| 1. |
- Gonzalez Garcia, Manuel, et al.
(författare)
-
A Review of Randomized Controlled Trials Utilizing Telemedicine for Improving Heart Failure Readmission : Can a Realist Approach Bridge the Translational Divide?
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Clinical Medicine Insights. - : Sage Publications. - 1179-5468. ; 13
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Telemedicine and digital health technologies hold great promise for improving clinical care of heart failure. However, inconsistent and contradictory findings from randomized controlled trials have so far discouraged widespread adoption of digital health in routine clinical practice. We undertook this review study to summarize the study outcomes of the use of exploring the evidence for telemedicine in the clinical care of patients with heart failure and readmissions.Methods: We inspected the references of guidelines and searched PubMed for randomized controlled trials published over the past 10 years on the use of telemedicine for reducing readmission in heart failure. We utilized a modified realist review approach to identify the underlying contextual mechanisms for the intervention(s) in each randomized controlled trial, evaluating outcomes of the intervention and understanding how and under what conditions they worked. To provide uniformity, all extracted data were synthesized using adapted domains from the taxonomy for disease management created by the Disease Management Taxonomy Writing Group.Results: A total of 12 papers were eligible, 6 of them supporting and 6 others undermining the use of telemedicine for improving heart failure readmission. In general terms, those studies not supporting the use of telemedicine were multicentre, publicly funded, with large amount of participants, and long duration. The patients had also better rates of treatment with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blocker and beta-blockers, and telemonitoring and automatic transmission of vital signs were less utilized, in comparison with the studies in which telemedicine use was supported. The analysis of the environment, intensity, content of interventions, method of communication, quality of the underlying model of care and the ability, capability, and interest from health workers can help us to envisage probabilities of success of telemedicine use.Conclusions: A realist lens may aid to understand whom and in which circumstances the use of telemedicine can add any substantial value to traditional models of care. Wider outcome criteria beyond major adverse cardiovascular events, for example, cost efficacy, should also be considered as appropriate for effecting guidelines on care delivery when robust prognostic therapeutics already exist.
|
|
| 2. |
- Owolabi, Mayowa O., et al.
(författare)
-
Gaps in Guidelines for the Management of Diabetes in Low- and Middle-Income Versus High-Income Countries : A Systematic Review
- 2018
-
Ingår i: Diabetes Care. - : AMER DIABETES ASSOC. - 0149-5992 .- 1935-5548. ; 41:5, s. 1097-1105
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE The extent to which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often based on evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low-and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination plan as well as socioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization. LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS A new approach to the contextualization, content development, and delivery of LMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes.
|
|
