What Are Models of Care? A Systematic Search and Narrative Review to Guide Development of Care Models for Premature Ovarian Insufficiency

Do we understand each other when we develop and implement hip fracture models of care? A systematic review with narrative synthesis

BACKGROUND

A hip fracture in an older person is a devastating injury. It impacts functional mobility, independence and survival. Models of care may provide a means for delivering integrated hip fracture care in less well-resourced settings. The aim of this review was to determine the elements of hip fracture models of care to inform the development of an adaptable model of care for low and middle-income countries (LMICs).

METHODS

Multiple databases were searched for papers reporting a hip fracture model of care for any part of the patient pathway from injury to rehabilitation. Results were limited to publications from 2000. Titles, abstracts and full texts were screened based on eligibility criteria. Papers were evaluated with an equity lens against eight conceptual criteria adapted from an existing description of a model of care.

RESULTS

82 papers were included, half of which were published since 2015. Only two papers were from middle-income countries and only two papers were evaluated as reporting all conceptual criteria from the existing description. The most identified criterion was an evidence-informed intervention and the least identified was the inclusion of patient stakeholders.

CONCLUSION

Interventions described as models of care for hip fracture are unlikely to include previously described conceptual criteria. They are most likely to be orthogeriatric approaches to service delivery, which is a barrier to their implementation in resource-limited settings. In LMICs, the provision of orthogeriatric competencies by other team members is an area for further investigation.

Polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects 5-18% of women, and is a reproductive, metabolic, and psychological condition with impacts across the lifespan. The cause is complex, and includes genetic and epigenetic susceptibility, hypothalamic and ovarian dysfunction, excess androgen exposure, insulin resistance, and adiposity-related mechanisms. Diagnosis is recommended based on the 2003 Rotterdam criteria and confirmed with two of three criteria: hyperandrogenism (clinical or biochemical), irregular cycles, and polycystic ovary morphology. In adolescents, both the criteria of hyperandrogenism and irregular cycles are needed, and ovarian morphology is not included due to poor specificity. The diagnostic criteria generates four phenotypes, and clinical features are heterogeneous, with manifestations typically arising in childhood and then evolving across adolescent and adult life. Treatment involves a combination of lifestyle alterations and medical management. Lifestyle optimisation includes a healthy balanced diet and regular exercise to prevent excess weight gain, limit PCOS complications and target weight reduction when needed. Medical management options include metformin to improve insulin resistance and metabolic features, combined oral contraceptive pill for menstrual cycle regulation and hyperandrogenism, and if needed, anti-androgens for refractory hyperandrogenism. In this Review, we provide an update on the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and clinical features of PCOS, and discuss the needs and priorities of those with PCOS, including lifestyle, and medical and infertility treatment. Further we discuss the status of international evidence-based guidelines (EBG) and translation, to support patient self management, healthcare provision, and to set research priorities.

Models of care for osteoporosis: A systematic scoping review of efficacy and implementation characteristics

BACKGROUND

Osteoporosis affects over half of adults over 50 years worldwide. With an ageing population, osteoporosis, fractures and their associated costs are increasing. Unfortunately, despite effective therapies, many with osteoporosis remain undiagnosed and untreated. Models of care (MoC) to improve outcomes include fracture liaison services, screening, education, and exercise programs, however efficacy for these is mixed. The aim of this study is to summarise MoC in osteoporosis and describe implementation characteristics and evidence for improving outcomes.

METHODS

This systematic scoping review identified articles via Ovid Medline and Embase, published in English between 01/01/2009 and 15/06/2021, describing MoC for adults aged ≥18 years with, or at risk of, osteoporosis and / or health professionals caring for this group. All included at least one of clinical, consumer or clinician outcomes, with fractures and bone mineral density (BMD) change the primary clinical outcomes. Exclusion criteria were studies assessing pharmaceuticals or procedures without other interventions, or insufficient operational details. All study designs were included, with no comparator necessary. Title and abstract were reviewed by two reviewers. Full text review and data extraction was performed by these reviewers for 20% of article and, thereafter by a single author. As the review was predominantly descriptive, no comparator statistics were used.

FINDINGS

314 articles were identified describing 289 MoC with fracture liaison services (n=89) and education programs (n=86) predominating. The population had prior fragility fracture in 77 studies, the median (IQR) patient number was 210 (87, 667) and the median (IQR) follow-up duration for outcome assessment was 12 (6, 12·5) months. Fracture reduction was reported by 65 studies, with 16 (37%) graded as high quality, and 19 / 47 studies with a comparator group found a reduction in fractures. BMD change was reported by 73 studies, with 41 finding improved BMD. Implementation characteristics including reach, fidelity and loss to follow-up were under-reported, and consumer and clinician perspectives rare.

INTERPRETATION

This comprehensive review of MoC for osteoporosis demonstrated inconsistent evidence for improving outcomes despite similar types of models. Future studies should include implementation outcomes, consumer and clinician perspectives, and fracture or BMD outcomes with sufficient duration of follow-up. Authors should consider pragmatic trial designs and co-design with clinicians and consumers.