Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Community-Living Older Adults: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The problem of loneliness has garnered increased attention from policymakers, payors, and providers due to higher rates during the pandemic, particularly among seniors. Prior systematic reviews have in general not been able to reach conclusions about effectiveness of interventions. METHODS: Computerized databases were searched using broad terms such as "loneliness" or "lonely" or "social isolation" or "social support" from Jan 1, 2011 to June 23, 2021. We reference mined existing systematic reviews for additional and older studies. The Social Interventions Research & Evaluation Network database and Google were searched for gray literature on Feb 4, 2022. Eligible studies were RCTs and observational studies of interventions to reduce loneliness in community-living adults that used a validated loneliness scale; studies from low- or middle-income countries were excluded, and studies were excluded if restricted to populations where all persons had the same disease (such as loneliness in persons with dementia). RESULTS: A total of 5971 titles were reviewed and 60 studies were included in the analysis, 36 RCTs and 24 observational studies. Eleven RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that group-based treatment was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.27, 95% CI - 0.48, - 0.08). Five RCTs and 5 observational studies provided moderate certainty evidence that internet training was associated with reduced loneliness (standardized mean difference for RCTs = - 0.22, 95% CI - 0.30, - 0.14). Low certainty evidence suggested that group exercises may be associated with very small reductions in loneliness. Evidence was insufficient to reach conclusions about group-based activities, individual in-person interactions, internet-delivered interventions, and telephone-delivered interventions. DISCUSSION: Low-to-moderate certainty evidence exists that group-based treatments, internet training, and possibly group exercises are associated with modest reductions in loneliness in community-living older adults. These findings can inform the design of supplemental benefits and the implementation of evidence-based interventions to address loneliness. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO ( CRD42021272305 ).

A Scoping Review of Guidelines and Quality Measures to Screen for Social and Caregiver Support and Cognitive Impairment in Primary Care.

High-risk patients-those patients with complex health care needs who are most likely to face hospitalization or death in the following two years-are most often initially seen in the primary care setting. This small group of patients uses a disproportionate amount of care resources. Contributing to the challenges of care planning for this population is that individuals are highly heterogeneous; no two patients present the same set of symptoms, diagnoses, and challenges related to social determinants of health (SDOH). Methods for early identification of these high-risk patients-and their care needs-have raised the possibility of timely enhanced care. In this study, the authors conduct a scoping review to identify existing measures of care quality; assessment and screening guidelines; and tools that (1) assess social support, the need for caregiver support, and the need for referral to social services and (2) screen for cognitive impairment (CI). Evidence-based screening guidelines define who and what should be assessed-and how often-to enhance care quality and improve health outcomes, whereas measures permit ascertainment that this assessment is occurring. Evidence-based guidelines and measures-those that are found to lead to better health care outcomes-would be candidates for inclusion in a measure dashboard for high-risk patients in primary care settings.

Veterans Health Administration (VA) vs. Non-VA Healthcare Quality: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) serves Veterans in the nation's largest integrated healthcare system. VA seeks to provide high quality of healthcare to Veterans, but due to the VA Choice and MISSION Acts, VA increasingly pays for care outside of its system in the community. This systematic review compares care provided in VA and non-VA settings, and includes published studies from 2015 to 2023, updating 2 prior systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, and PsychINFO from 2015 to 2023 for published literature comparing VA and non-VA care, including VA-paid community care. Records were included at the abstract or full-text level if they compared VA medical care with care provided in other healthcare systems, and included clinical quality, safety, access, patient experience, efficiency (cost), or equity outcomes. Data from included studies was abstracted by two independent reviewers, with disagreements resolved by consensus. Results were synthesized narratively and via graphical evidence maps. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included after screening 2415 titles. Twelve studies compared VA and VA-paid community care. Most studies assessed clinical quality and safety, and studies of access were second most common. Only six studies assessed patient experience and six assessed cost or efficiency. Clinical quality and safety of VA care was better than or equal to non-VA care in most studies. Patient experience in VA care was better than or equal to experience in non-VA care in all studies, but access and cost/efficiency outcomes were mixed. DISCUSSION: VA care is consistently as good as or better than non-VA care in terms of clinical quality and safety. Access, cost/efficiency, and patient experience between the two systems are not well studied. Further research is needed on these outcomes and on services widely used by Veterans in VA-paid community care, like physical medicine and rehabilitation.

Improving grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation evidence tables part 4: a three-arm noninferiority randomized trial demonstrates improved understanding of content in summary of findings tables with a new format.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate alternative formats of summary of findings (SoF) tables for single comparison with multiple outcomes. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a three-arm randomized controlled noninferiority trial (RCT) in the following systematic review (SR) users: researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, health care providers, policymakers, and knowledge transfer organizations to measure understanding, accessibility, satisfaction, and preference across the current grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) SoF, an alternative GRADE SoF, or an adapted evidence-based practice center (EPC) program SoF table. RESULTS: One Hundred Seventy-Nine participants were randomized, and 129 participants completed the RCT (n = 47 current GRADE, n = 41 alternative GRADE, n = 41 adapted EPC). Understanding the certainty of evidence and treatment effect was comparable across groups. The adapted EPC SoF table was inferior for quantifying risk and RD compared to the alternatives (<35% correct vs. >85% correct). Participants reported increased satisfaction when SoF tables presented number needed to treat (NNT), anticipated absolute effect differences, and narrative syntheses for evidence that could not be meta-analyzed. Participants reported accessibility to information as significantly better in both GRADE SoF tables, when compared with the adapted EPC SoF table. Participants preferred the alternative GRADE SoF table format. CONCLUSION: The alternative GRADE SoF table is a promising format for SR users preferring a comprehensive presentation of SR results for single comparisons.

Association of Promoting Housing Affordability and Stability With Improved Health Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Housing insecurity-that is, difficulty with housing affordability and stability-is prevalent and results in increased risk for both homelessness and poor health. However, whether interventions that prevent housing insecurity upstream of homelessness improve health remains uncertain. Objective: To review evidence characterizing associations of primary prevention strategies for housing insecurity with adult physical health, mental health, health-related behaviors, health care use, and health care access. Evidence Review: Pairs of independent reviewers systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, EconLit, and the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network for quantitative studies published from 2005 to 2021 that evaluated interventions intended to directly improve housing affordability and/or stability either by supporting at-risk households (targeted primary prevention) or by enhancing community-level housing supply and affordability in partnership with the health sector (structural primary prevention). Risk of bias was appraised using validated tools, and the evidence was synthesized using modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. Findings: A total of 26 articles describing 3 randomized trials and 20 observational studies (16 longitudinal designs and 4 cross-sectional quasi-waiting list control designs) were included. Existing interventions have focused primarily on mitigating housing insecurity for the most vulnerable individuals rather than preventing housing insecurity outright. Moderate-certainty evidence was found that eviction moratoriums were associated with reduced COVID-19 cases and deaths. Certainty of evidence was low or very low for health associations of other targeted primary prevention interventions, including emergency rent assistance, legal assistance with waiting list priority for public housing, long-term rent subsidies, and homeownership assistance. No studies evaluated health system-partnered structural primary prevention strategies. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found mixed and mostly low-certainty evidence that interventions that promote housing affordability and stability were associated with improved adult health outcomes. Existing interventions may need to be paired with other efforts to address the structural determinants of health. As health care systems and insurers respond to increasing opportunities to invest in housing as a determinant of health, further research is needed to clarify where along the housing insecurity pathway interventions should focus for the most effective and equitable health impact.

Economic evaluation of quality improvement interventions to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections in the hospital setting: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals have implemented diverse quality improvement (QI) interventions to reduce rates of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTIs). The economic value of these QI interventions is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to prevent CAUTI in acute care hospitals. METHODS: A search of Ovid MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, WorldCat, IDWeek conference abstracts and prior systematic reviews was conducted from January 2000 to October 2020.We included English-language studies of any design that evaluated organisational or structural changes to prevent CAUTI in acute care hospitals, and reported programme and infection-related costs.Dual reviewers assessed study design, effectiveness, costs and study quality. For each eligible study, we performed a cost-consequences analysis from the hospital perspective, estimating the incidence rate ratio (IRR) and incremental net cost/savings per hospital over 3 years. Unadjusted weighted regression analyses tested predictors of these measures, weighted by catheter days per study. RESULTS: Fifteen unique economic evaluations were eligible, encompassing 74 hospitals. Across 12 studies amenable to standardisation, QI interventions were associated with a 43% decline in infections (mean IRR 0.57, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.70) and wide ranges of net costs (mean US$52 000, 95% CI -$288 000 to $392 000), relative to usual care. CONCLUSIONS: QI interventions were associated with large declines in infection rates and net costs to hospitals that varied greatly but that, on average, were not significantly different from zero over 3 years. Future research should examine specific practices associated with cost-savings and clinical effectiveness, and examine whether or not more comprehensive interventions offer hospitals and patients the best value.

Clinical outcomes and cost of robotic ventral hernia repair: systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Robotic ventral hernia repair (VHR) has seen rapid adoption, but with limited data assessing clinical outcome or cost. This systematic review compared robotic VHR with laparoscopic and open approaches. METHODS: This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched for articles with terms relating to 'robot-assisted', 'cost effectiveness', and 'ventral hernia' or 'incisional hernia' from 1 January 2010 to 10 November 2020. Intraoperative and postoperative outcomes, pain, recurrence, and cost data were extracted for narrative analysis. RESULTS: Of 25 studies that met the inclusion criteria, three were RCTs and 22 observational studies. Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation than open and laparoscopic repairs, but with fewer transfusions, shorter hospital stay, and lower complication rates than open repair. Robotic VHR was more expensive than laparoscopic repair, but not significantly different from open surgery in terms of cost. There were no significant differences in rates of intraoperative complication, conversion to open surgery, surgical-site infection, readmission, mortality, pain, or recurrence between the three approaches. CONCLUSION: Robotic VHR was associated with a longer duration of operation, fewer transfusions, a shorter hospital stay, and fewer complications compared with open surgery. Robotic VHR had higher costs and a longer operating time than laparoscopic repair. Randomized or matched data with standardized reporting, long-term outcomes, and cost-effectiveness analyses are still required to weigh the clinical benefits against the cost of robotic VHR.

Assessment of Variation in Electronic Health Record Capabilities and Reported Clinical Quality Performance in Ambulatory Care Clinics, 2014-2017.

Importance: Electronic health records (EHRs) are widely promoted to improve the quality of health care, but information about the association of multifunctional EHRs with broad measures of quality in ambulatory settings is scarce. Objective: To assess the association between EHRs with different degrees of capabilities and publicly reported ambulatory quality measures in at least 3 clinical domains of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional and longitudinal study was conducted using survey responses from 1141 ambulatory clinics in Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin affiliated with a health system that responded to the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society Annual Survey and reported performance measures in 2014 to 2017. Statistical analysis was performed from July 10, 2019, through February 26, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: A composite measure of EHR capability that considered 50 EHR capabilities in 7 functional domains, grouped into the following ordered categories: no functional EHR, EHR underuser, EHR, neither underuser or superuser, EHR superuser; as well as a standardized composite of ambulatory clinical performance measures that included 3 to 25 individual measures (median, 13 individual measures). Results: In 2014, 381 of 746 clinics (51%) were EHR superusers; this proportion increased in each subsequent year (457 of 846 clinics [54%] in 2015, 510 of 881 clinics [58%] in 2016, and 566 of 932 clinics [61%] in 2017). In each cross-sectional analysis year, EHR superusers had better clinical quality performance than other clinics (adjusted difference in score: 0.39 [95% CI, 0.12-0.65] in 2014; 0.29 [95% CI, -0.01 to 0.59] in 2015; 0.26 [95% CI, -0.05 to 0.56] in 2016; and 0.20 [95% CI, -0.04 to 0.45] in 2017). This difference in scores translates into an approximately 9% difference in a clinic's rank order in clinical quality. In longitudinal analyses, clinics that progressed to EHR superuser status had only slightly better gains in clinical quality between 2014 and 2017 compared with the gains in clinical quality of clinics that were static in terms of their EHR status (0.10 [95% CI, -0.13 to 0.32]). In an exploratory analysis, different types of EHR capability progressions had different degrees of associated improvements in ambulatory clinical quality (eg, progression from no functional EHR to a status short of superuser, 0.06 [95% CI, -0.40 to 0.52]; progression from EHR underuser to EHR superuser, 0.18 [95% CI, -0.14 to 0.50]). Conclusions and Relevance: Between 2014 and 2017, ambulatory clinics in Minnesota, Washington, and Wisconsin with EHRs having greater capabilities had better composite measures of clinical quality than other clinics, but clinics that gained EHR capabilities during this time had smaller increases in clinical quality that were not statistically significant.

Interventions to Address Food Insecurity Among Adults in Canada and the US: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Inadequate access to food is a risk factor for poor health and the effectiveness of federal programs targeting food insecurity, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), are well-documented. The associations between other types of interventions to provide adequate food access and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization, however, are unclear. Objective: To review evidence on the association between food insecurity interventions and food insecurity status, clinically-relevant health outcomes, and health care utilization among adults, excluding SNAP. Data Sources: A systematic search for English-language literature was performed in PubMed Central and Cochrane Trials databases (inception to January 23, 2020), the Social Interventions Research and Evaluation Network database (December 10, 2019); and the gray literature using Google (February 1, 2021). Study Selection: Studies of any design that assessed the association between food insecurity interventions for adult participants and food insecurity status, health outcomes, and health care utilization were screened for inclusion. Studies of interventions that described addressing participants' food needs or reporting food insecurity as an outcome were included. Interventions were categorized as home-delivered food, food offered at a secondary site, monetary assistance in the form of subsidies or income supplements, food desert interventions, and miscellaneous. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was performed independently by 3 reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, the ROBINS-I (Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions) tool, and a modified version of the National Institutes of Health's Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After Studies With No Control. The certainty of evidence was based on GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) criteria and supplemented with mechanistic and parallel evidence. For outcomes within intervention categories with at least 3 studies, random effects meta-analysis was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Food insecurity (measured through surveys; eg, the 2-item Hunger Vital Sign), health outcomes (eg, hemoglobin A1c), and health care utilization (eg, hospitalizations, costs). Results: A total of 39 studies comprising 170 605 participants were included (8 randomized clinical trials and 31 observational studies). Of these, 14 studies provided high-certainty evidence of an association between offering food and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.33-0.67). Ten studies provided moderate-certainty evidence of an association between offering monetary assistance and reduced food insecurity (pooled random effects; adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.84). There were fewer studies of the associations between interventions and health outcomes or health care utilization, and the evidence in these areas was of low or very low certainty that any food insecurity interventions were associated with changes in either. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review with meta-analysis found that providing food and monetary assistance was associated with improved food insecurity measures; however, whether it translated to better health outcomes or reduced health care utilization was unclear.

Getting Value From Electronic Health Records: Research Needed to Improve Practice.

Electronic health records (EHRs) are now widely adopted in the United States, but health systems have barely begun using them to deliver high-value care. More directed and rigorous research is needed to fulfill the promise of EHRs to not only store information but also support the delivery of better care. This article describes 4 potential benefits of EHR-based research: improving clinical decisions, supporting triage decisions, enabling collaboration among the care team (including patients), and increasing productivity via automation of tasks. Six recommendations are made for conducting and reporting research to catalyze value creation: develop interventions systematically by using user-centered design and a building-block approach; assess value in terms of cost, quality, outcomes, and work required of providers and patients; consider the time horizon for the intervention; test best practices for implementation in a range of real-world contexts; assess subtleties of behavior change tools used to improve high-value behaviors; and report the intervention in enough detail that it can be replicated, including context. Just as research played a critical role in developing early EHR prototypes and demonstrating their value to justify dissemination, research will continue to be essential in the next phase: expanding EHR-based interventions and maximizing their role in creating value.

What Is the Optimal Primary Care Panel Size?: A Systematic Review.

Background: Primary care for a panel of patients is a central component of population health, but the optimal panel size is unclear. Purpose: To review evidence about the association of primary care panel size with health care outcomes and provider burnout. Data Sources: English-language searches of multiple databases from inception to October 2019 and Google searches performed in September 2019. Study Selection: English-language studies of any design, including simulation models, that assessed the association between primary care panel size and safety, efficacy, patient-centeredness, timeliness, efficiency, equity, or provider burnout. Data Extraction: Independent, dual-reviewer extraction; group consensus rating of certainty of evidence. Data Synthesis: Sixteen hypothesis-testing studies and 12 simulation modeling studies met inclusion criteria. All but 1 hypothesis-testing study were cross-sectional assessments of association. Three studies each provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with no or modestly adverse effects on patient-centered and effective care. Eight studies provided low-certainty evidence that increasing panel size was associated with variable effects on timely care. No studies assessed the effect of panel size on safety, efficiency, or equity. One study provided very-low-certainty evidence of an association between increased panel size and provider burnout. The 12 simulation studies evaluated 5 models; all used access as the only outcome of care. Five and 2 studies, respectively, provided moderate-certainty evidence that adjusting panel size for case mix and adding clinical conditions to the case mix resulted in better access. Limitation: No studies had concurrent comparison groups, and published and unpublished studies may have been missed. Conclusion: Evidence is insufficient to make evidence-based recommendations about the optimal primary care panel size for achieving beneficial health outcomes. Primary Funding Source: Veterans Affairs Quality Enhancement Research Initiative.

The future of health systems to 2030: a roadmap for global progress and sustainability.

Most research on health systems examines contemporary problems within one, or at most a few, countries. Breaking with this tradition, we present a series of case studies in a book written by key policymakers, scholars and experts, looking at health systems and their projected successes to 2030. Healthcare Systems: Future Predictions for Global Care includes chapters on 52 individual countries and five regions, covering a total of 152 countries. Synthesised, two key contributions are made in this compendium. First, five trends shaping the future healthcare landscape are analysed: sustainable health systems; the genomics revolution; emerging technologies; global demographics dynamics; and new models of care. Second, nine main themes arise from the chapters: integration of healthcare services; financing, economics and insurance; patient-based care and empowering the patient; universal healthcare; technology and information technology; aging populations; preventative care; accreditation, standards, and policy; and human development, education and training. These five trends and nine themes can be used as a blueprint for change. They can help strengthen the efforts of stakeholders interested in reform, ranging from international bodies such as the World Health Organization, the International Society for Quality in Health Care and the World Bank, through to national bodies such as health departments, quality and safety agencies, non-government organisations (NGO) and other groups with an interest in improving healthcare delivery systems. This compendium offers more than a glimpse into the future of healthcare-it provides a roadmap to help shape thinking about the next generation of caring systems, extrapolated over the next 15 years.

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Improve Glycemic Control in Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Weighted Regression Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Quality improvement (QI) interventions can improve glycemic control, but little is known about their value. We systematically reviewed economic evaluations of QI interventions for glycemic control among adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: We used English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational changes and reported program and utilization-related costs, chosen from PubMed, EconLit, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and WorldCat (January 2004 to August 2016). We extracted data regarding intervention, study design, change in HbA1c, time horizon, perspective, incremental net cost (studies lasting ≤3 years), incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) (studies lasting ≥20 years), and study quality. Weighted least-squares regression analysis was used to estimate mean changes in HbA1c and incremental net cost. RESULTS: Of 3,646 records, 46 unique studies were eligible. Across 19 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), HbA1c declined by 0.26% (95% CI 0.17-0.35) or 3 mmol/mol (2 to 4) relative to usual care. In 8 RCTs lasting ≤3 years, incremental net costs were $116 (95% CI -$612 to $843) per patient annually. Long-term ICERs were $100,000-$115,000/quality-adjusted life year (QALY) in 3 RCTs, $50,000-$99,999/QALY in 1 RCT, $0-$49,999/QALY in 4 RCTs, and dominant in 1 RCT. Results were more favorable in non-RCTs. Our limitations include the fact that the studies had diverse designs and involved moderate risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse multifaceted QI interventions that lower HbA1c appear to be a fair-to-good value relative to usual care, depending on society's willingness to pay for improvements in health.

The Cost of Interventions to Increase Influenza Vaccination: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: Influenza vaccination rates remain below Healthy People 2020 goals. This project sought to systematically review economic evaluations of healthcare-based quality improvement interventions for improving influenza vaccination uptake among general populations and healthcare workers. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The databases MEDLINE, Econlit, Centre for Reviews & Dissemination, Greylit, and Worldcat were searched in July 2016 for papers published from January 2004 to July 2016. Eligible studies evaluated efforts by bodies within the healthcare system to encourage influenza vaccination by means of an organizational or structural change. For each study, program costs per enrollee and per additional enrollee vaccinated were derived (excluding vaccine costs, standardized to 2017 U.S. dollars). Complete economic evaluations were examined when available. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 2,350 records, 18 articles were eligible and described 29 unique interventions. Most interventions improved vaccine uptake. Among 23 interventions in general populations, the median program cost was $3.27 (interquartile range, $0.82-$11.53) per enrollee and $50.78 (interquartile range, $27.85-$124.84) per additional enrollee vaccinated. Among ten complete economic evaluations in general populations, three studies reported net cost savings, four reported costs <$50,000 per quality-adjusted life year, and three reported costs <$60,000 per life saved. Among six interventions in healthcare workers, the median program cost was $8.09 (interquartile range, $5.03-$10.31) per worker enrolled and $125.24 (interquartile range, $96.06-$171.38) per additional worker vaccinated (there were no complete economic analyses). CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvement interventions for influenza vaccination involve per-enrollee costs that are similar to the cost of the vaccine itself ($11.78-$36.08/dose). Based on limited available evidence in general populations, quality improvement interventions may be cost saving to cost effective for the health system.

Two alternatives versus the standard Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) summary of findings (SoF) tables to improve understanding in the presentation of systematic review results: a three-arm, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial.

OBJECTIVE: Summary of findings (SoF) tables present results of systematic reviews in a concise and explicit format. Adopted by many review groups including the Cochrane Collaboration and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), optimal understanding of SoF table may be influenced by the type of information being conveyed and objectives or preferences of the end user. This study aims to compare three SoF table formats in terms of understanding, accessibility, satisfaction and preference with systematic review users. METHODS: The primary objective of this three-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial is to investigate whether an alternative Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) SoF table or Evidence-based Practice Center SoF table is non-inferior to the current GRADE SoF table in the understanding of the information presented to systematic review users, particularly for descriptive findings. Researchers, clinical practice guideline developers, policy-makers or knowledge transfer professionals will be recruited. Data will be collected electronically at baseline and after randomisation. Non-inferiority would be declared if the difference in the proportion of participants who understand the information displayed in the alternative SoF table is 10% or less. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed this protocol. The findings from this study will be disseminated through a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02813941.

Development of a Group Judgment Process for Forecasts of Health Care Innovations.

Importance: Health care costs have increased substantially over the past few decades, in part owing to the development and diffusion of new medical treatments. Forecasting potential future technologic innovations can allow for more informed planning. Objective: To assess the predictive validity of a structured formal method for forecasting future technologic innovations in health care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pilot study combined an untested, unvalidated combination of a consensus process and group judgment process to evaluate forecasts made in 2001 for technologic innovations by 2021 in Alzheimer disease (AD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Six experts in AD and 7 experts in CVD composed the judgment group. The study was conducted in 2017-2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: Year 2001 forecasts for 2021 that were judged by experts as being close to correct, directionally correct, or not correct, as well as innovations that occurred since 2001 that were not predicted. Results: Four forecasts of innovations in AD, each considered to be between 30% and 40% likely to be achieved by 2021, were judged to be close to correct. One forecast was considered to be directionally correct, with a likelihood of occurrence of 40%, in that it was overoptimistic. One innovation that occurred was missed: new imaging techniques (amyloid ß plaque and tau tangle positron emission tomographic imaging). Five forecasts of CVD innovations were considered to be at least 50% likely to occur by 2021, and of these, 2 were judged to be close to correct, 1 was judged as being directionally correct, and 2 were judged as being not correct (although in one of these forecasts, the overarching innovation has been achieved but with a different noninvasive imaging modality). Of 7 additional forecasts considered to be less likely to be achieved by 2021, 4 were judged to be close to correct and 3 were judged as being directionally correct. Two innovations occurred but were missed: transcatheter aortic valve replacement and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Across both conditions, 15 of 17 innovations forecasted were judged to be close to correct or directionally correct, 2 were judged to be incorrect, and there were 3 missed innovations. Conclusions and Relevance: Expert elicitation provided a useful, but not fully accurate, lens into future innovation.

Accomplishing reform: successful case studies drawn from the health systems of 60 countries.

Healthcare reform typically involves orchestrating a policy change, mediated through some form of operational, systems, financial, process or practice intervention. The aim is to improve the ways in which care is delivered to patients. In our book 'Health Systems Improvement Across the Globe: Success Stories from 60 Countries', we gathered case-study accomplishments from 60 countries. A unique feature of the collection is the diversity of included countries, from the wealthiest and most politically stable such as Japan, Qatar and Canada, to some of the poorest, most densely populated or politically challenged, including Afghanistan, Guinea and Nigeria. Despite constraints faced by health reformers everywhere, every country was able to share a story of accomplishment-defining how their case example was managed, what services were affected and ultimately how patients, staff, or the system overall, benefited. The reform themes ranged from those relating to policy, care coverage and governance; to quality, standards, accreditation and regulation; to the organization of care; to safety, workforce and resources; to technology and IT; through to practical ways in which stakeholders forged collaborations and partnerships to achieve mutual aims. Common factors linked to success included the 'acorn-to-oak tree' principle (a small scale initiative can lead to system-wide reforms); the 'data-to-information-to-intelligence' principle (the role of IT and data are becoming more critical for delivering efficient and appropriate care, but must be converted into useful intelligence); the 'many-hands' principle (concerted action between stakeholders is key); and the 'patient-as-the-pre-eminent-player' principle (placing patients at the centre of reform designs is critical for success).

What Defines a High-Performing Health Care Delivery System: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Purchasers, payers, and policy makers are increasingly measuring and rewarding high-performing health systems, which use a variety of definitions of high performance, yet it is unclear if a consistently applied definition exists. A systematic review was conducted to determine if there is a commonly used, agreed-on definition of what constitutes a "high-performing" health care delivery system. METHODS: Searches were conducted for English-language articles defining high performance with respect to a health care system or organization in PubMed and WorldCat databases from 2005 to 2015 and the New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report from 1999 to 2016. The entity/condition to which the definition was applied was extracted from included articles. The number and type of dimensions used to define high performance within and across articles was tabulated and the number and type of metrics used by performance dimension and by article was calculated. RESULTS: No consistent definition of a high-performing health care system or organization was identified. High performance was variably defined across different dimensions, including quality (93% of articles), cost (67%), access (35%), equity (26%), patient experience (21%), and patient safety (18%). Most articles used more than one dimension to define high performance (75%), but only five used five or more dimensions. The most commonly paired dimensions were quality and cost (63%). CONCLUSION: The absence of a consistent definition of what constitutes high performance and how to measure it hinders our ability to compare and reward health care delivery systems on performance, underscoring the need to develop a consistent definition of high performance.

Economic Evaluation of Quality Improvement Interventions Designed to Prevent Hospital Readmission: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Quality improvement (QI) interventions can reduce hospital readmission, but little is known about their economic value. Objective: To systematically review economic evaluations of QI interventions designed to reduce readmissions. Data Sources: Databases searched included PubMed, Econlit, the Centre for Reviews & Dissemination Economic Evaluations, New York Academy of Medicine's Grey Literature Report, and Worldcat (January 2004 to July 2016). Study Selection: Dual reviewers selected English-language studies from high-income countries that evaluated organizational or structural changes to reduce hospital readmission, and that reported program and readmission-related costs. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Dual reviewers extracted intervention characteristics, study design, clinical effectiveness, study quality, economic perspective, and costs. We calculated the risk difference and net costs to the health system in 2015 US dollars. Weighted least-squares regression analyses tested predictors of the risk difference and net costs. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes measures included the risk difference in readmission rates and incremental net cost. This systematic review and data analysis is reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: Of 5205 articles, 50 unique studies were eligible, including 25 studies in populations limited to heart failure (HF) that included 5768 patients, 21 in general populations that included 10 445 patients, and 4 in unique populations. Fifteen studies lasted up to 30 days while most others lasted 6 to 24 months. Based on regression analyses, readmissions declined by an average of 12.1% among patients with HF (95% CI, 8.3%-15.9%; P < .001; based on 22 studies with complete data) and by 6.3% among general populations (95% CI, 4.0%-8.7%; P < .001; 18 studies). The mean net savings to the health system per patient was $972 among patients with HF (95% CI, -$642 to $2586; P = .23; 24 studies), and the mean net loss was $169 among general populations (95% CI, -$2610 to $2949; P = .90; 21 studies), reflecting nonsignificant differences. Among general populations, interventions that engaged patients and caregivers were associated with greater net savings ($1714 vs -$6568; P = .006). Conclusions and Relevance: Multicomponent QI interventions can be effective at reducing readmissions relative to the status quo, but net costs vary. Interventions that engage general populations of patients and their caregivers may offer greater value to the health system, but the implications for patients and caregivers are unknown.

Strategies to Reduce Hospitalizations of Children With Medical Complexity Through Complex Care: Expert Perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: Interventions to reduce disproportionate hospital use among children with medical complexity (CMC) are needed. We conducted a rigorous, structured process to develop intervention strategies aiming to reduce hospitalizations within a complex care program population. METHODS: A complex care medical home program used 1) semistructured interviews of caregivers of CMC experiencing acute, unscheduled hospitalizations and 2) literature review on preventing hospitalizations among CMC to develop key drivers for lowering hospital utilization and link them with intervention strategies. Using an adapted version of the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method, an expert panel rated each model for effectiveness at impacting each key driver and ultimately reducing hospitalizations. The complex care program applied these findings to select a final set of feasible intervention strategies for implementation. RESULTS: Intervention strategies focused on expanding access to familiar providers, enhancing general or technical caregiver knowledge and skill, creating specific and proactive crisis or contingency plans, and improving transitions between hospital and home. Activities aimed to facilitate family-centered, flexible implementation and consideration of all of the child's environments, including school and while traveling. Tailored activities and special attention to the highest utilizing subset of CMC were also critical for these interventions. CONCLUSIONS: A set of intervention strategies to reduce hospitalizations among CMC, informed by key drivers, can be created through a structured, reproducible process. Both this process and the results may be relevant to clinical programs and researchers aiming to reduce hospital utilization through the medical home for CMC.