Shared medical appointments and patient-centered experience: a mixed-methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Shared medical appointments (SMAs), or group visits, are a healthcare delivery method with the potential to improve chronic disease management and preventive care. In this review, we sought to better understand opportunities, barriers, and limitations to SMAs based on patient experience in the primary care context. METHODS: An experienced biomedical librarian conducted literature searches of PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov , and SSRN for peer-reviewed publications published 1997 or after. We searched grey literature, nonempirical reports, social science publications, and citations from published systematic reviews. The search yielded 1359 papers, including qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method studies. Categorization of the extracted data informed a thematic synthesis. We did not perform a formal meta-analysis. RESULTS: Screening and quality assessment yielded 13 quantitative controlled trials, 11 qualitative papers, and two mixed methods studies that met inclusion criteria. We identified three consistent models of care: cooperative health care clinic (five articles), shared medical appointment / group visit (10 articles) and group prenatal care / CenteringPregnancy® (11 articles). CONCLUSIONS: SMAs in a variety of formats are increasingly employed in primary care settings, with no singular gold standard. Accepting and implementing this nontraditional approach by both patients and clinicians can yield measurable improvements in patient trust, patient perception of quality of care and quality of life, and relevant biophysical measurements of clinical parameters. Further refinement of this healthcare delivery model will be best driven by standardizing measures of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.

Time to Change Dosing of Inactivated Quadrivalent Influenza Vaccine in Young Children: Evidence From a Phase III, Randomized, Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND.: Children under 3 years of age may benefit from a double-dose of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine (IIV4) instead of the standard-dose. METHODS.: We compared the only United States-licensed standard-dose IIV4 (0.25 mL, 7.5 µg hemagglutinin per influenza strain) versus double-dose IIV4 manufactured by a different process (0.5 mL, 15 µg per strain) in a phase III, randomized, observer-blind trial in children 6-35 months of age (NCT02242643). The primary objective was to demonstrate immunogenic noninferiority of the double-dose for all vaccine strains 28 days after last vaccination. Immunogenic superiority of the double-dose was evaluated post hoc. Immunogenicity was assessed in the per-protocol cohort (N = 2041), and safety was assessed in the intent-to-treat cohort (N = 2424). RESULTS.: Immunogenic noninferiority of double-dose versus standard-dose IIV4 was demonstrated in terms of geometric mean titer (GMT) ratio and seroconversion rate difference. Superior immunogenicity against both vaccine B strains was observed with double-dose IIV4 in children 6-17 months of age (GMT ratio = 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.64-2.17, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.13, 95% CI = 1.82-2.50, B/Victoria) and in unprimed children of any age (GMT ratio = 1.85, 95% CI = 1.59-2.13, B/Yamagata; GMT ratio = 2.04, 95% CI = 1.79-2.33, B/Victoria). Safety and reactogenicity, including fever, were similar despite the higher antigen content and volume of the double-dose IIV4. There were no attributable serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS.: Double-dose IIV4 may improve protection against influenza B in some young children and simplifies annual influenza vaccination by allowing the same vaccine dose to be used for all eligible children and adults.