Effectiveness of care models for chronic disease management: A scoping review of systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a scoping review of models of care for chronic disease management to identify potentially effective components for management of chronic traumatic brain injury (TBI).

METHODS

Information sources: Systematic searches of three databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) from January 2010 to May 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting on the effectiveness of the Chronic Care Model (CCM), collaborative/integrated care, and other chronic disease management models.

DATA

Target diseases, model components used (n = 11), and six outcomes (disease-specific, generic health-related quality of life and functioning, adherence, health knowledge, patient satisfaction, and cost/health care use).

SYNTHESIS

Narrative synthesis, including proportion of reviews documenting outcome benefits.

RESULTS

More than half (55%) of the 186 eligible reviews focused on collaborative/integrated care models, with 25% focusing on CCM and 20% focusing on other chronic disease management models. The most common health conditions were diabetes (n = 22), depression (n = 16), heart disease (n = 12), aging (n = 11), and kidney disease (n = 8). Other single medical conditions were the focus of 22 reviews, multiple medical conditions of 59 reviews, and other or mixed mental health/behavioral conditions of 20 reviews. Some type of quality rating for individual studies was conducted in 126 (68%) of the reviews. Of reviews that assessed particular outcomes, 80% reported disease-specific benefits, and 57% to 72% reported benefits for the other five types of outcomes. Outcomes did not differ by the model category, number or type of components, or target disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Although there is a paucity of evidence for TBI per se, care model components proven effective for other chronic diseases may be adaptable for chronic TBI care.

Glycemic control through pharmaceutical care: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objectives

To evaluate the effect of pharmaceutical care (PC) on glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Methods

A systematic search of literature was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. RCTs published in English between January 2011 and November 2015 were identified using nine electronic databases: MEDLINE, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (IPA), EMBASE, Scopus, Science Direct, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Springer Link, and Google Scholar. Studies were included if they outlined a pharmaceutical care intervention conducted by pharmacists alone or in collaboration with other health care professional(s). The studies were identified and data was extracted independently by two reviewers. The meta-analysis was conducted by using RevMan version 5.3. A random-effects model was used to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval in glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1C) levels.

Key findings

Thirteen RCTs outlining PC interventions in type 2 diabetes mellitus patients (n = 1828) were included. The interventions included care plan development, medication reviews, patient education and counselling of patients with follow-up. All RCTs reported statistically significant reductions in HbA1c in the intervention group (SMD = −0.97; 95% CI −1.21 to −0.73; P = 0.00001) as compared to the control group. Significant heterogeneity in SMD (χ2 = 68.96) was observed.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that PC interventions are effective (at least in short-term follow-up in hospital setting) in reducing HbA1c levels in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Pharmacists, working alone or in collaboration with other health professionals have significant impact on improving the health status of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

An evolving role of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetes: Evidence from the literature

BACKGROUND

Diabetes mellitus is a rapidly growing disease world-wide that is estimated to be present in 6.6% of the international population and projected to be increased by 7.8% in 2030. Treating diabetic patients is multifaceted in all aspects and they require objectives and optimum information in order to obtain the maximum benefits of their treatment and avoid complications. Pharmacists are increasingly considered as a part of the health care system. Hence, the aim of this review is to address and summarize the effectiveness of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetic patients.

METHOD

This is a narrative review of the evidence from the literature in order to answer the present question of what is the evidence of the role of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetic patients. We searched five databases including: the Cochrane library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, TRIP, and Science Direct. We will also try to look for other potentially eligible trials or ancillary publications by searching the reference lists of retrieved included trials, (systematic) reviews, meta-analyses and health technology assessment reports. Outcomes included short-term and long-term measures.

RESULTS

Final search revealed nine studies. They were heterogeneous in terms of interventions, participants, settings and outcomes. Studies varied in their quality and/or reporting of their findings conducted in several settings. Majority of the studies were conducted in Western countries, one in Hong Kong and one in South India. In majority of the studies, pharmacists' role was mainly to specify all drug-related problems including poor drug compliance and side effects and communicating these to the physician. We found that those who received the pharmacist care had a statistically significant reduction in coronary heart disease, blood pressure, HA1c, quality of life and lipid profile.

CONCLUSION

Our review demonstrated the important role of clinical pharmacists in managing diabetic patients at diverse settings worldwide. There is an urgent need to recognize and change regulations to allow shared practice agreements among physicians, pharmacists, and other allied health professionals. These mutual agreements would allow more streamlined provision of health care delivery from non-physician health professionals to participants with common health conditions.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews

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.

METHODS

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.