Lay Advisor Interventions in Rural Populations: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Age-adjusted death rates for heart disease are higher in rural areas than in urban areas. Lay advisors could potentially facilitate improvement in cardiovascular health outcomes. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to estimate lay advisor intervention effects on cardiovascular health metrics in rural populations. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Searches of databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus from 1975 through October 2017 retrieved 323 citations, of which 272 abstracts were reviewed. Two authors independently abstracted data from eligible studies. Analysis was conducted in March 2018. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Of 21 articles included in the systematic review, eight were RCTs and 13 were pre- and post-intervention studies. Of the RCTs, three took place in the U.S. Only two studies had low risk of bias. Using a random effects model, meta-analysis of six RCTs (1,641 participants) showed that lay advisor interventions in rural residents were associated with improvement in HbA1c of 0.4% (95% CI=0.13, 0.66, p=0.004, I2=60.65%). From four RCTs (873 participants), lay advisor interventions significantly improved BMI with pooled effect of 2.18 (95% CI=1.13, 3.24, p<0.001, I2=0.00%). Most studies had normal baseline blood pressure and cholesterol levels before intervention, and no significant effects were noted for these outcomes. Diverse types of measures used for diet, physical activity, and smoking precluded statistical synthesis. CONCLUSIONS: Lay advisor interventions had significant positive effects on glycemic control and BMI for rural residents; however, further rigorous studies are needed in U.S. rural populations, and elements of effective lay advisor interventions require further investigation.

Effect of peer support interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Peer support by persons affected with diabetes improves peer supporter's diabetes self-management skills. Peer support interventions by individuals who have diabetes or are affected by diabetes have been shown to improve glycemic control; however, its effects on other cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes are unknown. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions on cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control in adults with diabetes. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing peer support interventions to a control condition in adults affected by diabetes that measured any cardiovascular disease risk factors [Body Mass Index, smoking, diet, physical activity, cholesterol level, glucose control and blood pressure]. Quality was assessed by Cochrane's risk of bias tool. We calculated standardized mean difference effect sizes using random effects models. RESULTS: We retrieved 438 citations from multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, Cochrane database and Scopus, and author searches. Of 233 abstracts reviewed, 16 articles met inclusion criteria. A random effects model in a total of 3243 participants showed a positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic BP with a pooled effect size of 2.07 mmHg (CI 0.35 mmHg to 3.79 mmHg, p = 0.02); baseline pooled systolic blood pressure was 137 mmHg. There was a non-significant effect of peer support interventions on diastolic blood pressure, cholesterol, body mass index, diet and physical activity. Cardiovascular disease risk factors other than glycemic control outcomes were secondary outcomes in most studies and baseline values were normal or mildly elevated. Only one study reported smoking outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We found a small (2 mmHg) positive effect of peer support interventions on systolic blood pressure in adults with diabetes whose baseline blood pressure was on average minimally elevated. Additional studies need to be conducted to further understand the effect of peer support interventions on high-risk cardiovascular disease risk factors in adults with diabetes.

Peer Support Interventions for Adults With Diabetes: A Meta-Analysis of Hemoglobin A1c Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Peer support intervention trials have shown varying effects on glycemic control. We aimed to estimate the effect of peer support interventions delivered by people affected by diabetes (those with the disease or a caregiver) on hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels in adults. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from 1960 to November 2015, including Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Scopus. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of adults with diabetes receiving peer support interventions compared with otherwise similar care. Seventeen of 205 retrieved studies were eligible for inclusion. Quality was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) of change in HbA1c level from baseline between groups using a random effects model. Subgroup analyses were predefined. RESULTS: Seventeen studies (3 cluster RCTs, 14 RCTs) with 4,715 participants showed an improvement in pooled HbA1c level with an SMD of 0.121 (95% CI, 0.026-0.217; P = .01; I2 = 60.66%) in the peer support intervention group compared with the control group; this difference translated to an improvement in HbA1c level of 0.24% (95% CI, 0.05%-0.43%). Peer support interventions showed an HbA1c improvement of 0.48% (95% CI, 0.25%-0.70%; P <.001; I2 = 17.12%) in the subset of studies with predominantly Hispanic participants and 0.53% (95% CI, 0.32%-0.73%; P <.001; I2 = 9.24%) in the subset of studies with predominantly minority participants; both were clinically relevant. In sensitivity analysis excluding cluster RCTs, the overall effect size changed little. CONCLUSIONS: Peer support interventions for diabetes overall achieved a statistically significant but minor improvement in HbA1c levels. These interventions may, however, be particularly effective in improving glycemic control for people from minority groups, especially those of Hispanic ethnicity.

Health information needs, sources, and barriers of primary care patients to achieve patient-centered care: A literature review.

To synthesize findings from previous studies assessing information needs of primary care patients on the Internet and other information sources in a primary care setting. A systematic review of studies was conducted with a comprehensive search in multiple databases including OVID MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Scopus. The most common information needs among patients were information about an illness or medical condition and treatment methods, while the most common information sources were the Internet and patients' physicians. Overall, patients tend to prefer the Internet for the ease of access to information, while they trust their physicians more for their clinical expertise and experience. Barriers to information access via the Internet include the following: socio-demographic variables such as age, ethnicity, income, education, and occupation; information search skills; and reliability of health information. CONCLUSION: Further research is warranted to assess how to create accurate and reliable health information sources for both Internet and non-Internet users.

Information needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically examine current evidence pertaining to information needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions. METHODS: Structured search of MEDLINE, MEDLINE IN-PROCESS, CINAHL, and PsycINFO databases to identify studies of caregiver information needs, followed by data extraction and syntheses. RESULTS: The 62 articles that met the stated inclusion criteria highlighted extensive needs among informal caregivers for practical, accessible, timely information. CONCLUSION: The identified information needs of informal caregivers can inform organizations and agencies that seek to provide disease and illness-related information. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Existing evidence supports the implementation of a health information delivery system designed to meet the needs of informal caregivers of older adults with chronic health conditions.

How much effort is needed to keep up with the literature relevant for primary care?

OBJECTIVES: Medicine must keep current with the research literature, and keeping current requires continuously updating the clinical knowledge base (i.e., references that provide answers to clinical questions). The authors estimated the volume of medical literature potentially relevant to primary care published in a month and the time required for physicians trained in medical epidemiology to evaluate it for updating a clinical knowledge base. METHODS: We included journals listed in five primary care journal review services (ACP Journal Club, DynaMed, Evidence-Based Practice, Journal Watch, and QuickScan Reviews). Finding little overlap, we added the 2001 "Brandon/Hill Selected List of Print Books and Journals for the Small Medical Library." We counted articles (including letters, editorials, and other commentaries) published in March 2002, using bibliographic software where possible and hand counting when necessary. For journals not published in March 2002, we reviewed the nearest issue. Five primary care physicians independently evaluated fifty randomly selected articles and timed the process. RESULTS: The combined list contained 341 currently active journals with 8,265 articles. Adjusting for publication frequency, we estimate 7,287 articles are published monthly in this set of journals. Physicians trained in epidemiology would take an estimated 627.5 hours per month to evaluate these articles. CONCLUSIONS: To provide practicing clinicians with the best current evidence, more comprehensive and systematic literature surveillance efforts are needed.