BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have the potential to improve diabetes care. However, methods of measuring and presenting outcomes are varied, and conclusions have been inconsistent. In addition, the reporting and methodological quality in this field is unknown, which could affect the integrity and accuracy of research. Therefore, it is difficult to confirm whether CDSSs are effective in improving diabetes care. OBJECTIVE: To comprehensively evaluate the effects of CDSS on diabetes care and to examine the methodological and reporting qualities. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to February 2017. Systematic reviews investigating the effects of CDSS on diabetes care were included. Outcomes were determined in advance and assessed separately for process of care and patient outcomes. Methodological and reporting qualities were assessed by AMSTAR and PRISMA, respectively. RESULTS: Seventeen SRs, consisting of 222 unique randomized controlled trials and 102 nonrandomized controlled trials, were included. Evidence that CDDS significantly impacted patient outcomes was found in 32 of 102 unique studies of the 15 SRs that examined this effect (31%). A significant impact of CDSS on process of care was found in 117 out of 143 unique studies of the 11 SRs that examined this effect (82%). Ratings for overall scores of AMSTAR resulted in a mean score of 6.5 with a range of scores from 3.5 to 10.0. Reporting quality related to methodological domains was particularly incomplete. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical decision support systems improved the quality of diabetes care by inconsistently improving process of care or patient outcomes. There is evidence that CDSS for providing alerts, reminders, or feedback to participants were most likely to impact diabetes care. Poor reporting of methodological domains, together with qualitative or narrative methods to combine findings, may limit the confidence in research evidence.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
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.
Síntesis amplia/ Revisión panorámica de revisiones sistemáticas
BACKGROUND: Diabetes is a common chronic disease that places an unprecedented strain on health care systems worldwide. Mobile health technologies such as smartphones, mobile applications, and wearable devices, known as mHealth, offer significant and innovative opportunities for improving patient to provider communication and self-management of diabetes.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this overview is to critically appraise and consolidate evidence from multiple systematic reviews on the effectiveness of mHealth interventions for patients with diabetes to inform policy makers, practitioners, and researchers.
METHODS: A comprehensive search on multiple databases was performed to identify relevant systematic reviews published between January 1996 and December 2015. Two authors independently selected reviews, extracted data, and assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using AMSTAR.
RESULTS: Fifteen systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2014 were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the reviews varied considerably and most of them had important methodological limitations. Focusing on systematic reviews that offered the most direct evidence, this overview demonstrates that on average, mHealth interventions improve glycemic control (HbA1c) compared to standard care or other non-mHealth approaches by as much as 0.8% for patients with type 2 diabetes and 0.3% for patients with type 1 diabetes, at least in the short-term (≤12 months). However, limitations in the overall quality of evidence suggest that further research will likely have an important impact in these estimates of effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings are consistent with clinically relevant improvements, particularly with respect to patients with type 2 diabetes. Similar to home telemonitoring, mHealth interventions represent a promising approach for self-management of diabetes.
Systematic reviews (SRs) have shown that clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) have the potential to improve diabetes care. However, methods of measuring and presenting outcomes are varied, and conclusions have been inconsistent. In addition, the reporting and methodological quality in this field is unknown, which could affect the integrity and accuracy of research. Therefore, it is difficult to confirm whether CDSSs are effective in improving diabetes care.
OBJECTIVE:
To comprehensively evaluate the effects of CDSS on diabetes care and to examine the methodological and reporting qualities.
METHODS:
We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library from their inception to February 2017. Systematic reviews investigating the effects of CDSS on diabetes care were included. Outcomes were determined in advance and assessed separately for process of care and patient outcomes. Methodological and reporting qualities were assessed by AMSTAR and PRISMA, respectively.
RESULTS:
Seventeen SRs, consisting of 222 unique randomized controlled trials and 102 nonrandomized controlled trials, were included. Evidence that CDDS significantly impacted patient outcomes was found in 32 of 102 unique studies of the 15 SRs that examined this effect (31%). A significant impact of CDSS on process of care was found in 117 out of 143 unique studies of the 11 SRs that examined this effect (82%). Ratings for overall scores of AMSTAR resulted in a mean score of 6.5 with a range of scores from 3.5 to 10.0. Reporting quality related to methodological domains was particularly incomplete.
CONCLUSIONS:
Clinical decision support systems improved the quality of diabetes care by inconsistently improving process of care or patient outcomes. There is evidence that CDSS for providing alerts, reminders, or feedback to participants were most likely to impact diabetes care. Poor reporting of methodological domains, together with qualitative or narrative methods to combine findings, may limit the confidence in research evidence.
