Effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention targeting cardiovascular risk factors: are patients responsive to information and encouragement by mail or post?

Strategies to improve smoking cessation rates in primary care

BACKGROUND

Primary care is an important setting in which to treat tobacco addiction. However, the rates at which providers address smoking cessation and the success of that support vary. Strategies can be implemented to improve and increase the delivery of smoking cessation support (e.g. through provider training), and to increase the amount and breadth of support given to people who smoke (e.g. through additional counseling or tailored printed materials).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of strategies intended to increase the success of smoking cessation interventions in primary care settings. To assess whether any effect that these interventions have on smoking cessation may be due to increased implementation by healthcare providers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group's Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and trial registries to 10 September 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs (cRCTs) carried out in primary care, including non-pregnant adults. Studies investigated a strategy or strategies to improve the implementation or success of smoking cessation treatment in primary care. These strategies could include interventions designed to increase or enhance the quality of existing support, or smoking cessation interventions offered in addition to standard care (adjunctive interventions). Intervention strategies had to be tested in addition to and in comparison with standard care, or in addition to other active intervention strategies if the effect of an individual strategy could be isolated. Standard care typically incorporates physician-delivered brief behavioral support, and an offer of smoking cessation medication, but differs across studies. Studies had to measure smoking abstinence at six months' follow-up or longer.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcome - smoking abstinence - was measured using the most rigorous intention-to-treat definition available. We also extracted outcome data for quit attempts, and the following markers of healthcare provider performance: asking about smoking status; advising on cessation; assessment of participant readiness to quit; assisting with cessation; arranging follow-up for smoking participants. Where more than one study investigated the same strategy or set of strategies, and measured the same outcome, we conducted meta-analyses using Mantel-Haenszel random-effects methods to generate pooled risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 81 RCTs and cRCTs, involving 112,159 participants. Fourteen were rated at low risk of bias, 44 at high risk, and the remainder at unclear risk. We identified moderate-certainty evidence, limited by inconsistency, that the provision of adjunctive counseling by a health professional other than the physician (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.55; I2 = 44%; 22 studies, 18,150 participants), and provision of cost-free medications (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.76; I2 = 63%; 10 studies,7560 participants) increased smoking quit rates in primary care. There was also moderate-certainty evidence, limited by risk of bias, that the addition of tailored print materials to standard smoking cessation treatment increased the number of people who had successfully stopped smoking at six months' follow-up or more (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.59; I2 = 37%; 6 studies, 15,978 participants). There was no clear evidence that providing participants who smoked with biomedical risk feedback increased their likelihood of quitting (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.41; I2 = 40%; 7 studies, 3491 participants), or that provider smoking cessation training (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.41; I2 = 66%; 7 studies, 13,685 participants) or provider incentives (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 2454 participants) increased smoking abstinence rates. However, in assessing the former two strategies we judged the evidence to be of low certainty and in assessing the latter strategies it was of very low certainty. We downgraded the evidence due to imprecision, inconsistency and risk of bias across these comparisons. There was some indication that provider training increased the delivery of smoking cessation support, along with the provision of adjunctive counseling and cost-free medications. However, our secondary outcomes were not measured consistently, and in many cases analyses were subject to substantial statistical heterogeneity, imprecision, or both, making it difficult to draw conclusions. Thirty-four studies investigated multicomponent interventions to improve smoking cessation rates. There was substantial variation in the combinations of strategies tested, and the resulting individual study effect estimates, precluding meta-analyses in most cases. Meta-analyses provided some evidence that adjunctive counseling combined with either cost-free medications or provider training enhanced quit rates when compared with standard care alone. However, analyses were limited by small numbers of events, high statistical heterogeneity, and studies at high risk of bias. Analyses looking at the effects of combining provider training with flow sheets to aid physician decision-making, and with outreach facilitation, found no clear evidence that these combinations increased quit rates; however, analyses were limited by imprecision, and there was some indication that these approaches did improve some forms of provider implementation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing adjunctive counseling by an allied health professional, cost-free smoking cessation medications, and tailored printed materials as part of smoking cessation support in primary care can increase the number of people who achieve smoking cessation. There is no clear evidence that providing participants with biomedical risk feedback, or primary care providers with training or incentives to provide smoking cessation support enhance quit rates. However, we rated this evidence as of low or very low certainty, and so conclusions are likely to change as further evidence becomes available. Most of the studies in this review evaluated smoking cessation interventions that had already been extensively tested in the general population. Further studies should assess strategies designed to optimize the delivery of those interventions already known to be effective within the primary care setting. Such studies should be cluster-randomized to account for the implications of implementation in this particular setting. Due to substantial variation between studies in this review, identifying optimal characteristics of multicomponent interventions to improve the delivery of smoking cessation treatment was challenging. Future research could use component network meta-analysis to investigate this further.

How Behavior Change Strategies are Used to Design Digital Interventions to Improve Medication Adherence and Blood Pressure Among Patients With Hypertension: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Information on how behavior change strategies have been used to design digital interventions (DIs) to improve blood pressure (BP) control or medication adherence (MA) for patients with hypertension is currently limited.

OBJECTIVE

Hypertension is a major modifiable risk factor for cardiovascular diseases and can be controlled with appropriate medication. Many interventions that target MA to improve BP are increasingly using modern digital technologies. This systematic review was conducted to discover how DIs have been designed to improve MA and BP control among patients with hypertension in the recent 10 years. Results were mapped into a matrix of change objectives using the Intervention Mapping framework to guide future development of technologies to improve MA and BP control.

METHODS

We included all the studies regarding DI development to improve MA or BP control for patients with hypertension published in PubMed from 2008 to 2018. All the DI components were mapped into a matrix of change objectives using the Intervention Mapping technique by eliciting the key determinant factors (from patient and health care team and system levels) and targeted patient behaviors.

RESULTS

The analysis included 54 eligible studies. The determinants were considered at two levels: patient and health care team and system. The most commonly described determinants at the patient level were lack of education, lack of self-awareness, lack of self-efficacy, and forgetfulness. Clinical inertia and an inadequate health workforce were the most commonly targeted determinants at the health care team and system level. Taking medication, interactive patient-provider communication, self-measurement, and lifestyle management were the most cited patient behaviors at both levels. Most of the DIs did not include support from peers or family members, despite its reported effectiveness and the rate of social media penetration.

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights the need to design a multifaceted DI that can be personalized according to patient behavior(s) that need to be changed to overcome the key determinant(s) of low adherence to medication or uncontrolled BP among patients with hypertension, considering different levels including patient and healthcare team and system involvement.

Rationale and study design of the MyHEART study: A young adult hypertension self-management randomized controlled trial

Young adults (18-39 year-olds) with hypertension have a higher lifetime risk for cardiovascular disease. However, less than 50% of young adults achieve hypertension control in the United States. Hypertension self-management programs are recommended to improve control, but have been targeted to middle-aged and older populations. Young adults need hypertension self-management programs (i.e., home blood pressure monitoring and lifestyle modifications) tailored to their unique needs to lower blood pressure and reduce the risks and medication burden they may face over a lifetime. To address the unmet need in hypertensive care for young adults, we developed MyHEART (My Hypertension Education And Reaching Target), a multi-component, theoretically-based intervention designed to achieve self-management among young adults with uncontrolled hypertension. MyHEART is a patient-centered program, based upon the Self-Determination Theory, that uses evidence-based health behavior approaches to lower blood pressure. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate MyHEART's impact on changes in systolic and diastolic blood pressure compared to usual care after 6 and 12 months in 310 geographically and racially/ethnically diverse young adults with uncontrolled hypertension. Secondary outcomes include MyHEART's impact on behavioral outcomes at 6 and 12 months, compared to usual clinical care (increased physical activity, decreased sodium intake) and to examine whether MyHEART's effects on self-management behavior are mediated through variables of perceived competence, autonomy, motivation, and activation (mediation outcomes). MyHEART is one of the first multicenter, randomized controlled hypertension trials tailored to young adults with primary care. The design and methodology will maximize the generalizability of this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03158051.

Print-based self-help interventions for smoking cessation

BACKGROUND

Many smokers give up smoking on their own, but materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow may increase the number who quit successfully.

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this review were to determine the effectiveness of different forms of print-based self-help materials that provide a structured programme for smokers to follow, compared with no treatment and with other minimal contact strategies, and to determine the comparative effectiveness of different components and characteristics of print-based self-help, such as computer-generated feedback, additional materials, tailoring of materials to individuals, and targeting of materials at specific groups.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). The date of the most recent search was March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials of smoking cessation with follow-up of at least six months, where at least one arm tested print-based materials providing self-help compared with minimal print-based self-help (such as a short leaflet) or a lower-intensity control. We defined 'self-help' as structured programming for smokers trying to quit without intensive contact with a therapist.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We extracted data in accordance with standard methodological procedures set out by Cochrane. The main outcome measure was abstinence from smoking after at least six months' follow-up in people smoking at baseline. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence in each study and biochemically validated rates when available. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis using a random-effects model.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 75 studies that met our inclusion criteria. Many study reports did not include sufficient detail to allow judgement of risk of bias for some domains. We judged 30 studies (40%) to be at high risk of bias for one or more domains.Thirty-five studies evaluated the effects of standard, non-tailored self-help materials. Eleven studies compared self-help materials alone with no intervention and found a small effect in favour of the intervention (n = 13,241; risk ratio (RR) 1.19, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.03 to 1.37; I² = 0%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for indirect relevance to populations in low- and middle-income countries because evidence for this comparison came from studies conducted solely in high-income countries and there is reason to believe the intervention might work differently in low- and middle-income countries. This analysis excluded two studies by the same author team with strongly positive outcomes that were clear outliers and introduced significant heterogeneity. Six further studies of structured self-help compared with brief leaflets did not show evidence of an effect of self-help materials on smoking cessation (n = 7023; RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.07; I² = 21%). We found evidence of benefit from standard self-help materials when there was brief contact that did not include smoking cessation advice (4 studies; n = 2822; RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; I² = 0%), but not when self-help was provided as an adjunct to face-to-face smoking cessation advice for all participants (11 studies; n = 5365; RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.28; I² = 32%).Thirty-two studies tested materials tailored for the characteristics of individual smokers, with controls receiving no materials, or stage-matched or non-tailored materials. Most of these studies used more than one mailing. Pooling studies that compared tailored self-help with no self-help, either on its own or compared with advice, or as an adjunct to advice, showed a benefit of providing tailored self-help interventions (12 studies; n = 19,190; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.49; I² = 0%) with little evidence of difference between subgroups (10 studies compared tailored with no materials, n = 14,359; RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51; I² = 0%; two studies compared tailored materials with brief advice, n = 2992; RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.49; I² = 0%; and two studies evaluated tailored materials as an adjunct to brief advice, n = 1839; RR 1.72, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.53; I² = 10%). When studies compared tailored self-help with non-tailored self-help, results favoured tailored interventions when the tailored interventions involved more mailings than the non-tailored interventions (9 studies; n = 14,166; RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.68; I² = 0%), but not when the two conditions were contact-matched (10 studies; n = 11,024; RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.30; I² = 50%). We judged the evidence to be of moderate certainty in accordance with GRADE, downgraded for risk of bias.Five studies evaluated self-help materials as an adjunct to nicotine replacement therapy; pooling three of these provided no evidence of additional benefit (n = 1769; RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I² = 0%). Four studies evaluating additional written materials favoured the intervention, but the lower confidence interval crossed the line of no effect (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.58; I² = 73%). A small number of other studies did not detect benefit from using targeted materials, or find differences between different self-help programmes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence shows that when no other support is available, written self-help materials help more people to stop smoking than no intervention. When people receive advice from a health professional or are using nicotine replacement therapy, there is no evidence that self-help materials add to their effect. However, small benefits cannot be excluded. Moderate-certainty evidence shows that self-help materials that use data from participants to tailor the nature of the advice or support given are more effective than no intervention. However, when tailored self-help materials, which typically involve repeated assessment and mailing, were compared with untailored materials delivered similarly, there was no evidence of benefit.Available evidence tested self-help interventions in high-income countries, where more intensive support is often available. Further research is needed to investigate effects of these interventions in low- and middle-income countries, where more intensive support may not be available.

Feasibility of a birth cohort study dedicated to assessing acute infections using symptom diaries and parental collection of biomaterials

Background

A birth cohort dedicated to studying infections in early childhood may be assisted by parental recording of symptoms on a daily basis and a collection of biomaterials. We aimed at testing the feasibility of this approach for use in a long-term study focusing on infections in children in Germany.

Methods

Parents of 1- to 3-year-old children (n = 75) were recruited in nursery schools. They were asked to complete a symptom diary on a daily basis and to take monthly and symptom-triggered nasal swabs and stool samples from their child over the study period of three months. Feasibility was measured by means of the return proportions of symptom diaries and bio samples; acceptance was assessed by a questionnaire delivered to participants at the end of the study.

Results

The majority of the participants filled in the symptom diary during the three months study for 75 or more days (77.3 %), and provided the monthly nasal swabs (62.7 %) and stool samples (65.3 %). The time needed for the tasks was acceptable for most participants (symptom diary: 92.3 %, nasal swabs: 98.5 %, stool samples: 100.0 %). In 64.3 % of the symptom-triggered nasal swabs, respiratory viruses were found compared to 55.5 % in throat swabs taken by health-care professionals within the “ARE surveillance Lower Saxony”, a special project by the Governmental Institute of Public Health of Lower Saxony to investigate causal pathogens for acute respiratory infections in children.

Conclusions

The parental assessment of symptoms and collection of biomaterials in a birth cohort dedicated to studying infections appears feasible in a middle class German population. The success of the study will depend on the ability to maintain these activities over a long time period.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-015-1189-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Digital health interventions for the prevention of cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the potential benefit of digital health interventions (DHIs) on cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes (CVD events, all-cause mortality, hospitalizations) and risk factors compared with non-DHIs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Ovid, CINHAL, ERIC, PsychINFO, Cochrane, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for articles published from January 1, 1990, through January 21, 2014. Included studies examined any element of DHI (telemedicine, Web-based strategies, e-mail, mobile phones, mobile applications, text messaging, and monitoring sensors) and CVD outcomes or risk factors. Two reviewers independently evaluated study quality utilizing a modified version of the Cochrane Collaboration risk assessment tool. Authors extracted CVD outcomes and risk factors for CVD such as weight, body mass index, blood pressure, and lipid levels from 51 full-text articles that met validity and inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Digital health interventions significantly reduced CVD outcomes (relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.80; P<.001; I(2)=22%). Concomitant reductions in weight (-2.77 lb [95% CI, -4.49 to -1.05 lb]; P<.002; I(2)=97%) and body mass index (-0.17 kg/m(2) [95% CI, -0.32 kg/m(2) to -0.01 kg/m(2)]; P=.03; I(2)=97%) but not blood pressure (-1.18 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.93 mm Hg to 0.57 mm Hg]; P=.19; I(2)=100%) were found in these DHI trials compared with usual care. In the 6 studies reporting Framingham risk score, 10-year risk percentages were also significantly improved (-1.24%; 95% CI, -1.73% to -0.76%; P<.001; I(2)=94%). Results were limited by heterogeneity not fully explained by study population (primary or secondary prevention) or DHI modality.

CONCLUSION

Overall, these aggregations of data provide evidence that DHIs can reduce CVD outcomes and have a positive impact on risk factors for CVD.

Molecular sources of residual cardiovascular risk, clinical signals, and innovative solutions: relationship with subclinical disease, undertreatment, and poor adherence: implications of new evidence upon optimizing cardiovascular patient outcomes

Residual risk, the ongoing appreciable risk of major cardiovascular events (MCVE) in statin-treated patients who have achieved evidence-based lipid goals, remains a concern among cardiologists. Factors that contribute to this continuing risk are atherogenic non-low-density lipoprotein (LDL) particles and atherogenic processes unrelated to LDL cholesterol, including other risk factors, the inherent properties of statin drugs, and patient characteristics, ie, genetics and behaviors. In addition, providers, health care systems, the community, public policies, and the environment play a role. Major statin studies suggest an average 28% reduction in LDL cholesterol and a 31% reduction in relative risk, leaving a residual risk of about 69%. Incomplete reductions in risk, and failure to improve conditions that create risk, may result in ongoing progression of atherosclerosis, with new and recurring lesions in original and distant culprit sites, remodeling, arrhythmias, rehospitalizations, invasive procedures, and terminal disability. As a result, identification of additional agents to reduce residual risk, particularly administered together with statin drugs, has been an ongoing quest. The current model of atherosclerosis involves many steps during which disease may progress independently of guideline-defined elevations in LDL cholesterol. Differences in genetic responsiveness to statin therapy, differences in ability of the endothelium to regenerate and repair, and differences in susceptibility to nonlipid risk factors, such as tobacco smoking, hypertension, and molecular changes associated with obesity and diabetes, may all create residual risk. A large number of inflammatory and metabolic processes may also provide eventual therapeutic targets to lower residual risk. Classically, epidemiologic and other evidence suggested that raising high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol would be cardioprotective. When LDL cholesterol is aggressively lowered to targets, low HDL cholesterol levels are still inversely related to MCVE. The efflux capacity, or ability to relocate cholesterol out of macrophages, is believed to be a major antiatherogenic mechanism responsible for reduction in MCVE mediated in part by healthy HDL. HDL cholesterol is a complex molecule with antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, antiplatelet, and vasodilatory properties, among which is protection of LDL from oxidation. HDL-associated paraoxonase-1 has a major effect on endothelial function. Further, HDL promotes endothelial repair and progenitor cell health, and supports production of nitric oxide. HDL from patients with cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and autoimmune disease may fail to protect or even become proinflammatory or pro-oxidant. Mendelian randomization and other clinical studies in which raising HDL cholesterol has not been beneficial suggest that high plasma levels do not necessarily reduce cardiovascular risk. These data, coupled with extensive preclinical information about the functional heterogeneity of HDL, challenge the "HDL hypothesis", ie, raising HDL cholesterol per se will reduce MCVE. After the equivocal AIM-HIGH (Atherothrombosis Intervention in Metabolic Syndrome With Low HDL/High Triglycerides: Impact on Global Health Outcomes) study and withdrawal of two major cholesteryl ester transfer protein compounds, one for off-target adverse effects and the other for lack of efficacy, development continues for two other agents, ie, anacetrapib and evacetrapib, both of which lower LDL cholesterol substantially. The negative but controversial HPS2-THRIVE (the Heart Protection Study 2-Treatment of HDL to Reduce the Incidence of Vascular Events) trial casts further doubt on the HDL cholesterol hypothesis. The growing impression that HDL functionality, rather than abundance, is clinically important is supported by experimental evidence highlighting the conditional pleiotropic actions of HDL. Non-HDL cholesterol reflects the cholesterol in all atherogenic particles containing apolipoprotein B, and has outperformed LDL cholesterol as a lipid marker of cardiovascular risk and future mortality. In addition to including a measure of residual risk, the advantages of using non-HDL cholesterol as a primary lipid target are now compelling. Reinterpretation of data from the Treating to New Targets study suggests that better control of smoking, body weight, hypertension, and diabetes will help lower residual risk. Although much improved, control of risk factors other than LDL cholesterol currently remains inadequate due to shortfalls in compliance with guidelines and poor patient adherence. More efficient and greater use of proven simple therapies, such as aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers, combined with statin therapy, may be more fruitful in improving outcomes than using other complex therapies. Comprehensive, intensive, multimechanistic, global, and national programs using primordial, primary, and secondary prevention to lower the total level of cardiovascular risk are necessary.