Health outcomes in primary care: a 20-year evidence map of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify the different types of health outcomes assessed as primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary care (PC) setting during the last 20 years and identify whether potential gaps exist in specific types of health care and types of intervention. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2000 to September 2020 for published RCTs in PC. We recorded characteristics of eligible studies and mapped evidence by health outcome category (patient health outcomes, health services outcomes); and for each outcome category, by types of health care (preventive, acute, chronic, palliative), and by types of intervention (drug, behavioural, on structure, and on process). For RCTs assessing patient health outcomes as primary outcomes, we further mapped using the quality-of-care dimensions, that is, effectiveness, safety, and patient-centredness. RESULTS: Of the 518 eligible RCTs in PC, 357 (68.9%) evaluated a patient health outcome as the primary outcome, and 161 (31.1%) evaluated only health services outcomes as primary outcomes. Many focused on population with chronic illness (224 trials; 43.2%) and evaluated interventions on processes of health care (239 trials; 46.1%). Research gaps identified include preventive and palliative care, behavioural interventions, and safety and patient-centredness outcomes as primary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our evidence map showed research gaps in certain types of health care and interventions. It also showed research gaps in assessing safety and measures to place patient at the centre of health care delivery as primary outcomes.

General practitioners' deprescribing decisions in older adults with polypharmacy: a case vignette study in 31 countries.

BACKGROUND: General practitioners (GPs) should regularly review patients' medications and, if necessary, deprescribe, as inappropriate polypharmacy may harm patients' health. However, deprescribing can be challenging for physicians. This study investigates GPs' deprescribing decisions in 31 countries. METHODS: In this case vignette study, GPs were invited to participate in an online survey containing three clinical cases of oldest-old multimorbid patients with potentially inappropriate polypharmacy. Patients differed in terms of dependency in activities of daily living (ADL) and were presented with and without history of cardiovascular disease (CVD). For each case, we asked GPs if they would deprescribe in their usual practice. We calculated proportions of GPs who reported they would deprescribe and performed a multilevel logistic regression to examine the association between history of CVD and level of dependency on GPs' deprescribing decisions. RESULTS: Of 3,175 invited GPs, 54% responded (N = 1,706). The mean age was 50 years and 60% of respondents were female. Despite differences across GP characteristics, such as age (with older GPs being more likely to take deprescribing decisions), and across countries, overall more than 80% of GPs reported they would deprescribe the dosage of at least one medication in oldest-old patients (> 80 years) with polypharmacy irrespective of history of CVD. The odds of deprescribing was higher in patients with a higher level of dependency in ADL (OR =1.5, 95%CI 1.25 to 1.80) and absence of CVD (OR =3.04, 95%CI 2.58 to 3.57). INTERPRETATION: The majority of GPs in this study were willing to deprescribe one or more medications in oldest-old multimorbid patients with polypharmacy. Willingness was higher in patients with increased dependency in ADL and lower in patients with CVD.

Measures during the COVID-19 pandemic in public primary health care in Greece: is there still a missing link to universal health coverage?

BACKGROUND: The PRICOV-19 study aimed to assess the organization of primary health care (PHC) during the COVID-19 pandemic in 37 European countries and Israel; and its impact on different dimensions of quality of care. In this paper, we described measures taken by public PHC centers in Greece. Additionally, we explored potential differences between rural and non-rural settings. METHODS: The study population consisted of the 287 public PHC centers in Greece. A random sample of 100 PHC centers stratified by Health Region was created. The online questionnaire consisted of 53 items, covering six sections: general information on the PHC center, patient flow, infection prevention, information processing, communication to patients, collaboration, and collegiality. RESULTS: Seventy-eight PHC centers (78%) - 50 rural and 28 non-rural - responded to the survey. Certain measures were reported by few PHC centers. Specifically, the use of online messages about complaints that can be solved without a visit to the PHC center (21% rural; and 31% non-rural PHC centers), the use of video consultations with patients (12% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), and the use of electronic medical records (EMRs) to systematically identify the list of patients with chronic conditions (5% rural; and 10% non-rural PHC centers) were scarcely reported. Very few PHC centers reported measures to support identifying and reaching out to vulnerable population, including patients that may have experienced domestic violence (8% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers), or financial problems (26% rural; and 7% non-rural PHC centers). Providing administrative documents to patients through postal mail (12% rural; and 21% non-rural PHC centers), or regular e-mail (11% rural; and 36% non-rural PHC centers), or through a secured server (8% rural; and 18% non-rural PHC centers) was rarely reported. Finally, providing information in multiple languages through a PHC website (12% rural PHC centers only), or an answering machine (6% rural PHC centers only), or leaflets (3% rural PHC centers only; and for leaflets specifically on COVID-19: 6% rural; and 8% non-rural PHC centers) were lacking in most PHC centers. CONCLUSION: Our study captured measures implemented by few PHC centers suggesting potential priority areas of future improvement.

Underreporting contextual factors preclude the applicability appraisal in primary care randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess applicability reporting in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in primary care (PC). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We used a random sample of PC RCTs published between 2000 and 2020 to assess applicability. We extracted data related to setting, population, intervention (including implementation), comparator, outcomes, and context. Based on data availability, we assessed whether the five predefined applicability questions were adequately addressed by each PC RCT. RESULTS: Adequately described elements that were reported frequently (>50%) included the responsible organization for intervention provision (97, 93.3%), study population characteristics (94, 90.4%), intervention implementation including monitoring and evaluation (92, 88.5%), intervention components (89, 85.6%), time frame (82, 78.8%), baseline prevalence (58, 55.8%), and the type of setting and location (53, 51%). Elements that were often underreported included contextual factors, that is, evidence of differential effects across sociodemographic or other groupings (2, 1.9%), intervention components tailored for specific settings (7, 6.7%), health system structure (32, 30.8%), factors affecting implementation (40, 38.5%) and organization structure (50, 48.1%). The proportion of trials that adequately addressed each applicability question ranged between 1% and 20.2%, while none RCT could address all of them. CONCLUSION: Underreporting contextual factors jeopardize the appraisal of applicability in PC RCTs.

Intermediate care in caring for dementia, the point of view of general practitioners: A key informant survey across Europe.

Background: Intermediate care is often defined as healthcare occurring somewhere between traditional primary (community) and secondary (hospital) care settings. High quality intermediate care is important in dementia, may prevent caregiver burnout and also lead to optimal care for people with dementia. However, very little is known about the point of intermediate care for persons with dementia in Europe. Research questions: What intermediate care services exist and how are they utilized in the care of people with dementia in Europe? Objective: This study aims at describing the point of view of General Practitioners on intermediate care services for people with dementia across Europe. Methods: Key informant survey was sent to GPs via a self-developed questionnaire with space for open ended comments. 16 European countries participated to this cross-sectional mixed method study. Given the volunteer nature of the study, no minimum sample size requirements were applied to participation. Convenience sampling technique was used to address variations due to regional variations and regulations within the same country. Descriptive analyses of all intermediate care facilities groups by countries were performed. Qualitative analyses approach was used for the optional-free text to exemplify and/or complete the reasons contained in the closed response categories. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 16 European countries. 583 questionnaires were analyzed. The responding physicians were 48 (± 11) years old on average and they had been in practice for an average of 18 (+ /11) years. The types of intermediate care considered were integrated at-home services, respite and relief services, day care centers and nursing homes. Their availability was considered very inhomogeneous by the majority of respondents. The main benefits of intermediate care cited were better medical care for the patient (78%), better quality of life for the caregiver (67%), prevention of the caregiver burden (73%) and a break for the caregiver (59%). The reported difficulties were: accessing these facilities due to limited financial support (76%) and cumbersome administrative procedures (67%). Many other facets of our findings were captured in the qualitative themes that emerged. Conclusion: Intermediate care in Europe is diverse and heterogeneous. Major concerns of GPs are about the cost issues and the cumbersome administrative procedures to access them.

Systematic reviews do not comment on applicability for primary care.

OBJECTIVES: How often authors comment on applicability for primary care in systematic reviews of clinical trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We selected 4% of the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews (CDSRs; January 2008 to October 2013). We excluded reviews when primary care trials were not eligible. We extracted whether authors explicitly reported in methods that primary care trials were eligible or this was unclear/missing. Reporting any comment on applicability for primary care in discussion was considered as primary outcome. RESULTS: Of the 163 reviews, 30 (18.4%) stated that primary care trials were eligible, whereas 133 (81.6%) provided no data. Of the 30 reviews, 19 (63.0%) reported in discussion that results might be applicable for primary care and one (4.0%) that were feasible in nonspecialized settings. Of the 133 reviews, 6 (4.5%) mentioned in discussion that results might be applicable for primary care and 12 (9.0%) that were applicable in specialized care only. Commenting on applicability for primary care in discussion was significantly associated with reporting in methods that primary care trials were eligible (odds ratio 6.7, 95% confidence interval 2.6-17.4; P-value <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Authors usually do not comment on the applicability of results for primary care.