RESUMO
Background: Education to improve medication adherence is one of the core components of cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programs. However, the evidence on the effectiveness of CR programs on medication adherence is conflicting. Therefore, we aimed to summarize the effectiveness of CR programs versus standard care on medication adherence in patients with cardiovascular disease. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted. Seven databases and clinical trial registries were searched for published and unpublished articles from database inception to 09 Feb 2022. Only randomised controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies were included. Two independent reviewers conducted the screening, extraction, and appraisal. The JBI methodology for effectiveness reviews and PRISMA 2020 guidelines were followed. A statistical meta-analysis of included studies was pooled using RevMan version 5.4.1. Results: In total 33 studies were included with 16,677 participants. CR programs increased medication adherence by 14 % (RR = 1.14; 95 % CI: 1.07 to 1.22; p = 0.0002) with low degree of evidence certainty. CR also lowered the risk of dying by 17 % (RR = 0.83; 95 % CI: 0.69 to 1.00; p = 0.05); primary care and emergency department visit by mean difference of 0.19 (SMD = -0.19; 95 % CI: -0.30 to -0.08; p = 0.0008); and improved quality of life by 0.93 (SMD = 0.93; 95 % CI: 0.38 to 1.49; p = 0.0010). But no significant difference was observed in lipid profiles, except with total cholesterol (SMD = -0.26; 95 % CI: -0.44 to -0.07; p = 0.006) and blood pressure levels. Conclusions: CR improves medication adherence with a low degree of evidence certainty and non-significant changes in lipid and blood pressure levels. This result requires further investigation.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has overwhelmed health systems in both developed and developing nations alike. Africa has one of the weakest health systems globally, but there is limited evidence on how the region is prepared for, impacted by and responded to the pandemic. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL to search peer-reviewed articles and Google, Google Scholar and preprint sites for grey literature. The scoping review captured studies on either preparedness or impacts or responses associated with COVID-19 or covering one or more of the three topics and guided by Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework. The extracted information was documented following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension checklist for scoping reviews. Finally, the resulting data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-two eligible studies, of which 6 reported on health system preparedness, 19 described the impacts of COVID-19 on access to general and essential health services and 7 focused on responses taken by the healthcare systems were included. The main setbacks in health system preparation included lack of available health services needed for the pandemic, inadequate resources and equipment, and limited testing ability and surge capacity for COVID-19. Reduced flow of patients and missing scheduled appointments were among the most common impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. Health system responses identified in this review included the availability of telephone consultations, re-purposing of available services and establishment of isolation centres, and provisions of COVID-19 guidelines in some settings. CONCLUSIONS: The health systems in Africa were inadequately prepared for the pandemic, and its impact was substantial. Responses were slow and did not match the magnitude of the problem. Interventions that will improve and strengthen health system resilience and financing through local, national and global engagement should be prioritised.