Consumers' and health providers' views and perceptions of partnering to improve health services design, delivery and evaluation: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Partnering with consumers in the planning, delivery and evaluation of health services is an essential component of person-centred care. There are many ways to partner with consumers to improve health services, including formal group partnerships (such as committees, boards or steering groups). However, consumers' and health providers' views and experiences of formal group partnerships remain unclear. In this qualitative evidence synthesis (QES), we focus specifically on formal group partnerships where health providers and consumers share decision-making about planning, delivering and/or evaluating health services. Formal group partnerships were selected because they are widely used throughout the world to improve person-centred care. For the purposes of this QES, the term 'consumer' refers to a person who is a patient, carer or community member who brings their perspective to health service partnerships. 'Health provider' refers to a person with a health policy, management, administrative or clinical role who participates in formal partnerships in an advisory or representative capacity. This QES was co-produced with a Stakeholder Panel of consumers and health providers. The QES was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane intervention review entitled Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation. OBJECTIVES: 1. To synthesise the views and experiences of consumers and health providers of formal partnership approaches that aimed to improve planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. 2. To identify best practice principles for formal partnership approaches in health services by understanding consumers' and health providers' views and experiences. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL for studies published between January 2000 and October 2018. We also searched grey literature sources including websites of relevant research and policy organisations involved in promoting person-centred care. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included qualitative studies that explored consumers' and health providers' perceptions and experiences of partnering in formal group formats to improve the planning, delivery or evaluation of health services. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Following completion of abstract and full-text screening, we used purposive sampling to select a sample of eligible studies that covered a range of pre-defined criteria, including rich data, range of countries and country income level, settings, participants, and types of partnership activities. A Framework Synthesis approach was used to synthesise the findings of the sample. We appraised the quality of each study using the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skill Program) tool. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach. The Stakeholder Panel was involved in each stage of the review from development of the protocol to development of the best practice principles. MAIN RESULTS: We found 182 studies that were eligible for inclusion. From this group, we selected 33 studies to include in the final synthesis. These studies came from a wide range of countries including 28 from high-income countries and five from low- or middle-income countries (LMICs). Each of the studies included the experiences and views of consumers and/or health providers of partnering in formal group formats. The results were divided into the following categories. Contextual factors influencing partnerships: government policy, policy implementation processes and funding, as well as the organisational context of the health service, could facilitate or impede partnering (moderate level of confidence). Consumer recruitment: consumer recruitment occurred in different ways and consumers managed the recruitment process in a minority of studies only (high level of confidence). Recruiting a range of consumers who were reflective of the clinic's demographic population was considered desirable, particularly by health providers (high level of confidence). Some health providers perceived that individual consumers' experiences were not generalisable to the broader population whereas consumers perceived it could be problematic to aim to represent a broad range of community views (high level of confidence). Partnership dynamics and processes: positive interpersonal dynamics between health providers and consumers facilitated partnerships (high level of confidence). However, formal meeting formats and lack of clarity about the consumer role could constrain consumers' involvement (high level of confidence). Health providers' professional status, technical knowledge and use of jargon were intimidating for some consumers (high level of confidence) and consumers could feel their experiential knowledge was not valued (moderate level of confidence). Consumers could also become frustrated when health providers dominated the meeting agenda (moderate level of confidence) and when they experienced token involvement, such as a lack of decision-making power (high level of confidence) Perceived impacts on partnership participants: partnering could affect health provider and consumer participants in both positive and negative ways (high level of confidence). Perceived impacts on health service planning, delivery and evaluation: partnering was perceived to improve the person-centredness of health service culture (high level of confidence), improve the built environment of the health service (high level of confidence), improve health service design and delivery e.g. facilitate 'out of hours' services or treatment closer to home (high level of confidence), enhance community ownership of health services, particularly in LMICs (moderate level of confidence), and improve consumer involvement in strategic decision-making, under certain conditions (moderate level of confidence). There was limited evidence suggesting partnering may improve health service evaluation (very low level of confidence). Best practice principles for formal partnering to promote person-centred care were developed from these findings. The principles were developed collaboratively with the Stakeholder Panel and included leadership and health service culture; diversity; equity; mutual respect; shared vision and regular communication; shared agendas and decision-making; influence and sustainability. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Successful formal group partnerships with consumers require health providers to continually reflect and address power imbalances that may constrain consumers' participation. Such imbalances may be particularly acute in recruitment procedures, meeting structure and content and decision-making processes. Formal group partnerships were perceived to improve the physical environment of health services, the person-centredness of health service culture and health service design and delivery. Implementing the best practice principles may help to address power imbalances, strengthen formal partnering, improve the experiences of consumers and health providers and positively affect partnership outcomes.

Effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership on health services planning, delivery and evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Health services have traditionally been developed to focus on specific diseases or medical specialties. Involving consumers as partners in planning, delivering and evaluating health services may lead to services that are person-centred and so better able to meet the needs of and provide care for individuals. Globally, governments recommend consumer involvement in healthcare decision-making at the systems level, as a strategy for promoting person-centred health services. However, the effects of this 'working in partnership' approach to healthcare decision-making are unclear. Working in partnership is defined here as collaborative relationships between at least one consumer and health provider, meeting jointly and regularly in formal group formats, to equally contribute to and collaborate on health service-related decision-making in real time. In this review, the terms 'consumer' and 'health provider' refer to partnership participants, and 'health service user' and 'health service provider' refer to trial participants. This review of effects of partnership interventions was undertaken concurrently with a Cochrane Qualitative Evidence Synthesis (QES) entitled Consumers and health providers working in partnership for the promotion of person-centred health services: a co-produced qualitative evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership, as an intervention to promote person-centred health services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL databases from 2000 to April 2019; PROQUEST Dissertations and Theses Global from 2016 to April 2019; and grey literature and online trial registries from 2000 until September 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, and cluster-RCTs of 'working in partnership' interventions meeting these three criteria: both consumer and provider participants meet; they meet jointly and regularly in formal group formats; and they make actual decisions that relate to the person-centredness of health service(s). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened most titles and abstracts. One review author screened a subset of titles and abstracts (i.e. those identified through clinical trials registries searches, those classified by the Cochrane RCT Classifier as unlikely to be an RCT, and those identified through other sources). Two review authors independently screened all full texts of potentially eligible articles for inclusion. In case of disagreement, they consulted a third review author to reach consensus. One review author extracted data and assessed risk of bias for all included studies and a second review author independently cross-checked all data and assessments. Any discrepancies were resolved by discussion, or by consulting a third review author to reach consensus. Meta-analysis was not possible due to the small number of included trials and their heterogeneity; we synthesised results descriptively by comparison and outcome. We reported the following outcomes in GRADE 'Summary of findings' tables: health service alterations; the degree to which changed service reflects health service user priorities; health service users' ratings of health service performance; health service users' health service utilisation patterns; resources associated with the decision-making process; resources associated with implementing decisions; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included five trials (one RCT and four cluster-RCTs), with 16,257 health service users and more than 469 health service providers as trial participants. For two trials, the aims of the partnerships were to directly improve the person-centredness of health services (via health service planning, and discharge co-ordination). In the remaining trials, the aims were indirect (training first-year medical doctors on patient safety) or broader in focus (which could include person-centredness of health services that targeted the public/community, households or health service delivery to improve maternal and neonatal mortality). Three trials were conducted in high income-countries, one was in a middle-income country and one was in a low-income country. Two studies evaluated working in partnership interventions, compared to usual practice without partnership (Comparison 1); and three studies evaluated working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention, compared to the same intervention without partnership (Comparison 2). No studies evaluated one form of working in partnership compared to another (Comparison 3). The effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership compared to usual practice without partnership are uncertain: only one of the two studies that assessed this comparison measured health service alteration outcomes, and data were not usable, as only intervention group data were reported. Additionally, none of the included studies evaluating this comparison measured the other primary or secondary outcomes we sought for the 'Summary of findings' table. We are also unsure about the effects of consumers and health providers working in partnership as part of a multi-component intervention compared to the same intervention without partnership. Very low-certainty evidence indicated there may be little or no difference on health service alterations or health service user health service performance ratings (two studies); or on health service user health service utilisation patterns and adverse events (one study each). No studies evaluating this comparison reported the degree to which health service alterations reflect health service user priorities, or resource use. Overall, our confidence in the findings about the effects of working in partnership interventions was very low due to indirectness, imprecision and publication bias, and serious concerns about risk of selection bias; performance bias, detection bias and reporting bias in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effects of consumers and providers working in partnership as an intervention, or as part of a multi-component intervention, are uncertain, due to a lack of high-quality evidence and/or due to a lack of studies. Further well-designed RCTs with a clear focus on assessing outcomes directly related to partnerships for patient-centred health services are needed in this area, which may also benefit from mixed-methods and qualitative research to build the evidence base.

Selecting, refining and identifying priority Cochrane Reviews in health communication and participation in partnership with consumers and other stakeholders.

BACKGROUND: Priority-setting partnerships between researchers and stakeholders (meaning consumers, health professionals and health decision-makers) may improve research relevance and value. The Cochrane Consumers and Communication Group (CCCG) publishes systematic reviews in 'health communication and participation', which includes concepts such as shared decision-making, patient-centred care and health literacy. We aimed to select and refine priority topics for systematic reviews in health communication and participation, and use these to identify five priority CCCG Cochrane Reviews. METHODS: Twenty-eight participants (14 consumers, 14 health professionals/decision-makers) attended a 1-day workshop in Australia. Using large-group activities and voting, participants discussed, revised and then selected 12 priority topics from a list of 21 previously identified topics. In mixed small groups, participants refined these topics, exploring underlying problems, who they affect and potential solutions. Thematic analysis identified cross-cutting themes, in addition to key populations and potential interventions for future Cochrane Reviews. We mapped these against CCCG's existing review portfolio to identify five priority reviews. RESULTS: Priority topics included poor understanding and implementation of patient-centred care by health services, the fact that health information can be a low priority for health professionals, communication and coordination breakdowns in health services, and inadequate consumer involvement in health service design. The four themes underpinning the topics were culture and organisational structures, health professional attitudes and assumptions, inconsistent experiences of care, and lack of shared understanding in the sector. Key populations for future reviews were described in terms of social health characteristics (e.g. people from indigenous or culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, elderly people, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage) more than individual health characteristics. Potential interventions included health professional education, interventions to change health service/health professional culture and attitudes, and health service policies and standards. The resulting five priority Cochrane Reviews identified were improving end-of-life care communication, patient/family involvement in patient safety, improving future doctors' communication skills, consumer engagement strategies, and promoting patient-centred care. CONCLUSIONS: Stakeholders identified priority topics for systematic reviews associated with structural and cultural challenges underlying health communication and participation, and were concerned that issues of equity be addressed. Priority-setting with stakeholders presents opportunities and challenges for review producers.

Consumer engagement critical to success in an Australian research project: reflections from those involved.

This paper describes the people, activities and methods of consumer engagement in a complex research project, and reflects on the influence this had on the research and people involved, and enablers and challenges of engagement. The 2.5-year Integrating and Deriving Evidence Experiences and Preferences (IN-DEEP) study was conducted to develop online consumer summaries of multiple sclerosis (MS) treatment evidence in partnership with a three-member consumer advisory group. Engagement methods included 6-monthly face-to-face meetings and email contact. Advisory group members were active in planning, conduct and dissemination and translational phases of the research. Engaging consumers in this way improved the quality of the research process and outputs by: being more responsive to, and reflective of, the experiences of Australians with MS; expanding the research reach and depth; and improving the researchers' capacity to manage study challenges. Advisory group members found contributing their expertise to MS research satisfying and empowering, whereas researchers gained confidence in the research direction. Managing the unpredictability of MS was a substantive challenge; the key enabler was the 'brokering role' of the researcher based at an MS organisation. Meaningfully engaging consumers with a range of skills, experiences and networks can make important and unforeseen contributions to research success.

Research priorities in health communication and participation: international survey of consumers and other stakeholders.

OBJECTIVE: To identify research priorities of consumers and other stakeholders to inform Cochrane Reviews in 'health communication and participation' (including such concepts as patient experience, shared decision-making and health literacy). SETTING: International. PARTICIPANTS: We included anyone with an interest in health communication and participation. Up to 151 participants (18-80 years; 117 female) across 12 countries took part, including 48 consumers (patients, carers, consumer representatives) and 75 professionals (health professionals, policymakers, researchers) (plus 25 people who identified as both). DESIGN: Survey. METHODS: We invited people to submit their research ideas via an online survey open for 4 weeks. Using inductive thematic analysis, we generated priority research topics, then classified these into broader themes. RESULTS: Participants submitted 200 research ideas, which we grouped into 21 priority topics. Key research priorities included: insufficient consumer involvement in research (19 responses), 'official' health information is contradictory and hard to understand (18 responses), communication/coordination breakdowns in health services (15 responses), health information provision a low priority for health professionals (15 responses), insufficient eliciting of patient preferences (14 responses), health services poorly understand/implement patient-centred care (14 responses), lack of holistic care impacting healthcare quality and safety (13 responses) and inadequate consumer involvement in service design (11 responses). These priorities encompassed acute and community health settings, with implications for policy and research. Priority populations of interest included people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds, carers, and people with low educational attainment, or mental illness. Most frequently suggested interventions focused on training and cultural change activities for health services and health professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers and other stakeholders want research addressing structural and cultural challenges in health services (eg, lack of holistic, patient-centred, culturally safe care) and building health professionals' communication skills. Solutions should be devised in partnership with consumers, and focus on the needs of vulnerable groups.

Associations between multimorbidity and additional burden for working-age adults with specific forms of musculoskeletal conditions: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Multiple health conditions are increasingly a problem for adults with musculoskeletal conditions. However, multimorbidity research has focused primarily on the elderly and those with a limited subset of musculoskeletal disorders. We sought to determine whether associations between multimorbidity and additional burden differ with specific forms of musculoskeletal conditions among working-age adults. METHODS: Data were sourced from a nationally representative Australian survey. Specific musculoskeletal conditions examined were osteoarthritis; inflammatory arthritis; other forms of arthritis or arthropathies; musculoskeletal conditions not elsewhere specified; gout; back pain; soft tissue disorders; or osteoporosis. Multimorbidity was defined as the additional presence of one or more of the Australian National Health Priority Area conditions. Burden was assessed by self-reported measures of: (i) self-rated health (ii) musculoskeletal-related healthcare and medicines utilisation and, (iii) general healthcare utilisation. Associations between multimorbidity and additional health or healthcare utilisation burden among working-age adults (aged 18 - 64 years of age) with specific musculoskeletal conditions were estimated using logistic regression, adjusting for confounders. Interaction terms were fitted to identify whether there were specific musculoskeletal conditions where multimorbidity was more strongly associated with poorer health or greater healthcare utilisation than in the remaining musculoskeletal group. RESULTS: Among working-age adults, for each of the specified musculoskeletal conditions, multimorbidity was associated with similar, increased likelihood of additional self-rated health burden and certain types of healthcare utilisation. While there were differences in the relationships between multimorbidity and burden for each of the specific musculoskeletal conditions, no one specific musculoskeletal condition appeared to be consistently associated with greater additional health burden in the presence of multimorbidity across the majority of self-rated health burden and healthcare use measures. CONCLUSIONS: For working-age people with any musculoskeletal conditions examined here, multimorbidity increases self-reported health and healthcare utilisation burden. As no one musculoskeletal condition appears consistently worse off in the presence of multimorbidity, there is a need to better understand and identify strategies that acknowledge and address the additional burden of concomitant conditions for working-age adults with a range of musculoskeletal conditions.

Cross-sectional examination of musculoskeletal conditions and multimorbidity: influence of different thresholds and definitions on prevalence and association estimates.

BACKGROUND: Multimorbidity and musculoskeletal conditions create substantial burden for people and health systems. Quantifying the extent of co-occurring conditions is hampered by conceptual heterogeneity, imprecision and/or indecision about how multimorbidity is defined. The purpose of this study is to examine the influence of different ways of operationalising multimorbidity on multimorbidity prevalence rates with a focus on working-age adults with musculoskeletal conditions. Weighted population prevalence rates of multimorbidity among working-age Australians were estimated using data from the National Health Survey. Two nominal thresholds (2+ or 3+ co-occurring conditions) and three operational definitions of multimorbidity (survey-, policy- and research-based) were examined. Using logistic regression, we estimated the association between the prevalence of multimorbidity among persons with musculoskeletal conditions compared to persons with non-musculoskeletal conditions for each definition and threshold combination. RESULTS: As few as 7.9% of working-age Australians have 2+ conditions using the research-based definition (95% CI 7.4-8.5%), compared to estimates of 15.3% (95% CI 14.3-16.2%) and 61.5% (95% CI 60.3-62.7%). with the policy- and survey-based definitions, respectively. Depending on definition, with the 3+ threshold multimorbidity prevalence ranged from 2.1% (research) to 41.9% (survey). Among the sub-sample with musculoskeletal conditions, multimorbidity with the 2+ threshold ranged from 20.2 to 92.2%; and with 3+ threshold from 5.9 to 75.4%, again lowest with the research-definition and highest with the survey-definition. When compared to any other condition (i.e. non-musculoskeletal conditions), all musculoskeletal conditions were positively associated with multimorbidity, regardless of definition or threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Depending on definition and threshold, multimorbidity is either rare or endemic in working-age Australians. Irrespective of definition, musculoskeletal conditions are a near-ubiquitous feature of multimorbidity.

Harnessing and supporting consumer involvement in the development and implementation of Models of Care for musculoskeletal health.

Consumer involvement in the design and delivery of their healthcare is an integral strategy to ensure that health services and systems meet consumers' needs. This is also true for the design and delivery of Models of Care. This chapter presents the identified healthcare needs of people with musculoskeletal conditions and focuses on the current systematic review evidence for consumer involvement interventions in musculoskeletal Models of Care across the micro, meso and macro levels of healthcare. This chapter also presents three case studies of consumer involvement in different aspects of healthcare, offers a series of practice points to help translate the systematic review evidence into practice, and also provides direction to available resources, which support the implementation of consumer involvement within Models of Care.

Evaluation of a training program for medicines-oriented policymakers to use a database of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Suboptimal prescribing and medications use is a problem for health systems globally. Systematic reviews are a comprehensive resource that can help guide evidence-informed decision-making and implementation of interventions addressing such issues; however, a barrier to the use of systematic reviews is their inaccessibility (due to both dispersion across journals and inaccessibility of content). Publicly available databases, such as Rx for Change, provide quick access to summaries of appraised systematic reviews of professional and consumer-oriented interventions to improve prescribing behaviour and appropriate medication use, and may help maximise the use of evidence to inform decisions. The present study aims to evaluate a training program to improve attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of systematic review evidence contained within Rx for Change. METHODS: Guided by the Knowledge to Action framework, a training program with content customised to local provider and consumer contexts was developed with knowledge user input. The training program consisted of a 6 minute information video, a 1 hour workshop with hands-on, interactive and didactic components, and two post-training reminders. Forty-nine people from five medicines-focused organisations in Canada and Australia attended one of six workshops. Participants were surveyed immediately pre and post and 3 months after training to evaluate their attitudes towards, confidence in skills, intentions to use, and use of Rx for Change, and attitudes towards and confidence in skills for using evidence for decision-making. Analyses for differences for each of the outcomes at three time points (pre, post and 3 months after training) was performed using a random effects model. RESULTS: Immediately post-training, there were higher respondent attitudes towards Rx for Change (mean increase = 0.54 out of 5, 95% CI, 0.18-0.83, P < 0.005); intention to use Rx for Change (0.53, 95% CI, 0.21-0.86, P < 0.005); confidence in skills for using Rx for Change (2.08, 95% CI, 1.74-2.42, P < 0.005); and confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making (0.50, 95% CI, 0.22-0.77, P < .005) compared to pre-training. Confidence in skills for using both Rx for Change and evidence were maintained 3 months after training (both P < 0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Participants of this training program reported sustained improvements in their confidence in skills for using evidence in policy decision-making. This may have important implications for uptake of systematic review evidence promoting improved prescribing and medication use.

Changing definitions altered multimorbidity prevalence, but not burden associations, in a musculoskeletal population.

OBJECTIVES: The inclusion of musculoskeletal conditions within multimorbidity research is inconsistent, and working-age populations are largely ignored. We aimed to: (1) estimate multimorbidity prevalence among working-age individuals with a range of musculoskeletal conditions; and (2) better understand the implications of decisions about the number and range of conditions constituting multimorbidity on the strength of associations between multimorbidity and burden (e.g., health status and health care utilization). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using data from the Australian National Health Survey 2007-08, the associations between burden measures and three ways of operationalizing multimorbidity (survey, policy, and research based) within the working-age (18-64 years) musculoskeletal population were estimated using multiple logistic regression (age and gender adjusted). RESULTS: Depending on definition, from 20.2% to 75.4% of working-age individuals with musculoskeletal conditions have multimorbidity. Irrespective of definition, multimorbidity was associated with increased likelihood of subjective health burden, pain or musculoskeletal medicines use, nonmusculoskeletal specialist and pharmacist (advice only) consultations, and reduced likelihood of not consulting health professionals. A group with intermediate health outcomes was considered multimorbid by some, but not all definitions. With the restrictive policy and research multimorbidity definitions, this intermediate group is included within the reference population (i.e., are considered nonmultimorbid). This worsens the reference group's apparent health status thereby leveling the comparative burden between those with and without multimorbidity. Consequently, dichotomous cut points lead to similar associations with burden measures despite the increasingly restrictive multimorbidity definitions used. CONCLUSIONS: All multimorbidity definitions were associated with burden among the working-age musculoskeletal population. However, dichotomous cut points obscure the gradient of increased burden associated with restrictive definitions.

Communication Vulnerabilities in Working-age Australians with Musculoskeletal Conditions: A Cross-sectional Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the prevalence of communication vulnerability (CV) and its association with various health measures among working-age Australians with musculoskeletal conditions (MSK). The various vulnerability characteristics may lead to inadequate communication between consumers and healthcare professionals. METHODS: Prevalence of CV among 18-64 year olds, with or without MSK, was analyzed using the Australian Bureau of Statistics' National Health Survey 2007-08 data. Associations between CV and measures of health complexity (accumulating multimorbidity and risk factors) and health burden (poorer self-rated health, psychological distress, and pain restricting work) in the MSK population were estimated using logistic regression. Further analyses were conducted for each vulnerability characteristic to determine the degree of association (crude and adjusted) with measures of interest. RESULTS: CV were more prevalent in working-age Australians with MSK (65%) than those without (51%). Adjusted for age and sex among working-age Australians with at least 1 MSK, those with 1 or more CV were more likely to have multimorbidity [adjusted OR (aOR) = 1.8, 95% CI 1.5-2.2], lifestyle risk factors (aOR = 2.1, 95% CI 1.5-2.8), poorer self-rated health (aOR = 3.4, 95% CI 2.7-4.2), greater psychological distress (aOR = 2.9, 95% CI 2.3-3.7), and pain restricting employment (aOR = 1.7, 95% CI 1.4-2.1) compared with those without CV. CONCLUSION: For working-age people, there is an association between MSK and CV. For those with MSK, CV were associated with increased likelihood of health complexity and burden. These findings have policy and clinical relevance. Research is needed to determine whether interventions that address these specific CV characteristics reduce the burden of disease within these populations.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Many systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers, but research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of such reviews also vary widely, creating challenges for decision-makers seeking to inform decisions by using the evidence on consumers' medicines use.This is an update of a 2011 overview of systematic reviews, which synthesises the evidence, irrespective of disease, medicine type, population or setting, on the effectiveness of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote safe and effective medicines use, by synthesising review-level evidence. SEARCH METHODS: We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching databases from their start dates to March 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standardised forms to extract data, and assessed reviews for methodological quality using the AMSTAR tool. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and gave bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors screened and selected reviews, and extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews and guide syntheses. MAIN RESULTS: We included 75 systematic reviews of varied methodological quality. Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation and skills acquisition. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most frequently-reported outcome, but others such as knowledge, clinical and service-use outcomes were also reported. Adverse events were less commonly identified, while those associated with the interventions themselves, or costs, were rarely reported.Looking across reviews, for most outcomes, medicines self-monitoring and self-management programmes appear generally effective to improve medicines use, adherence, adverse events and clinical outcomes; and to reduce mortality in people self-managing antithrombotic therapy. However, some participants were unable to complete these interventions, suggesting they may not be suitable for everyone.Other promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines-use outcomes, which require further investigation to be more certain of their effects, include:· simplified dosing regimens: with positive effects on adherence;· interventions involving pharmacists in medicines management, such as medicines reviews (with positive effects on adherence and use, medicines problems and clinical outcomes) and pharmaceutical care services (consultation between pharmacist and patient to resolve medicines problems, develop a care plan and provide follow-up; with positive effects on adherence and knowledge).Several other strategies showed some positive effects, particularly relating to adherence, and other outcomes, but their effects were less consistent overall and so need further study. These included:· delayed antibiotic prescriptions: effective to decrease antibiotic use but with mixed effects on clinical outcomes, adverse effects and satisfaction;· practical strategies like reminders, cues and/or organisers, reminder packaging and material incentives: with positive, although somewhat mixed effects on adherence;· education delivered with self-management skills training, counselling, support, training or enhanced follow-up; information and counselling delivered together; or education/information as part of pharmacist-delivered packages of care: with positive effects on adherence, medicines use, clinical outcomes and knowledge, but with mixed effects in some studies;· financial incentives: with positive, but mixed, effects on adherence.Several strategies also showed promise in promoting immunisation uptake, but require further study to be more certain of their effects. These included organisational interventions; reminders and recall; financial incentives; home visits; free vaccination; lay health worker interventions; and facilitators working with physicians to promote immunisation uptake. Education and/or information strategies also showed some positive but even less consistent effects on immunisation uptake, and need further assessment of effectiveness and investigation of heterogeneity.There are many different potential pathways through which consumers' use of medicines could be targeted to improve outcomes, and simple interventions may be as effective as complex strategies. However, no single intervention assessed was effective to improve all medicines-use outcomes across all diseases, medicines, populations or settings.Even where interventions showed promise, the assembled evidence often only provided part of the picture: for example, simplified dosing regimens seem effective for improving adherence, but there is not yet sufficient information to identify an optimal regimen.In some instances interventions appear ineffective: for example, the evidence suggests that directly observed therapy may be generally ineffective for improving treatment completion, adherence or clinical outcomes.In other cases, interventions may have variable effects across outcomes. As an example, strategies providing information or education as single interventions appear ineffective to improve medicines adherence or clinical outcomes, but may be effective to improve knowledge; an important outcome for promoting consumers' informed medicines choices.Despite a doubling in the number of reviews included in this updated overview, uncertainty still exists about the effectiveness of many interventions, and the evidence on what works remains sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This overview presents evidence from 75 reviews that have synthesised trials and other studies evaluating the effects of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use.Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform decisions about which interventions may be most promising to improve particular outcomes. The intervention taxonomy may also assist people to consider the strategies available in relation to specific purposes, for example, gaining skills or being involved in decision making. Researchers and funders can use this overview to identify where more research is needed and assess its priority. The limitations of the available literature due to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and important populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered in practice and policy decisions.

Factors increasing vulnerability to health effects before, during and after floods.

Identifying the risk factors for morbidity and mortality effects pre-, during and post-flood may aid the appropriate targeting of flood-related adverse health prevention strategies. We conducted a systematic PubMed search to identify studies examining risk factors for health effects of precipitation-related floods, among Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) member countries. Research identifying flood-related morbidity and mortality risk factors is limited and primarily examines demographic characteristics such as age and gender. During floods, females, elderly and children appear to be at greater risk of psychological and physical health effects, while males between 10 to 29 years may be at greater risk of mortality. Post-flood, those over 65 years and males are at increased risk of physical health effects, while females appear at greater risk of psychological health effects. Other risk factors include previous flood experiences, greater flood depth or flood trauma, existing illnesses, medication interruption, and low education or socio-economic status. Tailoring messages to high-risk groups may increase their effectiveness. Target populations differ for morbidity and mortality effects, and differ pre-, during, and post-flood. Additional research is required to identify the risk factors associated with pre- and post-flood mortality and post-flood morbidity, preferably using prospective cohort studies.

Consumer-providers of care for adult clients of statutory mental health services.

BACKGROUND: In mental health services, the past several decades has seen a slow but steady trend towards employment of past or present consumers of the service to work alongside mental health professionals in providing services. However the effects of this employment on clients (service recipients) and services has remained unclear.We conducted a systematic review of randomised trials assessing the effects of employing consumers of mental health services as providers of statutory mental health services to clients. In this review this role is called 'consumer-provider' and the term 'statutory mental health services' refers to public services, those required by statute or law, or public services involving statutory duties. The consumer-provider's role can encompass peer support, coaching, advocacy, case management or outreach, crisis worker or assertive community treatment worker, or providing social support programmes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of employing current or past adult consumers of mental health services as providers of statutory mental health services. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2012, Issue 3), MEDLINE (OvidSP) (1950 to March 2012), EMBASE (OvidSP) (1988 to March 2012), PsycINFO (OvidSP) (1806 to March 2012), CINAHL (EBSCOhost) (1981 to March 2009), Current Contents (OvidSP) (1993 to March 2012), and reference lists of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of current or past consumers of mental health services employed as providers ('consumer-providers') in statutory mental health services, comparing either: 1) consumers versus professionals employed to do the same role within a mental health service, or 2) mental health services with and without consumer-providers as an adjunct to the service. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies and extracted data. We contacted trialists for additional information. We conducted analyses using a random-effects model, pooling studies that measured the same outcome to provide a summary estimate of the effect across studies. We describe findings for each outcome in the text of the review with considerations of the potential impact of bias and the clinical importance of results, with input from a clinical expert. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 randomised controlled trials involving 2796 people. The quality of these studies was moderate to low, with most of the studies at unclear risk of bias in terms of random sequence generation and allocation concealment, and high risk of bias for blinded outcome assessment and selective outcome reporting.Five trials involving 581 people compared consumer-providers to professionals in similar roles within mental health services (case management roles (4 trials), facilitating group therapy (1 trial)). There were no significant differences in client quality of life (mean difference (MD) -0.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.80 to 0.20); depression (data not pooled), general mental health symptoms (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.24, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.05); client satisfaction with treatment (SMD -0.22, 95% CI -0.69 to 0.25), client or professional ratings of client-manager relationship; use of mental health services, hospital admissions and length of stay; or attrition (risk ratio 0.80, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.09) between mental health teams involving consumer-providers or professional staff in similar roles.There was a small reduction in crisis and emergency service use for clients receiving care involving consumer-providers (SMD -0.34 (95%CI -0.60 to -0.07). Past or present consumers who provided mental health services did so differently than professionals; they spent more time face-to-face with clients, and less time in the office, on the telephone, with clients' friends and family, or at provider agencies.Six trials involving 2215 people compared mental health services with or without the addition of consumer-providers. There were no significant differences in psychosocial outcomes (quality of life, empowerment, function, social relations), client satisfaction with service provision (SMD 0.76, 95% CI -0.59 to 2.10) and with staff (SMD 0.18, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.79), attendance rates (SMD 0.52 (95% CI -0.07 to 1.11), hospital admissions and length of stay, or attrition (risk ratio 1.29, 95% CI 0.72 to 2.31) between groups with consumer-providers as an adjunct to professional-led care and those receiving usual care from health professionals alone. One study found a small difference favouring the intervention group for both client and staff ratings of clients' needs having been met, although detection bias may have affected the latter. None of the six studies in this comparison reported client mental health outcomes.No studies in either comparison group reported data on adverse outcomes for clients, or the financial costs of service provision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in psychosocial, mental health symptom and service use outcomes for clients that were no better or worse than those achieved by professionals employed in similar roles, particularly for case management services.There is low quality evidence that involving consumer-providers in mental health teams results in a small reduction in clients' use of crisis or emergency services. The nature of the consumer-providers' involvement differs compared to professionals, as do the resources required to support their involvement. The overall quality of the evidence is moderate to low. There is no evidence of harm associated with involving consumer-providers in mental health teams.Future randomised controlled trials of consumer-providers in mental health services should minimise bias through the use of adequate randomisation and concealment of allocation, blinding of outcome assessment where possible, the comprehensive reporting of outcome data, and the avoidance of contamination between treatment groups. Researchers should adhere to SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting standards for clinical trials.Future trials should further evaluate standardised measures of clients' mental health, adverse outcomes for clients, the potential benefits and harms to the consumer-providers themselves (including need to return to treatment), and the financial costs of the intervention. They should utilise consistent, validated measurement tools and include a clear description of the consumer-provider role (eg specific tasks, responsibilities and expected deliverables of the role) and relevant training for the role so that it can be readily implemented. The weight of evidence being strongly based in the United States, future research should be located in diverse settings including in low- and middle-income countries.

Consumer-oriented interventions for evidence-based prescribing and medicines use: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Numerous systematic reviews exist on interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, but this research is distributed across diseases, populations and settings. The scope and focus of reviews on consumers' medicines use also varies widely. Such differences create challenges for decision makers seeking review-level evidence to inform decisions about medicines use. OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the evidence from systematic reviews on the effects of interventions which target healthcare consumers to promote evidence-based prescribing for, and medicines use, by consumers. We sought evidence on the effects on health and other outcomes for healthcare consumers, professionals and services. METHODS: We included systematic reviews published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. We identified relevant reviews by handsearching both databases from start date to Issue 3 2008. We screened and ranked reviews based on relevance to consumers' medicines use, using criteria developed for this overview. Standardised forms were used to extract data, and reviews were assessed for methodological quality using the AMSTAR instrument. We used standardised language to summarise results within and across reviews; and a further synthesis step was used to give bottom-line statements about intervention effectiveness. Two review authors selected reviews, extracted and analysed data. We used a taxonomy of interventions to categorise reviews. MAIN RESULTS: We included 37 reviews (18 Cochrane, 19 non-Cochrane), of varied methodological quality.Reviews assessed interventions with diverse aims including support for behaviour change, risk minimisation, skills acquisition and information provision. No reviews aimed to promote systems-level consumer participation in medicines-related activities. Medicines adherence was the most commonly reported outcome, but others such as clinical (health and wellbeing), service use and knowledge outcomes were also reported. Reviews rarely reported adverse events or harms, and the evidence was sparse for several populations, including children and young people, carers, and people with multimorbidity.Promising interventions to improve adherence and other key medicines use outcomes (eg adverse events, knowledge) included self-monitoring and self-management, simplified dosing and interventions directly involving pharmacists. Other strategies showed promise in relation to adherence but their effects were less consistent. These included reminders; education combined with self-management skills training, counselling or support; financial incentives; and lay health worker interventions.No interventions were effective to improve all medicines use outcomes across all diseases, populations or settings. For some interventions, such as information or education provided alone, the evidence suggests ineffectiveness; for many others there is insufficient evidence to determine effects on medicines use outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Systematically assembling the evidence across reviews allows identification of effective or promising interventions to improve consumers' medicines use, as well as those for which the evidence indicates ineffectiveness or uncertainty.Decision makers faced with implementing interventions to improve consumers' medicines use can use this overview to inform these decisions and also to consider the range of interventions available; while researchers and funders can use this overview to determine where research is needed. However, the limitations of the literature relating to the lack of evidence for important outcomes and specific populations, such as people with multimorbidity, should also be considered.

Notification and support for people exposed to the risk of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) (or other prion diseases) through medical treatment (iatrogenically).

BACKGROUND: Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and variant CJD (vCJD) are rare and always-fatal diseases transmissible via certain medical procedures. If a person is exposed to the disease risk through medical treatment, they may need to be notified of this to prevent them passing the risk to others in healthcare settings and to enable additional infection control measures to be put in place for certain procedures. As CJD is incurable, and unable to be screened for or effectively treated, communicating this risk information after an exposure incident may have significant implications for the person at risk, their families/ carers and healthcare professionals. The best ways to notify people of their exposure to the risk of CJD or vCJD, and to support them subsequently, are currently unknown. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of interventions to notify and support consumers (patients and their family members or carers) in situations where exposure to the risk of CJD or vCJD has occurred as a result of medical treatment (iatrogenically), on consumer, healthcare provider and healthcare system outcomes. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Consumers and Communication Review Group Specialised Register (10 February, 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 1 2009), MEDLINE (OVID SP), EMBASE (OVID SP), PsycINFO (OVID SP), CINAHL (EBSCO Host), Current Contents (OVID SP) and Dissertation Abstracts (Proquest) from start date to February 2009. We searched MEDLINE In-process and Other Non-indexed Citations (OVID SP) and Sociological Abstracts (CSA) in November 2009. We searched reference lists, websites, and contacted consumer groups and experts for details of relevant research. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled studies, controlled before-and-after studies and interrupted time series analyses assessing the effects of any intervention to communicate with (notify or support) people exposed to the risk of CJD or vCJD through medical treatment were included. We sought outcomes relevant to consumers, health providers and health services, including both benefits and harms. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Cochrane reviewTwo authors independently assessed studies for inclusion against selection criteria, and would have applied standard Cochrane review methodology were any studies identified.Thematic synthesisWe also conducted a thematic synthesis by systematically identifying and screening those studies that met the same population, intervention and outcome criteria as the Cochrane review, but that were identified from the broader literature providing evidence on policy implementation and consumer experiences. We systematically extracted and synthesised the data from these studies to produce a thematic synthesis, presented in appendices to this Cochrane review, which assembles evidence on the views, experiences and acceptability of notification and support strategies for people at risk. MAIN RESULTS: Results of the Cochrane reviewNo studies meeting the study design criteria were identified for inclusion in this Cochrane review.Results of thematic synthesisIn total, 49 studies and pieces of literature meeting the same population, intervention and outcome criteria as the Cochrane review, but identified from the broader literature providing evidence on policy implementation and consumer experiences, were included and formed the basis of a thematic synthesis, and which is presented in appendices to this Cochrane review. The thematic synthesis indicates that ideally communication may be considered as a longitudinal multicomponent programme, ensuring that notification and support are coordinated; that communication is tailored and responsive to need; and that activities to support individual risk communication, such as widespread education and monitoring of access to health care for those at risk, are in place. The thematic synthesis also indicates that poor communication practices may have negative impacts or cause harm, such as discrimination in accessing health care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient rigorous evidence to determine the effects of interventions to notify people at CJD or vCJD risk and to support them subsequently, or to identify the best approach to communication in these situations. The thematic synthesis can be used to inform policy and practice decisions for communicating with people at risk in the absence of rigorous evaluative studies.

Development of a taxonomy of interventions to organise the evidence on consumers' medicines use.

OBJECTIVE: Safe, effective (quality) medicines use remains problematic worldwide, yet consumers' medicines use research is not well organised. This creates difficulties for decision makers in identifying evidence or research gaps and in understanding how or why interventions work. Developing a conceptual framework for this evidence helps to organise the evidence for application and raise awareness of the range of possible interventions. METHODS: To scope the aims of interventions to improve consumers' medicines use we searched for and iteratively analysed policy documents, systematic reviews, and an existing consumer-oriented communication intervention taxonomy. RESULTS: We identified eight recurrent themes associated with the purpose of the interventions: to inform and educate; to support behaviour change; to teach skills; to facilitate communication and/or decision making; to support; to minimise risk and harms; to involve consumers at the system level; and to improve health care quality. CONCLUSION: The taxonomy accommodates the complexity and diversity of interventions in this field, by focussing on the purposes of interventions, rather than the intervention type. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Currently used to organise the evidence on consumers' medicines use, the taxonomy provides a conceptual and practical map of the evidence which will aid decision making and future research investment in the area.

Heatwave early warning systems and adaptation advice to reduce human health consequences of heatwaves.

INTRODUCTION: With climate change, there has been an increase in the frequency, intensity and duration of heatwave events. In response to the devastating mortality and morbidity of recent heatwave events, many countries have introduced heatwave early warning systems (HEWS). HEWS are designed to reduce the avoidable human health consequences of heatwaves through timely notification of prevention measures to vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVE: To identify the key characteristics of HEWS in European countries to help inform modification of current, and development of, new systems and plans. METHODS: We searched the internet to identify HEWS policy or government documents for 33 European countries and requested information from relevant organizations. We translated the HEWS documents and extracted details on the trigger indicators, thresholds for action, notification strategies, message intermediaries, communication and dissemination strategies, prevention strategies recommended and specified target audiences. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Twelve European countries have HEWS. Although there are many similarities among the HEWS, there also are differences in key characteristics that could inform improvements in heatwave early warning plans.

The Rx for Change database: a first-in-class tool for optimal prescribing and medicines use.

BACKGROUND: Globally, suboptimal prescribing practices and medication errors are common. Guidance to health professionals and consumers alone is not sufficient to optimise behaviours, therefore strategies to promote evidence-based decision making and practice, such as decision support tools or reminders, are important. The literature in this area is growing, but is of variable quality and dispersed across sources, which makes it difficult to identify, access, and assess. To overcome these problems, by synthesizing and evaluating the data from systematic reviews, we have developed Rx for Change to provide a comprehensive, online database of the evidence for strategies to improve drug prescribing and use. METHODS: We use reliable and valid methods to search and screen the literature, and to appraise and analyse the evidence from relevant systematic reviews. We then present the findings in an online format which allows users to easily access pertinent information related to prescribing and medicines use. The database is a result of the collaboration between the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) and two Cochrane review groups. RESULTS: To capture the body of evidence on interventions to improve prescribing and medicines use, we conduct comprehensive and regular searches in multiple databases, and hand-searches of relevant journals. We screen articles to identify relevant systematic reviews, and include them if they are of moderate or high methodological quality. Two researchers screen, assess quality, and extract data on demographic details, intervention characteristics, and outcome data. We report the results of our analysis of each systematic review using a standardised quantitative and qualitative format. Rx for Change currently contains over 200 summarised reviews, structured in a multi-level format. The reviews included in the database are diverse, covering various settings, conditions, or diseases and targeting a range of professional and consumer behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: Rx for Change is a novel database that synthesizes current research evidence about the effects of interventions to improve drug prescribing practices and medicines use.