Search

BackgroundEpilepsy affects nearly 50 million people worldwide. Self-management is critical for individuals with epilepsy in order to maintain optimal physical, cognitive, and emotional health. Implementing and adopting a self-management program requires considering many factors at the person, program, and systems levels. We conducted a systematic review of qualitative and mixed-methods studies to identify facilitators and barriers that impact implementation and adoption of self-management programs for adults with epilepsy.MethodsWe used established systematic review methodologies for qualitative and mixed-methods studies. We included studies addressing facilitators (i.e., factors that aided) or barriers (i.e., factors that impeded) to implementation and adoption of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. We conducted a narrative thematic synthesis to identify facilitators and barriers.ResultsThe literature search identified 2700 citations; 13 studies met eligibility criteria. Our synthesis identified five themes that categorize facilitators and barriers to successful implementation epilepsy self-management: (1) relevance, intervention content that facilitates acquisition of self-management skills; (2) personalization, intervention components that account for the individual's social, physical, and environmental characteristics; (3) intervention components, components and dosing of the intervention; (4) technology considerations, considerations that account for individual's use, familiarity with, and ownership of technology; and (5) clinician interventionist, role and preparation of the individual who leads intervention. We identified facilitators in 11 of the 13 studies and barriers in 11 of the 13 studies and classified these by social-ecological level (i.e., patient/caregiver, program, site/system).ConclusionIdentification of facilitators and barriers at multiple levels provides insight into disease-specific factors that influence implementation and adoption of self-management programs for individuals with epilepsy. Our findings indicate that involving individuals with epilepsy and their caregivers in intervention development, and then tailoring intervention content during the intervention, can help ensure the content is relevant to intervention participants. Our findings also indicate the role of the clinician (i.e., the individual who provides self-management education) is important to intervention implementation, and key issues with clinicians were identified as barriers and opportunities for improvement. Overall, our findings have practical value for those seeking to implement and adopt self-management interventions for epilepsy and other chronic illnesses.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO registration number is CRD42018098604.

BackgroundTechnology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.MethodsEnglish-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.ResultsThe literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.ConclusionOur review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes.Protocol registrationThis study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Objectives: This review examines health care team-focused interventions on managing persistent or recurrent distress behaviors among older adults in long-term residential or inpatient health care settings. Methods: We searched interventions addressing health care worker (HCW) knowledge and skills related to distress behavior management using Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and Ovid PsycINFO from December 2002 through December 2022. Results: We screened 6,582 articles; 29 randomized trials met inclusion criteria. Three studies on patient-facing HCW interactions (e.g. medication management, diagnosing distress) showed mixed results on agitation; one study found no effect on quality of life. Six HCW-focused studies suggested short-term reduction in distress behaviors. Quality-of-life improvement or decreased antipsychotic use was not evidenced. Among 17 interventions combining HCW-focused and patient-facing activities, 0 showed significant distress reduction, 8 showed significant antipsychotic reduction (OR = 0.79, 95%CI [0.69, 0.91]) and 9 showed quality of life improvements (SMD = 0.71, 95%CI [0.39, 1.04]). One study evaluating HCW, patient-, and environmental-focused intervention activities showed short-term improvement in agitation. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: Novel health care models combining HCW training and patient management improve patient quality of life, reduce antipsychotic use, and may reduce distress behaviors. Evaluation of intervention's effects on staff burnout and utilization is needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the Impact of physical rehabilitation Interventions, supplemented with one or more adherence-enhancing components, on outcomes among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic lower back pain. Design: Primary literature search from inception of each data-base to July 27, 2021, guided by relevant search terms and keywords to search titles and abstracts. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Data Sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, and Embase. Eligibility Criteria for Selecting Studies: Randomized and nonrandomized trials evaluating adherence-focused intervention components conducted in addition to an index usual care or usual care-like physical rehabilitation program among adults with hip or knee osteoarthritis or chronic low back pain. Eligible studies included a comparator group of the same index physical rehabilitation intervention without the adjunctive adherence components. Included studies measured outcomes at least 3 months after the rehabilitation course. Results: Of the 10 studies meeting inclusion criteria, 6 interventions were delivered concurrent to an index rehabilitation program and 4 were delivered sequentially. Of the 3 studies that reported a positive effect on long-term adherence, only 1 was a low risk of bias study. There is very limited evidence of a beneficial treatment effect of adjunct adherence interventions on long-term physical function, self-efficacy, or adverse events. Conclusion: We found inadequate evidence evaluating adherence-enhancing interventions for the specific promotion of long-term adherence to home rehabilitation programs. Future studies should consider testing interventions specifically built to target behavioral maintenance of home rehabilitation programs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction:With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods:Searches of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results:Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion:Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions:Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high‐quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. Aims: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically‐informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. Results: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). Conclusion: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Remote triage (RT) allows interprofessional teams (e.g., nurses and physicians) to assess patients and make clinical decisions remotely. RT use has developed widespread interest due to the COVID‐19 pandemic, and has future potential to address the needs of a rapidly aging population, improve access to care, facilitate interprofessional team care, and ensure appropriate use of resources. However, despite rapid and increasing interest in implementation of RT, there is little research concerning practices for successful implementation. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of practices that impact the implementation of RT for adults seeking clinical care advice. We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through July 2018. We included 32 studies in this review. Our review identified four themes impacting the implementation of RT: characteristics of staff who use RT, influence of RT on staff, considerations in selecting RT tools, and environmental and contextual factors impacting RT. The findings of our systemic review underscore the need for a careful consideration of (a) organizational and stakeholder buy‐in before launch, (b) physical and psychological workplace environment, (c) staff training and ongoing support, and (d) optimal metrics to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. Our findings indicate that preimplementation planning, as well as evaluating RT by collecting data during and after implementation, is essential to ensuring successful implementation and continued adoption of RT in a health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Technology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes.Methods: English-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias.Results: The literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes.Conclusion: Our review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes.Protocol Registration: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE ® (via Ovid ® ), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results: Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing.