A subset of patients with superficial venous thrombosis (SVT) experiences clot propagation towards deep venous thrombosis (DVT) and/or pulmonary embolism (PE). The aim of this systematic review is to identify all clinically relevant cross-sectional and prognostic factors for predicting thrombotic complications in patients with SVT.

Systematic review.

PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase were systematically searched until 3 March 2023.

Original research studies with patients with SVT, DVT and/or PE as the outcome and presenting cross-sectional or prognostic predictive factors.

The CHecklist for critical Appraisal and data extraction for systematic Reviews of prediction Modelling (CHARMS) checklist for prognostic factor studies was used for systematic extraction of study characteristics. Per identified predictive factor, relevant estimates of univariable and multivariable predictor—outcome associations were extracted, such as ORs and HRs. Estimates of association for the most frequently reported predictors were summarised in forest plots, and meta-analyses with heterogeneity were presented. The Quality in Prognosis Studies (QUIPS) tool was used for risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for assessing the certainty of evidence.

Twenty-two studies were included (n=10 111 patients). The most reported predictive factors were high age, male sex, history of venous thromboembolism (VTE), absence of varicose veins and cancer. Pooled effect estimates were heterogenous and ranged from OR 3.12 (95% CI 1.75 to 5.59) for the cross-sectional predictor cancer to OR 0.92 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.53) for the prognostic predictor high age. The level of evidence was rated very low to low. Most studies were scored high or moderate risk of bias.

Although the pooled estimates of the predictors high age, male sex, history of VTE, cancer and absence of varicose veins showed predictive potential in isolation, variability in study designs, lack of multivariable adjustment and high risk of bias prevent firm conclusions. High-quality, multivariable studies are necessary to be able to identify individual SVT risk profiles.

CRD42021262819.

To examine the effectiveness of shared medical appointments (SMAs) compared with one-to-one appointments in primary care for improving health outcomes and reducing demand on healthcare services by people with one or more long-term conditions (LTCs).

A systematic review of the published literature.

Six databases, including MEDLINE and Web of Science, were searched 2013–2023. Relevant pre-2013 trials identified by forward and backward citation searches of the included trials were included.

Randomised controlled trials of SMAs delivered in a primary care setting involving adults over 18 years with one or more LTCs. Studies were excluded if the SMA did not include one-to-one patient-clinician time. All countries were eligible for inclusion.

Data were extracted and outcomes narratively synthesised, meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

Twenty-nine unique trials were included. SMA models varied in terms of components, mode of delivery and target population. Most trials recruited patients with a single LTC, most commonly diabetes (n=16). There was substantial heterogeneity in outcome measures. Meta-analysis showed that participants in SMA groups had lower diastolic blood pressure than those in usual care (d=–0.086, 95% CI=–0.16 to –0.02, n=10) (p=0.014). No statistically significant differences were found across other outcomes. Compared with usual care, SMAs had no significant effect on healthcare service use. For example, no difference between SMAs and usual care was found for admissions to emergency departments at follow-up (d=–0.094, 95% CI=–0.27 to 0.08, n=6, p=0.289).

There was a little difference in the effectiveness of SMAs compared with usual care in terms of health outcomes or healthcare service use in the short-term (range 12 weeks to 24 months). To strengthen the evidence base, future studies should include a wider array of LTCs, standardised outcome measures and more details on SMA components to help inform economic evaluation.

CRD42020173084.

To improve healthcare provider knowledge of Tanzanian newborn care guidelines, we developed adaptive Essential and Sick Newborn Care (aESNC), an adaptive e-learning environment. The objectives of this study were to (1) assess implementation success with use of in-person support and nudging strategy and (2) describe baseline provider knowledge and metacognition.

6-month observational study at one zonal hospital and three health centres in Mwanza, Tanzania. To assess implementation success, we used the Reach, Efficacy, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance framework and to describe baseline provider knowledge and metacognition we used Howell’s conscious-competence model. Additionally, we explored provider characteristics associated with initial learning completion or persistent activity.

aESNC reached 85% (195/231) of providers: 75 medical, 53 nursing and 21 clinical officers; 110 (56%) were at the zonal hospital and 85 (44%) at health centres. Median clinical experience was 4 years (IQR 1–9) and 45 (23%) had previous in-service training for both newborn essential and sick newborn care. Efficacy was 42% (SD ±17%). Providers averaged 78% (SD ±31%) completion of initial learning and 7% (SD ±11%) of refresher assignments. 130 (67%) providers had ≥1 episode of inactivity >30 day, no episodes were due to lack of internet access. Baseline conscious-competence was 53% (IQR: 38%–63%), unconscious-incompetence 32% (IQR: 23%–42%), conscious-incompetence 7% (IQR: 2%–15%), and unconscious-competence 2% (IQR: 0%–3%). Higher baseline conscious-competence (OR 31.6 (95% CI 5.8 to 183.5)) and being a nursing officer (aOR: 5.6 (95% CI 1.8 to 18.1)), compared with medical officer, were associated with initial learning completion or persistent activity.

aESNC reach was high in a population of frontline providers across diverse levels of care in Tanzania. Use of in-person support and nudging increased reach, initial learning and refresher assignment completion, but refresher assignment completion remains low. Providers were often unaware of knowledge gaps, and lower baseline knowledge may decrease initial learning completion or activity. Further study to identify barriers to adaptive e-learning normalisation is needed.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) are at increased risk of poor outcomes from COVID-19. Vaccination can improve outcomes, but vaccine hesitancy remains a major challenge. We examined factors influencing COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with T2D in two sub-Saharan Africa countries that adopted different national approaches to combat COVID-19, Kenya and Tanzania.

A mixed-methods study was conducted in February-March 2022, involving a survey of 1000 adults with T2D (500 Kenya; 500 Tanzania) and 51 in-depth interviews (21 Kenya; 30 Tanzania). Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake were identified using a multivariate logistic regression model, while thematic content analysis explored barriers and facilitators.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake was lower in Tanzania (26%) than in Kenya (75%), which may reflect an initial political hesitancy about vaccines in Tanzania. People with college/university education were four times more likely to be vaccinated than those with no education (Kenya AOR=4.25 (95% CI 1.00 to 18.03), Tanzania AOR=4.07 (1.03 to 16.12)); and people with health insurance were almost twice as likely to be vaccinated than those without health insurance (Kenya AOR=1.70 (1.07 to 2.70), Tanzania AOR=1.81 (1.04 to 3.13)). Vaccine uptake was higher in older people in Kenya, and among those with more comorbidities and higher socioeconomic status in Tanzania. Interviewees reported that wanting protection from severe illness promoted vaccine uptake, while conflicting information, misinformation and fear of side-effects limited uptake.

COVID-19 vaccine uptake among people with T2D was suboptimal, particularly in Tanzania, where initial political hesitancy had a negative impact. Policy-makers must develop strategies to reduce fear and misconceptions, especially among those who are less educated, uninsured and younger.