The impact of exposure to tobacco smoke and e-cigarettes on asthma-related outcomes: Systematic review informing the EAACI guidelines on environmental science for allergic diseases and asthma.

To inform the clinical practice guidelines' recommendations developed by the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology systematic reviews (SR) assessed using GRADE on the impact of environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) and active smoking on the risk of new-onset asthma/recurrent wheezing (RW)/low lung function (LF), and on asthma-related outcomes. Only longitudinal studies were included, almost all on combustion cigarettes, only one assessing e-cigarettes and LF. According to the first SR (67 studies), prenatal ETS increases the risk of RW (moderate certainty evidence) and may increase the risk of new-onset asthma and of low LF (low certainty evidence). Postnatal ETS increases the risk of new-onset asthma and of RW (moderate certainty evidence) and may impact LF (low certainty evidence). Combined in utero and postnatal ETS may increase the risk of new-onset asthma (low certainty evidence) and increases the risk of RW (moderate certainty evidence). According to the second SR (24 studies), ETS increases the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and impairs asthma control and LF (moderate certainty evidence). According to the third SR (25 studies), active smoking increases the risk of severe asthma exacerbations and of suboptimal asthma control (moderate certainty evidence) and may impact asthma-related quality-of-life and LF (low certainty evidence).

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective. METHODS: We prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented. RESULTS: Several themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

Clinical predictors of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide death in depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Patients with depressive disorders are especially prone to suicide risk. Among the clinical predictors of suicidality, those specifically related to depressive disorders have not been accurately detailed. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting longitudinal predictors of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide death within depression, including diagnostic subtypes, symptoms, clinical course, and assessment scales. A systematic search of the literature between 2001 and 2022 identified 4422 references, among which 19 studies providing 45 different predictors of suicidality met the inclusion criteria. Random effects meta-analyses were performed for 22 predictors, three for suicidal ideation, eleven for suicide attempts and eight for suicide death. Heterogeneity and publication bias were inspected through I2 tests and Egger's tests respectively. Meta-analysis results showed that severity of hopelessness predicted suicidal ideation and suicide attempts. History of suicide attempts, suicidal ideation, severe depression, and psychotic symptoms predicted subsequent suicide attempts and suicide death. Time to full remission and sleep disturbances were also found as relevant predictors of future suicide behaviours. This review specifies which predictors of suicidality within the clinical features of depression will help clinicians and policy makers to better prevent suicide risk in patients with depressive disorders. Further longitudinal studies are needed to reliably assess the predictive ability of our results and to analyse other possible clinical predictors to prevent suicidality, especially with regard to suicidal ideation.

Feasibility of the SINERGIAPS ("Sinergias entre profesionales y pacientes para una Atención Primaria Segura") intervention for improving patient safety in primary care.

AIM: The primary aim was to examine the feasibility of intervention delivery and of trial procedures. Secondary aims were to study the intervention uptake; its acceptability and perceived utility; and its potential to improve safety culture and avoidable hospital admissions. METHODS: We conducted a 3-month, single-arm feasibility study in 10 primary care (PC) centres in Spain. Centres received information regarding patients' experiences of safety (through the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care [PREOS-PC] questionnaire), and were instructed to plan safety improvements based on that feedback. We used a bespoke online tool to recruit PC professionals, collect patient feedback, and deliver it to the centres, and to collect outcome data (patient safety culture [Medical Office Survey on Patient Safety Culture, MOSPSC questionnaire]). We measured recruitment and follow-up rates and intervention uptake (based on the number of safety improvement plans registered). We conducted semistructured interviews with 9 professionals to explore the intervention acceptability and perceived utility. RESULTS: Of 256 professionals invited, 120 (47%) agreed to participate, and 97 completed baseline and postintervention measures. Of 780 patients invited, 585 (75%) completed the PREOS-PC questionnaire. Five of 10 centres (50%) designed an improvement plan, providing 27 plans in total (range per centre, 1-14). The intervention was perceived as a novel strategy for improving safety, although the healthcare professionals identified several factors limiting its acceptability and utility: lack of feedback at the individual professional level; potentially unrepresentative sample of patients providing feedback; and number of educational materials deemed overwhelming. DISCUSSION: It is feasible to deliver the proposed intervention so long as the identified limitations are addressed.

Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) assess a patient's subjective appraisal of health outcomes from their own perspective. Despite hypothesised benefits that feedback  on PROMs can support decision-making in clinical practice and improve outcomes, there is uncertainty surrounding the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of PROMs feedback to patients, or healthcare workers, or both on patient-reported health outcomes and processes of care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, two other databases and two clinical trial registries on 5 October 2020. We searched grey literature and consulted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Two review authors independently screened and selected studies for inclusion. We included randomised trials directly comparing the effects on outcomes and processes of care of PROMs feedback to healthcare professionals and patients, or both with the impact of not providing such information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. We conducted meta-analyses of the results where possible. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 116 randomised trials which assessed the effectiveness of PROMs feedback in improving processes or outcomes of care, or both in a broad range of disciplines including psychiatry, primary care, and oncology. Studies were conducted across diverse ambulatory primary and secondary care settings in North America, Europe and Australasia. A total of 49,785 patients were included across all the studies. The certainty of the evidence varied between very low and moderate. Many of the studies included in the review were at risk of performance and detection bias. The evidence suggests moderate certainty that PROMs feedback probably improves quality of life (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.05 to 0.26; 11 studies; 2687 participants), and leads to an increase in patient-physician communication (SMD 0.36, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.52; 5 studies; 658 participants), diagnosis and notation (risk ratio (RR) 1.73, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.08; 21 studies; 7223 participants), and disease control (RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.41; 14 studies; 2806 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference for general health perceptions (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.24; 2 studies, 552 participants; low-certainty evidence), social functioning (SMD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; 15 studies; 2632 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and pain (SMD 0.00, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.08; 9 studies; 2386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). We are uncertain about the effect of PROMs feedback on physical functioning (14 studies; 2788 participants) and mental functioning (34 studies; 7782 participants), as well as fatigue (4 studies; 741 participants), as the certainty of the evidence was very low. We did not find studies reporting on adverse effects defined as distress following or related to PROM completion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: PROM feedback probably produces moderate improvements in communication between healthcare professionals and patients as well as in diagnosis and notation, and disease control, and small improvements to quality of life. Our confidence in the effects is limited by the risk of bias, heterogeneity and small number of trials conducted to assess outcomes of interest. It is unclear whether   many of these improvements are clinically meaningful or sustainable in the long term. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, particularly studies which employ cluster designs and utilise techniques to maintain allocation concealment.

Vitamin D recommendations in clinical guidelines: A systematic review, quality evaluation and analysis of potential predictors.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D has been widely promoted for bone health through supplementation and fortification of the general adult population. However, there is growing evidence that does not support these strategies. Our aim is to review the quality and recommendations on vitamin D nutritional and clinical practice guidelines and to explore predictive factors for their direction and strength. METHODS: We searched three databases and two guideline repositories from 2010 onwards. We performed a descriptive analysis, a quality appraisal using AGREE II scores (Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation) and a bivariate analysis evaluating the association between direction and strength of recommendations, AGREE II domains' scores and pre-specified characteristics. RESULTS: We included 34 guidelines, 44.1% recommended, 26.5% suggested and 29.4% did not recommend vitamin D supplementation. Guidelines that scored higher for "editorial independence" and "overall quality score" were less likely to recommend or suggest vitamin D supplementation (median 68.8 vs 35.4; P = .001 and 58.3 vs 37.5; P = .02). Guidance produced by government organisations and those that reported source of funding were associated with higher AGREE II scores. Unclear role of source of funding was associated with recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (P = .034). Editorial independence was an independent predictor for recommending or suggesting vitamin D supplementation (OR 1.09; CI95% 1.02 to 1.16; P = .006). CONCLUSIONS: Policymakers, clinicians and patients should be aware that lower quality guidelines and those reporting conflicts of interest are more likely to promote vitamin D supplementation. Guideline organisations should improve the quality of their recommendations' development and the management of conflicts of interest. Users and editors should be aware of these findings when using and appraising guidelines.

Nurse-led telephone intervention for lifestyle changes on glycaemic control in people with prediabetes: Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the effectiveness of a nurse-led personalized telephone lifestyle intervention versus automated SMSs in the reduction of fasting plasma glucose in adults with prediabetes. DESIGN: The PREDIPHONE is a randomized controlled, parallel, two arms, superiority trial with 15 months of follow-up. Participants will be randomized to either the intervention group (teleconsultations) or the active control group (SMSs). METHODS: A total of 428 participants will be randomized in a 1:1 ratio to one of the two arms and followed up during 9 months. The teleconsultations group will receive nurse-led personalized advice, while the SMSs group will receive 4-5 brief SMSs a week. Participants in both groups will receive evidence-based recommendations for diet and physical activity (PA). Outcome measures will be collected at baseline, months 4 and 9 and at month 15, to evaluate post-intervention effects. DISCUSSION: Prevention of diabetes through the implementation of lifestyle interventions remains an important priority. The current pandemic situation has magnified its urgency as it heavily affected the functionality of the healthcare system. Moreover, it created the need of remotely delivering preventative interventions. This study will provide insights on the effectiveness and feasibility of a telephone-based intervention led by nurses in the amelioration of risk factors associated with diabetes. IMPACT: Findings from this study will offer health services decision-makers sound evidence regarding an alternative method to face-to-face consultations that could be practical, acceptable and inexpensive, and that concretely answers the need for easily implementable prevention strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04735640 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). PROTOCOL VERSION: V1.0, 18/02/2021.

Effect of a mobile-based intervention on mental health in frontline healthcare workers against COVID-19: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of a psychoeducational, mobile health intervention based on cognitive behavioural therapy and mindfulness-based approaches on the mental health of healthcare workers at the frontline against COVID-19 in Spain. DESIGN: We will carry out a two-week, individually randomized, parallel group, controlled trial. Participants will be individually randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention or control App intervention. METHODS: The PsyCovidApp intervention will include five modules: emotional skills, lifestyle behaviour, work stress and burnout, social support, and practical tools. Healthcare workers having attended patients with COVID-19 will be randomized to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (intervention group) or a control App intervention (control group). A total of 440 healthcare workers will be necessary to assure statistical power. Measures will be collected telephonically by a team of psychologists at baseline and immediately after the 2 weeks intervention period. Measures will include stress, depression and anxiety (DASS-21 questionnaire-primary endpoint), insomnia (ISI), burnout (MBI-HSS), post-traumatic stress disorder (DTS), and self-efficacy (GSE). The study was funded in May 2020, and was ethically approved in June 2020. Trial participants, outcome assessors and data analysts will be blinded to group allocation. DISCUSSION: Despite the increasing use of mobile health interventions to deliver mental health care, this area of research is still on its infancy. This study will help increase the scientific evidence about the effectiveness of this type of intervention on this specific population and context. IMPACT: Despite the lack of solid evidence about their effectiveness, mobile-based health interventions are already being widely implemented because of their low cost and high scalability. The findings from this study will help health services and organizations to make informed decisions in relation to the development and implementation of this type of interventions, allowing them pondering not only their attractive implementability features, but also empirical data about its benefits. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04393818 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier). APPROVED FUNDING: May 2020.

[Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care]. / Impacto de la pandemia de COVID-19 en la seguridad del paciente percibida por los pacientes en Atención Primaria.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of the changes introduced in response to the pandemic on patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. DESIGN: Prospective observational panel study (health center) based on two cross-sectional surveys. SETTING: 29 Primary Health Care centers from three Spanish health regions (Mallorca, Catalunya Central and Camp de Tarragona). PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of patients visiting their centers before (n=2199 patients) and during the pandemic (n=1955 patients) MAIN MEASUREMENTS: We used the PREOS-PC questionnaire, a validated instrument which assesses patient-reported patient safety in Primary Care. We compared mean scores of the "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales in both periods, and built multilevel regression analyzes to study the variations in patient and center characteristics associated with worse levels of safety. A qualitative (content) analysis of patients' experiences during the pandemic was also performed. RESULTS: The "experiences of errors" and "harm" scales scores significantly worsened during the COVID-19 period (92.65 to 88.81 (Cohen's d=0.27); and 96.92 to 79.97 (d=0.70), respectively). Patient and center characteristics associated to worsened scores were: women, people with a lower educational level, worse health status, more years assigned to the center, and health region. CONCLUSIONS: During the pandemic, a perceptible worsening in patient safety perceived by patients treated in Primary Care has been observed, which has differentially affected patients according to their sociodemographic characteristics or health center profiles.

Insomnia and sleep quality in healthcare workers fighting against COVID-19: a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has the potential to significant- ly affect the mental health of healthcare workers, who stand in the frontline of this crisis. Insomnia is often related to exposure to stressful situations, such as the current health crisis, as well as other mental disorders, physical conditions and work-related problems. The objectives of this systematic review were: 1) to examine the impact of the current health pandemic produced by COVID-19 on insomnia and sleep quality of health professionals, and 2) to identify risk factors associated with insomnia. After a literature search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO, 18 relevant studies were identified. The prevalence of insomnia estimated by random effects meta-analysis was 38% (95%CI= 37 to 39%), being slightly higher in women (29%, 95%CI= 27% to 30%) than in men (24%, 95%CI= 21 to 27%). The main risk factor associated with insomnia was working in a high-risk environment, followed by female sex and having a lower educational level. The high figures of self-reported insomnia and poor sleep quality observed indicate the need to develop interventions aimed at mitigating and caring for the mental health of healthcare workers fighting against this pandemic.

Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer guidelines in Europe: a systematic literature review.

PURPOSE: Clinical guidelines' (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers' adherence. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics. RESULTS: Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8-67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68-77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10-80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87-92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers' adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions. CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers' adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care.

BACKGROUND: The widespread use of mobile technologies can potentially expand the use of telemedicine approaches to facilitate communication between healthcare providers, this might increase access to specialist advice and improve patient health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of mobile technologies versus usual care for supporting communication and consultations between healthcare providers on healthcare providers' performance, acceptability and satisfaction, healthcare use, patient health outcomes, acceptability and satisfaction, costs, and technical difficulties. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and three other databases from 1 January 2000 to 22 July 2019. We searched clinical trials registries, checked references of relevant systematic reviews and included studies, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing mobile technologies to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and consultations compared with usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 19 trials (5766 participants when reported), most were conducted in high-income countries. The most frequently used mobile technology was a mobile phone, often accompanied by training if it was used to transfer digital images. Trials recruited participants with different conditions, and interventions varied in delivery, components, and frequency of contact. We judged most trials to have high risk of performance bias, and approximately half had a high risk of detection, attrition, and reporting biases. Two studies reported data on technical problems, reporting few difficulties. Mobile technologies used by primary care providers to consult with hospital specialists We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference to primary care providers following guidelines for people with chronic kidney disease (CKD; 1 trial, 47 general practices, 3004 participants); - probably reduce the time between presentation and management of individuals with skin conditions, people with symptoms requiring an ultrasound, or being referred for an appointment with a specialist after attending primary care (4 trials, 656 participants); - may reduce referrals and clinic visits among people with some skin conditions, and increase the likelihood of receiving retinopathy screening among people with diabetes, or an ultrasound in those referred with symptoms (9 trials, 4810 participants when reported); - probably make little or no difference to patient-reported quality of life and health-related quality of life (2 trials, 622 participants) or to clinician-assessed clinical recovery (2 trials, 769 participants) among individuals with skin conditions; - may make little or no difference to healthcare provider (2 trials, 378 participants) or participant acceptability and satisfaction (4 trials, 972 participants) when primary care providers consult with dermatologists; - may make little or no difference for total or expected costs per participant for adults with some skin conditions or CKD (6 trials, 5423 participants). Mobile technologies used by emergency physicians to consult with hospital specialists about people attending the emergency department We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate. Mobile technologies: - probably slightly reduce the consultation time between emergency physicians and hospital specialists (median difference -12 minutes, 95% CI -19 to -7; 1 trial, 345 participants); - probably reduce participants' length of stay in the emergency department by a few minutes (median difference -30 minutes, 95% CI -37 to -25; 1 trial, 345 participants). We did not identify trials that reported on providers' adherence, participants' health status and well-being, healthcare provider and participant acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. Mobile technologies used by community health workers or home-care workers to consult with clinic staff We assessed the certainty of evidence for this group of trials as moderate to low. Mobile technologies: - probably make little or no difference in the number of outpatient clinic and community nurse consultations for participants with diabetes or older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (2 trials, 370 participants) or hospitalisation of older individuals treated with home enteral nutrition (1 trial, 188 participants); - may lead to little or no difference in mortality among people living with HIV (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.22) or diabetes (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.12) (2 trials, 1152 participants); - may make little or no difference to participants' disease activity or health-related quality of life in participants with rheumatoid arthritis (1 trial, 85 participants); - probably make little or no difference for participant acceptability and satisfaction for participants with diabetes and participants with rheumatoid arthritis (2 trials, 178 participants). We did not identify any trials that reported on providers' adherence, time between presentation and management, healthcare provider acceptability and satisfaction, or costs. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. Interventions including a mobile technology component to support healthcare provider to healthcare provider communication and management of care may reduce the time between presentation and management of the health condition when primary care providers or emergency physicians use them to consult with specialists, and may increase the likelihood of receiving a clinical examination among participants with diabetes and those who required an ultrasound. They may decrease the number of people attending primary care who are referred to secondary or tertiary care in some conditions, such as some skin conditions and CKD. There was little evidence of effects on participants' health status and well-being, satisfaction, or costs.

Exploring primary health care professionals' perceptions about a patient feedback intervention to improve patient safety in Spanish primary health care centres: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Patient feedback interventions are receiving increasing attention given their potential to improve health care provision. However, primary health care (PHC) professionals' acceptability and perceived utility of this type of interventions remain largely unexplored. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to explore PHC professionals' perceptions, opinions and suggestions about a patient feedback intervention currently being designed to improve patient safety in Spanish PHC centres. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory qualitative study with 43 PHC professionals. Information was obtained from three semi-structured interviews and four focus groups. All data were audio-recorded, transcribed and analyzed using content analysis by three analysts. RESULTS: The patient feedback intervention was acceptable to health care professionals, who perceived it as a useful strategy to improve health care processes and activate patients. A number of factors potentially limiting the acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention were identified (low patient safety culture, low patient-centred care orientation and limited credibility of patient feedback data). Recommendations for designing and implementing the proposed intervention in the Spanish PHC centres were identified in relation to the following areas: 'collection and analysis of feedback data'; 'feedback display'; 'feedback delivery' and; 'implementation of safety improvement initiatives'. CONCLUSIONS: Although the proposed intervention was generally perceived as useful and acceptable, our study identified a number of tensions about the practical aspects of using the patient-reported data and the credibility of the data and what actions would arise from its use. The intervention has been adapted to address these tensions before its formal evaluation in a randomized clinical trial.

Adherence to breast cancer guidelines is associated with better survival outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies in EU countries.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs. METHODS: We searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. RESULTS: We included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.59-0.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.35, 95%CI 0.15-0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5 years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty). CONCLUSIONS: Our review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42018092884 ).

Effectiveness of interventions to improve cardiovascular healthcare in rural areas: a systematic literature review of clinical trials.

The objective of this systematic literature review is to examine the impact of interventions to improve cardiovascular disease healthcare provided to people living in rural areas. Systematic electronic searches were conducted in Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge in July 2018. We included clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of interventions to improve cardiovascular disease healthcare in rural areas. Study eligibility assessment, data extraction, and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers independently. We identified 18 trials (18 interventions). They targeted myocardial infarction (five interventions), stroke (eight), and heart failure (five). All the interventions for myocardial infarction were based on organizational changes (e.g. implementation of mobile coronary units). They consistently reduced time to treatment and decreased mortality. All the interventions for heart failure were based on the provision of patient education. They consistently improved patient knowledge and self-care behaviour, but mortality reductions were reported in only some of the trials. Among the interventions for stroke, those based on the implementation of telemedicine (tele-stroke systems or tele-consultations) improved monitoring of stroke survivors; those based on new or enhanced rehabilitation services did not consistently improve mortality or physical function; whereas educational interventions effectively improved patient knowledge and behavioural outcomes. In conclusion, a number of different strategies (based on enhancing structures and providing patient education) have been proposed to improve cardiovascular disease healthcare in rural areas. Although available evidence show that these interventions can improve healthcare processes, their impact on mortality and other important health outcomes still remains to be established.

Identifying patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety in General Practices in England: a qualitative content analysis of free-text responses using the Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: There is a growing interest in identifying strategies to achieve safer primary health-care provision. However, most of the research conducted so far in this area relies on information supplied by health-care providers, and limited attention has been paid to patients' perspectives. OBJECTIVE: To explore patients' experiences and perceptions of patient safety in English general practices with the aim of eliciting patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety. METHODS: The Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care questionnaire was sent to a random sample of 6736 primary care users registered in 45 English practices. We conducted a qualitative content analysis of responses to seven open-ended items addressing patients' experiences of safety problems, lessons learnt as a result of such experiences and recommendations for safer health care. RESULTS: A total of 1244 (18.4%) participants returned completed questionnaires. Of those, 678 (54.5%) responded to at least one open-ended question. Two main themes emerged as follows: (i) experiences of safety problems and (ii) good practices and recommendations to improve patient safety in primary care. Most frequent experiences of safety problems were related to appointments, coordination between providers, tests, medication and diagnosis. Patients' responses to these problems included increased patient activation (eg speaking up about concerns with their health care) and avoidance of unnecessary health care. Recommendations for safer health care included improvements in patient-centred communication, continuity of care, timely appointments, technical quality of care, active monitoring, teamwork, health records and practice environment. CONCLUSION: This study identified a number of patient-centred recommendations for improving patient safety in English general practices.

Measuring Patient Safety in Primary Care: The Development and Validation of the "Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care" (PREOS-PC).

PURPOSE: We set out to develop and validate a patient-reported instrument for measuring experiences and outcomes related to patient safety in primary care. METHOD: The instrument was developed in a multistage process supported by an international expert panel and informed by a systematic review of instruments, a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies, 4 patient focus groups, 18 cognitive interviews, and a pilot study. The trial version of Patient Reported Experiences and Outcomes of Safety in Primary Care (PREOS-PC) covered 5 domains and 11 scales: practice activation (1 scale); patient activation (1 scale); experiences of patient safety events (1 scale); harm (6 scales); and general perceptions of patient safety (2 scales). The questionnaire was posted to 6,736 patients in 45 practices across England. We used "gold standard" psychometric methods to evaluate its acceptability, reliability, structural and construct validity, and ability to discriminate among practices. RESULTS: 1,244 completed questionnaires (18.5%) were returned. Median item-specific response rate was 91.3% (interquartile range 28.0%). No major ceiling or floor effects were observed. All 6 multi-item scales showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.75-0.96). Factor analysis, correlation between scales, and known group analyses generally supported structural and construct validity. The scales demonstrated a heterogeneous ability to discriminate between practices. The final version of PREOS-PC consisted of 5 domains, 8 scales, and 58 items. CONCLUSIONS: PREOS-PC is a new multi-dimensional patient safety instrument for primary care developed with experts and patients. Initial testing shows its potential for use in primary care, and future developments will further address its use in actual clinical practice.

Patients' perceptions and experiences of patient safety in primary care in England.

BACKGROUND: One of the most remarkable features of patient safety research in primary care is the sparse attention paid to patients' own experiences. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient's perceptions and experiences of patient safety in primary care in England. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study in the South of England with an opportunistic sample of 27 primary care users. Information was obtained from four patient focus groups. A thematic content analysis was conducted by three analysts and consensus reached within the research team on the key themes that emerged. RESULTS: Participants' conceptualizations of patient safety referred to high standards of health care delivery within a relationship of trust. Participants identified four main factors that they believed could potentially affect patient safety. These included factors related to (i) the patient (attitudes, behaviours and health literacy); (ii) the health professional (attitudes, behaviours and accuracy of diagnoses); (iii) the relationship between patients and health professionals (communication and trust); and (iv) the health care system (workload, resources, care coordination, accessibility, interdisciplinary teamwork and accuracy of health care records). Confidentiality, continuity of care and treatment-related safety emerged as cross-cutting major threats to patient safety. CONCLUSIONS: The exploration of participants' perceptions and experiences allowed the identification of a wide variety of themes that were perceived to impact on patient safety in primary care. The findings of this study could be used to enrich current frameworks that are exclusively based on professional or health care system perspectives.

The Impact of Automated Brief Messages Promoting Lifestyle Changes Delivered Via Mobile Devices to People with Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Brief automated messages have the potential to support self-management in people with type 2 diabetes, but their effect compared with usual care is unclear. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of interventions to change lifestyle behavior delivered via automated brief messaging in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS: A systematic literature review of controlled trials examined the impact of interventions, delivered by brief messaging, and intended to promote lifestyle change in people with type 2 diabetes, on behavioral and clinical outcomes. Bibliographic databases searched included Medline, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and ISI WoK. Two reviewers independently screened citations. We extracted information on study risk of bias, setting (high versus low- and middle-income countries) and intervention characteristics (including use of theory and behavior-change techniques). Outcome measures included acceptability of the interventions and their impact on 1) determinants of lifestyle behavior (knowledge about diabetes, self-efficacy, attitudes towards self-management), 2) lifestyle behavior (diet, physical activity), and 3) clinical and patient-reported outcomes. Where possible, we pooled data using random-effects meta-analyses to obtain estimates of effect size of intervention compared to usual care. RESULTS: We identified 15 trials (15 interventions) meeting our inclusion criteria. Most interventions were delivered via short message service text messaging (n=12) and simultaneously targeted diet and physical activity (n=11). Nine interventions consisted of unidirectional messages, whereas six consisted of bidirectional messages, with patients receiving automated tailored feedback based on self-reported data. The acceptability of the interventions, and their impact on lifestyle behavior and its determinants, were examined in a low proportion of trials, with heterogeneous results being observed. In 13 trials (1155 patients) where data were available, there was a difference in glycated hemoglobin of -0.53% (95% CI -0.59% to -0.47%) between intervention groups compared to usual care. In five trials (406 patients) there was a non-significant difference in body mass index of -0.25 kg/m2 (95% CI -1.02 to 0.52). Interventions based on unidirectional messages produced similar effects in the outcomes examined, compared to those based on bidirectional messages. Interventions conducted in low- and middle-income countries showed a greater impact than those conducted in high-income countries. In general, trials were not free of bias and did not use explicit theory. CONCLUSIONS: Automated brief messages strategies can improve health outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes. Larger, methodologically robust trials are needed to confirm these positive results.

Impact of the Prevalence of Concordant and Discordant Conditions on the Quality of Diabetes Care in Family Practices in England.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the association between the prevalence of both diabetes-concordant and diabetes-discordant conditions and the quality of diabetes care at the family practice level in England. We hypothesized that the prevalence of concordant (or discordant) conditions would be associated with better (or worse) quality of diabetes care. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study using practice-level data (7,884 practices). We estimated the practice-level prevalence of diabetes and 15 other chronic conditions, which were classified as diabetes concordant (ie, with the same pathophysiologic risk profile and therefore more likely to be part of the same management plan) or diabetes discordant (ie, not directly related in either their pathogenesis or management). We measured quality of diabetes care with diabetes-specific indicators (8 processes and 3 intermediate outcomes of care). We used linear regression models to quantify the effect of the prevalence of the conditions on aggregate achievement rate for quality of diabetes care. RESULTS: Consistent with the proposed model, the prevalence rates of 4 of 7 concordant conditions (obesity, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure) were positively associated with quality of diabetes care. Similarly, negative associations were observed as predicted for 2 of the 8 discordant conditions (epilepsy, mental health). Observations for other concordant and discordant conditions did not match predictions in the hypothesized model. CONCLUSIONS: The quality of diabetes care provided in English family practices is associated with the prevalence of other major chronic conditions at the practice level. The nature and direction of the observed associations cannot be fully explained by the concordant-discordant model.