Effectiveness of a new health care organization model in primary care for chronic cardiovascular disease patients based on a multifactorial intervention: the PROPRESE randomized controlled trial

Developing a mobile health app for chronic illness management: Insights from focus groups

Background

Mobile applications have the potential to assist patients and caregivers in managing chronic diseases, but current offerings are typically limited to a single disease or only focused on patients. A multifaceted app could expand the user base and provide more comprehensive support for patients who usually suffer from diverse chronic conditions at the same time and their caregivers.

Objectives

This study aimed to design, develop, and evaluate a mobile application that could aid chronic patients and their caregivers in managing the range of chronic conditions.

Methods

Focus group meetings were conducted with patients and caregivers to identify their needs, which were translated into app functionalities. The final version of the app was evaluated through a survey and analysis of the most used features.

Results

Five focus group (FG) meetings were held, involving 39 patients and 22 caregivers. The app included medication aids, self-monitoring aids, activation reminders, messages for caregiver shifts, remote monitoring, medicine management, and informative videos. Testing by 65 patients revealed that medication reminders (96.8% positive responses), medicine information (96.8%), messages for caregiver shifts (90.3%), and ease of use (80.6%) were the most valued aspects. The most frequently used feature was the health data record check.

Conclusions

A multifaceted mobile application can address the needs of a variety of chronic patients and their caregivers, while still being easy to use. The app's most used functionalities were aligned with the needs expressed in the FG, which reflects the success of this study and suggests that future research could benefit from incorporating similar user-centered design methodologies.

Patient Engagement Using Telemedicine in Primary Care during COVID-19 Pandemic: A Trial Study

The correct treatment of most non-transmissible diseases requires, in addition to adequate medication, adherence to physical activity and diet guidelines, as well as health data monitoring and patient motivation. The restrictions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic made telemedicine tools and mobile apps the best choice for monitoring patient compliance. The objective of this study was to analyze the benefits of an m-Health solution designed specifically for chronic patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. A pragmatic clinical trial with pre-post measurements of a single group was carried out with 70 patients (aged 40+) with one or more chronic conditions. Patients were provided with an ad hoc mobile app and health data measuring devices according to their diseases. The health status of the patients was monitored remotely by health professionals who could also modify the patient's objectives according to their evolution. The results obtained show an average fulfillment of objectives of 77%. Higher fulfillment values: medication adherence (98%) and oxygen saturation (82%); lower fulfillment values: weight (48%), glucose (57%), and distance walked (57%). Globally, the ad hoc app was rated 8.72 points out of 10 (standard deviation 1.10). Concerning the pre-post analysis, there were significant improvements vs. prior apps used by the participants in the following items: improved physical activation and better control of blood pressure, diet, weight, glucose, and oxygen saturation. In conclusion, the telemedicine tool developed was useful in increasing patient engagement and adherence to treatment.

Variables Determining Higher Home Care Effectiveness in Patients with Chronic Cardiovascular Disease

The aim of this cross-sectional study was to analyze the variables that influence the effectiveness of home care in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease and their informal caregivers. The study was conducted in 193 patients and their 161 informal caregivers. The study used the WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Questionnaire, the health behavior inventory questionnaire (HBI), the Camberwell assessment of need short appraisal schedule (CANSAS) and the hospital anxiety and depression scale–modified (HADS–M) version. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient test and logistic regression were used for analyses. Analysis of patients revealed an association between home care effectiveness and the following variables (OR per unit): age (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.95–0.99), educational level (OR = 1.45, 95% CI: 1.05–2.02), financial status (OR = 0.43, 95% CI: 0.21–0.83), medication irregularity (OR = 0.25, 95% CI: 0.07–0.72), presence of comorbidities (OR = 6.18, 95% CI: 1.83–23.78), health care services provided by a nurse (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.03–1.64), and number of visits to a cardiology clinic (OR = 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02–1.59). There was no association between care effectiveness and sex (p = 0.28), place of residence (p = 0.757), duration of cardiovascular disease (p = 0.718), number of home visits (p = 0.154), nursing interventions (p = 0.16), and adherence to lifestyle change recommendations (p = 0.539) or proper dietary habits (p = 0.355). A greater chance of improved health care effectiveness was found in patients whose caregivers reported higher social (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09–1.44), psychological (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.25–2.37), and physical (OR = 1.24, 95% CI: 1.05–1.49) quality of life. Patients with cardiovascular disease who were characterized by lower educational attainment, poorer financial status, fewer visits to cardiology clinics, lower utilization of medical services, poorer self-perception of mental and physical well-being, recent onset of disease symptoms, and irregular use of medications, were much more likely to have poorer health care effectiveness. Patients with cardiovascular disease and their caregivers can be well supported at home as long as the care model is tailored to the specific needs. This includes family care coordination in the health care team, home care, and general practice support.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation

BACKGROUND

Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Prognosis and lipid profile improvement by a specialized outpatient clinic for acute coronary syndrome patients

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Prognosis variations in patients discharged after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to the professionals involved has not been clearly outlined. The aim of our study was to assess the impact on a specific outpatient clinic (SOC).

METHODS

We included all consecutive patients admitted for an ACS in a single center. We performed a propensity score matching with all patients discharged from hospital according to whether they were referred to the SOC or not.

RESULTS

From the 1822 patients discharged, 260 couples of well-balanced ACS patients were obtained after propensity score matching. Median follow-up was 43.3 months and cardiovascular mortality rate was 10.4%, all-cause mortality was 13.9% and any MACE 38.2%. Patients attended the SOC had significantly lower rates at all three endpoints. Multivariate analysis results showed how the follow-up in the SOC was associated with significantly lower risk at all endpoints. SOC patients also had significantly lower rate at hospital readmissions and the multivariate analysis identified a negative association between the first cardiovascular readmission and SOC (sHR: 0.26 95%CI 0.18-0.367; p < 0.01). Mean LDLc levels at the time of ACS admission was 99.0 (36.7) mg/dl and no difference was observed in patients referred to SOC vs. non-referred. Patients followed at the SOC achieved significantly lower LDLc and higher percentage of LDLc <70 mg/dl (56.7% vs. 36.7%; p < 0.01). SOC follow-up was associated with 44% higher probability of final LDLc <70 mg/dl.

CONCLUSIONS

An SOC for ACS patients was independently associated with higher LDLc control and long-term survival.