Interventions to improve adherence to cardiovascular disease guidelines: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Successful management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) is impaired by poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines. The objective of our review was to synthesize evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that target healthcare providers to improve adherence to CVD guidelines and patient outcomes. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Web of Science and CINAHL databases from inception to June 2014, using search terms related to adherence and clinical practice guidelines. Studies were limited to randomized controlled trials testing an intervention to improve adherence to guidelines that measured both a patient and adherence outcome. Descriptive summary tables were created from data extractions. Meta-analyses were conducted on clinically homogeneous comparisons, and sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses were carried out where possible. GRADE summary of findings tables were created for each comparison and outcome. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: We included 38 RCTs in our review. Interventions included guideline dissemination, education, audit and feedback, and academic detailing. Meta-analyses were conducted for several outcomes by intervention type. Many comparisons favoured the intervention, though only the adherence outcome for the education intervention showed statistically significant improvement compared to usual care (standardized mean difference = 0.58 [95 % confidence interval 0.35 to 0.8]). CONCLUSIONS: Many interventions show promise to improve practitioner adherence to CVD guidelines. The quality of evidence and number of trials limited our ability to draw conclusions.

Activity-based funding of hospitals and its impact on mortality, readmission, discharge destination, severity of illness, and volume of care: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Activity-based funding (ABF) of hospitals is a policy intervention intended to re-shape incentives across health systems through the use of diagnosis-related groups. Many countries are adopting or actively promoting ABF. We assessed the effect of ABF on key measures potentially affecting patients and health care systems: mortality (acute and post-acute care); readmission rates; discharge rate to post-acute care following hospitalization; severity of illness; volume of care. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence produced since 1980. We included all studies reporting original quantitative data comparing the impact of ABF versus alternative funding systems in acute care settings, regardless of language. We searched 9 electronic databases (OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, OVID Healthstar, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Health Technology Assessment, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Business Source), hand-searched reference lists, and consulted with experts. Paired reviewers independently screened for eligibility, abstracted data, and assessed study credibility according to a pre-defined scoring system, resolving conflicts by discussion or adjudication. RESULTS: Of 16,565 unique citations, 50 US studies and 15 studies from 9 other countries proved eligible (i.e. Australia, Austria, England, Germany, Israel, Italy, Scotland, Sweden, Switzerland). We found consistent and robust differences between ABF and no-ABF in discharge to post-acute care, showing a 24% increase with ABF (pooled relative risk  = 1.24, 95% CI 1.18-1.31). Results also suggested a possible increase in readmission with ABF, and an apparent increase in severity of illness, perhaps reflecting differences in diagnostic coding. Although we found no consistent, systematic differences in mortality rates and volume of care, results varied widely across studies, some suggesting appreciable benefits from ABF, and others suggesting deleterious consequences. CONCLUSIONS: Transitioning to ABF is associated with important policy- and clinically-relevant changes. Evidence suggests substantial increases in admissions to post-acute care following hospitalization, with implications for system capacity and equitable access to care. High variability in results of other outcomes leaves the impact in particular settings uncertain, and may not allow a jurisdiction to predict if ABF would be harmless. Decision-makers considering ABF should plan for likely increases in post-acute care admissions, and be aware of the large uncertainty around impacts on other critical outcomes.

Adherence measurement and patient recruitment methods are poor in intervention trials to improve patient adherence.

OBJECTIVES: To develop a scale and survey the measurement of patient adherence and patient recruitment, and to explore how these methods impact the results in randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve patient adherence to medications. STUDY DESIGN: Analytic survey of a purposively selected sample of patient adherence intervention trials from a systematic review, assessing the quality of adherence measurement and patient recruitment methods. RESULTS: We identified 44 different measures of adherence, with qualities ranging from valid and objective to unreliable and subjective. The median overall quality of measures of adherence was 5 (interquartile range [IQR], 3; range, 0-9, 9 is high quality). The quality of the measures was associated with variation in the estimate of adherence (Spearman r = 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.39, 0.83). The median overall quality of patient recruitment methods was 2 (IQR, 1; maximum score 6, higher is better). There was no significant correlation between the power of the trial to detect an effect and the quality of the patient recruitment methods. CONCLUSION: Measurement and recruitment methods in adherence trials varied considerably, and most methods were of low quality. Adherence research could be advanced by using higher quality measures of adherence and better selection and baseline assessment of study participants.