiting collaborative care to people with depression and physical comorbidities is not supported by this individual participant data meta-analysis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Hypertension commonly co-exists with depression and is associated with adverse health outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to examine whether combination treatment can improve the outcomes of patients with comorbid hypertension and depression.
METHODS:
We searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published through July 2021 using PubMed, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Wanfang Data. RCTs on patients with an antihypertensive outcome and data on mean blood pressure differences were extracted for both intervention and control groups. Continuous and dichotomous measures of outcomes were pooled using weighted mean differences (WMD) and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) by random or fixed effects. Subgroup and meta-regression analyses were performed to identify any existing heterogeneous sources.
RESULTS:
A total of 27 RCTs with 2606 participants were included. Combination treatment significantly improved systolic blood pressure (SBP) by 11.27 mmHg (WMD = -11.27, 95% CI.: -14.12 to -8.43), I2 = 95.4%), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) by 8.21 mmHg (WMD = -8.21, 95% CI.: -10.73 to -5.69), I2 = 96.9%), and antihypertensive efficiency by 42% (RR = 1.42, 95% CI.: 1.32 to 1.52, I2 = 0.0%) compared with in the control group. Combination treatment improved SBP and DBP levels in patients aged <65 years compared with those in patients aged ≥65 years (p = 0.020 and 0.007, respectively).
CONCLUSION:
Pooled evidence suggests that combination treatment significantly improves both blood pressure levels and antihypertensive efficiency in hypertensive patients with depression. Elderly patients with comorbid hypertension and depression may require a more collaborative approach to improve their outcome.
REGISTRATION:
PROSPERO registration number CRD42020213430. Registered on November 08, 2020.
Systematic Review Question»Systematic review of interventions
