Telehealth-guided provider-to-provider communication to improve rural health: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Telehealth may address healthcare disparities for rural populations. This systematic review assesses the use, effectiveness, and implementation of telehealth-supported provider-to-provider collaboration to improve rural healthcare. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE®, CINAHL®, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from 1 January 2010 to 12 October 2021 for trials and observational studies of rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Abstracts and full text were dual-reviewed. We assessed the risk of bias for individual studies and strength of evidence for studies with similar outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies of rural uptake of provider-to-provider telehealth documented increases over time but variability across geographic regions. In 97 effectiveness studies, outcomes were similar with rural provider-to-provider telehealth versus without for inpatient consultations, neonatal care, outpatient depression and diabetes, and emergency care. Better or similar results were reported for changes in rural clinician behavior, knowledge, confidence, and self-efficacy. Evidence was insufficient for other clinical uses and outcomes. Sixty-seven (67) evaluation and qualitative studies identified barriers and facilitators to implementing rural provider-to-provider telehealth. Success was linked to well-functioning technology, sufficient resources, and adequate payment. Barriers included lack of understanding of rural context and resources. Methodologic weaknesses of studies included less rigorous study designs and small samples. DISCUSSION: Rural provider-to-provider telehealth produces similar or better results versus care without telehealth. Barriers to rural provider-to-provider telehealth implementation are common to practice change but include some specific to rural adaptation and adoption. Evidence gaps are partially due to studies that do not address differences in the groups compared or do not include sufficient sample sizes.

A study of the value of requesting information from drug manufacturers for systematic reviews; 9 years of experience from the drug effectiveness review project.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) depend on comprehensive searches for evidence to provide balanced, accurate results. Requesting published and unpublished studies from pharmaceutical manufacturers has been proposed as a method to engage industry stakeholders and potentially reduce reporting bias. The Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) has been requesting such evidence since 2003; the purpose of this study was to retrospectively evaluate the type and impact of the evidence received. METHODS: Data from "dossiers" submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers for a set of 40 SRs conducted for DERP from July 2006 to June 2015 were retrospectively evaluated. Characteristics of data submitted in dossiers, including numbers, types, and characteristics of studies submitted and then included in DERP SRs, were abstracted. Time trends, study quality, publication status, and whether the submission represented a unique study or supplemental data to a published study were assessed. The impact of this evidence on SR conclusions was assessed using dual review. Differences were resolved through a consensus. RESULTS: Over 9 years, 160 dossiers were received, relating to 40 DERP SRs. Out of 7360 studies/datasets submitted, 2.2% (160) were included in a SR. The ratio of submitted-to-included increased over time. Most were unique studies (23% were supplemental data sets), and almost 42% of the studies were unpublished. The majority of the studies were rated fair quality, with 7.3% rated good and 14% rated poor quality by the original SR authors. Considering all literature search sources, 7.2% of all studies included in the 40 SRs came from a dossier, and 16% of dossier studies were included in a meta-analysis. The dossier studies resulted in changes to conclusions in 42% of the SRs. Out of 46 unpublished unique studies included in a SR, 25 (54%) influenced the conclusions in favor of the manufacturers drug, 8% favored a competitor drug, and 40% favored neither. In 92% of cases favoring the manufacturer's drug, the dossier study was the only evidence for that drug in a specific population or outcome. CONCLUSIONS: In SRs conducted for DERP, few studies submitted by pharmaceutical manufacturers were ultimately included in a SR. The included data helped to reduce reporting and publication bias by filling important gaps and in some cases led to altered conclusions.

Use of patient decision aids increased younger women's reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: As breast cancer screening guidelines have changed recently, additional investigation is needed to understand changes in women's behavior after using breast cancer screening patient decision aids (BCS-PtDAs) and the potential effect on mammography utilization. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effect of BCS-PtDAs on changes in women's intentions to undergo screening mammography and whether women deciding to begin or discontinue screening mammography displayed similar changes in screening intentions after using a BCS-PtDA. METHODS: We searched Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Health Technology Assessment Database, PsycARTICLES, and cited references in eligible papers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, published through August 24, 2016. The proportions of women who did and not intend to undergo screening and who were uncertain about undergoing screening mammography were pooled, using risk ratios (RR) and random effects. According to the protocol, RCTs or observational studies and any language were considered eligible for systematic review if they included data about women for which shared decision making is recommended. RESULTS: We ultimately included six studies with screening intention data for 2040 women. Compared to usual care, the use of BCS-PtDAs in three RCTs resulted in significantly more women deciding not to undergo screening mammography (RR 1.48 [95% CI 1.04-2.13]; P = 0.03), particularly for younger (38-50 years) women (1.77 [1.34-2.34]; P < 0.001). The use of BCS-PtDAs had a non-significant effect on the intentions of older women (69-89 years) to discontinue screening. CONCLUSIONS: The use of BCS-PtDAs increased younger women's reluctance to undergo screening for breast cancer. The implementation of such BCS-PtDAs in clinical practice would be expected to result in a 77% increase in the number of younger women (aged 38-50) who do not intend to be screened, and as a consequence, may reduce utilization of screening mammography. REGISTRATION: The protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database, #CRD42016036695.

Outcomes From Health Information Exchange: Systematic Review and Future Research Needs.

BACKGROUND: Health information exchange (HIE), the electronic sharing of clinical information across the boundaries of health care organizations, has been promoted to improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety of health care delivery. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the available research on HIE outcomes and analyze future research needs. METHODS: Data sources included citations from selected databases from January 1990 to February 2015. We included English-language studies of HIE in clinical or public health settings in any country. Data were extracted using dual review with adjudication of disagreements. RESULTS: We identified 34 studies on outcomes of HIE. No studies reported on clinical outcomes (eg, mortality and morbidity) or identified harms. Low-quality evidence generally finds that HIE reduces duplicative laboratory and radiology testing, emergency department costs, hospital admissions (less so for readmissions), and improves public health reporting, ambulatory quality of care, and disability claims processing. Most clinicians attributed positive changes in care coordination, communication, and knowledge about patients to HIE. CONCLUSIONS: Although the evidence supports benefits of HIE in reducing the use of specific resources and improving the quality of care, the full impact of HIE on clinical outcomes and potential harms are inadequately studied. Future studies must address comprehensive questions, use more rigorous designs, and employ a standard for describing types of HIE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO Registry No CRD42014013285; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014013285 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6dZhqDM8t).

Health Information Exchange.

OBJECTIVES: This review sought to systematically review the available literature on health information exchange (HIE), the electronic sharing of clinical information across the boundaries of health care organizations. HIE has been promoted as an important application of technology in medicine that can improve the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, quality, and safety of health care delivery. However, HIE also requires considerable investment by sponsors, which have included governments as well as health care organizations. This review aims to synthesize the currently available research addressing HIE effectiveness, use, usability, barriers and facilitators to actual use, implementation, and sustainability, and to present this information as a foundation on which future implementation, expansion, and research can be based. DATA SOURCES: A research librarian designed and conducted searches of electronic databases, including MEDLINE® (1990 to February 2015), PsycINFO® (1990 to February 2015), CINAHL® (1990 through February 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (through January 2015), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (through January 2015), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (through the first quarter of 2015), and the National Health Sciences Economic Evaluation Database (through the first quarter of 2015). The searches were supplemented by reviewing reference lists and the table of contents of journals not indexed in the databases we searched. REVIEW METHODS: Two investigators reviewed abstracts and the selected full-text articles for inclusion based on predefined criteria. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion and consensus, with a third investigator making the final decision as needed. Data were abstracted from each included article by one person and verified by another. All analyses were qualitative, and they were customized according to the topic. RESULTS: We included 136 studies overall, with 34 on effectiveness, 26 of which reported intermediate clinical, economic, or patient outcomes, and 8 that reported on clinical perceptions of HIE. We also found 58 studies on the use of HIE, 22 on usability and other facilitators and barriers to actual use of HIE, 45 on facilitators or barriers to HIE implementation, and 17 on factors related to sustainability of HIE.No studies of HIE effectiveness reported impact on primary clinical outcomes (e.g., mortality and morbidity) or identified harms. Low-quality evidence somewhat supports the value of HIE for reducing duplicative laboratory and radiology test ordering, lowering emergency department costs, reducing hospital admissions (less so for readmissions), improving public health reporting, increasing ambulatory quality of care, and improving disability claims processing. In studies of clinician perceptions of HIE, most respondents attributed positive changes to HIE, such as improvements in coordination, communication, and knowledge about the patient. However in one study clinicians reported that the HIE did not save time and may not be worth the cost.Studies of HIE use found that HIE adoption has increased over time, with 76 percent of U.S. hospitals exchanging information in 2014, an 85-percent increase since 2008 and a 23-percent increase since 2013. HIE systems were used by 38 percent of office-based physicians in 2012, while use remains low, less than 1 percent, among long-term care providers.Within organizations with HIE, the number of users or the number of visits in which the HIE was used was generally very low. The degree of usability of an HIE was associated with increased rates of use but was not associated with effectiveness outcomes. The most commonly cited barriers to HIE use were lack of critical mass electronically exchanging data, inefficient workflow, and poorly designed interface and update features. Information was insufficient to allow us to assess usability by HIE function or architecture.Studies provided information on both external environmental and internal organizational characteristics that affect implementation and sustainability. General characteristics of the HIE organization (e.g., strong leadership) or specific characteristics of the HIE system were the most frequently cited facilitators, while disincentives such as competition or lack of a business case for HIE were the most frequently identified barriers. LIMITATIONS: The scope of studies identified was limited compared with the actual uses and capabilities of HIE. The outcomes measured and methods of measurement and analysis, for example, were limited and narrowly defined; the issue of potential confounders was not addressed in most studies of effectiveness, and harms were not adequately studied. There was a high degree of heterogeneity in study designs, outcomes, HIE types, and settings across the studies, limiting the ability to synthesize the evidence; no quantitative analyses were possible. The applicability of this evidence base is uncertain because the HIE systems studied were so diverse, and many in existence have not contributed to research in this field. CONCLUSIONS: The full impact of HIE on clinical outcomes and potential harms is inadequately studied, although evidence provides some support for benefit in reducing use of some specific resources and achieving improvements in quality-of-care measures. Use of HIE has risen over time, and is highest in hospitals and lowest in long-term care settings. However, use of HIE within organizations that offer it is still low. Barriers to HIE use include lack of critical mass participating in the exchange, inefficient workflow, and poorly designed interface and update features. Studies have identified numerous facilitators and barriers to implementation and sustainability, but the studies have not ranked or compared their impact. To advance our understanding of HIE, future studies need to address comprehensive questions, use more rigorous designs, use a standard for describing types of HIE, and be part of a coordinated systematic approach to studying HIE.

Use of administrative data to identify off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in a Medicaid population.

OBJECTIVE The use of second-generation antipsychotics for conditions not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is a prevalent phenomenon with important implications. The objective of this study was to determine the accuracy of administrative claims for identifying off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in a Medicaid population in 2009. METHODS The authors estimated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), and negative predictive values of Medicaid claims data for detecting off-label use of second-generation antipsychotics in the electronic health records of 788 patients. Separate estimates were calculated for patients without schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, the two most long-standing FDA indications for use of second-generation antipsychotics, and for a subset of patients using a second-generation antipsychotic with indications for treatment-resistant depression. RESULTS Medicaid claims determined a lack of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the medical record with a sensitivity of 72% and a specificity of 85%. The prevalence of identifying neither diagnosis was 83%, which was associated with a predictive ability (PPV) of 96%. Among those using a second-generation antipsychotic with an indication for treatment-resistant depression, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of Medicaid claims for identifying off-label use were 41%, 86%, and 87%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Medicaid claims data had high predictive ability for identifying users of second-generation antipsychotics who did not have documentation of schizophrenia or bipolar disorder in the medical record. The predictive utility of the claims was diminished when the analyses were limited to patients using a second-generation antipsychotic with an indication for treatment-resistant depression.

Effectiveness and harms of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 in spine fusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein-2 (rhBMP-2) is used as a bone graft substitute in spinal fusion, which unites (fuses) bones in the spine. The accuracy and completeness of journal publications of industry-sponsored trials on the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 has been called into question. PURPOSE: To independently assess the effectiveness and harms of rhBMP-2 in spinal fusion and reporting bias in industry-sponsored journal publications. DATA SOURCES: Individual-patient data (IPD) from 17 industry-sponsored studies; related internal documents; and searches of MEDLINE (1996 to August 2012), other databases, and reference lists. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies of rhBMP-2 versus any control and uncontrolled studies of harms. DATA EXTRACTION: Effectiveness outcomes in IPD were recalculated using consistent definitions. Study characteristics and results were abstracted by 1 investigator and confirmed by another. Two investigators independently assessed quality using predefined criteria. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirteen RCTs and 31 cohort studies were included. For lumbar spine fusion, rhBMP-2 and iliac crest bone graft were similar in overall success, fusion, and other effectiveness measures and in risk for any adverse event, although rates were high across interventions (77% to 93% at 24 months from surgery). For anterior lumbar interbody fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with nonsignificantly increased risk for retrograde ejaculation and urogenital problems. For anterior cervical spine fusion, rhBMP-2 was associated with increased risk for wound complications and dysphagia. At 24 months, the cancer risk was increased with rhBMP-2 (risk ratio, 3.45 [95% CI, 1.98 to 6.00]), but event rates were low and cancer was heterogeneous. Early journal publications misrepresented the effectiveness and harms through selective reporting, duplicate publication, and underreporting. LIMITATIONS: Outcome assessment was not blinded, and ascertainment of harms in trials was poor. No trials were truly independent of industry sponsorship. CONCLUSION: In spinal fusion, rhBMP-2 has no proven clinical advantage over bone graft and may be associated with important harms, making it difficult to identify clear indications for rhBMP-2. Earlier disclosure of all relevant data would have better informed clinicians and the public than the initial published trial reports did. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Yale University and Medtronic.

Methods for the drug effectiveness review project.

The Drug Effectiveness Review Project was initiated in 2003 in response to dramatic increases in the cost of pharmaceuticals, which lessened the purchasing power of state Medicaid budgets. A collaborative group of state Medicaid agencies and other organizations formed to commission high-quality comparative effectiveness reviews to inform evidence-based decisions about drugs that would be available to Medicaid recipients. The Project is coordinated by the Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEbP) at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU), and the systematic reviews are undertaken by the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) at OHSU and at the University of North Carolina. The reviews adhere to high standards for comparative effectiveness reviews. Because the investigators have direct, regular communication with policy-makers, the reports have direct impact on policy and decision-making, unlike many systematic reviews. The Project was an innovator of methods to involve stakeholders and continues to develop its methods in conducting reviews that are highly relevant to policy-makers. The methods used for selecting topics, developing key questions, searching, determining eligibility of studies, assessing study quality, conducting qualitative and quantitative syntheses, rating the strength of evidence, and summarizing findings are described. In addition, our on-going interactions with the policy-makers that use the reports are described.

Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the time to and key factors associated with decision to update comparative effectiveness of reviews of drugs based on periodic scans of new evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Based on periodic scans of new evidence, we analyzed 69 decisions on whether to update for 41 comparative effectiveness reviews conducted for the Drug Effectiveness Review Project. We used the Kaplan-Meier product limit method to estimate mean time to update and generalized estimating equation logistic regression to estimate associations between updating decisions and review topic or characteristics of new evidence. RESULTS: Mean time to update was 24.9 months. Significant predictors of a decision to update were identification of a new drug (odds ratio [OR]: 5.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.68-19.44) and the number of new relevant trials (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 1.03-1.10). Compared with nonpsychiatric topics, psychiatric topics were most rapidly developing (mean new relevant citations: 38.4 vs. 8.2; P=0.0127) and were updated at a faster pace (mean survival time: 10.2 vs. 27.5 months; P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics.

New insights on vaginal birth after cesarean: can it be predicted?

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate existing vaginal birth after cesarean (VBAC) screening tools and to identify additional factors that may predict VBAC or failed trial of labor. DATA SOURCES: Relevant studies were identified through MEDLINE, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, and the Cochrane databases (1980-September 2009), and from recent systematic reviews, reference lists, reviews, editorials, web sites, and experts. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria limited studies to those of humans, written in English, studies conducted in the United States and developed countries, and those rated good or fair quality by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force criteria. Studies of individual predictors were combined using a random effects model when the estimated odds ratios were comparable across included studies. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: We identified 3,134 citations and reviewed 963 papers, of which 203 met inclusion criteria and were quality-rated. Twenty-eight provided evidence on predictors of VBAC and 16 presented information on scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor). Six of the 11 scored models for predicting VBAC (or failed trial of labor) were validated by separated dataset, cross-validation, or both. Whereas accuracy remained high across all models for predicting VBAC, with predictive values ranging from 88% to 95%, accuracy for predicting failed trial of labor was low, ranging from 33% to 58%. Individual predictors including Hispanic ethnicity, African-American race, advanced maternal age, no previous vaginal birth history, birth weight heavier than 4 kg, and use of either augmentation or induction were all associated with reduced likelihood of VBAC. CONCLUSION: Current scored models provide reasonable predictability for VBAC, but none provides consistent ability to identify women at risk for failed trial of labor. A scoring model is needed that incorporates known antepartum factors and can be adjusted for current obstetric factors and labor patterns if induction or augmentation is needed. This would allow women and clinicians to better determine individuals most likely to require repeat cesarean delivery.

Cost-effectiveness of echocardiography to identify intracardiac thrombus among patients with first stroke or transient ischemic attack.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Echocardiography to select stroke patients for targeted treatments, such as anticoagulation (AC), to reduce recurrent stroke risk is controversial. The authors' objective was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of imaging strategies that use transthoracic (TTE) and transesophageal (TEE) echocardiography for identifying intracardiac thrombus in new stroke patients. METHODS: Model-based cost-effectiveness analysis of 7 echocardiographic imaging strategies and 2 nontesting strategies with model parameters based on systematic evidence review related to effectiveness of echocardiography in newly diagnosed ischemic stroke patients (white males aged 65 years in base case). Primary outcome was cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). RESULTS: All strategies containing TTE were dominated by others and were eliminated from the analysis. Assuming that AC reduces recurrent stroke risk from intracardiac thrombus by 43% over 1 year, TEE generated a cost per QALY of $137,000 (relative to standard treatment) among patients with 5% thrombus prevalence. Cost per QALY dropped to $50,000 in patients with at least 15% intracardiac thrombus prevalence, or, if an 86% relative risk reduction with AC is assumed, in patients with thrombus prevalence of at least 6%. Probabilistic analyses indicate considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness of echocardiography across a wide range of intracardiac thrombus prevalence (pretest probability). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence on cost-effectiveness is insufficient to justify widespread use of echocardiography in stroke patients. Additional research on recurrent stroke risk in patients with intracardiac thrombus and on the efficacy of AC in reducing that risk may contribute to a better understanding of the circumstances under which echocardiography will be cost-effective.