Preventing a Post-Pandemic Double Burden of Disease in the COVID-19 Pandemic

Impact of digital services on healthcare and social welfare: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Digital services can be effective and cost-efficient options for treating non-communicable diseases, but generalizability is limited due to heterogeneous treatment effects. This umbrella review aims to evaluate the impact of digital services on population health, costs, and patient and healthcare professional satisfaction, and to identify facilitators and barriers to using digital services in healthcare and social welfare.

METHODS

The protocol of the study was registered on the 4th of September 2022 to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, PROSPERO (CRD42022355635). The review was performed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Cochrane, Ovid Medline, Scopus, and Web of Science in June 2022. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed. The impact of digital services was categorized as no evidence, no dominance, and mixed and positive effect. Inductive content analysis was used to identify facilitators and barriers.

RESULTS

A total of 66 studies were included in the review, 64 % of which were evaluated as high quality. Studies on the impact of digital services in social welfare were not identified. Sixty-five percent of reviews evaluated the impact of digital services on population health with mixed effects; 21 % were on costs with mixed effects; 27 % were on patient satisfaction with positive effects; and 7.6 % were on healthcare professionals' satisfaction with mixed effects. Various features, allocation, end-user support, organized services, and service development facilitated the use of digital services. Correspondingly, barriers were related to service limitations, digital competency, funding- and service strategies, resources and change management.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, digital services had a mixed impact on population health and costs with high satisfaction in patients. Mixed healthcare professionals' satisfaction was associated with the use of digital services, and it was less studied. To ensure successful implementation and sustainability of digital services, attention must be paid to address barriers and supporting facilitators at all levels.

Prioritizing non-communicable diseases in the post-pandemic era based on a comprehensive analysis of the GBD 2019 from 1990 to 2019

This study aimed to assess the burden of communicable diseases (CDs) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) globally, regionally, and nationally from 1990 to 2019, and propose global strategies to transform the public health policy. Using data from the Global Burden of Disease Study (GBD) 2019, we analyzed CDs and NCDs across various factors such as sex, age, year, and location, and evaluate the temporal trends of these diseases with joinpoint analysis. We also examined the differences between regions based on their socio-demographic index (SDI). In 2019, there were 7,862,907 (95% uncertainty interval [UI], 7,183,475 to 8,654,104) deaths from CDs and 42,034,124 (40,081,323 to 43,942,475) deaths from NCDs recorded worldwide. The low SDI region had markedly high age-standardized death and DALY rates of CDs. Although the age-standardized incidence rate of CDs has decreased in about half of the regions since 1990, NCDs have been on the rise in most regions. Over the past 30 years, the global burden of CDs has decreased significantly, while the burden of NCDs has aggrandized to an extent. In the post-pandemic era, effective interventions and cooperation among countries should be promoted to allocate medical resources more reasonably and improve healthcare for NCD patients.

A Pilot Study to Establish the Leadership Development Needs of Community Pharmacist Leads in Lambeth, South East London

Primary care networks (PCNs) are geographical networks consisting of 30,000 to 50,000 patients and groups of general practices working in a multidisciplinary team, including community pharmacists. Community pharmacy (CP) neighbourhood leads act as a conduit between pharmacy contractors and general practitioners (GPs) in these networks, sharing information and providing a voice for the community pharmacy locally. The Lambeth medicines team (NHS South East London Integrated Care Board) recognised the need to continue funding these leadership roles to address barriers to relationship-building between community pharmacies and general practices, the consistency of service delivery and effective communication. The aim of this study was to understand the current experience of CP neighbourhood leads to inform their further development. All eight CP neighbourhood leads individually completed a semi-structured interview over Microsoft Teams, which was then reviewed using content analysis. Ethical approval was received. Leads reported the use of common communication methods such as emails, text messaging applications and telephone calls to engage GPs and pharmacies in their neighbourhoods. Barriers to undertaking their roles included time constraints, delays in responses, high workloads and competing pressures. Other factors impacting their effectiveness and ability to undertake their roles included the scheduling of meetings outside of working hours, finding time during busy working days and organising locum cover on an ad hoc basis. The leads also reported they spent more time focussed on building relationships with their peers and less time focussed on general practice colleagues. Support for CP neighbourhood leads could include ensuring that funded time is protected; communication and technology training; and the provision of more structural support for communication with GPs. The findings of this study can be used to inform future work.

Effect of the chronic medication use on outcome measures of hospitalized COVID-19 patients: Evidence from big data

Background

Concerns about the role of chronically used medications in the clinical outcomes of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have remarkable potential for the breakdown of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) management by imposing ambivalence toward medication continuation. This study aimed to investigate the association of single or combinations of chronically used medications in NCDs with clinical outcomes of COVID-19.

Methods

This retrospective study was conducted on the intersection of two databases, the Iranian COVID-19 registry and Iran Health Insurance Organization. The primary outcome was death due to COVID-19 hospitalization, and secondary outcomes included length of hospital stay, Intensive Care Unit (ICU) admission, and ventilation therapy. The Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system was used for medication grouping. The frequent pattern growth algorithm was utilized to investigate the effect of medication combinations on COVID-19 outcomes.

Findings

Aspirin with chronic use in 10.8% of hospitalized COVID-19 patients was the most frequently used medication, followed by Atorvastatin (9.2%) and Losartan (8.0%). Adrenergics in combination with corticosteroids inhalants (ACIs) with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.79 (95% confidence interval: 0.68-0.92) were the most associated medications with less chance of ventilation therapy. Oxicams had the least OR of 0.80 (0.73-0.87) for COVID-19 death, followed by ACIs [0.85 (0.77-0.95)] and Biguanides [0.86 (0.82-0.91)].

Conclusion

The chronic use of most frequently used medications for NCDs management was not associated with poor COVID-19 outcomes. Thus, when indicated, physicians need to discourage patients with NCDs from discontinuing their medications for fear of possible adverse effects on COVID-19 prognosis.

Support after COVID-19 study: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study to develop recommendations for practice

Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people's experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified.

DESIGN

A two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people's experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams).

SETTING

Stage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Anyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.

RESULTS

Of those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1-54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied 'other' symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.

Person-Centered Healthcare Practice in a Pandemic Context: An Exploration of People's Experience of Seeking Healthcare Support

Background: The recent COVID-19 pandemic increased pressure upon healthcare resources resulting in compromised health services. Enforced national lockdown led to people being unable to access essential services in addition to limiting contact with social support networks. The novel coronavirus, and subsequent condition known as long covid were not well-understood and clinicians were not supported by existing guidelines or pathways. Our study explored people's experiences of healthcare during this period with a person-centered "lens." Methods: Ninety-seven people participated in our online survey about their experiences of the pandemic, particularly while socially isolated and their experiences of healthcare. Following completion of the survey, 11 of these participants agreed to further semi-structured interviews to explore this further in their own words. Interview conversations were transcribed, checked; together with the responses to open questions in the survey. The data were then analyzed thematically by members of the research team. We conducted framework analysis from a post-positivist perspective, using the Person-centered Practice Framework to explore participants' experiences. Results: There were few examples of people describing person-centered care. People experienced barriers to accessing support, and negative experiences of care that represented complexities enacting person-centered care at each level of the framework (processes, practice environment, prerequisites, and macro context). These barriers were influenced greatly by the pandemic, for example, with health professionals being harder to access. Some experiences related to the ways in which health professionals responded to the context, for example, positive examples included active listening, recognition of people's experiences, seeking to find out more, and engaging in collaborative problem-solving. Discussion: People want to feel heard, supported to navigate healthcare systems, source trustworthy information, find appropriate services, and collaborate in learning and problem-solving with healthcare professionals. There have been enormous challenges to the provision of healthcare throughout the pandemic. Moving forward is crucial with emphasis on overcoming barriers to person-centered healthcare. This should focus on steps now and also in planning for the possibility of further rapid changes in the demand for and provision of healthcare.