Evaluating Evidence on Intermediate Outcomes: Considerations for Groups Making Healthcare Recommendations

[A conceptual framework for good preventive practices (or for quaternary prevention)]

Prevention is universally advocated, especially in the case of noncommunicable diseases. However, given the proliferation of preventive technologies, it does not seem defensible to generically encourage preventive behaviors and tests for healthcare professionals and users. In this essay, we articulate concepts, ideas and criteria for considering preventive measures, providing a minimum guide to be used by professionals (especially in primary healthcare) and managers. The concepts of primary, secondary and quaternary prevention are explored, as well as those of reductive and additive prevention, high-risk and population-based preventive strategies; evidence-based medicine and its contemporary crisis; the precautionary principle; health promotion, an expanded, person-centered approach and shared decision-making. This discussion was designed to improve competence in the evaluation of preventive measures, making clinical and health decisions more judicious and less iatrogenic regarding primary and secondary prevention.

Ultra-processed foods consumption and health-related outcomes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Introduction

The increase in ultra-processed foods (UPFs) intake has raised concerns about its impact on public health. Prospective observational studies have reported significant associations between higher intake of UPFs and adverse health outcomes. The aim of this study is to determine whether these associations could be confirmed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

Methods

We conducted a systematic review to analyze the evidence on the effects of UPFs intake on health. A systematic search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, LILACS, and CENTRAL up to April 22, 2024. RCTs in English, Spanish, and Portuguese evaluating the health effects of interventions to modify UPFs intake were included. The certainty of evidence was determined using the GRADE methodology.

Results

Three educational intervention studies and one controlled feeding trial were included, evaluating the effect of reducing the consumption of UPFs (455 participants, median follow-up, 12 weeks). No significant effects were observed in 30 out of the 42 outcomes evaluated. The controlled feeding trial in adults with stable weight showed a reduction in energy intake, carbohydrates, and fat (low certainty of evidence), as well as in body weight, total cholesterol, and HDL cholesterol (moderate certainty of evidence). In the educational intervention studies, a reduction in body weight and waist circumference was observed (low certainty of evidence) in women with obesity, as well as improvement in some dimensions of quality of life (very low certainty of evidence). No significant changes were observed in children and adolescents with obesity, while in overweight pregnant women, the consumption of UPFs was not reduced, so the observed benefits could be attributed to other components of the intervention.

Conclusion

Interventions aimed at reducing the consumption of UPFs showed benefits on some anthropometric and dietary intake outcomes, although significant effects were not observed for most of the evaluated outcomes. The limited number and significant methodological limitations of the studies prevent definitive conclusions. Further well-designed and conducted RCTs are needed to understand the effects of UPF consumption on health.Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42023469984.

Costs and intermediate outcomes for the implementation of evidence-based practices of midwifery under a MIDWIZE framework in an urban health facility in Nairobi, Kenya

BACKGROUND

Three evidence-based midwife-led care practices: dynamic birth positions (DBP), immediate skin-to-skin contact (SSC) with zero separation between mother and newborn, and delayed cord clamping (DCC), were implemented in four sub-Saharan African countries after an internet-based capacity building program for midwifery leadership in quality improvement (QI). Knowledge on costs of this QI initiative can inform resource mobilization for scale up and sustainability.

METHODS

We estimated the costs and intermediate outcomes from the implementation of the three evidence-based practices under the midwife-led care (MIDWIZE) framework in a single facility in Kenya through a pre- and post-test implementation design. Daily observations for the level of practice on DBP, SSC and DCC was done at baseline for 1 week and continued during the 11 weeks of the training intervention. Three cost scenarios from the health facility perspective included: scenario 1; staff participation time costs ($515 USD), scenario 2; staff participation time costs plus hired trainer time costs, training material and logistical costs ($1318 USD) and scenario 3; staff participation time costs plus total program costs for the head trainer as the QI leader from the capacity building midwifery program ($8548 USD).

RESULTS

At baseline, the level of DBP and SSC practices per the guidelines was at 0 % while that of DCC was at 80 %. After 11 weeks, we observed an adoption of DBP practice of 36 % (N = 111 births), SSC practice of 79 % (N = 241 births), and no change in DCC practice. Major cost driver(s) were midwives' participation time costs (56 %) for scenario 1 (collaborative), trainers' material and logistic costs (55 %) in scenario 2(collaborative) and capacity building program costs for the trainer (QI lead) (94 %) in scenario 3 (programmatic). Costs per intermediate outcome were $2.3 USD per birth and $0.5 USD per birth adopting DBP and SSC respectively in Scenario 1; $6.0 USD per birth adopting DBP and $1.4 USD per birth adopting SSC in Scenario 2; $38.5 USD per birth adopting DBP and $8.8 USD per birth adopting SSC in scenario 3. The average hourly wage of the facility midwife was $4.7 USD.

CONCLUSION

Improving adoption of DBP and SSC practices can be done at reasonable facility costs under a collaborative MIDWIZE QI approach. In a programmatic approach, higher facility costs would be needed. This can inform resource mobilization for future QI in similar resource-constrained settings.

Evaluations of training and education interventions for improved infectious disease management in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic literature review

OBJECTIVES

To identify most vital input and outcome parameters required for evaluations of training and education interventions aimed at addressing infectious diseases in low-income and middle-income countries.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed/Medline, Web of Science and Scopus were searched for eligible studies between January 2000 and November 2021.

STUDY SELECTION

Health economic and health-outcome studies on infectious diseases covering an education or training intervention in low-income and middle-income countries were included.

RESULTS

A total of 59 eligible studies covering training or education interventions for infectious diseases were found; infectious diseases were categorised as acute febrile infections (AFI), non-AFI and other non-acute infections. With regard to input parameters, the costs (direct and indirect) were most often reported. As outcome parameters, five categories were most often reported including final health outcomes, intermediate health outcomes, cost outcomes, prescription outcomes and health economic outcomes. Studies showed a wide range of per category variables included and a general lack of uniformity across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Further standardisation is needed on the relevant input and outcome parameters in this field. A more standardised approach would improve generalisability and comparability of results and allow policy-makers to make better informed decisions on the most effective and cost-effective interventions.

The effect of a pharmaceutical transitional care program on rehospitalisations in internal medicine patients: an interrupted-time-series study

Background

Medication errors at transition of care can adversely affect patient safety. The objective of this study is to determine the effect of a transitional pharmaceutical care program on unplanned rehospitalisations.

Methods

An interrupted-time-series study was performed, including patients from the Internal Medicine department using at least one prescription drug. The program consisted of medication reconciliation, patient counselling at discharge, and communication to healthcare providers in primary care. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with an unplanned rehospitalisation within six months post-discharge. Secondary outcomes were drug-related hospital visits, drug-related problems (DRPs), adherence, believes about medication, and patient satisfaction. Interrupted time series analysis was used for the primary outcome and descriptive statistics were performed for the secondary outcomes.

Results

In total 706 patients were included. At 6 months, the change in trend for unplanned rehospitalisations between usual care and the program group was non-significant (− 0.2, 95% CI -4.9;4.6). There was no significant difference for drug-related visits although visits due to medication reconciliation problems occurred less often (4 usual care versus 1 intervention). Interventions to prevent DRPs were present for all patients in the intervention group (mean: 10 interventions/patient). No effect was seen on adherence and beliefs about medication. Patients were significantly more satisfied with discharge counselling (68.9% usual care vs 87.1% program).

Conclusions

The transitional pharmaceutical care program showed no effect on unplanned rehospitalisations. This lack of effect is probably because the reason for rehospitalisations are multifactorial while the transitional care program focused on medication. There were less hospital visits due to medication reconciliation problems, but further large scale studies are needed due to the small number of drug-related visits. (Dutch trial register: NTR1519).

Effectiveness of Screening and Treatment Approaches for Schistosomiasis and Strongyloidiasis in Newly-Arrived Migrants from Endemic Countries in the EU/EEA: A Systematic Review

We aimed to evaluate the evidence on screening and treatment for two parasitic infections-schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis-among migrants from endemic countries arriving in the European Union and European Economic Area (EU/EEA). We conducted a systematic search of multiple databases to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 1 January 1993 and 30 May 2016 presenting evidence on diagnostic and treatment efficacy and cost-effectiveness. We conducted additional systematic search for individual studies published between 2010 and 2017. We assessed the methodological quality of reviews and studies using the AMSTAR, Newcastle⁻Ottawa Scale and QUADAS-II tools. Study synthesis and assessment of the certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. We included 28 systematic reviews and individual studies in this review. The GRADE certainty of evidence was low for the effectiveness of screening techniques and moderate to high for treatment efficacy. Antibody-detecting serological tests are the most effective screening tests for detection of both schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in low-endemicity settings, because they have higher sensitivity than conventional parasitological methods. Short courses of praziquantel and ivermectin were safe and highly effective and cost-effective in treating schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis, respectively. Economic modelling suggests presumptive single-dose treatment of strongyloidiasis with ivermectin for all migrants is likely cost-effective, but feasibility of this strategy has yet to be demonstrated in clinical studies. The evidence supports screening and treatment for schistosomiasis and strongyloidiasis in migrants from endemic countries, to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Methods for Understanding Certainty and Net Benefit When Making Recommendations

Since the 1980s, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) has developed and used rigorous methods to make evidence-based recommendations about preventive services to promote health and well-being for all Americans. Recommendations are based on the evidence of magnitude of net benefit (benefits minus harms). Expert opinion is not substituted when evidence is lacking. Evidence gaps are common. Few preventive services are supported by high-quality studies that directly and comprehensively determine the overall magnitude of benefits and harms in the same study. When assessing the body of evidence, studies may not have been conducted in primary care settings, studies may not have sufficiently included populations of interest, and long-term outcomes may not have been directly assessed. When direct evidence is not available, the USPSTF uses the methodologies of applicability to determine whether evidence can be generalized to an asymptomatic primary care population; coherence to link bodies of evidence and create an indirect evidence pathway; extrapolation to make inferences across the indirect evidence pathway, extend evidence to populations not specifically studied, consider service delivery intervals, and infer long-term outcomes; and conceptual bounding to set theoretical lower or upper limits for plausible benefits or harms. The USPSTF extends the evidence only so far as to maintain at least moderate certainty that its findings are preserved. This manuscript details with examples of how the USPSTF uses these methods to make recommendations that truly reflect the evidence.

Update on the Methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: Linking Intermediate Outcomes and Health Outcomes in Prevention

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) is an independent body of experts who make evidence-based recommendations about clinical preventive services using a transparent and objective process. Developing recommendations on a clinical preventive service requires evidence of its effect on health outcomes. Health outcomes are symptoms, functional levels, and conditions that affect a patient's quantity or quality of life and are measured by assessments of physical or psychologic well-being. Intermediate outcomes are pathologic, physiologic, psychologic, social, or behavioral measures related to a preventive service. Given the frequent lack of evidence on health outcomes, the USPSTF uses evidence on intermediate outcomes when appropriate. The ultimate goal is to determine precisely a consistent relationship between the direction and magnitude of change in an intermediate outcome with a predictable resultant direction and magnitude of change in the health outcomes. The USPSTF reviewed its historical use of intermediate outcomes, reviewed methods of other evidence-based guideline-making bodies, consulted with other experts, and reviewed scientific literature. Most important were the established criteria for causation, tenets of evidence-based medicine, and consistency with its current standards. Studies that follow participants over time following early treatment, stratify patients according to treatment response, and adjust for important confounders can provide useful information about the association between intermediate and health outcomes. However, such studies remain susceptible to residual confounding. The USPSTF will exercise great caution when making a recommendation that depends on the evidence linking intermediate and health outcomes because of inherent evidence limitations.

Challenges in Developing U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Child Health Recommendations

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) uses an objective evidence-based approach to develop recommendations. As part of this process, the USPSTF also identifies important research gaps in scientific evidence. In March 2016, the USPSTF convened an expert panel to discuss its portfolio of child and adolescent recommendations and identify unique methodologic issues when evaluating evidence regarding children and adolescents. The panel identified key domains of challenges, including measuring patient-centered health outcomes; identifying intermediate outcomes predictive of important health outcomes; evaluating the long time horizon needed to assess the balance of benefits and harms; understanding trajectories of growth and development that result in unique windows of time when expected benefits or harms of a preventive service can vary; and considering the perspectives of other individuals who might be affected by the delivery of a preventive service to a child or adolescent. Although the expert panel expressed an interest in being able to make more recommendations for or against preventive services for children and adolescents, it also reinforced the importance of ensuring recommendations were based on sound and sufficient evidence to ensure greatest benefit and minimize unnecessary harms. Accordingly, the need to highlight areas with insufficient evidence is as important as making recommendations. Having identified these key challenges, the USPSTF and other organizations issuing guidelines have an opportunity to advance their methods of evidence synthesis and identified evidence gaps represent important opportunities for researchers and policy makers.

U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Priorities for Prevention Research

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) makes recommendations about clinical preventive services. The USPSTF examines chains of direct and indirect evidence to demonstrate the effectiveness of a clinical preventive service. Missing links across the chains of evidence reflect gaps in the research. Evidence gaps can occur for preventive services that receive a letter grade recommendation and those that receive an I statement (insufficient evidence). This article describes the types of evidence gaps that the USPSTF encounters across its various recommendations and how the USPSTF identifies and communicates these gaps to researchers and policymakers, who can help generate the needed evidence. Common types of evidence gaps include limited evidence in primary care settings and populations, a lack of appropriate health outcomes, limited evidence linking behavior change to health outcomes, and a lack of evidence for effective preventive services in diverse populations. The USPSTF annual report to Congress focuses on the evidence gaps of new recommendations from the past year and is sent to leading research funding agencies. The Office of Disease Prevention at NIH uses this report to help direct future funding opportunities that may address these evidence gaps. The USPSTF plays a critical role in highlighting the information needed to advance the science to optimize the use of clinical preventive services in primary care.