Does the duration of ambulatory consultations affect the quality of healthcare? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The objective is to examine and synthesise the best available experimental evidence about the effect of ambulatory consultation duration on quality of healthcare. METHODS: We included experimental studies manipulating the length of outpatient clinical encounters between adult patients and clinicians (ie, therapists, pharmacists, nurses, physicians) to determine their effect on quality of care (ie, effectiveness, efficiency, timeliness, safety, equity, patient-centredness and patient satisfaction). INFORMATION SOURCES: Using controlled vocabulary and keywords, without restriction by language or year of publication, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Database of Systematic Reviews and Scopus from inception until 15 May 2023. RISK OF BIAS: Cochrane Risk of Bias instrument. DATA SYNTHESIS: Narrative synthesis. RESULTS: 11 publications of 10 studies explored the relationship between encounter duration and quality. Most took place in the UK's general practice over two decades ago. Study findings based on very sparse and outdated evidence-which suggested that longer consultations improved indicators of patient-centred care, education about prevention and clinical referrals; and that consultation duration was inconsistently related to patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes-warrant low confidence due to limited protections against bias and indirect applicability to current practice. CONCLUSION: Experimental evidence for a minimal or optimal duration of an outpatient consultation is sparse and outdated. To develop evidence-based policies and practices about encounter length, randomised trials of different consultation lengths-in person and virtually, and with electronic health records-are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: OSF Registration DOI:10.17605/OSF.IO/EUDK8.

Medications Affecting the Biochemical Conversion to Type 2 Diabetes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

CONTEXT: The extent to which some pharmacological interventions reduce or increase the risk of biochemical conversion to type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in at-risk individuals is unclear. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Scopus through 24 August 2017 for randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of drugs suspected to modify the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM. RESULTS: We included 43 trials with 192,156 subjects (mean age, 60 years; 56% men; mean body mass index, 30.4 kg/m2). α-Glucosidase inhibitors, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, metformin, orlistat, phentermine/topiramate, and pioglitazone significantly reduced the risk of biochemical conversion to T2DM, whereas statins and nateglinide increased the risk. There was insufficient direct evidence regarding the effects of sulfonylureas, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors. Most trials were brief and evaluated this outcome during treatment without a withdrawal or washout period. CONCLUSIONS: Several drugs modify the risk of biochemical conversation to T2DM, although whether this effect is persistent and clinically relevant is unclear. Future studies need to focus on cardiovascular disease prevention, mortality, and patient-important outcomes instead of biochemical conversion to T2DM.

Developing a Conversation Aid to Support Shared Decision Making: Reflections on Designing Anticoagulation Choice.

Patient-centered care requires that treatments respond to the problematic situation of each patient in a manner that makes intellectual, emotional, and practical sense, an achievement that requires shared decision making (SDM). To implement SDM in practice, tools-sometimes called conversation aids or decision aids-are prepared by collating, curating, and presenting high-quality, comprehensive, and up-to-date evidence. Yet, the literature offers limited guidance for how to make evidence support SDM. Herein, we describe our approach and the challenges encountered during the development of Anticoagulation Choice, a conversation aid to help patients with atrial fibrillation and their clinicians jointly consider the risk of thromboembolic stroke and decide whether and how to respond to this risk with anticoagulation.

Shared Decision Making in Immigrant Patients.

Communication is at the core of shared decision making, and communication difficulties are therefore barriers to using shared decision making in clinical practice. In clinical encounters with immigrant patients from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, a number of communication challenges arise, which can be obstacles to the implementation of shared decision making. Here, we discuss some of these challenges, possible solutions and research required to address identified knowledge gaps.

Clinical review: Drugs commonly associated with weight change: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

CONTEXT: Various drugs affect body weight as a side effect. OBJECTIVE: We conducted this systematic review and meta-analysis to summarize the evidence about commonly prescribed drugs and their association with weight change. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, DARE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched to identify published systematic reviews as a source for trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included randomized trials that compared an a priori selected list of drugs to placebo and measured weight change. DATA EXTRACTION: We extracted data in duplicate and assessed the methodological quality using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. RESULTS: We included 257 randomized trials (54 different drugs; 84 696 patients enrolled). Weight gain was associated with the use of amitriptyline (1.8 kg), mirtazapine (1.5 kg), olanzapine (2.4 kg), quetiapine (1.1 kg), risperidone (0.8 kg), gabapentin (2.2 kg), tolbutamide (2.8 kg), pioglitazone (2.6 kg), glimepiride (2.1 kg), gliclazide (1.8 kg), glyburide (2.6 kg), glipizide (2.2 kg), sitagliptin (0.55 kg), and nateglinide (0.3 kg). Weight loss was associated with the use of metformin (1.1 kg), acarbose (0.4 kg), miglitol (0.7 kg), pramlintide (2.3 kg), liraglutide (1.7 kg), exenatide (1.2 kg), zonisamide (7.7 kg), topiramate (3.8 kg), bupropion (1.3 kg), and fluoxetine (1.3 kg). For many other remaining drugs (including antihypertensives and antihistamines), the weight change was either statistically nonsignificant or supported by very low-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Several drugs are associated with weight change of varying magnitude. Data are provided to guide the choice of drug when several options exist and institute preemptive weight loss strategies when obesogenic drugs are prescribed.

The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: Poor mental health places a burden on individuals and populations. Resilient persons are able to adapt to life's challenges and maintain high quality of life and function. Finding effective strategies to bolster resilience in individuals and populations is of interest to many stakeholders. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize the evidence for resiliency training programs in improving mental health and capacity in 1) diverse adult populations and 2) persons with chronic diseases. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, clinical trial registries, and bibliographies. We also contacted study authors and field experts. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials assessing the efficacy of any program intended to enhance resilience in adults and published after 1990. No restrictions were made based on outcome measured or comparator used. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reviewers worked independently and in duplicate to extract study characteristics and data. These were confirmed with authors. We conducted a random effects meta-analysis on available data and tested for interaction in planned subgroups. MAIN OUTCOMES: The standardized mean difference (SMD) effect of resiliency training programs on 1) resilience/hardiness, 2) quality of life/well-being, 3) self-efficacy/activation, 4) depression, 5) stress, and 6) anxiety. RESULTS: We found 25 small trials at moderate to high risk of bias. Interventions varied in format and theoretical approach. Random effects meta-analysis showed a moderate effect of generalized stress-directed programs on enhancing resilience [pooled SMD 0.37 (95% CI 0.18, 0.57) p = .0002; I2 = 41%] within 3 months of follow up. Improvement in other outcomes was favorable to the interventions and reached statistical significance after removing two studies at high risk of bias. Trauma-induced stress-directed programs significantly improved stress [-0.53 (-1.04, -0.03) p = .03; I2 = 73%] and depression [-0.51 (-0.92, -0.10) p = .04; I2 = 61%]. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence warranting low confidence that resiliency training programs have a small to moderate effect at improving resilience and other mental health outcomes. Further study is needed to better define the resilience construct and to design interventions specific to it. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO #CRD42014007185.

Preventing 30-day hospital readmissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

IMPORTANCE: Reducing early (<30 days) hospital readmissions is a policy priority aimed at improving health care quality. The cumulative complexity model conceptualizes patient context. It predicts that highly supportive discharge interventions will enhance patient capacity to enact burdensome self-care and avoid readmissions. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize the evidence of the efficacy of interventions to reduce early hospital readmissions and identify intervention features--including their impact on treatment burden and on patients' capacity to enact postdischarge self-care--that might explain their varying effects. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, EBSCO CINAHL, and Scopus (1990 until April 1, 2013), contacted experts, and reviewed bibliographies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials that assessed the effect of interventions on all-cause or unplanned readmissions within 30 days of discharge in adult patients hospitalized for a medical or surgical cause for more than 24 hours and discharged to home. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reviewer pairs extracted trial characteristics and used an activity-based coding strategy to characterize the interventions; fidelity was confirmed with authors. Blinded to trial outcomes, reviewers noted the extent to which interventions placed additional work on patients after discharge or supported their capacity for self-care in accordance with the cumulative complexity model. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Relative risk of all-cause or unplanned readmission with or without out-of-hospital deaths at 30 days postdischarge. RESULTS: In 42 trials, the tested interventions prevented early readmissions (pooled random-effects relative risk, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.91]; P < .001; I² = 31%), a finding that was consistent across patient subgroups. Trials published before 2002 reported interventions that were 1.6 times more effective than those tested later (interaction P = .01). In exploratory subgroup analyses, interventions with many components (interaction P = .001), involving more individuals in care delivery (interaction P = .05), and supporting patient capacity for self-care (interaction P = .04) were 1.4, 1.3, and 1.3 times more effective than other interventions, respectively. A post hoc regression model showed incremental value in providing comprehensive, postdischarge support to patients and caregivers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Tested interventions are effective at reducing readmissions, but more effective interventions are complex and support patient capacity for self-care. Interventions tested more recently are less effective.

The efficacy of resilience training programs: a systematic review protocol.

BACKGROUND: Resilience has been defined as the ability of individuals to manage and adapt to stress and life challenges. Training programs that develop and/or enhance resilience may have efficacy in improving health, well-being, and quality of life. Because patients with chronic conditions must reliably self-manage their health, strategies to bolster resilience in this population may be of particular value. The objectives of this systematic review are to synthesize the evidence of resilience training program efficacy in improving outcomes related to quality of life, self-efficacy and activation, and resilience and coping ability in: 1) diverse adult populations; and 2) patients with chronic conditions. METHODS/DESIGN: We will conduct a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the efficacy of any program designed to enhance resilience in adults that measure any outcome against any comparator. We will search multiple electronic databases, trial registries, bibliographies, and will contact authors and experts to identify studies. We will use systematic review software to independently and in duplicate screen reports and extract data. We will extract characteristics of the study populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and quality/risk of bias. Primary, patient reported outcomes will be categorized into domains of quality of life, self-efficacy, and resilience. Secondary outcomes will be considered based on findings of the review. We will attempt meta-analysis by pooling standardized mean differences and minimally important differences (MIDs), when possible. Planned trial subgroup analyses are: 1) studies of patients with chronic conditions; 2) studies with placebo controls; 3) studies with similar intervention characteristics; and 4) studies with common lengths of follow-up. DISCUSSION: This study is intended to accumulate the evidence for resilience training programs in improving quality of life, resilience, and self-efficacy for care management, particularly among adult patients with chronic conditions. Its findings will be valuable to policy-makers, funding agencies, clinicians, and patients seeking innovative and effective ways to achieve patient-centered care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42014007185.

Patient engagement in research: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: A compelling ethical rationale supports patient engagement in healthcare research. It is also assumed that patient engagement will lead to research findings that are more pertinent to patients' concerns and dilemmas. However; it is unclear how to best conduct this process. In this systematic review we aimed to answer 4 key questions: what are the best ways to identify patient representatives? How to engage them in designing and conducting research? What are the observed benefits of patient engagement? What are the harms and barriers of patient engagement? METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycInfo, Cochrane, EBSCO, CINAHL, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Business Search Premier, Academic Search Premier and Google Scholar. Included studies were published in English, of any size or design that described engaging patients or their surrogates in research design. We conducted an environmental scan of the grey literature and consulted with experts and patients. Data were analyzed using a non-quantitative, meta-narrative approach. RESULTS: We included 142 studies that described a spectrum of engagement. In general, engagement was feasible in most settings and most commonly done in the beginning of research (agenda setting and protocol development) and less commonly during the execution and translation of research. We found no comparative analytic studies to recommend a particular method. Patient engagement increased study enrollment rates and aided researchers in securing funding, designing study protocols and choosing relevant outcomes. The most commonly cited challenges were related to logistics (extra time and funding needed for engagement) and to an overarching worry of a tokenistic engagement. CONCLUSIONS: Patient engagement in healthcare research is likely feasible in many settings. However, this engagement comes at a cost and can become tokenistic. Research dedicated to identifying the best methods to achieve engagement is lacking and clearly needed.

World Health Organization recommendations are often strong based on low confidence in effect estimates.

OBJECTIVES: Expert guideline panelists are sometimes reluctant to offer weak/conditional/contingent recommendations. Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) guidance warns against strong recommendations when confidence in effect estimates is low or very low, suggesting that such recommendations may seldom be justified. We aim to characterize the classification of strength of recommendations and confidence in estimates in World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines that used the GRADE approach and graded both strength and confidence (GRADEd). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We reviewed all WHO guidelines (January 2007 to December 2012), identified those that were GRADEd, and, in these, examined the classifications of strong and weak and associated confidence in estimates (high, moderate, low, and very low). RESULTS: We identified 116 WHO guidelines in which 43 (37%) were GRADEd and had 456 recommendations, of which 289 (63.4%) were strong and 167 (36.6%) were conditional/weak. Of the 289 strong recommendations, 95 (33.0%) were based on evidence warranting low confidence in estimates and 65 (22.5%) on evidence warranting very low confidence in estimates (55.5% strong recommendations overall based on low or very low confidence in estimates). CONCLUSION: Strong recommendations based on low or very low confidence estimates are very frequently made in WHO guidelines. Further study to determine the reasons for such high uncertainty recommendations is warranted.

GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.

In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention.

Drugs commonly associated with weight change: umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis (Protocol).

BACKGROUND: Many drugs and treatments given to patients for various reasons affect their weight. This side effect is of great importance to patients and is also a concern for the treating physician because weight change may lead to the emergence or worsening of other health conditions. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to summarize the evidence about commonly prescribed drugs and their association with weight change. METHODS/DESIGN: Umbrella systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.We will use an umbrella approach to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We will search for systematic reviews of RCTs that compare any of the drugs that have been associated with weight gain (obesogenic) or weight loss (leptogenic); these have been summarized by our experts' panel in a predefined list. Two reviewers will independently determine RCT eligibility. Disagreement will be solved by consensus and arbitrated by a third reviewer. We will extract descriptive, methodological, and efficacy data in duplicate. Our primary continuous outcomes will be weight loss or gain expressed as a mean difference (MD) for weight (kg) or BMI (kg/m2). We will calculate the MD considering the mean difference in weight or BMI between baseline and the last available follow-up in both study arms (drugs and placebo). Our primary dichotomous outcome, presented as a relative risk, will compare the ratio of the incidence of weight change in each trial arm. When possible, results will be pooled using classic random-effects meta-analyses and a summary estimate with 95% confidence interval will provided. We will use the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q test to assess heterogeneity. The risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Publication bias, if appropriate, will be evaluated, as well as overall strength of the evidence. DISCUSSION: This systematic review will offer the opportunity to generate a ranking of commonly prescribed drugs in terms of their effect on weight, allowing guideline developers and patient-physician dyad to choose between available therapies.