OBJECTIVES: This umbrella review aimed to identify the current evidence on health education-related interventions for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM); identify the educational content, delivery methods, intensity, duration and setting required. The purpose was to provide recommendations for educational interventions for high-risk patients with both ACS and T2DM.
DESIGN: Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
SETTING: Inpatient and postdischarge settings.
PARTICIPANTS: Patients with ACS and T2DM.
DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, Journals@Ovid, EMBase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases from January 2000 through May 2016.
OUTCOMES MEASURES: Clinical outcomes (such as glycated haemoglobin), behavioural outcomes (such as smoking), psychosocial outcomes (such as anxiety) and medical service use.
RESULTS: Fifty-one eligible reviews (15 for ACS and 36 for T2DM) consisting of 1324 relevant studies involving 2 88 057 patients (15 papers did not provide the total sample); 30 (58.8%) reviews were rated as high quality. Nurses only and multidisciplinary teams were the most frequent professionals to provide education, and most educational interventions were delivered postdischarge. Face-to-face sessions were the most common delivery formats, and many education sessions were also delivered by telephone or via web contact. The frequency of educational sessions was weekly or monthly, and an average of 3.7 topics was covered per education session. Psychoeducational interventions were generally effective at reducing smoking and admissions for patients with ACS. Culturally appropriate health education, self-management educational interventions, group medical visits and psychoeducational interventions were generally effective for patients with T2DM.
CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate that there is a body of current evidence about the efficacy of health education, its content and delivery methods for patients with ACS or T2DM. These results provide recommendations about the content for, and approach to, health education intervention for these high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND: Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers’ medicines use.
This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence.
SEARCH METHODS: We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers’ medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.
Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.
Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:
· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;
· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).
Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:
· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;
· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;
· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;
· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.
Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.
There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.
Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.
In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.
In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.
Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.
Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers’ medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.
Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.
BACKGROUND: Ensuring high quality care for persons with diabetes remains a challenge for healthcare systems globally with consistent evidence of suboptimal care and outcomes. There is increasing interest in quality improvement strategies to improve diabetes management as reflected by a growing number of systematic reviews. These reviews are of varying quality and dispersed across many sources. In this paper, we present an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the impact of interventions to improve the quality of diabetes care.
METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention intended to improve intermediate patient outcomes and process of care measures for patients with any type of diabetes. Two reviewers independently screened search results, appraised each systematic review using AMSTAR and extracted data from high quality reviews (AMSTAR score ≥ 5). Within reviews, we used vote counting by direction of effect to report the number of studies favouring an intervention for each outcome. We produced summaries of results for each intervention category.
RESULTS: We identified 125 reviews of varying methodological quality and summarised key findings from 50 high quality reviews. We categorised reviews by quality improvement intervention. Eight reviews were broad based (involving a variety of strategies). Other reviews considered: patient education and support (n = 21), telemedicine (n = 10), provider role changes (n = 7), and organisational changes (n = 4). Reviews reported intermediate patient outcomes (e.g. glycaemic control) (n = 49) and process of care outcomes (n = 9). There was evidence of considerable overlap of included studies between reviews.
CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence from high quality systematic reviews that patient education and support, provider role changes, and telemedicine are associated with improvements in glycaemic and vascular risk factor control in patients. There is less evidence about the impact of quality improvement interventions on other key process measures such as screening patients for diabetic complications. This paper provides decision makers with a comprehensive overview of evidence from high quality systematic reviews about the effects of quality improvement interventions on improving diabetes care.
BACKGROUND: The burden of chronic disease on healthcare services worldwide is growing and the increased development of educational interventions which help patients to better manage their own conditions is evident internationally. OBJECTIVES: This paper reports on findings of a review of Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions designed to improve patients' knowledge and skills to manage chronic disease, with particular reference to nursing contribution and practice. METHODS: Thirty Cochrane systematic reviews were identified as meeting the inclusion criteria. Data were extracted and summarised. FINDINGS: The majority of reviews included in this paper were judged by Cochrane reviewers to provide inadequate evidence (n=18, 60%) of the effectiveness of the interventions reviewed. Information on the professional delivering the interventions was often not available, although 77% (23) of reviews mentioned that nurses were involved in a proportion of studies. CONCLUSION: Educational programmes have definite benefits for patients suffering from asthma and are promising for interventions in areas such as diabetes mellitus, epilepsy and mental health. However, it still is not clear what the active ingredients of many successful interventions are.
BACKGROUND: Patients' non-adherence to medical treatment remains a persistent problem. Many interventions to improve patient adherence are unsuccessful and sound theoretical foundations are lacking. Innovations in theory and practice are badly needed. A new and promising way could be to review the existing reviews of adherence to interventions and identify the underlying theories for effective interventions. That is the aim of our study.
METHODS: The study is a review of 38 systematic reviews of the effectiveness of adherence interventions published between 1990 and 2005. Electronic literature searches were conducted in Medline, Psychinfo, Embase and the Cochrane Library. Explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The scope of the study is patient adherence to medical treatment in the cure and care sector.
RESULTS: Significant differences in the effectiveness of adherence interventions were found in 23 of the 38 systematic reviews. Effective interventions were found in each of four theoretical approaches to adherence interventions: technical, behavioural, educational and multi-faceted or complex interventions. Technical solutions, such as a simplification of the regimen, were often found to be effective, although that does not count for every therapeutic regimen.Overall, our results show that, firstly, there are effective adherence interventions without an explicit theoretical explanation of the operating mechanisms, for example technical solutions. Secondly, there are effective adherence interventions, which clearly stem from the behavioural theories, for example incentives and reminders. Thirdly, there are other theoretical models that seem plausible for explaining non-adherence, but not very effective in improving adherence behaviour. Fourthly, effective components within promising theories could not be identified because of the complexity of many adherence interventions and the lack of studies that explicitly compare theoretical components.
CONCLUSION: There is a scarcity of comparative studies explicitly contrasting theoretical models or their components. The relative weight of these theories and the effective components in the interventions designed to improve adherence, need to be assessed in future studies.
This umbrella review aimed to identify the current evidence on health education-related interventions for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or type two diabetes mellitus (T2DM); identify the educational content, delivery methods, intensity, duration and setting required. The purpose was to provide recommendations for educational interventions for high-risk patients with both ACS and T2DM.
DESIGN:
Umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
SETTING:
Inpatient and postdischarge settings.
PARTICIPANTS:
Patients with ACS and T2DM.
DATA SOURCES:
CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Joanna Briggs Institute, Journals@Ovid, EMBase, Medline, PubMed and Web of Science databases from January 2000 through May 2016.
OUTCOMES MEASURES:
Clinical outcomes (such as glycated haemoglobin), behavioural outcomes (such as smoking), psychosocial outcomes (such as anxiety) and medical service use.
RESULTS:
Fifty-one eligible reviews (15 for ACS and 36 for T2DM) consisting of 1324 relevant studies involving 2 88 057 patients (15 papers did not provide the total sample); 30 (58.8%) reviews were rated as high quality. Nurses only and multidisciplinary teams were the most frequent professionals to provide education, and most educational interventions were delivered postdischarge. Face-to-face sessions were the most common delivery formats, and many education sessions were also delivered by telephone or via web contact. The frequency of educational sessions was weekly or monthly, and an average of 3.7 topics was covered per education session. Psychoeducational interventions were generally effective at reducing smoking and admissions for patients with ACS. Culturally appropriate health education, self-management educational interventions, group medical visits and psychoeducational interventions were generally effective for patients with T2DM.
CONCLUSIONS:
Results indicate that there is a body of current evidence about the efficacy of health education, its content and delivery methods for patients with ACS or T2DM. These results provide recommendations about the content for, and approach to, health education intervention for these high-risk patients.
