Integrating primary care of chronic respiratory disease, cardiovascular disease and diabetes in Brazil: Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK Brazil): study protocol for randomised controlled trials

Educational interventions for health professionals managing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care

BACKGROUND

Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a common, preventable and treatable health condition. COPD is associated with substantial burden on morbidity, mortality and healthcare resources.

OBJECTIVES

To review existing evidence for educational interventions delivered to health professionals managing COPD in the primary care setting.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Trials Register from inception to May 2021. The Register includes records from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED) and PsycINFO. We also searched online trial registries and reference lists of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs. Eligible studies tested educational interventions aimed at any health professionals involved in the management of COPD in primary care. Educational interventions were defined as interventions aimed at upskilling, improving or refreshing existing knowledge of health professionals in the diagnosis and management of COPD.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently reviewed abstracts and full texts of eligible studies, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted meta-analyses where possible and used random-effects models to yield summary estimates of effect (mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs)). We performed narrative synthesis when meta-analysis was not possible. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Primary outcomes were: 1) proportion of COPD diagnoses confirmed with spirometry; 2) proportion of patients with COPD referred to, participating in or completing pulmonary rehabilitation; and 3) proportion of patients with COPD prescribed respiratory medication consistent with guideline recommendations.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 38 studies(22 cluster-RCTs and 16 RCTs) involving 4936 health professionals (reported in 19/38 studies) and 71,085 patient participants (reported in 25/38 studies). Thirty-six included studies evaluated interventions versus usual care; seven studies also reported a comparison between two or more interventions as part of a three- to five-arm RCT design. A range of simple to complex interventions were used across the studies, with common intervention features including education provided to health professionals via training sessions, workshops or online modules (31 studies), provision of practice support tools, tool kits and/or algorithms (10 studies), provision of guidelines (nine studies) and training on spirometry (five studies). Health professionals targeted by the interventions were most commonly general practitioners alone (20 studies) or in combination with nurses or allied health professionals (eight studies), and the majority of studies were conducted in general practice clinics. We identified performance bias as high risk for 33 studies. We also noted risk of selection, detection, attrition and reporting biases, although to a varying extent across studies. The evidence of efficacy was equivocal for all the three primary endpoints evaluated: 1) proportion of COPD diagnoses confirmed with spirometry (of the four studies that reported this outcome, two supported the intervention); 2) proportion of patients with COPD who are referred to, participate in or complete pulmonary rehabilitation (of the four studies that reported this outcome, two supported the intervention); and 3) proportion of patients with COPD prescribed respiratory medications consistent with guideline recommendations (12 studies reported this outcome, the majority evaluated multiple drug classes and reported a mixed effect). Additionally, the low quality of evidence and potential risk of bias make the interpretation more difficult. Moderate-quality evidence (downgraded due to risk of bias concerns) suggests that educational interventions for health professionals probably improve the proportion of patients with COPD vaccinated against influenza (three studies) and probably have little impact on the proportion of patients vaccinated against pneumococcal infection (two studies). Low-quality evidence suggests that educational interventions for health professionals may have little or no impact on the frequency of COPD exacerbations (10 studies). There was a high degree of heterogeneity in the reporting of health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Low-quality evidence suggests that educational interventions for health professionals may have little or no impact on HRQoL overall, and when using the COPD-specific HRQoL instrument, the St George's Respiratory Questionnaire (at six months MD 0.87, 95% CI -2.51 to 4.26; 2 studies, 406 participants, and at 12 months MD -0.43, 95% CI -1.52 to 0.67, 4 studies, 1646 participants; reduction in score indicates better health). Moderate-quality evidence suggests that educational interventions for health professionals may improve patient satisfaction with care (one study). We identified no studies that reported adverse outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence of efficacy was equivocal for educational interventions for health professionals in primary care on the proportion of COPD diagnoses confirmed with spirometry, the proportion of patients with COPD who participate in pulmonary rehabilitation, and the proportion of patients prescribed guideline-recommended COPD respiratory medications. Educational interventions for health professionals may improve influenza vaccination rates among patients with COPD and patient satisfaction with care. The quality of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low due to heterogeneity and methodological limitations of the studies included in the review, which means that there is uncertainty about the benefits of any currently published educational interventions for healthcare professionals to improve COPD management in primary care. Further well-designed RCTs are needed to investigate the effects of educational interventions delivered to health professionals managing COPD in the primary care setting.

Integrated disease management interventions for patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

BACKGROUND

People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.

MAIN RESULTS

Along with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high. We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL. IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up. The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses.

Health-Care Services as a Platform for Building Community Resilience among Minority Communities: An Israeli Pilot Study during the COVID-19 Outbreak

Background: Previous studies of minority groups in times of emergency have tended to focus on risk reduction or on individual resilience, overlooking the community factors that could be bolstered to promote better health and safety outcomes. The current study aimed to examine the role of health-care services in the perceived community resilience of urban and suburban Arab communities in Israel during the COVID-19 outbreak. Method: The study included 196 adults age 17–76 years, who filled out on-line questionnaires in May 2020; 112 participants lived in an urban community and 84 lived in a suburban community. Community resilience was evaluated using the Conjoint Community Resiliency Assessment Measure (CCRAM), a validated five-factor multidimensional instrument. Results: Residents of the suburban community reported higher community resilience than residents of the urban community. This difference was related to increased preparedness levels and strength of place attachment in the suburban community. Residents of suburban communities were also more satisfied and confident in health-care services than those of urban communities. Regression analysis showed that the satisfaction with primary health-care services, and not community type, significantly predicted community resilience. Conclusions: Our results support the pivotal role of primary health care in building community resilience of minority communities in times of emergency and routine.

Current State of Diabetes Mellitus Prevalence, Awareness, Treatment, and Control in Latin America: Challenges and Innovative Solutions to Improve Health Outcomes Across the Continent

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Latin America is the scenario of great inequalities where about 32 million human beings live with diabetes. Through this review, we aimed at describing the current state of the prevalence, awareness, treatment, and control of diabetes mellitus and completion of selected guidelines of care across Latin America and identify opportunities to advance research that promotes better health outcomes.

RECENT FINDINGS

The prevalence of diabetes mellitus has been consistently increasing across the region, with some variation: higher prevalence in Mexico, Haiti, and Puerto Rico and lower in Colombia, Ecuador, Dominican Republic, Peru, and Uruguay. Prevalence assessment methods vary, and potentially underestimating the real number of persons with diabetes. Diabetes unawareness varies widely, with up to 50% of persons with diabetes who do not know they may have the disease. Glycemic, blood pressure, and LDL-C control and completion of guidelines to prevent microvascular complications are not consistently assessed across studies, and the achievement of control goals is suboptimal. On the other hand, multiple interventions, point-of-care/rapid assessment tools, and alternative models of health care delivery have been proposed and tested throughout Latin America. The prevalence of diabetes mellitus continues to rise across Latin America, and the number of those with the disease may be underestimated. However, some local governments are embedding more comprehensive diabetes assessments in their local national surveys. Clinicians and public health advocates in the region have proposed and initiated various multi-level interventions to address this enormous challenge in the region.

Strengthening Primary Health-Care Services to Help Prevent and Control Long-Term (Chronic) Non-Communicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

The prevalence of long-term (chronic) non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is increasing globally due to an ageing global population, urbanization, changes in lifestyles, and inequitable access to healthcare. Although previously more common in high- and upper-middle-income countries, lower-middle-income countries (LMICs) are more affected, with NCDs in LMICs currently accounting for 85–90% of premature deaths among 30–69 years old. NCDs have both high morbidity and mortality and high treatment costs, not only for the diseases themselves but also for their complications. Primary health care (PHC) services are a vital component in the prevention and control of long-term NCDs, particularly in LMICs, where the health infrastructure and hospital services may be under strain. Drawing from published studies, this review analyses how PHC services can be utilized and strengthened to help prevent and control long-term NCDs in LMICs. The review finds that a PHC service approach, which deals with health in a comprehensive way, including the promotion, prevention, and control of diseases, can be useful in both high and low resource settings. Further, a PHC based approach also provides opportunities for communities to better access appropriate healthcare, which ensures more significant equity, efficiency, effectiveness, safety, and timeliness, empowers service users, and helps healthcare providers to achieve better health outcomes at lower costs.

Point your SmartPhone at the code above. If you have a QR code reader the video abstract will appear. Or use:

https://youtu.be/33l6gK1RNFo

Effects of PACK guide training on the management of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease by primary care clinicians: a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial in Florianópolis, Brazil

Introduction

The Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) guide was localised for Brazil, where primary care doctors and nurses were trained to use it.

Methods

Twenty-four municipal clinics in Florianópolis were randomly allocated to receive outreach training and the guide, and 24 were allocated to receive only the guide. 6666 adult patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were enrolled, and trial outcomes were measured over 12 months, using electronic medical records. The primary outcomes were composite scores of treatment changes and spirometry, and new asthma and COPD diagnosis rates.

Results

Asthma scores in 2437 intervention group participants were higher (74.8%, 20.4% and 4.8% with scores of 0, 1 and 2, respectively) than in 2633 control group participants (80.0%, 16.8% and 3.2%) (OR for higher score 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.61, p=0.006). Adjusted for asthma scores recorded in each clinic before training started, the OR was 1.24 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.50, p=0.022). COPD scores in 1371 intervention group participants (77.7%, 17.9% and 4.3% with scores of 0, 1 and 2) did not differ from those in 1181 control group participants (80.5%, 15.8% and 3.7%) (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.55, p=0.142). Rates of new asthma and COPD diagnoses, and hospital admission, and indicators of investigation, diagnosis and treatment of comorbid cardiovascular disease, diabetes and depression, and tobacco cessation did not differ between trial arms.

Conclusion

PACK training increased guideline-based treatment and spirometry for asthma but did not affect COPD or comorbid conditions, or diagnosis rates.

Trial registration

NCT02786030 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/).

Portuguese (Brazil) Introdução

O guia de Abordagem Prática do Kit de Cuidados em Saúde (PACK) foi adaptado para o sistema de saúde do Brasil; médicos e enfermeiros da atenção primária foram treinados para usá-lo na pratica clínica.

Métodos

Vinte e quatro unidades básicas de saúde (UBS) municipais de Florianópolis foram alocadas aleatoriamente para receber treinamento nas UBS utilizando o guia, e 24 foram alocadas para receber apenas o guia. Foram analisados dados de 6.666 pacientes adultos com asma ou doença pulmonar obstrutiva crônica (DPOC) e os desfechos foram medidos por doze meses, através de registros médicos eletrônicos. Os resultados principais foram escores compostos de mudança no tratamento, realização de espirometria e taxas de novos diagnósticos de asma e DPOC.

Resultados

os escores de asma em 2437 participantes do grupo de intervenção foram maiores (74,8%, 20,4% e 4,8% com escores de 0, 1 e 2 respectivamente) do que em 2633 participantes do grupo controle (80,0%, 16,8% e 3,2%) (odds ratio (OR) para pontuação mais alta 1,32, intervalo de confiança de 95% (IC) 1,08-1,61, p = 0,006). Ajustado para os escores de asma registrados em cada clínica antes do início do treinamento, o OR foi de 1,24 (IC 95% 1,03-1,50, p = 0,022). Os escores da DPOC em 1371 participantes do grupo de intervenção (77,7%, 17,9% e 4,3% com escores de 0, 1 e 2) não diferiram dos de 1181 participantes do grupo controle (80,5%, 15,8% e 3,7%) (OR 1,21 (IC95% 0,94-1,55, p = 0,142) As taxas de novos diagnósticos de asma e DPOC, internação hospitalar e indicadores de diagnóstico e tratamento de co-morbidades cardiovasculares, diabete, depressão e cessação do tabagismo não diferiram entre os grupos experimentais.

Conclusão

O treinamento com PACK aumentou o tratamento baseado em diretrizes e espirometria para asma, mas não afetou as co-morbidades em DPOC ou as taxas de diagnóstico.

Crossing borders: the PACK experience of spreading a complex health system intervention across low-income and middle-income countries

Developing a health system intervention that helps to improve primary care in a low-income and middle-income country (LMIC) is a considerable challenge; finding ways to spread that intervention to other LMICs is another. The Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK) programme is a complex health system intervention that has been developed and adopted as policy in South Africa to improve and standardise primary care delivery. We have successfully spread PACK to several other LMICs, including Botswana, Brazil, Nigeria and Ethiopia. This paper describes our experiences of localising and implementing PACK in these countries, and our evolving mentorship model of localisation that entails our unit providing mentorship support to an in-country team to ensure that the programme is tailored to local resource constraints, burden of disease and on-the-ground realities. The iterative nature of the model's development meant that with each country experience, we could refine both the mentorship package and the programme itself with lessons from one country applied to the next-a 'learning health system' with global reach. While not yet formally evaluated, we appear to have created a feasible model for taking our health system intervention across more borders.

Using a mentorship model to localise the Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK): from South Africa to Brazil

Brazil's Sistema Único de Saúde, or Unified Health System policy, has delivered major improvements in health coverage and outcomes, but challenges remain, including the rise of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) and variations in quality of care across the country. Some of these challenges may be met through the adaptation and implementation of a South African primary care strategy, the Practical Approach to Care Kit (PACK). Developed by the University of Cape Town's Knowledge Translation Unit (KTU), PACK is intended for in-country adaptation by employing a mentorship model. Using this approach, the PACK Adult guide and training materials were localised for use in Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil, as part of an initiative to reform primary care, expand care for NCDs and make services more accessible and equitable. The value of the collaboration between the KTU and Florianópolis municipality is the transfer of skills and avoidance of duplication of effort involved in de-novo guide development, while ensuring that materials are locally acceptable and applicable. The collaboration has informed the development of the KTU's PACK mentorship package and led to a relationship between the groups of developers, ensuring ongoing learning and research, with the potential of assisting the further scale-up of PACK in Brazil.