Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys.

BACKGROUND: This is an updated version of a Cochrane Review first published in 2014. Phimosis is a condition in which the prepuce (foreskin) cannot be fully retracted past the head of the penis (glans). Phimosis is often treated surgically by circumcision or prepuce plasty; however, reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids applied for four to eight weeks have suggested favorable outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of topical corticosteroids applied to the stenotic portion of the prepuce for the treatment of phimosis in boys compared with placebo or no treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, and ClinicalTrial.gov. We checked reference lists of included studies and relevant reviews for additional studies. There were no restrictions on the language of publication. The date of the last search was 4 October 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the use of any topical corticosteroid with placebo or no treatment for boys with any type or degree of phimosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data related to the review's primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed the studies' risk of bias. We used the random-effects model for statistical analyses and expressed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We contacted the authors of the primary articles to request details of the study design and specific outcome data. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence on a per-outcome basis. MAIN RESULTS: In this update, we identified two new studies with 111 participants, bringing the total number of included studies to 14 (1459 randomized participants). We found that types of corticosteroids investigated, participant age, degree of phimosis, type of phimosis, and treatment duration varied considerably among studies. Compared with placebo or no treatment, topical corticosteroids may increase the complete resolution of phimosis after four to eight weeks of treatment (RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.79 to 4.16; I² = 72%; 10 trials, 834 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 252 complete resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 436 more complete resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 199 more to 796 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious inconsistency. Topical corticosteroids may also increase the partial resolution of phimosis at four to eight weeks of treatment compared with placebo or no treatment (RR 1.68, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.40; I² = 44%; 7 trials, 745 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 297 partial resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 202 more partial resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 50 more to 416 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious inconsistency. We are uncertain of the effect of topical corticosteroids compared to placebo on change in retractability score (standardized mean difference [SMD] -1.48, 95% CI -2.93 to -0.03; I²91%; 2 trials, 177 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations, one level for serious heterogeneity, and one level for serious imprecision. Compared with placebo, topical corticosteroids may increase the long-term complete resolution of phimosis six or more months after treatment (RR 4.09, 95% CI 2.80 to 5.97; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 280 participants; low-certainty evidence). Based on 171 long-term complete resolutions per 1000 boys in the control group, this corresponds to 528 more complete resolutions per 1000 boys (95% CI 308 more to 850 more). We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious imprecision. There may be little or no difference in the risk of adverse effects between topical corticosteroids and placebo or no treatment (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.62; I² = 22%; 11 trials, 1091 participants; low-certainty evidence). Only two of 11 studies that recorded adverse effects reported any adverse effects; one event occurred in the corticosteroid group and six in the control group. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence by one level for serious study limitations and by one level for serious imprecision. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids, compared to placebo or no treatment, may increase complete and partial resolution of phimosis when assessed after four to eight weeks of treatment, and may increase long-term complete resolution of phimosis assessed six or more months after treatment. Topical corticosteroids may have few or no adverse effects, and we are uncertain about their effect on retractability scores. The body of evidence is limited by poor reporting of methods in the studies, important clinical heterogeneity, and serious imprecision in the results. Future, higher-quality trials with long-term follow-up would likely improve our understanding of the effects of topical corticoids on phimosis in boys.

Pharmaceutical policies: effects of regulating drug insurance schemes.

BACKGROUND: Drug insurance schemes are systems that provide access to medicines on a prepaid basis and could potentially improve access to essential medicines and reduce out-of-pocket payments for vulnerable populations. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on drug use, drug expenditure, healthcare utilisation and healthcare outcomes of alternative policies for regulating drug insurance schemes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases, and two trials registers between November 2014 and September 2020, including a citation search for included studies on 15 September 2021 using Web of Science. We screened reference lists of all the relevant reports that we retrieved and reports from the Background section. Authors of relevant papers, relevant organisations, and discussion lists were contacted to identify additional studies, including unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We planned to include randomised trials, non-randomised trials, interrupted time-series studies (including controlled ITS [CITS] and repeated measures [RM] studies), and controlled before-after (CBA) studies. Two review authors independently assessed the search results and reference lists of relevant reports, retrieved the full text of potentially relevant references and independently applied the inclusion criteria to those studies. We resolved disagreements by discussion, and when necessary by including a third review author. We excluded studies of the following pharmaceutical policies covered in other Cochrane Reviews: those that determined how decisions were made about which conditions or drugs were covered; those that placed restrictions on reimbursement for drugs that were covered; and those that regulated out-of-pocket payments for drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from the included studies and assessed risk of bias for each study, with disagreements being resolved by consensus. We used the criteria suggested by  Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC)  to assess the risk of bias of included studies. For randomised trials, non-randomised trials and controlled before-after studies, we planned to report relative effects. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported the risk ratio (RR) when possible and adjusted for baseline differences in the outcome measures. For interrupted time series and controlled interrupted time-series studies, we computed changes along two dimensions: change in level; and change in slope. We undertook a structured synthesis following the EPOC guidance on this topic, describing the range of effects found in the studies for each category of outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 58 studies that met the inclusion criteria (25 interrupted time-series studies and 33 controlled before-after studies). Most of the studies (54) assessed a single policy implemented in the United States (US) healthcare system: Medicare Part D. The other four assessed other drug insurance schemes from Canada and the US, but only one of them provided analysable data for inclusion in the quantitative synthesis. The introduction of drug insurance schemes may increase prescription drug use (low-certainty evidence). On the other hand, Medicare Part D may decrease drug expenditure measured as both out-of-pocket spending and total drug spending (low-certainty evidence). Regarding healthcare utilisation, drug insurance policies (such as Medicare Part D) may lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department. However, it is uncertain whether this type of policy increases or decreases hospital admissions or outpatient visits by beneficiaries of the scheme because the certainty of the evidence was very low. Likewise, it is uncertain if the policy increases or reduces health outcomes such as mortality because the certainty of the evidence was very low. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of drug insurance schemes such as Medicare Part D in the US health system may increase prescription drug use and may decrease out-of-pocket payments by the beneficiaries of the scheme and total drug expenditures. It may also lead to a small increase in visits to the emergency department by the beneficiaries of the policy. Its effects on other healthcare utilisation outcomes and on health outcomes are uncertain because of the very low certainty of the evidence. The applicability of this evidence to settings outside US healthcare is limited.

Governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Governance arrangements include changes in rules or processes that determine authority and accountability for health policies, organisations, commercial products and health professionals, as well as the involvement of stakeholders in decision-making. Changes in governance arrangements can affect health and related goals in numerous ways, generally through changes in authority, accountability, openness, participation and coherence. A broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers, their technical support staff and other stakeholders to identify strategies for addressing problems and improving the governance of their health systems. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of governance arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on governance arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for governance arrangements outlined in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of governance arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use (health expenditures, healthcare provider costs, out-of-pocket payments, cost-effectiveness), healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty, employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations that were important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings of the review. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 21 of them in this overview (19 primary reviews and 2 supplementary reviews). We focus here on the results of the 19 primary reviews, one of which had important methodological limitations. The other 18 were reliable (with only minor limitations).We grouped the governance arrangements addressed in the reviews into five categories: authority and accountability for health policies (three reviews); authority and accountability for organisations (two reviews); authority and accountability for commercial products (three reviews); authority and accountability for health professionals (seven reviews); and stakeholder involvement (four reviews).Overall, we found desirable effects for the following interventions on at least one outcome, with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Decision-making about what is covered by health insurance- Placing restrictions on the medicines reimbursed by health insurance systems probably decreases the use of and spending on these medicines (moderate-certainty evidence). Stakeholder participation in policy and organisational decisions- Participatory learning and action groups for women probably improve newborn survival (moderate-certainty evidence).- Consumer involvement in preparing patient information probably improves the quality of the information and patient knowledge (moderate-certainty evidence). Disclosing performance information to patients and the public- Disclosing performance data on hospital quality to the public probably encourages hospitals to implement quality improvement activities (moderate-certainty evidence).- Disclosing performance data on individual healthcare providers to the public probably leads people to select providers that have better quality ratings (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Investigators have evaluated a wide range of governance arrangements that are relevant for low-income countries using sound systematic review methods. These strategies have been targeted at different levels in health systems, and studies have assessed a range of outcomes. Moderate-certainty evidence shows desirable effects (with no undesirable effects) for some interventions. However, there are important gaps in the availability of systematic reviews and primary studies for the all of the main categories of governance arrangements.

Implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: A key function of health systems is implementing interventions to improve health, but coverage of essential health interventions remains low in low-income countries. Implementing interventions can be challenging, particularly if it entails complex changes in clinical routines; in collaborative patterns among different healthcare providers and disciplines; in the behaviour of providers, patients or other stakeholders; or in the organisation of care. Decision-makers may use a range of strategies to implement health interventions, and these choices should be based on evidence of the strategies' effectiveness. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of implementation strategies for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on alternative implementation strategies and informing refinements of the framework for implementation strategies presented in the overview. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of implementation strategies on professional practice and patient outcomes and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the review findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence) and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 39 of them in this overview. An additional four reviews provided supplementary information. Of the 39 reviews, 32 had only minor limitations and 7 had important methodological limitations. Most studies in the reviews were from high-income countries. There were no studies from low-income countries in eight reviews.Implementation strategies addressed in the reviews were grouped into four categories - strategies targeting:1. healthcare organisations (e.g. strategies to change organisational culture; 1 review);2. healthcare workers by type of intervention (e.g. printed educational materials; 14 reviews);3. healthcare workers to address a specific problem (e.g. unnecessary antibiotic prescription; 9 reviews);4. healthcare recipients (e.g. medication adherence; 15 reviews).Overall, we found the following interventions to have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects.1.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers: educational meetings, nutrition training of health workers, educational outreach, practice facilitation, local opinion leaders, audit and feedback, and tailored interventions.2.Strategies targeted at healthcare workers for specific types of problems: training healthcare workers to be more patient-centred in clinical consultations, use of birth kits, strategies such as clinician education and patient education to reduce antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care settings, and in-service neonatal emergency care training.3. Strategies targeted at healthcare recipients: mass media interventions to increase uptake of HIV testing; intensive self-management and adherence, intensive disease management programmes to improve health literacy; behavioural interventions and mobile phone text messages for adherence to antiretroviral therapy; a one time incentive to start or continue tuberculosis prophylaxis; default reminders for patients being treated for active tuberculosis; use of sectioned polythene bags for adherence to malaria medication; community-based health education, and reminders and recall strategies to increase vaccination uptake; interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening (invitations, education, counselling, access to health promotion nurse and intensive recruitment); health insurance information and application support. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Reliable systematic reviews have evaluated a wide range of strategies for implementing evidence-based interventions in low-income countries. Most of the available evidence is focused on strategies targeted at healthcare workers and healthcare recipients and relates to process-based outcomes. Evidence of the effects of strategies targeting healthcare organisations is scarce.

Delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries: an overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Delivery arrangements include changes in who receives care and when, who provides care, the working conditions of those who provide care, coordination of care amongst different providers, where care is provided, the use of information and communication technology to deliver care, and quality and safety systems. How services are delivered can have impacts on the effectiveness, efficiency and equity of health systems. This broad overview of the findings of systematic reviews can help policymakers and other stakeholders identify strategies for addressing problems and improve the delivery of services. OBJECTIVES: To provide an overview of the available evidence from up-to-date systematic reviews about the effects of delivery arrangements for health systems in low-income countries. Secondary objectives include identifying needs and priorities for future evaluations and systematic reviews on delivery arrangements and informing refinements of the framework for delivery arrangements outlined in the review. METHODS: We searched Health Systems Evidence in November 2010 and PDQ-Evidence up to 17 December 2016 for systematic reviews. We did not apply any date, language or publication status limitations in the searches. We included well-conducted systematic reviews of studies that assessed the effects of delivery arrangements on patient outcomes (health and health behaviours), the quality or utilisation of healthcare services, resource use, healthcare provider outcomes (such as sick leave), or social outcomes (such as poverty or employment) and that were published after April 2005. We excluded reviews with limitations important enough to compromise the reliability of the findings. Two overview authors independently screened reviews, extracted data, and assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We prepared SUPPORT Summaries for eligible reviews, including key messages, 'Summary of findings' tables (using GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence), and assessments of the relevance of findings to low-income countries. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 7272 systematic reviews and included 51 of them in this overview. We judged 6 of the 51 reviews to have important methodological limitations and the other 45 to have only minor limitations. We grouped delivery arrangements into eight categories. Some reviews provided more than one comparison and were in more than one category. Across these categories, the following intervention were effective; that is, they have desirable effects on at least one outcome with moderate- or high-certainty evidence and no moderate- or high-certainty evidence of undesirable effects. Who receives care and when: queuing strategies and antenatal care to groups of mothers. Who provides care: lay health workers for caring for people with hypertension, lay health workers to deliver care for mothers and children or infectious diseases, lay health workers to deliver community-based neonatal care packages, midlevel health professionals for abortion care, social support to pregnant women at risk, midwife-led care for childbearing women, non-specialist providers in mental health and neurology, and physician-nurse substitution. Coordination of care: hospital clinical pathways, case management for people living with HIV and AIDS, interactive communication between primary care doctors and specialists, hospital discharge planning, adding a service to an existing service and integrating delivery models, referral from primary to secondary care, physician-led versus nurse-led triage in emergency departments, and team midwifery. Where care is provided: high-volume institutions, home-based care (with or without multidisciplinary team) for people living with HIV and AIDS, home-based management of malaria, home care for children with acute physical conditions, community-based interventions for childhood diarrhoea and pneumonia, out-of-facility HIV and reproductive health services for youth, and decentralised HIV care. Information and communication technology: mobile phone messaging for patients with long-term illnesses, mobile phone messaging reminders for attendance at healthcare appointments, mobile phone messaging to promote adherence to antiretroviral therapy, women carrying their own case notes in pregnancy, interventions to improve childhood vaccination. Quality and safety systems: decision support with clinical information systems for people living with HIV/AIDS. Complex interventions (cutting across delivery categories and other health system arrangements): emergency obstetric referral interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A wide range of strategies have been evaluated for improving delivery arrangements in low-income countries, using sound systematic review methods in both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews. These reviews have assessed a range of outcomes. Most of the available evidence focuses on who provides care, where care is provided and coordination of care. For all the main categories of delivery arrangements, we identified gaps in primary research related to uncertainty about the applicability of the evidence to low-income countries, low- or very low-certainty evidence or a lack of studies.

Topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, phimosis has been treated surgically by circumcision or prepuceplasty; however, recent reports of non-invasive treatment using topical corticosteroids applied for four to eight weeks have been favourable. The efficacy and safety of topical corticosteroids for treating phimosis in boys has not been previously systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to 1) compare the effectiveness of the use of topical corticosteroid ointment applied to the distal stenotic portion of the prepuce in the resolution of phimosis in boys compared with the use of placebo or no treatment, and 2) determine the rate of partial resolution (improvement) of phimosis, rate of re-stenosis after initial resolution or improvement of phimosis, and the rate of adverse events of topical corticosteroid treatment in boys with phimosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register through contact with the Trials' Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. Date of last search: 16 June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared use of any topical corticosteroid ointment with placebo ointment or no treatment for boys with phimosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently assessed titles, abstracts and the full-text of eligible studies, extracted data relating to the review's primary and secondary outcomes, and assessed studies' risk of bias. Statistical analyses were performed using the random-effects model and results were expressed as risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We contacted authors of primary articles asking for details of study design and specific outcome data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies that enrolled 1395 boys in this review. We found that both types of corticosteroids investigated and treatment duration varied among studies.Compared with placebo, corticosteroids significantly increased complete or partial clinical resolution of phimosis (12 studies, 1395 participants: RR 2.45, 95% CI 1.84 to 3.26). Our analysis of studies that compared different types of corticosteroids found that these therapies also significantly increased complete clinical resolution of phimosis (8 studies, 858 participants: RR 3.42, 95% CI 2.08 to 5.62). Although nine studies (978 participants) reported that assessment of adverse effects were planned in the study design, these outcomes were not reported.Overall, we found that inadequate reporting made assessing risk of bias challenging in many of the included studies.Selection bias, performance and detection bias was unclear in the majority of the included studies: two studies had adequate sequence generation, none reported allocation concealment; two studies had adequate blinding of participants and personnel and one had high risk of bias; one study blinded outcome assessors. Attrition bias was low in 8/12 studies and reporting bias was unclear in 11 studies and high in one study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Topical corticosteroids offer an effective alternative for treating phimosis in boys. Although sub optimal reporting among the included studies meant that the size of the effect remains uncertain, corticosteroids appear to be a safe, less invasive first-line treatment option before undertaking surgery to correct phimosis in boys.

[Critically appraised article: The quality of clinical practice guidelines over the last two decades: a systematic review of guidelines appraisal studies]. / Análisis crítico de un artículo: Análisis de una revisión sistemática sobre calidad de guías de práctica clínica.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increasing number of manuals on how to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) there remain concerns about their quality. The aim of this study was to review the quality of CPGs across a wide range of healthcare topics published since 1980. METHODS: The authors conducted a literature search in MEDLINE to identify publications assessing the quality of CPGs with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. For the included guidelines in each study, the authors gathered data about the year of publication, institution, country, healthcare topic, AGREE score per domain and overall assessment. RESULTS: In total, 42 studies were selected, including a total of 626 guidelines, published between 1980 and 2007, with a median of 25 CPGs. The mean scores were acceptable for the domain 'Scope and purpose' (64%; 95% CI 61.9 to 66.4) and 'Clarity and presentation' (60%; 95% CI 57.9 to 61.9), moderate for domain 'Rigour of development' (43%; 95% CI 41.0 to 45.2), and low for the other domains ('Stakeholder involvement' 35%; 95% CI 33.9 to 37.5, 'Editorial independence' 30%; 95% CI 27.9 to 32.3, and 'Applicability' 22%; 95% CI 20.4 to 23.9). From those guidelines that included an overall assessment, 62% (168/270) were recommended or recommended with provisos. There was a significant improvement over time for all domains, except for 'Editorial independence'. CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that despite some increase in quality of CPGs over time, the quality scores as measured with the AGREE Instrument have remained moderate to low over the last two decades. This finding urges guideline developers to continue improving the quality of their products. International collaboration could help increasing the efficiency of the process.

[The GRADE system: a change in the way of assessing the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations]. / El sistema GRADE: un cambio en la forma de evaluar la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de recomendaciones.

Individual clinicians and organizations making health care decisions should not only consider the magnitude of the benefits and harms of different courses of action (interventions), but also the confidence we can have in those estimates. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach offers a systematic and transparent way to summarize the evidence, to rate the confidence we can have in the effects of the interventions and to move from evidence to recommendations. The GRADE approach has been adopted by several organizations worldwide, including the World Health Organization and the Cochrane Collaboration. In Chile, this approach has already been used by guidelines produced by the Chilean Ministry of Health. In this paper we describe the core concepts of the GRADE approach to rate the quality of the evidence and to grade the strength of recommendations. As clinicians, being familiar with such concepts may be helpful to make decisions informed by the best available evidence.

Interventions to reduce emigration of health care professionals from low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: The emigration of skilled professionals from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to high-income countries (HICs) is a general phenomenon but poses particular challenges in health care, where it contributes to human resource shortages in the health systems of poorer countries. However, little is known about the effects of strategies to help regulate this movement. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of policy interventions to regulate emigration of health professionals from LMICs. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group Specialised Register (searched 15 March 2011), the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (searched 2 March 2011), MEDLINE (searched 5 March 2011), EMBASE (searched 2 March 2011), CINAHL (searched 5 March 2011), LILACS (searched 7 March 2011), WHOLIS (searched 20 March 2011), SocINDEX (searched 11 March 2011), EconLit (searched 8 March 2011), Science and Social Science Citation Index (searched 8 March 2011), NLM Gateway (searched 31 March 2011) and ERIC (searched March 3 2011). We reviewed reference lists of included studies and selected reviews on the topic, contacted authors of included studies and experts on the field, and reviewed relevant websites. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCT), non-randomised controlled trials (NRCT), controlled before-and-after studies (CBA) and interrupted time series (ITS) studies assessing any intervention in the source, the recipient or both countries that could have an impact on the number of professionals that emigrate from a LMIC. Health professionals, such as physicians, dentists, nurses or midwives, should be nationals of a LMIC whose graduate training was in a LMIC. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: One review author extracted data onto a standard form and a second review author checked data. Two review authors assessed risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: Only one study was included. This time series study assessed the migration of Philippine nurses to the United States of America (USA) from 1954 to 1990. We re-analysed it as an interrupted time series study. The intervention was a modification of migratory law in the US, called the 'Act of October 1965', which decreased the restrictions on Eastern hemisphere immigrants to the USA. The analysis showed a significant immediate increase of 807.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 480.9 to 1134.3) in the number of nurses migrating to the USA annually after the intervention. This represents a relative increase of 5000% over the underlying pre-intervention trend. There were no significant differences in the slopes of the underlying trends for the number of nurses migrating between the pre- and postintervention periods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is an important gap in knowledge about the effectiveness of policy interventions in either HICs or LMICs that could regulate positively the movement of health professionals from LMICs. The only evidence found was from an intervention in a HIC that increased the movement of health professionals from a LMIC.New initiatives to improve records on the migration of health professionals from LMICs should be implemented, as a prerequisite to conducting more rigorous research in the field. This research should focus on whether the range of interventions outlined in the literature could be effective in retaining health professionals in LMICs. Such interventions include financial rewards, career development and continuing education, improving hospital infrastructure, resource availability, better hospital management and improved recognition of health professionals.

Clinical and serological profile of asymptomatic and non-severe symptomatic COVID-19 cases: Lessons from a longitudinal study in primary care in Latin America.

BACKGROUND: Chile has one of the highest incidences of COVID-19 infection in the world. Primary care can play a key role in early detection and containment of the disease. There is a lack of information on the clinical profile of patients with suspected COVID-19 in primary care, and controversy on the effectiveness of rapid serologic tests in the diagnosis and surveillance of the disease. AIM: To assess the effectiveness of rapid serologic testing in detection and surveillance of COVID-19 cases in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING: A longitudinal study was undertaken, which was based on a non-random sample of 522 participants, including 304 symptomatic patients and 218 high-risk asymptomatic individuals. They were receiving care at four primary health clinics in an underserved area in Santiago, Chile. METHOD: The participants were systematically assessed and tested for COVID-19 with reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and serology at baseline, and were followed clinically and serologically for 3 weeks. RESULTS: The prevalence rate of RT-PCR confirmed COVID-19 cases were 3.5 times higher in symptomatic patients (27.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 22.1 to 32.8) compared with asymptomatic participants (7.9%; 95% CI = 4.3 to 11.6). Similarly, the immune response was significantly different between both groups. Sensitivity of serologic testing was 57.8% (95% CI = 44.8 to 70.1) during the third week of follow-up and specificity was 98.4% (95% CI = 95.5 to 99.7). CONCLUSION: Rapid serologic testing is ineffective for detecting asymptomatic or non-severe cases of COVID-19 at early stages of the disease, but can be of value for surveillance of immunity response in primary care. The clinical profile and immune response of patients with COVID-19 in primary care differs from those in hospital-based populations.

[Methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers in Chile]. / Metodología para la evaluación de la relación costo-efectividad en centros de atención primaria de Chile.

OBJECTIVE: Present a methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers (PHCs) in Chile based on the family health care model promoted in Chile and evaluate the results of the first two years of operation of the first pilot center to work under this new primary-care model. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study with a social perspective and a one-year time frame was conducted. In order to compare the university health center in question with the control (a municipal health center), a Family Health Center Composite Quality Index (FHCCQI) was devised. It combines technical indicators and user perceptions of the health centers in six areas: access, continuity of medical care, a preventive and promotional clinical approach, problem-solving capability, participation, and a biopsychosocial and family approach. In order to calculate the costs, the centers' expenses, the savings realized in the rest of the health system, and patients' out-of-pocket expenditures were considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICR) was estimated and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The university health center was 13.4% more expensive (an additional US$8.93 per annum per enrollee) and was more effective (FHCCQI 13.3% greater) than the municipal one. Accordingly, the ICR is US$0.67 for each additional percentage point of FHCCQI increase. CONCLUSIONS: According to the PHC evaluation model that was implemented, the centers that follow the Chilean family health care model are more effective than traditional PHC centers, as measured by both technical indicators and user ratings.

Metodología para la evaluación de la relación costo-efectividad en centros de atención primaria de Chile / Methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers in Chile

OBJETIVO: Presentar una metodología para la evaluación de la relación costo-efectividad en centros de atención primaria de salud (APS) a partir del modelo de atención familiar promovido en Chile y evaluar los resultados de los dos primeros años de funcionamiento del primer centro piloto que funciona bajo este nuevo modelo de atención primaria. MÉTODOS. Se realizó un estudio de costo-efectividad, con una perspectiva social y un horizonte temporal de un año. Para comparar el centro intervenido (universitario) con el centro de control (municipal) se construyó el índice compuesto de calidad de los centros de salud familiar (ICCESFAM), que combina indicadores técnicos y la percepción de los usuarios de los centros en seis dimensiones: accesibilidad, continuidad de la atención médica, enfoque clínico preventivo y promocional, resolutividad, participación, y enfoque biopsicosocial y familiar. Para calcular los costos se tomó en cuenta el gasto en los centros, el ahorro producido al resto del sistema sanitario y el gasto de bolsillo de los pacientes. Se estimó la razón costo-efectividad incremental (RCEI) y se realizó un análisis de sensibilidad. RESULTADOS: El centro de salud universitario resultó 13,4 por ciento más caro (US$ 8,93 anuales adicionales por inscrito) y más efectivo (ICCESFAM 13,3 por ciento mayor) que el municipal. Estos resultados hacen que la RCEI sea de US$ 0,67 por cada punto porcentual adicional que aumenta el ICCESFAM. CONCLUSIONES: Según el modelo elaborado de evaluación de centros de APS, los centros que siguen el modelo de salud familiar chileno son más efectivos, tanto por sus indicadores técnicos como por la valoración de sus usuarios, que los centros de APS tradicionales.

OBJECTIVE: Present a methodology for evaluating cost-effectiveness in primary health care centers (PHCs) in Chile based on the family health care model promoted in Chile and evaluate the results of the first two years of operation of the first pilot center to work under this new primary-care model. METHODS: A cost-effectiveness study with a social perspective and a one-year time frame was conducted. In order to compare the university health center in question with the control (a municipal health center), a Family Health Center Composite Quality Index (FHCCQI) was devised. It combines technical indicators and user perceptions of the health centers in six areas: access, continuity of medical care, a preventive and promotional clinical approach, problem-solving capability, participation, and a biopsychosocial and family approach. In order to calculate the costs, the centers' expenses, the savings realized in the rest of the health system, and patients' out-of-pocket expenditures were considered. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICR) was estimated and a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The university health center was 13.4 percent more expensive (an additional US$ 8.93 per annum per enrollee) and was more effective (FHCCQI 13.3 percent greater) than the municipal one. Accordingly, the ICR is US$ 0.67 for each additional percentage point of FHCCQI increase. CONCLUSIONS: According to the PHC evaluation model that was implemented, the centers that follow the Chilean family health care model are more effective than traditional PHC centers, as measured by both technical indicators and user ratings.