Scaling Up Patient-Centered Interdisciplinary Care for Multimorbidity: A Pragmatic Mixed-Methods Randomized Controlled Trial

Reporting and representation of underserved groups in intervention studies for patients with multiple long-term conditions: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Globally, there is a growing number of people who are living with multiple long-term conditions (MLTCs). Due to complex management needs, it is imperative that research consists of participants who may benefit most from interventions. It is well documented that ethnic minority groups and lower socioeconomic status (SES) groups are at an increased risk of developing MLTCs. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review was to determine the level of reporting and representation of underserved groups (ethnic minority and low SES) in intervention studies addressing MLTCs.

DESIGN

Systematic review. Four databases including Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus were searched for intervention studies from North America or Europe published between January 1990 and July 2023.

SETTING

Hospital and community-based interventions. We included interventional studies focusing on improving MLTC-related outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS

Patients with MLTCs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Total number of studies reporting on ethnicity and SES. Number and proportion of studies reporting by ethnic/SES group.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Only 4 of 13 studies (31%) recorded and reported ethnicity information. Of these four studies that reported on ethnicity, three studies consisted of primarily White participants. Ethnic minority groups were underrepresented, but one study included a majority of African American participants. Moreover, 12 of 13 studies (92%) reported on SES with income and educational level being the primary measures used. SES representation of higher deprivation groups was varied due to limited data.

CONCLUSIONS

For ethnicity, there was a lack of reporting, and ethnic minority groups were underrepresented in intervention studies. For SES, there was a high level of reporting but the proportion of study samples from across the spectrum of SES varied due to the variety of SES measures used. Findings highlight a need to improve the reporting and representation of ethnic minority groups and provide more detailed information for SES through using consistent measures (e.g. education, income and employment) to accurately determine the distribution of SES groups in intervention studies of people with MLTCs.

Assessing the impact of Canadian primary care research and researchers: Citation analysis

OBJECTIVE

To describe the citation impact and characteristics of Canadian primary care researchers and research publications.

DESIGN

Citation analysis.

SETTING

Canada.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 266 established Canadian primary care researchers.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The 50 most cited primary care researchers in Canada were identified by analyzing data from the Scopus database. Various parameters, including the number of publications and citations, research themes, Scopus h index, content analysis, journal impact factors, and field-weighted citation impact for their publications, were assessed. Information about the characteristics of these researchers was collected using the Google search engine.

RESULTS

On average, the 50 most cited primary care researchers produced 51.1 first-author publications (range 13 to 249) and were cited 1864.32 times (range 796 to 9081) over 29 years. Twenty-seven publications were cited more than 500 times. More than half of the researchers were men (60%). Most were clinician scientists (86%) with a primary academic appointment in family medicine (86%) and were affiliated with 5 universities (74%). Career duration was moderately associated with the number of first-author publications (0.35; P=.013). Most research focused on family practice, while some addressed health and health care issues (eg, continuing professional education, pharmaceutical policy).

CONCLUSION

Canada is home to a cadre of primary care researchers who are highly cited in the medical literature, suggesting that their work is of high quality and relevance. Building on this foundation, further investments in primary care research could accelerate needed improvements in Canadian primary care policy and practice.

Describing the evidence linking interprofessional education interventions to improving the delivery of safe and effective patient care: a scoping review

Empirical evidence indicates that collaborative interprofessional practice leads to positive health outcomes. Further, there is an abundance of evidence examining student and/or faculty perceptions of learning or satisfaction about the interprofessional education (IPE) learning experience. However, there is a dearth of research linking IPE interventions to patient outcomes. The objective of this scoping review was to describe and summarize the evidence linking IPE interventions to the delivery of effective patient care. A three-step search strategy was utilized for this review with articles that met the following criteria: publications dated 2015-2020 using qualitative, quantitative or mixed methods; the inclusion of healthcare professionals, students, or practitioners who had experienced IPE or training that included at least two collaborators within coursework or other professional education; and at least one of ten Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services quality measures (length of stay, medication errors, medical errors, patient satisfaction scores, medication adherence, patient and caregiver education, hospice usage, mortality, infection rates, and readmission rates). Overall, n=94 articles were identified, providing overwhelming evidence supporting a positive relationship between IPE interventions and several key quality health measures including length of stay, medical errors, patient satisfaction, patient or caregiver education, and mortality. Findings from this scoping review suggest a critical need for the development, implementation, and evaluation of IPE interventions to improve patient outcomes.

Collaborative practice competencies needed for telehealth delivery by health and social care professionals: a scoping review

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, many healthcare and social services professionals have had to provide services through virtual care. In the workplace, such professionals often need to be sufficiently resourced to collaborate and address collaborative care barriers in telehealth. We performed a scoping review to identify the competencies required to support interprofessional collaboration among clinicians in telehealth. We followed Arksey and O'Malley's and the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodological guidelines, including quantitative and qualitative peer-reviewed articles published between 2010 and 2021. We expanded our data sources by searching for any organization or experts in the field via Google. The analysis of the resulting thirty-one studies and sixteen documents highlighted that health and social services professionals are generally unaware of the competencies they need to develop or maintain interprofessional collaboration in telehealth. In an era of digital innovations, we believe this gap may jeopardize the quality of the services offered to patients and needs to be addressed. Of the six competency domains in the National Interprofessional Competency Framework, it was observed that interprofessional conflict resolution was the competency that emerged least as an essential competency to be developed, while interprofessional communication and patient/client/family/community-centered care were identified as the two most reported essential competencies.

High-quality patient-centered palliative care: interprofessional team members' perceptions of social workers' roles and contribution

A core tenet of interprofessional collaborative practice (IPCP) is that efficient and effective teams are critical for the delivery of high-quality, patient-centered care. Although palliative care has a history of excellent care, increasing demands and larger patient loads are challenging teams to adapt and strengthen team functioning in hospital settings. The purpose of this qualitative study was to better understand the IPCP contributions of advanced palliative social workers (PSWs) through the eyes of their colleagues. Twenty-four interprofessional palliative care (IPPC) team members from other professions (i.e. nurse practitioners, physicians, physician assistants) from 16 hospitals across the U.S. participated in 20-minute semi-structured interviews. The Patient-Centered Clinical Method (PCCM) was used as a conceptual model to aid in the interpretation of the data. This model illuminated the centrality of PSWs' role in building and sustaining a therapeutic alliance between the patient and the IPPC team, through assessing and promoting care that centers the patient's experience with illness, creating space to initiate, process and revisit difficult healthcare conversations and helping to modulate the pace and intensity of emotionally laden discussions. PSWs also support the therapeutic relationship with the IPPC team by providing continuity and connection across and during the hospital experience and supporting the well-being of the IPPC team. This study offers novel insights into how PSWs contribute to patient-centered IPPC and furthers the articulation of the role of PSWs in hospital settings.

Optimizing clinical nutrition research: the role of adaptive and pragmatic trials

Evidence-based nutritional recommendations address the health impact of suboptimal nutritional status. Efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have traditionally been the preferred method for determining the effects of nutritional interventions on health outcomes. Nevertheless, obtaining a holistic understanding of intervention efficacy and effectiveness in real-world settings is stymied by inherent constraints of efficacy RCTs. These limitations are further compounded by the complexity of nutritional interventions and the intricacies of the clinical context. Herein, we explore the advantages and limitations of alternative study designs (e.g., adaptive and pragmatic trials), which can be incorporated into RCTs to optimize the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions in clinical nutrition research. Efficacy RCTs often lack external validity due to their fixed design and restrictive eligibility criteria, leading to efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Adaptive trials improve the evaluation of nutritional intervention efficacy through planned study modifications, such as recalculating sample sizes or discontinuing a study arm. Pragmatic trials are embedded within clinical practice or conducted in settings that resemble standard of care, enabling a more comprehensive assessment of intervention effectiveness. Pragmatic trials often rely on patient-oriented primary outcomes, acquire outcome data from electronic health records, and employ broader eligibility criteria. Consequently, adaptive and pragmatic trials facilitate the prompt implementation of evidence-based nutritional recommendations into clinical practice. Recognizing the limitations of efficacy RCTs and the potential advantages of alternative trial designs is essential for bridging efficacy-effectiveness and evidence-practice gaps. Ultimately, this awareness will lead to a greater number of patients benefiting from evidence-based nutritional recommendations.

Influence of health-system change on treatment burden: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Treatment burden is a patient-centred concept describing the effort required of people to look after their health and the impact this has on their functioning and wellbeing. High treatment burden is more likely for people with multiple long-term conditions (LTCs). Validated treatment burden measures exist, but have not been widely used in practice or as research outcomes.

AIM

To establish whether changes in organisation and delivery of health systems and services improve aspects contributing to treatment burden for people with multiple LTCs.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the impact of system-level interventions on at least one outcome relevant to previously defined treatment burden domains among adults with ≥2 LTCs.

METHOD

The Embase, Ovid MEDLINE, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for terms related to multimorbidity, system-level change, and treatment burden published between January 2010 and July 2021. Treatment burden domains were derived from validated measures and qualitative literature. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) methodology was used to synthesise results and study quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias (version 2) tool.

RESULTS

The searches identified 1881 articles, 18 of which met the review inclusion criteria. Outcomes were grouped into seven domains. There was some evidence for the effect of system-level interventions on some domains, but the studies exhibited substantial heterogeneity, limiting the synthesis of results. Some concern over bias gave low confidence in study results.

CONCLUSION

System-level interventions may affect some treatment burden domains. However, adoption of a standardised outcome set, incorporating validated treatment burden measures, and the development of standard definitions for care processes in future research would aid study comparability.

Effect of a multimorbidity intervention on health care utilization and costs in Ontario: randomized controlled trial and propensity-matched analyses

BACKGROUND

Patients with multimorbidity require coordinated and patient-centred care. Telemedicine IMPACT Plus provides such care for complex patients in Toronto, Ontario. We conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing health care utilization and costs at 1-year postintervention for an intervention group and 2 control groups (RCT and propensity matched).

METHODS

Data for 82 RCT intervention and 74 RCT control participants were linked with health administrative data. We created a second control group using health administrative data-derived propensity scores to match (1:5) intervention participants with comparators. We evaluated 5 outcomes: acute hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs of all insured health care, 30-day hospital readmissions and 7-day family physician follow-up after hospital discharge using generalized linear models for RCT controls and generalized estimating equations for propensity-matched controls.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between intervention participants and either control group. For hospital admissions, emergency department visits, costs and readmissions, the relative differences ranged from 1.00 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-2.60) to 1.67 (95% CI 0.82-3.38) with intervention costs at about Can$20 000, RCT controls costs at around Can$15 000 and propensity controls costs at around Can$17 000. There was a higher rate of follow-up with a family physician for the intervention participants compared with the RCT controls (53.13 v. 21.43 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 2.48 [95% CI 0.98-6.29]) and propensity-matched controls (49.94 v. 28.21 per 100 hospital discharges; relative difference 1.81 [95% CI 0.99-3.30]).

INTERPRETATION

Despite a complex patient-centred intervention, there was no significant improvement in health care utilization or cost. Future research requires larger sample sizes and should include outcomes important to patients and the health care system, and longer follow-up periods.

ONTARIO

ClinicalTrials.gov : 104191.

Effect of social prescribing link workers on health outcomes and costs for adults in primary care and community settings: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To establish the evidence base for the effects on health outcomes and costs of social prescribing link workers (non-health or social care professionals who connect people to community resources) for people in community settings focusing on people experiencing multimorbidity and social deprivation.

DESIGN

Systematic review and narrative synthesis using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, EU Clinical Trials Register, CINAHL, Embase, Global Health, PubMed/MEDLINE, PsycInfo, LILACS, Web of Science and grey literature were searched up to 31 July 2021. A forward citation search was completed on 9 June 2022.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Controlled trials meeting the Cochrane Effectiveness of Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) guidance on eligible study designs assessing the effect of social prescribing link workers for adults in community settings on any outcomes. No language restrictions were applied.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data, evaluated study quality using the Cochrane EPOC risk of bias tool and judged certainty of the evidence. Results were synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Eight studies (n=6500 participants), with five randomised controlled trials at low risk of bias and three controlled before-after studies at high risk of bias, were included. Four included participants experiencing multimorbidity and social deprivation. Four (n=2186) reported no impact on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Four (n=1924) reported mental health outcomes with three reporting no impact. Two US studies found improved ratings of high-quality care and reduced hospitalisations for people with multimorbidity experiencing deprivation. No cost-effectiveness analyses were identified. The certainty of the evidence was low or very low.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an absence of evidence for social prescribing link workers. Policymakers should note this and support evaluation of current programmes before mainstreaming.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019134737.

Blended-eLearning Improves Alcohol Use Care in Kenya: Pragmatic Randomized Control Trial Results and Parallel Qualitative Study Implications

Alcohol use is the 5th most important risk factor contributing to the global burden of diseases, with stigma and a lack of trained health workers as the main barriers to adequate care. This study assesses the impact of providing blended-eLearning courses teaching the alcohol, smoking, and substance involvement screening test (ASSIST) screening and its linked brief intervention (BI). In public and private facilities, two randomized control trials (RCTs) showed large and similar decreases in alcohol use in those receiving the BI compared to those receiving only the ASSIST feedback. Qualitative findings confirm a meaningful reduction in alcohol consumption; decrease in stigma and significant practice change, suggesting lay health workers and clinicians can learn effective interventions through blended-eLearning; and significantly improve alcohol use care in a low- and middle-income country (LMIC) context. In addition, our study provides insight into why lay health workers feedback led to a similar decrease in alcohol consumption compared to those who also received a BI by clinicians.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11469-022-00841-x.

A systematic review of impact of person-centred interventions for serious physical illness in terms of outcomes and costs

BACKGROUND

Person-centred care (PCC) is being internationally recognised as a critical attribute of high-quality healthcare. The International Alliance of Patients Organisations defines PCC as care that is focused and organised around people, rather than disease. Focusing on delivery, we aimed to review and evaluate the evidence from interventions that aimed to deliver PCC for people with serious physical illness and identify models of PCC interventions.

METHODS

Systematic review of literature using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. We searched AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, using the following key concepts: patient/person-centred care, family centred care, family based care, individualised care, holistic care, serious illness, chronic illness, long-term conditions from inception to April 2022. Due to heterogeneity of interventions and populations studied, narrative synthesis was conducted. Study quality was appraised using the Joanna Briggs checklist.

RESULTS

We screened n=6156 papers. Seventy-two papers (reporting n=55 different studies) were retained in the review. Most of these studies (n=47) were randomised controlled trials. Our search yielded two main types of interventions: (1) studies with self-management components and (2) technology-based interventions. We synthesised findings across these two models:Self-management component: the interventions consisted of training of patients and/or caregivers or staff. Some studies reported that interventions had effect in reduction hospital admissions, improving quality of life and reducing costs of care.Technology-based interventions: consisted of mobile phone, mobile app, tablet/computer and video. Although some interventions showed improvements for self-efficacy, hospitalisations and length of stay, quality of life did not improve across most studies.

DISCUSSION

PCC interventions using self-management have some effects in reducing costs of care and improving quality of life. Technology-based interventions improves self-efficacy but has no effect on quality of life. However, very few studies used self-management and technology approaches. Further work is needed to identify how self-management and technology approaches can be used to manage serious illness.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018108302.

Effects of goal-oriented care for adults with multimorbidity: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials comparing the effects of goal-oriented care against standard care for multimorbid adults.

DATA SOURCES/STUDY SETTING

The literature presenting the results of randomized trials assessing the outcomes of goal-oriented care compared with usual care for adults with multimorbidity.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CENTRAL), EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINHAL, trial registries such as ClinicalTrial.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and the references of eligible trials and relevant reviews. Goal-oriented care was defined as an approach that engages patients, establishes personal goals, and sets targets for patients and clinicians to plan a course of action and measure outcome. We reviewed 228 trials, and 12 were included. We extracted outcome data on quality of life, hospital admission, patients' satisfaction, patient and caregiver burden. Risk of bias was assessed and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

No study was fully free of bias. No effect was found on quality of life (standardized mean difference [SMD]: 0.05; 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.16) and hospital admission (risk ratio [RR]: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.17). There was a very small effect for patients' satisfaction (SMD: 0.15; 95% CI: 0.00 to 0.29) and caregiver burden (SMD: -0.13; 95% CI: -0.26 to 0.00). Certainty of evidence was low for all outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

No firm conclusions can be reached about the effects of goal-oriented care for multimorbid adults. Future research should overcome the shortcomings of trials assessed in this meta-analysis. Sound application of the indications for research of complex healthcare interventions is warranted.

Challenges in Multimorbidity Research: Lessons Learned From the Most Recent Randomized Controlled Trials in Primary Care

Multimorbidity has received much attention and there is a growing number of original studies. However, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have failed to demonstrate effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving outcomes for patient with multimorbidity in primary care. The purpose of this article is to synthesize and analyze the most recent RCTs to identify the factors that may have contribute to the success or lack of success in order to draw lessons to inform further development in intervention research. A scoping review was conducted to include current up-to-date state-of-the-art studies in primary care published from 2019. Nine articles reporting on six RCTs studies were included in the review. The findings were mixed, with primary outcomes showing no differences between intervention and control groups in four of the six but differences in secondary outcomes in all six. All studies involved family practice patients but interventions took place at different sites, and the time between the beginning of the intervention and the time of evaluation of outcomes varied across studies. Authors reported issues regarding the need for training of care teams, the roles and composition of the teams, the selection of patients and implementation barriers of the complex interventions in trying contexts with not enough time for the changes required. The randomized controlled design may not be the best evaluation design given the complexity of the interventions, and alternative designs should be considered in which qualitative components are included. Further attention to outcome measures and to equity issues is recommended.

One year follow-up and exploratory analysis of a patient-centered interdisciplinary care intervention for multimorbidity

Context

Interventions for people with multimorbidity have obtained mixed results. We aimed to document the long-term effect of an intervention for people with multimorbidity.

Methods

284 patients (18-80 years) presenting three or more chronic conditions were recruited from seven family medicine groups in the Saguenay-Lac St-Jean region, Quebec, Canada. The patient-centered intervention was based on motivational approach and self-management support. Outcomes were evaluated in a one-year pre-post study design with questionnaires that included the Health Education Questionnaire (heiQ), the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Diseases, the Veteran RAND-12 Health Survey (VR-12), the EuroQoL 5-Domains questionnaire, the Kessler six item Psychological Stress Scale, and measures of smoking habit, physical activity, healthy eating and alcohol consumption. Subgroup analyses by age, number of conditions, sex, and income were also conducted.

Results

The heiQ domain of emotional wellbeing improved significantly. Improvement was also observed for the VR-12 and the K6. Among the health behaviours, only healthy eating was improved. Subgroup analyses in this exploratory study suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours.

Conclusion

One year after the intervention, participants significantly improved a variety of outcomes. Subgroup analyses suggest that younger patients, those with lower number of chronic conditions or higher incomes may respond better in relation to self-management, health status and health behaviours. This suggests that future interventions should be tailored to patients' characteristics including age, sex, income and number of conditions.

Primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing to improve health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): Pilot study for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

Introduction

Individuals with multimorbidity in deprived areas experience worse health outcomes and fragmented care. Research suggests that primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing have potential to improve health and well-being. This paper reports the results of a pilot study conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to test the effectiveness of primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing in improving health outcomes for people with multimorbidity who attend general practices in deprived areas in Ireland.

Methods

An uncontrolled pilot study of an intervention based on the Glasgow Deep End links worker programme, in a single general practice, tested the feasibility and acceptability of planned processes for a RCT. Outcomes were recruitment and retention rates and acceptability of the trial processes and intervention to patients, general practitioners (GPs) and the link worker. Structured interviews were conducted with six patients, the link worker and two GPs within the practice and analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis. Feedback from a Public Patient Involvement group and an Implementation Advisory Group of key stakeholders was incorporated into the evaluation process.

Results

Twelve out of 14 patients completed the intervention. Selection and recruitment processes were lengthier than expected. GPs recommended including psychosocial need in the selection process. Interviewed patients, the GPs and the link worker were positive about the intervention.

Conclusion

A range of adaptations were identified for the main trial, mainly considering psychosocial need in the selection process to reflect normal referral pathways. This has resulted in a pragmatic RCT design.

Patient-centred innovation for multimorbidity care: a mixed-methods, randomised trial and qualitative study of the patients' experience

Background

Patient-centred interventions to help patients with multimorbidity have had mixed results.

Aim

To assess the effectiveness of a provider-created, patient-centred, multi-provider case conference with follow-up, and understand under what circumstances it worked, and did not work.

Design and setting

Mixed-methods design with a pragmatic randomised trial and qualitative study, involving nine urban primary care sites in Ontario, Canada.

Method

Patients aged 18–80 years with ≥3 chronic conditions were referred to the Telemedicine IMPACT Plus intervention; a nurse and patient planned a multi-provider case conference during which a care plan could be created. The patients were randomised into an intervention or control group. Two subgroup analyses and a fidelity assessment were conducted, with the primary outcomes at 4 months being self-management and self-efficacy. Secondary outcomes were mental and physical health status, quality of life, and health behaviours. A thematic analysis explored the patients’ experiences of the intervention.

Results

A total of 86 patients in the intervention group and 77 in the control group showed no differences, except that the intervention improved mental health status in the subgroup with an annual income of ≥C$50 000 (β-coefficient 11.003, P = 0.006). More providers and follow-up hours were associated with poorer outcomes. Five themes were identified in the qualitative study: valuing the team, patients feeling supported, receiving a follow-up plan, being offered new and helpful additions to their treatment regimen, and experiencing positive outcomes.

Conclusion

Overall, the intervention showed improvements only for patients who had an annual income of ≥C$50 000, implying a need to address the costs of intervention components not covered by existing health policies. Findings suggest a need to optimise team composition by revising the number and type of providers according to patient preferences and to enhance the hours of nurse follow-up to better support the patient in carrying out the case conference’s recommendations.