Search

Risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. (DOCX 15 kb)

Retrospective Studies. (DOCX 15 kb)

Appraisal for qualitative research. (DOCX 43 kb)

Risk of bias in randomised controlled trials. (DOCX 15 kb)

Appraisal for qualitative research. (DOCX 43 kb)

Medline Search Strategy. (DOCX 13 kb)

Non-Randomised Control Trials. (DOCX 14 kb)

Description of Chronic Care Models. (DOCX 19 kb)

Quality appraisal of Case studies and Case series. (DOCX 44 kb)

Quality appraisal of Case studies and Case series. (DOCX 44 kb)

Description of Chronic Care Models. (DOCX 19 kb)

Non-Randomised Control Trials. (DOCX 14 kb)

Medline Search Strategy. (DOCX 13 kb)

Medication non-adherence poses a major barrier to reducing cardiovascular disease (CVD) burden globally, and is increasingly recognised as a socioeconomically determined problem. Strategies promoting CVD medication adherence appear of moderate effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Potentially, 'one-size-fits-all' measures are ill-equipped to address heterogeneous adherence behaviour between social groups. This review aims to determine the effects of strategies to improve adherence to CVD-related medications in socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Randomised/quasi-randomised controlled trials (1996-June 2012, English), testing strategies to increase adherence to CVD-related medications prescribed to adult patients who may experience health inequity (place of residence, occupation, education, or socioeconomic position) were reviewed. 772 abstracts were screened, 111 full-text articles retrieved, and 16 full-text articles reporting on 14 studies, involving 7739 patients (age range 41-66 years), were included. Methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded quantitative data synthesis. Studies were thematically grouped by targeted outcomes; underlying interventions and policies were classified using Michie et al.'s Behaviour Change Wheel. Contrasting with patient or physician/practice strategies, those simultaneously directed at patients and physicians/practices resulted in statistically significant improvements in relative adherence (16-169%). Comparative cost and cost-effectiveness analyses from three studies did not find cost-saving or cost-effective strategies. Unlike much current evidence in general populations, promising evidence exists about what strategies improve adherence in disadvantaged groups. These strategies were generally complex: simultaneously targeting patients and physicians; addressing social, financial, and treatment-related adherence barriers; and supported by broader guidelines, regulatory and communication-based policies. Given their complexity and potential resource implications, comprehensive process evaluations and cost and cost-effectiveness evidence are urgently needed. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Background The increasing prevalence of chronic disease and even multiple chronic diseases faced by both developed and developing countries is of considerable concern. Many of the interventions to address this within primary healthcare settings are based on a chronic care model first developed by MacColl Institute for Healthcare Innovation at Group Health Cooperative. Methods This systematic literature review aimed to identify and synthesise international evidence on the effectiveness of elements that have been included in a chronic care model for improving healthcare practices and health outcomes within primary healthcare settings. The review broadens the work of other similar reviews by focusing on effectiveness of healthcare practice as well as health outcomes associated with implementing a chronic care model. In addition, relevant case series and case studies were also included. Results Of the 77 papers which met the inclusion criteria, all but two reported improvements to healthcare practice or health outcomes for people living with chronic disease. While the most commonly used elements of a chronic care model were self-management support and delivery system design, there were considerable variations between studies regarding what combination of elements were included as well as the way in which chronic care model elements were implemented. This meant that it was impossible to clearly identify any optimal combination of chronic care model elements that led to the reported improvements. Conclusions While the main argument for excluding papers reporting case studies and case series in systematic literature reviews is that they are not of sufficient quality or generalizability, we found that they provided a more detailed account of how various chronic care models were developed and implemented. In particular, these papers suggested that several factors including supporting reflective healthcare practice, sending clear messages about the importance of chronic disease care and ensuring that leaders support the implementation and sustainability of interventions may have been just as important as a chronic care model’s elements in contributing to the improvements in healthcare practice or health outcomes for people living with chronic disease. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0854-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.