Search

Objective: We aimed to better understand the challenges related to type 2 diabetes medication-taking through Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)-guided interviews with people with type 2 diabetes with varying degrees of medication-taking. Methods: One-on-one qualitative interviews following a semistructured discussion guide informed by the TDF were conducted. Thirty people with type 2 diabetes in Canada were interviewed, with representation from across the country, of both sexes (47% female), of people with various diabetes durations (mean 12.9 ± 7.9 years), with different types of medication plans (n = 15 on polypharmacy), and with various medication-taking levels (n = 10 each for low-, medium-, and high-engagement groups). Results: Themes related to medication-taking from interviews mapped to 12 of the 14 TDF theme domains, with the exclusion of the knowledge and skills domains. The most prominent domains, as determined by high-frequency themes or themes for which people with low and high medication-taking had contrasting perspectives, were 1) emotion; 2) memory, attention, and decision processes; 3) behavioral regulation; 4) beliefs about consequences; 5) goals; and 6) environmental context and resources. Conclusion: Through our interviews, several areas of focus emerged that may help efforts to increase medication-taking. To validate these findings, future quantitative research is warranted to help support people with type 2 diabetes in overcoming psychological and behavioral barriers to medication-taking. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Timely, appropriate, and equitable access to quality healthcare during pregnancy is proven to contribute to better health outcomes of birthing individuals and infants following birth. Equity is conceptualized as the absence of differences in healthcare access and quality among population groups. Healthcare policies are guides for front-line practices, and despite merits of contemporary policies striving to foster equitable healthcare, inequities persist. The purpose of this umbrella review is to identify prenatal healthcare practices, summarize how equities/inequities are reported in relation to patient experiences or health outcomes when accessing or using services, and collate equity reporting characteristics. Methods: For this umbrella review, six electronic databases were searched (Medline, EMBASE, APA PsychInfo, CINAHL, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences, and Cochrane Library). Included studies were extracted for publication and study characteristics, equity reporting, primary outcomes (prenatal care influenced by equity/inequity) and secondary outcomes (infant health influenced by equity/inequity during pregnancy). Data was analyzed deductively using the PROGRESS-Plus equity framework and by summative content analysis for equity reporting characteristics. The included articles were assessed for quality using the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews. Results: The search identified 8065 articles and 236 underwent full-text screening. Of the 236, 68 systematic reviews were included with first authors representing 20 different countries. The population focus of included studies ranged across prenatal only (n = 14), perinatal (n = 25), maternal (n = 2), maternal and child (n = 19), and a general population (n = 8). Barriers to equity in prenatal care included travel and financial burden, culturally insensitive practices that deterred care engagement and continuity, and discriminatory behaviour that reduced care access and satisfaction. Facilitators to achieve equity included innovations such as community health workers, home visitation programs, conditional cash transfer programs, virtual care, and cross-cultural training, to enhance patient experiences and increase their access to, and use of health services. There was overlap across PROGRESS-Plus factors. Conclusions: This umbrella review collated inequities present in prenatal healthcare services, globally. Further, this synthesis contributes to future solution and action-oriented research and practice by assembling evidence-informed opportunities, innovations, and approaches that may foster equitable prenatal health services to all members of diverse communities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A goal of evidence synthesis for trials of complex interventions is to inform the design or implementation of novel versions of complex interventions by predicting expected outcomes with each intervention version. Conventional aggregate data meta-analyses of studies comparing complex interventions have limited ability to provide such information. We argue that evidence synthesis for trials of complex interventions should forgo aspirations of estimating causal effects and instead model the response surface of study results to 1) summarize the available evidence and 2) predict the average outcomes of future studies or in new settings. We illustrate this modeling approach using data from a systematic review of diabetes quality improvement (QI) interventions involving at least 1 of 12 QI strategy components. We specify a series of meta-regression models to assess the association of specific components with the posttreatment outcome mean and compare the results to conventional meta-analysis approaches. Compared with conventional approaches, modeling the response surface of study results can better reflect the associations between intervention components and study characteristics with the posttreatment outcome mean. Modeling study results using a response surface approach offers a useful and feasible goal for evidence synthesis of complex interventions that rely on aggregate data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Building on Existing Tools to Improve Cancer and Chronic Disease Prevention and Screening in Primary Care (BETTER) programme trains allied health professionals working in primary care settings to develop personalised chronic disease 'prevention prescriptions' with patients. However, maintenance of health behaviour changes is difficult without ongoing support. Sustainable options to enhance the BETTER programme and ensure accessibility to underserved populations are needed. We designed the BETTER Women programme, which uses a digital app to match patients with a trained peer health coach (PHC) who provides ongoing support for health behaviour change after receipt of a BETTER prevention prescription in primary care., Methods and Analysis: We will conduct a type 1 hybrid implementation-effectiveness patient-randomised trial. Interested women aged 40-68 years will be recruited from three large, sociodemographically distinct primary care clinics (urban, suburban and rural). Patients will be randomised 1:1 to intervention or wait-list control after receipt of their BETTER prevention prescription. We will aim to recruit 204 patients per group (408 total). Effectiveness will be assessed by the primary outcome of targeted behaviours achieved for each participant at 6 months, consisting of three cancer screening tests (cervical, breast and colorectal) and four behavioural determinants of cancer and chronic disease (diet, smoking, alcohol use and physical activity). Data will be collected through patient survey and clinical chart review, measured at 3, 6 and 12 months. Implementation outcomes will be assessed through patient surveys and interviews with patients, peer health coaches and healthcare providers. An embedded economic evaluation will examine cost per quality-adjusted life-year and per additional health behavioural targets achieved., Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by Women's College Hospital Research Ethics Board (REB), the Royal Victoria Regional Health Centre REB and the University of Toronto REB. All participants will provide informed consent prior to enrolment. Participation is voluntary and withdrawal will have no impact on the usual care received from their primary care provider. The results of this trial will be published in peer-reviewed journals and shared via conference presentations. Deidentified datasets will be shared on request, after publication of results., Trial Registration Number: NCT04746859., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)