FreshRSS

🔒
❌ Acerca de FreshRSS
Hay nuevos artículos disponibles. Pincha para refrescar la página.
AnteayerTus fuentes RSS

Interventions in adult patients with multimorbidity in low-income and middle-income countries: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Por: George · T. · Manski-Nankervis · J.-A. · Klaic · M. · Kang · G. · Sudarsanam · T. D.
Introduction

Multimorbidity, the coexistence of two or more chronic conditions in the same individual, is a major public health problem in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). The use of single-disease guidelines contributes to polypharmacy, fragmented care and increased treatment burden. Health systems in LMICs are very different from those in high-income countries, and adapting interventions from one to the other may not be feasible. This review aims to systematically present the current evidence for interventions for multimorbidity in the LMIC setting.

Methods and analysis

In this mixed-methods systematic review, we will include all studies of interventions for the care of adults (>18 years of age) with multimorbidity (defined as the presence of two or more chronic illnesses in an individual) in any healthcare organisation (primary, secondary or tertiary care) in an LMIC (as defined by the World Bank), published between 2000 and March 2023. All primary study designs will be included. Studies reported in languages other than English and those describing interventions classified as ‘financial’ or ‘governance arrangement’ according to the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care classification will be excluded. MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, TRIP, SCOPUS and the 3ie databases will be searched. The titles will be screened by one author, and two authors will independently screen all included abstracts and full texts. A third author will resolve conflicts at every stage. Studies will be reviewed for quality of evidence using appropriate tools. Epidemiological, intervention and outcome data will be extracted and summarised. Outcomes of interest for LMICs defined by the Global Alliance for Chronic Diseases research group will be analysed. Subgroup analysis according to study types and study settings will be done.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethics approval is required for this systematic review. Results will be disseminated through publication in an open-access journal and presentation at conferences.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023391897.

Systematic review of best practices for GPS data usage, processing, and linkage in health, exposure science and environmental context research

Por: Pearson · A. L. · Tribby · C. · Brown · C. D. · Yang · J.-A. · Pfeiffer · K. · Jankowska · M. M.

Global Positioning System (GPS) technology is increasingly used in health research to capture individual mobility and contextual and environmental exposures. However, the tools, techniques and decisions for using GPS data vary from study to study, making comparisons and reproducibility challenging.

Objectives

The objectives of this systematic review were to (1) identify best practices for GPS data collection and processing; (2) quantify reporting of best practices in published studies; and (3) discuss examples found in reviewed manuscripts that future researchers may employ for reporting GPS data usage, processing and linkage of GPS data in health studies.

Design

A systematic review.

Data sources

Electronic databases searched (24 October 2023) were PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science (PROSPERO ID: CRD42022322166).

Eligibility criteria

Included peer-reviewed studies published in English met at least one of the criteria: (1) protocols involving GPS for exposure/context and human health research purposes and containing empirical data; (2) linkage of GPS data to other data intended for research on contextual influences on health; (3) associations between GPS-measured mobility or exposures and health; (4) derived variable methods using GPS data in health research; or (5) comparison of GPS tracking with other methods (eg, travel diary).

Data extraction and synthesis

We examined 157 manuscripts for reporting of best practices including wear time, sampling frequency, data validity, noise/signal loss and data linkage to assess risk of bias.

Results

We found that 6% of the studies did not disclose the GPS device model used, only 12.1% reported the per cent of GPS data lost by signal loss, only 15.7% reported the per cent of GPS data considered to be noise and only 68.2% reported the inclusion criteria for their data.

Conclusions

Our recommendations for reporting on GPS usage, processing and linkage may be transferrable to other geospatial devices, with the hope of promoting transparency and reproducibility in this research.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022322166.

Have interventions aimed at assisting general practitioners in facilitating earlier diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children been successful? A systematic review protocol

Por: Beccia · C. · Hunter · B. · Birkic · V. · White · M. · Manski-Nankervis · J.-A.
Background

Early diagnosis of type 1 diabetes in children is critical to prevent deterioration to diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA), a state where the body’s insulin levels are critically low resulting in the use of fat for fuel and the accumulation of ketones. DKA is a life-threatening emergency where dehydration and cerebral oedema can quickly develop and lead to death. Despite treatment, DKA also has harmful impacts on cognition and brain development. Most children admitted to a hospital with DKA see their general practitioner in the week leading up to their admission. A delay in referral from general practice can result in delays in commencing lifesaving insulin therapy. Prior systematic reviews have explored publicity campaign interventions aimed at recognising type 1 diabetes earlier; however, no reviews have explored these interventions targeted at reducing the delay after presentation to the general practitioner. This systematic review aims to summarise interventions that target the diagnostic delay emerging from general practice and to evaluate their effectiveness in reducing DKA admissions.

Methods

Six databases (Ovid (MEDLINE), Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, Evidence-Based Medicine Reviews (EBMR) and Google Scholar) will be searched to identify studies exploring interventions to reduce diagnostic delay in children with type 1 diabetes, and hence DKA, in general practice. The primary outcome will be the number of DKA admissions to a hospital following a delay in general practice. The secondary outcome will be the behaviour of general practitioners with respect to urgent referral of children with type 1 diabetes. Title, abstract and full-text screening for exclusion and inclusion of publications will be completed by two independent reviewers. Any risks of bias within individual studies will be assessed by two independent reviewers, using the Risk Of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions tool. Our confidence in the overall body of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Ethics and dissemination

The systematic review will be disseminated via publication and potentially in conference presentations. Ethics is not required for a systematic review of secondary data.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42023412504

❌