Health care utilization and the associated costs attributable to cardiovascular disease in Ireland: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of mortality and disability globally. We examined healthcare service utilization and costs attributable to CVD in Ireland in the period before the introduction of a major healthcare reform in 2016. METHODS: Secondary analysis of data from 8 113 participants of the first wave of The Irish Longitudinal Study on Ageing. CVD was defined as having a self-reported doctor's diagnosis of myocardial infarction, angina, heart failure, stroke, atrial fibrillation or transient ischaemic attack. Participants self-reported the utilization of healthcare services in the year preceding the interview. Negative binomial regression with average marginal effects (AME) was used to estimate the incremental number of general practitioner (GP) and outpatient department (OPD) visits, accident and emergency department attendances and hospitalisations in population with CVD relative to population without CVD. We calculated the corresponding costs at individual and population levels, by gender and age groups. RESULTS: The prevalence of CVD was 18.2% (95% CI: 17.3, 19.0) Participants with CVD reported higher utilization of all healthcare services. In adjusted models, having CVD was associated with incremental 1.19 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.39) GP and 0.79 (95% CI: 0.65, 0.93) OPD visits. There were twice as many incremental hospitalisations in males with CVD compared to females with CVD (AME (95% CI): 0.20 (0.16, 0.23) vs 0.10 (0.07, 0.14)). The incremental cost of healthcare service use in population with CVD was an estimated €352.2 million (95% CI: €272.8, €431.7), 93% of which was due to use of secondary care services. CONCLUSION: We identified substantially increased use of healthcare services attributable to CVD in Ireland. Continued efforts aimed at CVD primary prevention and management are required.

A micro costing analysis of the development of a primary care intervention to improve the uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: The application of economic analysis within implementation science is still developing and the cost of intervention development, which differs markedly from the costs of initial implementation and maintenance, is often overlooked. Our aim was to retrospectively cost the development of a multifaceted intervention in primary care to improve attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening. METHODS: A retrospective micro costing of developing the intervention from the research funder perspective was conducted. It was based on a systematic intervention development process involving analysis of existing audit data and interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs), conducting consensus meetings with patients and HCPs, and using these data together with a rapid review of the effectiveness of interventions, to inform the final intervention. Both direct (non-personnel, e.g. travel, stationary, room hire) and indirect (personnel) costs were included. Data sources included researcher time logs, payroll data, salary scales, an online financial management system, invoices and purchase orders. Personnel involved in the intervention development were consulted to determine the activities they conducted and the duration of their involvement. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to estimate uncertainty around parameters and scope. RESULTS: The total cost of intervention development (July 2014-January 2019) was €40,485 of which 78% were indirect (personnel) costs (€31,451). In total, personnel contributed 1368 h to intervention development. Highest cost activities were the patient interviews, and consensus process, contributing 23% and 34% of the total cost. Varying estimated time spent on intervention development activities by + 10% increased total intervention development cost by 6% to €42,982. CONCLUSIONS: Our results highlight that intervention development requires a significant amount of human capital input, combining research experience, patient and public experience, and expert knowledge in relevant fields. The time committed to intervention development is critical but has a significant opportunity cost. With limited resources for research on developing and implementing interventions, capturing intervention development costs and incorporating them as part of assessment of cost-effective interventions, could inform research priority and resource allocation decisions.

Feasibility of an implementation intervention to increase attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening: protocol for a cluster randomised pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. However, uptake continues to be sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. Routine management of type 2 diabetes largely takes place in primary care. As such, there may be an opportunity in primary care to introduce interventions to improve DRS uptake. However, few studies test the feasibility of interventions to enhance DRS uptake in this context. Our aim is to investigate the feasibility of an implementation intervention (IDEAs (Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance)) delivered in general practice to improve the uptake of the national DRS programme, RetinaScreen. METHODS: The IDEAs study is a cluster randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Following stratification by practice size, eight general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated to intervention (n = 4) or wait-list control groups (n = 4). The intervention will be delivered for 6 months, after which, it will be administered to wait-list control practices. The intervention is multi-faceted and comprises provider-level components (training, audit and feedback, health care professional prompt, reimbursement) and patient-level components (GP-endorsed reminder with information leaflet delivered opportunistically face-to-face, and systematically by phone and letter). Patient inclusion criteria are type 1 or type 2 diabetes and DRS programme non-attendance. A multi-method approach will be used to determine screening uptake, evaluate the trial and study procedures and examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from staff and patient perspectives. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected on intervention uptake and delivery, research processes and outcomes. Data will be collected at the practice, health professional and patient level. A partial economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost of delivering the implementation intervention in general practice. Formal continuation criteria will be used to determine whether IDEAs should progress to a definitive trial. DISCUSSION: Findings will determine whether IDEAsis feasible and acceptable and will be used to refine the intervention and study procedures. A definitive trial will determine whether IDEAs is a cost-effective intervention to improve DRS uptake and reduce diabetes-related blindness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901898. Registered 3rd April 2019.

Development of an intervention to facilitate implementation and uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening.

BACKGROUND: 'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. METHODS: First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. RESULTS: We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. CONCLUSIONS: Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda.

The field of implementation science was developed to better understand the factors that facilitate or impede implementation and generate evidence for implementation strategies. In this article, we briefly review progress in implementation science, and suggest five priorities for enhancing the impact of implementation strategies. Specifically, we suggest the need to: (1) enhance methods for designing and tailoring implementation strategies; (2) specify and test mechanisms of change; (3) conduct more effectiveness research on discrete, multi-faceted, and tailored implementation strategies; (4) increase economic evaluations of implementation strategies; and (5) improve the tracking and reporting of implementation strategies. We believe that pursuing these priorities will advance implementation science by helping us to understand when, where, why, and how implementation strategies improve implementation effectiveness and subsequent health outcomes.

The role of nurse specialists in the delivery of integrated diabetes care: a cross-sectional survey of diabetes nurse specialist services.

OBJECTIVES: International evidence suggests the diabetes nurse specialist (DNS) has a key role in supporting integrated management of diabetes. We examine whether hospital and community DNS currently support the integration of care, examine regional variation in aspects of the service relevant to the delivery of integrated care and identify barriers to service delivery and areas for improvement. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey of hospital and community-based DNS in Ireland. METHODS: Between September 2015 and April 2016, a 67-item online survey, comprising closed and open questions on their clinical role, diabetes clinics, multidisciplinary working, and barriers and facilitators to service delivery, was administered to all eligible DNS (n=152) in Ireland. DNS were excluded if they were retired or on maternity leave or extended leave. RESULTS: The response rate was 66.4% (n=101): 60.6% (n=74) and 89.3% (n=25) among hospital and community DNS, respectively. Most DNS had patients with stable (81.8%) and complicated type 2 diabetes mellitus (89.9%) attending their service. The majority were delivering nurse-led clinics (81.1%). Almost all DNS had a role liaising with (91%), and providing support and education to (95%), other professionals. However, only a third reported that there was local agreement on how their service should operate between the hospital and primary care. Barriers to service delivery that were experienced by DNS included deficits in the availability of specialist staff (allied health professionals, endocrinologists and DNS), insufficient space for clinics, structured education and issues with integration. CONCLUSIONS: Delivering integrated diabetes care through a nurse specialist-led approach requires that wider service issues, including regional disparities in access to specialist resources and formalising agreements and protocols on multidisciplinary working between settings, be explicitly addressed.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation of a community-based, multidisciplinary, family-focused childhood weight management programme in Ireland: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the barriers and facilitators experienced by those implementing a government-funded, community-based childhood weight management programme. DESIGN: Qualitative using semistructured interviews. SETTING: Two geographical regions in the south and west of Ireland. PARTICIPANTS: 29 national-level and local-level stakeholders responsible for implementing the programme, including professionals from dietetics, psychology, public health nursing, physiotherapy, health promotion and administration. METHODS: Framework analysis was used to identify barriers and facilitators, which were mapped onto six levels of factors influencing implementation outlined by Grol and Wensing: the innovation, the individual professional, the patient, the social context, the organisational context and the external environment. RESULTS: Most barriers occurred at the level of the organisational context. For all stakeholders, barriers arose due to the multidisciplinary nature of the programme, including the lack of role clarity and added complexity of working in different locations. Health professionals' low-perceived self-efficacy in approaching the subject of weight with parents and parental resistance to hearing about their child's weight status were barriers to programme implementation at the individual professional and patient levels, respectively. The main facilitators of implementation, occurring at the level of the health professional, included stakeholders' recognition of the need for a weight management programme and personal interest in the area of childhood obesity. Having a local lead and supportive colleagues were further implementation drivers. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the complexities associated with implementing a multidisciplinary childhood weight management programme, particularly translating such a programme to a community setting. Our results suggest the assignment of clear roles and responsibilities, the provision of sufficient practical training and resources, and organisational support play pivotal roles in overcoming barriers to change. This evidence can be used to develop an implementation plan to support the translation of interventions into real-world settings.

Applying the ideal cardiovascular health metrics to couples: a cross-sectional study in primary care.

BACKGROUND: There is little research on overall cardiovascular (CV) health among couples. Our aim was to examine concordance levels for CV health among couples, using the American Heart Association ideal health metrics, and to investigate if the CV health of an individual is associated with that of his or her partner. HYPOTHESIS: There is a positive association between the overall cardiovascular health of an individual and that of his/her partner. METHODS: The Mitchelstown Study is a community-based cohort study of middle-aged Irish adults. Potential couples were identified as 2 study participants living at the same address. This list was cross-referenced with self-reported marital status and telephone number in the electronic patient record. Information on CV health metrics (smoking, body mass index, physical activity, diet, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose) was collected using standardized methods. Participants were categorized as ideal, intermediate, or poor for each of the metrics and for overall CV health. The 0- to 14-point CV health metrics score was compared within couples using linear regression. RESULTS: Of 2047 participants, 191 potential couples were identified. We excluded 6 sibling pairs, 1 divorced couple, and 3 couples who self-reported being single. The analysis includes 181 couples. There were significant associations between partners for smoking, diet, blood pressure, cholesterol, and glucose (P < 0.05). No couple had ideal CV health (ie, both partners with 7 ideal metrics). Most couples (n = 127, 69%) were concordant for poor CV health. There was a significant relationship between partners for the CV health metrics score (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest an individual's CV health is associated with that of his or her partner. Therefore, prevention strategies targeting couples and families may be appropriate.