Search

PURPOSE Access to health care is a long-standing concern for rural patients; however, administrative measures fail to capture the subjective patient experience of accessing health care. The purpose of this review was to synthesize the qualitative literature on patient and caregiver experiences of accessing health care services for chronic disease management among US residents of rural areas. METHODS We searched Embase, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and Scopus to identify qualitative studies published during 2010-2019. A thematic synthesis approach was used to analyze findings from included studies. RESULTS A total of 62 studies involving 1,354 unique participants were included. The largest share of studies (24.2%) was focused on the experience of patients with cancer, followed by behavioral health (16.1%), HIV and AIDS (14.5%), and diabetes (12.9%). We identified 4 primary analytic themes of barriers and facilitators associated with the experience of accessing health care services for chronic disease management in rural areas: (1) navigating the rural environment, (2) navigating the health care system, (3) financing chronic disease management, and (4) rural life (ie, common elements of a distinct 'rural' way of thinking and behaving). CONCLUSIONS In this comprehensive review, we found that important cultural, structural, and individual factors influenced the rural patient's experience of health care access and use, including barriers and facilitators posed by geographic and built environments, and distinct rural mores. Our findings can inform policies and programs that both facilitate structural aspects of access and include culturally appropriate interventions. Key words: rural health; health care access; barriers; facilitators; chronic disease management; systematic review; qualitative research; vulnerable populations; public health Ann Fam Med 2022;20:266-272. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2798, INTRODUCTION Nearly 1 in 5 people in the United States live in rural areas. (1) Chronic health conditions are both more prevalent and associated with higher rates of disease-attributable mortality [...]

Context: Interventions targeting hypoglycemia in people with diabetes are important for improving quality of life and reducing morbidity and mortality. Objective: To support development of the Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline for management of individuals with diabetes at high risk for hypoglycemia. Methods: We searched several databases for studies addressing 10 questions provided by a guideline panel from the Endocrine Society. Metaanalysis was conducted when feasible. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to assess certainty of evidence. Results: We included 149 studies reporting on 43 344 patients. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia in patients with type 1 diabetes (T1D) and reduced the proportion of patients with hypoglycemia (blood glucose [BG] levels <54 mg/dL). There were no data on use of real-time CGM with algorithm-driven insulin pumps vs multiple daily injections with BG testing in people with T1D. CGM in outpatients with type 2 diabetes taking insulin and/or sulfonylureas reduced time spent with BG levels under 70 mg/dL. Initiation of CGM in hospitalized patients at high risk for hypoglycemia reduced episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 54 mg/dL and time spent under 54 mg/dL. The proportion of patients with hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and lower than 54 mg/dL detected by CGM was significantly higher than point-of-care BG testing. We found no data evaluating continuation of personal CGM in the hospital. Use of an inpatient computerized glycemic management program utilizing electronic health record data was associated with fewer patients with and episodes of hypoglycemia with BG levels lower than 70 mg/dL and fewer patients with severe hypoglycemia compared with standard care. Long-acting basal insulin analogs were associated with less hypoglycemia. Rapid-acting insulin analogs were associated with reduced severe hypoglycemia, though there were more patients with mild to moderate hypoglycemia. Structured diabetes education programs reduced episodes of severe hypoglycemia and time below 54 mg/dL in outpatients taking insulin. Glucagon formulations not requiring reconstitution were associated with longer times to recovery from hypoglycemia, although the proportion of patients who recovered completely from hypoglycemia was not different between the 2 groups. Conclusion: This systematic review summarized the best available evidence about several interventions addressing hypoglycemia in people with diabetes. This evidence base will facilitate development of clinical practice guidelines by the Endocrine Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) and midlines are commonly used devices for reliable vascular access. Infection and thrombosis are the main adverse effects of these catheters. We aimed to evaluate the relative risk of complications from midlines and PICCs. Methods We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. The primary outcomes were catheter-related bloodstream infection (CRBSI) and thrombosis. Secondary outcomes evaluated included mortality, failure to complete therapy, catheter occlusion, phlebitis, and catheter fracture. The certainty of evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach. Results Of 8368 citations identified, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria, including 1 RCT and 19 observational studies. Midline use was associated with fewer patients with CRBSI compared with PICCs (odds ratio [OR], 0.24; 95% CI, 0.15–0.38). This association was not observed when we evaluated risk per catheter. No significant association was found between catheters when evaluating risk of localized thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. A subgroup analysis based on location of thrombosis showed higher rates of superficial venous thrombosis in patients using midlines (OR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.48–3.57). We did not identify any significant difference between midlines and PICCs for the secondary outcomes. Conclusions Our findings suggest that patients who use midlines might experience fewer CRBSIs than those who use PICCs. However, the use of midline catheters was associated with greater risk of superficial vein thrombosis. These findings can help guide future cost-benefit analyses and direct comparative RCTs to further characterize the efficacy and risks of PICCs vs midline catheters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]