Models of integrated care for multi-morbidity assessed in systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multi-morbidity is increasing globally. Integrated models of care present a potential intervention to improve patient and health system outcomes. However, the intervention components and concepts within different models of care vary widely and their effectiveness remains unclear. We aimed to describe and map the definitions, characteristics, components, and reported effects of integrated models of care in systematic reviews (SRs). METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of SRs according to pre-specified methods (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119265). Eligible SRs assessed integrated models of care at primary health care level for adults and children with multi-morbidity. We searched in PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Epistemonikos, and Health Systems Evidence up to 3 May 2022. Two authors independently assessed eligibility of SRs and extracted data. We identified and described common components of integrated care across SRs. We extracted findings of the SRs as presented in the conclusions and reported on these verbatim. RESULTS: We included 22 SRs, examining data from randomised controlled trials and observational studies conducted across the world. Definitions and descriptions of models of integrated care varied considerably. However, across SRs, we identified and described six common components of integrated care: (1) chronic conditions addressed, (2) where services were provided, (3) the type of services provided, (4) healthcare professionals involved in care, (5) coordination and organisation of care and (6) patient involvement in care. We observed differences in the components of integrated care according to the income setting of the included studies. Some SRs reported that integrated care was beneficial for health and process outcomes, while others found no difference in effect when comparing integrated care to other models of care. CONCLUSIONS: Integrated models of care were heterogeneous within and across SRs. Information that allows the identification of effective components of integrated care was lacking. Detailed, standardised and transparent reporting of the intervention components and their effectiveness on health and process outcomes is needed.

Decision makers perceptions and experiences of developing population-level interventions targeting risk factors for hypertension and diabetes in South Africa: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: People in low- and middle-income countries are disproportionately affected by Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs). NCD's such as heart disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, and diabetes, are the leading cause of premature death worldwide and represent an emerging global health threat. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore decision makers perceptions of developing population-level interventions (policies and programmes), targeting risk factors for hypertension and diabetes, in South Africa. METHODS: Using purposive sampling we recruited fifteen participants, who were well informed about the policies, programs or supportive environment for prevention and management of diabetes and hypertension in South Africa. We conducted 12 individual interviews and 1 group interview (consisting of 3 participants). Data was analysed thematically in NVivo. The results were shared and discussed in two consultative stakeholder workshops, with participants, as part of a member validation process in qualitative research. All communication with participants was done virtually using MS Teams or ZOOM. RESULTS: For development of population-level interventions, key enablers included, stakeholders' engagement and collaboration, contextualization of policies and programs, and evaluation and organic growth. Challenges for supportive policy and program formulation, and to enable supportive environments, included the lack of time and resources, lack of consultation with stakeholders, regulations and competing priorities, and ineffective monitoring and evaluation. The main drivers of population-level interventions for diabetes and hypertension were perceived as the current contextual realities, costs, organizational reasons, and communication between various stakeholders. CONCLUSION: To address the risk factors for hypertension and diabetes in South Africa, policies and programs must account for the needs of the public and the historical and socio-economic climate. Feasibility and sustainability of programs can only be ensured when the resources are provided, and environments enabled to promote behavior change on a population-level. A holistic public health approach, which is contextually relevant, and evidence informed, is considered best practice in the formulation of population-level interventions.

Integrated models of care for diabetes and hypertension in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) : Protocol for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is growing against an existing burden of other diseases such as HIV/AIDS. Integrated models of care can help address the rising burden of multi-morbidity. Although integration of care can occur at various levels and has been defined in numerous ways, our aim is to assess the effects of integration of service delivery at primary healthcare level in LMICs. METHODS: We will consider randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cluster RCTs, non-randomised trials, controlled before-after studies and interrupted time series that examine integrated models of care among people with multi-morbidities, of which diabetes or hypertension is one, living in LMICs. We will compare fully integrated models of care to stand-alone care, partially integrated models of care to stand-alone care and fully integrated models to partially integrated models of care. Primary outcomes include all-cause mortality, disease-specific morbidity, HbA1c, systolic blood pressure and cholesterol levels. Secondary outcomes include access to care, retention in care, adherence, continuity of care, quality of care and cost of care. We will conduct a comprehensive search in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials, LILACS, Africa-Wide Information, CINAHL and Web of Science. In addition, we will search trial registries, relevant conference abstracts and check references lists of included studies. Selection of studies, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be performed independently by two review authors. We will resolve discrepancies through discussion with a third author. We will contact study authors in case of missing data. If included studies are sufficiently homogenous, we will pool results in a meta-analysis. Clinical heterogeneity related to the population, intervention, outcomes and context will be documented in table format and explored through subgroup analysis. We will assess χ 2 and I 2 tests for statistical heterogeneity. We will use GRADE to make judgements about the certainty of evidence and present findings in a summary of findings table. DISCUSSION: In light of limited evidence on the provision of comprehensive care for diabetes and hypertension, and its comorbidity in LMCIs, we believe that the findings of this systematic review will provide a synthesis of evidence on effective models of integrated care for diabetes and hypertension and their comorbidities at primary healthcare level. This will enable policy-makers to device policies and programs that are evidence informed. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018099314 .