Interventions in ambulatory healthcare settings to reduce social isolation among adults aged 18-64: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Social isolation is associated with increased all-cause and premature mortality, poor chronic disease management, and mental health concerns. Limited research exists on interventions addressing social isolation among individuals under 65 despite its increasing prevalence among young and middle-aged adults. AIM: To identify interventions from the extant literature that address social isolation and loneliness in ambulatory healthcare settings in adults aged 18-64, and to identify elements of successful studies for future intervention design. DESIGN & SETTING: Systematic review of interventions targeting social isolation in community-dwelling adults aged 18-64 within ambulatory healthcare settings. METHOD: A search strategy was developed to identify relevant articles in the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, EBM Reviews, Scopus, CINAHL and PsychInfo. Data were extracted on study design and setting, intervention type, outcome related to social isolation/loneliness and scale of measure used. RESULTS: 25,078 citations were identified and underwent title and abstract screening. 75 articles met our inclusion criteria and were synthesised, including an assessment of bias. Effective interventions were delivered in community health settings, incorporated a group component, and used digital technologies. They also addressed the association between mental health and social isolation using CBT approaches and enhanced self-management and coping strategies for chronic conditions through psycho-educational interventions. CONCLUSION: Future research should prioritise adults living in low- and middle-income countries, racialized individuals, as well as those with fewer educational opportunities. There is also a need to advance research in primary care settings, where longitudinal patient-provider relationships would facilitate the success of interventions.

A comparison of the COVID-19 response for urban underserved patients experiencing healthcare transitions in three Canadian cities.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic and response has highlighted existing strengths within the system of care for urban underserved populations, but also many fault lines, in particular during care transitions. The objectives of this study were to describe COVID-19 response policies for urban underserved populations in three Canadian cities; examine how these policies impact continuity of care for urban underserved populations; determine whether and how urban underserved community members were engaged in policy processes; and develop policy and operational recommendations for optimizing continuity of care for urban underserved populations during public health crises. METHODS: Using Walt & Gilson's Policy Triangle framework as a conceptual guide, 237 policy and media documents were retrieved. Five complementary virtual group interview sessions were held with 22 front-line and lived-experience key informants to capture less well-documented policy responses and experiences. Documents and interview transcripts were analyzed inductively for policy content, context, actors, and processes involved in the pandemic response. RESULTS: Available documents suggest little focus on care continuity for urban underserved populations during the pandemic, despite public health measures having disproportionately negative impacts on their care. Policy responses were largely reactive and temporary, and community members were rarely involved. However, a number of community-based initiatives were developed in response to policy gaps. Promising practices emerged, including examples of new multi-level and multi-sector collaboration. CONCLUSION: The pandemic response has exposed inequities for urban underserved populations experiencing care transitions; however, it has also exposed system strengths and opportunities for improvement to inform future policy direction.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIFS: La pandémie et la riposte au COVID-19 ont mis en évidence les forces existantes au sein du système de soins pour les populations urbaines mal desservies, mais aussi de nombreuses faillites, en particulier lors des transitions de soins. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient de décrire les politiques de réponse au COVID-19 pour les populations urbaines mal desservies dans trois villes canadiennes; examiner l'impact de ces politiques sur la continuité des soins pour les populations urbaines mal desservies; déterminer si et comment les membres de la communauté urbaine mal desservie ont été impliqués dans les processus politiques; et développer des recommandations politiques et opérationnelles pour optimiser la continuité des soins pour les populations urbaines mal desservies pendant les crises de santé publique. MéTHODES: Utilisant le cadre Policy Triangle de Walt et Gilson comme guide conceptuel, 237 documents politiques et des médias ont été récupérés. Cinq séances d'entrevues de groupe virtuelles complémentaires ont été organisées avec 22 informateurs clés de première ligne et d'expérience vécue pour saisir des réponses et des expériences politiques moins bien documentées. Les documents et les transcriptions des entrevues ont été analysés de manière inductive pour le contenu politique, le contexte, les acteurs et les processus impliqués dans la riposte à la pandémie. RéSULTATS: Les documents disponibles suggèrent que l'accent est peu mis sur la continuité des soins pour les populations urbaines mal desservies pendant la pandémie, malgré les mesures de santé publique ayant des impacts négatifs disproportionnés sur leurs soins. Les réponses politiques étaient en grande partie réactives et temporaires, et les membres de la communauté étaient rarement impliqués. Cependant, un certain nombre d'initiatives communautaires ont été élaborées en réponse aux lacunes des politiques. Des pratiques prometteuses ont émergé, y compris des exemples de nouvelles collaborations multiniveaux et multisectorielles. CONCLUSION: La réponse à la pandémie a révélé des inégalités pour les populations urbaines mal desservies qui subissent des transitions de soins, mais elle a également exposé les forces du système et les possibilités d'amélioration pour éclairer l'orientation future des politiques.

Essential tuberculosis medicines and health outcomes in countries with a national essential medicines list.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major cause of morbidity and mortality globally despite effective treatments. Along with high-quality health services, essential medicines are a key tool in curbing TB related mortality. Examining relationships between listing TB medicines on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) and population health outcomes related to amenable mortality is one way to assess TB care. Methods: In this cross-sectional study of 137 countries, we used linear regression to examine the relationship between the number of TB medicines listed on NEMLs and TB related mortality while controlling for country income, region and TB burden. Results: Most countries listed essential TB medicines to treat latent, drug-sensitive and disseminated TB but few listed enough for multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) therapy. The total number of TB medicines listed ranged from 1 to 29 (median: 19, interquartile range: 15 to 22). Over 75% of the variation in health outcomes were explained by the number of TB medicines listed, gross domestic product (GDP) per capita, region and high-burden MDR-TB status. The number of TB medicines listed was not associated with TB mortality. Conclusion: Most countries list essential TB treatments and the variation in TB outcomes is explained by other factors such as GDP.

Comparison of antibiotics included in national essential medicines lists of 138 countries using the WHO Access, Watch, Reserve (AWaRe) classification: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines classified antibiotics into Access, Watch, and Reserve (AWaRe) categories for the treatment of 31 priority bacterial infections as a tool to facilitate antibiotic stewardship and optimal use. We compared the listing of antibiotics on national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) to those in the 2019 WHO Model List and the AWaRe classification database to determine the degree to which NEMLs are in alignment with the AWaRe classification framework recommended by WHO. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we obtained up-to-date (data after 2017) NEMLs from our Global Essential Medicines (GEM) database, WHO online resources, and individual countries' websites. From the 2019 WHO Model List we extracted, as a reference standard, a list of 37 antibiotics (44 unique antibiotics after accounting for combination drugs or therapeutically equivalent drugs as specified by WHO) that were considered essential in treating 31 of the most common and severe clinical infectious syndromes (priority infections). From the WHO AWaRe Classification Database, which contains commonly used antibiotics globally, we extracted a list of 122 AWaRe antibiotics listed by at least one country in the GEM database. We then assessed individual countries' NEMLs for listing of the 44 essential and 122 commonly used antibiotics, overall and according to AWaRe classification group. We also evaluated and summarised the listing of both first-choice and second-choice treatments for the 31 priority infections. A total coverage score was calculated for each country by assigning a treatment score of 0-3 for each priority infection on the basis of whether first-choice and second-choice treatments, according to the 2019 WHO Model List, were included in the country's NEML. Coverage scores were then compared against the score of the 2019 WHO Model List and across World Bank income groups and WHO regions. FINDINGS: As of July 7, 2020, we had up-to-date NEMLs for 138 countries. Of the 44 unique essential antibiotics, 24 were Access, 15 were Watch, and five were Reserve. The median number of total essential antibiotics listed across the 138 NEMLs was 26 (IQR 21-32). 102 (74%) countries listed at least 22 (50%) of the 44 essential antibiotics. The median number of total AWaRe antibiotics listed by the 138 countries was 35 (IQR 29-46), of Access antibiotics was 18 (16-21), of Watch antibiotics was 16 (11-22), and of Reserve antibiotics was one (0-2). 56 (41%) countries did not list any essential Reserve antibiotics. 131 (95%) countries had coverage scores of at least 60, equivalent to at least 75% of the score of the 2019 WHO Model List, which was 80. Nine (7%) countries listed fewer than 12 of 24 essential Access antibiotics, and seven (5%) did not list sufficient first-choice and second-choice treatments for priority infections (ie, they had coverage scores lower than 60). Of the 31 priority infections, acute neonatal meningitis and high-risk febrile neutropenia did not have enough listed treatments, with 82 (59%) countries listing no treatment for acute neonatal meningitis and 84 (61%) countries listing only a first-choice treatment, only a second-choice treatment, or no treatment for high-risk febrile neutropenia. Coverage scores differed between countries on the basis of World Bank income groups (p=0·025). INTERPRETATION: Our findings highlight potential changes to the antibiotics included in NEMLs that would increase adherence to international guidance aimed at effectively treating infectious diseases while addressing antimicrobial resistance. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented Research Support Unit.

Associations between essential medicines and health outcomes for cardiovascular disease.

BACKGROUND: National essential medicines lists are used to guide medicine reimbursement and public sector medicine procurement for many countries therefore medicine listings may impact health outcomes. METHODS: Countries' national essential medicines lists were scored on whether they listed proven medicines for ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and hypertensive heart disease. In this cross sectional study linear regression was used to measure the association between countries' medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores. RESULTS: There was an association between healthcare access and quality scores and health expenditure for ischemic heart disease (p ≤ 0.001), cerebrovascular disease (p ≤ 0.001) and hypertensive heart disease (p ≤ 0.001). However, there was no association between medicine coverage scores and healthcare access and quality scores for ischemic heart disease (p = 0.252), cerebrovascular disease (p = 0.194) and hypertensive heart disease (p = 0.209) when country characteristics were accounted for. CONCLUSIONS: Listing more medicines on national essential medicines lists may only be one factor in reducing mortality from cardiovascular disease and improving healthcare access and quality scores.

Feasibility of an Electronic Health Tool to Promote Physical Activity in Primary Care: Pilot Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Physical inactivity is associated with increased health risks. Primary care providers (PCPs) are well positioned to support increased physical activity (PA) levels through screening and provision of PA prescriptions. However, PCP counseling on PA is not common. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility of implementing an electronic health (eHealth) tool to support PA counseling by PCPs and estimate intervention effectiveness on patients' PA levels. METHODS: A pragmatic pilot study was conducted using a stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. The study was conducted at a single primary care clinic, with 4 pre-existing PCP teams. Adult patients who had a periodic health review (PHR) scheduled during the study period were invited to participate. The eHealth tool involved an electronic survey sent to participants before their PHR via an email or a tablet; data were used to automatically produce tailored resources and a PA prescription in the electronic medical record of participants in the intervention arm. Participants assigned to the control arm received usual care from their PCP. Feasibility was assessed by the proportion of completed surveys and patient-reported acceptability and fidelity measures. The primary effectiveness outcome was patient-reported PA at 4 months post-PHR, measured as metabolic equivalent of task (MET) minutes per week. Secondary outcomes assessed determinants of PA, including self-efficacy and intention to change based on the Health Action Process Approach behavior change theory. RESULTS: A total of 1028 patients receiving care from 34 PCPs were invited to participate and 530 (51.55%) consented (intervention [n=296] and control [n=234]). Of the participants who completed a process evaluation, almost half (88/178, 49.4%) stated they received a PA prescription, with only 42 receiving the full intervention including tailored resources from their PCP. A cluster-level linear regression analysis yielded a non-statistically significant positive difference in MET-minutes reported per week at follow-up between intervention and control conditions (mean difference 1027; 95% CI -155 to 2209; P=.09). No statistically significant differences were observed for secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that it is feasible to build an eHealth tool that screens and provides tailored resources for PA in a primary care setting but suboptimal intervention fidelity suggests greater work must be done to address PCP barriers to resource distribution. Participant responses to the primary effectiveness outcome (MET-minutes) were highly variable, reflecting a need for more robust measures of PA in future trials to address limitations in patient-reported data. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03181295; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03181295.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas.

OBJECTIVES: To compare national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) from countries in the Region of the Americas and to identify potential opportunities for improving those lists. METHODS: In June of 2017, NEMLs from 31 countries in the Americas were abstracted from documents included in a World Health Organization (WHO) repository. The lists from the Americas were compared to each other and to NEMLs from outside of the Americas, as well as with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 20th edition ("WHO Model List") and the list of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Revolving Fund for Strategic Public Health Supplies ("Strategic Fund"). RESULTS: The number of differences between the NEMLs from the Americas and the WHO Model List were similar within those countries (median: 295; interquartile range (IQR): 265 to 347). The NEMLs from the Americas were generally similar to each other. While the NEMLs from the Americas coincided well with the Strategic Fund list, some medicines were not included on any of those NEMLs. All the NEMLs in the Americas included some medicines that were withdrawn due to adverse effects by a national regulatory body (median: 8 withdrawn medicines per NEML; IQR: 4 to 12). CONCLUSIONS: The NEMLs in the Americas were fairly similar to each other and to the WHO Model List and the Strategic Fund list. However, some areas of treatment and some specific medicines were identified that the countries should reassess when revising their NEMLs.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing.

BACKGROUND: Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. METHODS: We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. RESULTS: We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

A comparison of national essential medicines lists in the Americas

[ABSTRACT]. Objectives. To compare national essential medicines lists (NEMLs) from countries in the Region of the Americas and to identify potential opportunities for improving those lists. Methods. In June of 2017, NEMLs from 31 countries in the Americas were abstracted from documents included in a World Health Organization (WHO) repository. The lists from the Americas were compared to each other and to NEMLs from outside of the Americas, as well as with the WHO Model List of Essential Medicines, 20th edition (“WHO Model List”) and the list of the Pan American Health Organization (PAHO) Regional Revolving Fund for Strategic Public Health Supplies (“Strategic Fund”). Results. The number of differences between the NEMLs from the Americas and the WHO Model List were similar within those countries (median: 295; interquartile range (IQR): 265 to 347). The NEMLs from the Americas were generally similar to each other. While the NEMLs from the Americas coincided well with the Strategic Fund list, some medicines were not included on any of those NEMLs. All the NEMLs in the Americas included some medicines that were withdrawn due to adverse effects by a national regulatory body (median: 8 withdrawn medicines per NEML; IQR: 4 to 12). Conclusions. The NEMLs in the Americas were fairly similar to each other and to the WHO Model List and the Strategic Fund list. However, some areas of treatment and some specific medicines were identified that the countries should reassess when revising their NEMLs.

[RESUMEN]. Objetivos. Comparar las listas nacionales de medicamentos esenciales (LNME) de países de la Región de las Américas e identificar oportunidades potenciales de mejorarlas. Métodos. En junio de 2017, se extrajeron las LNME de 31 países de la Región de documentos incluidos en un repositorio de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Se compararon estas listas entre sí y con listas de fuera de la Región, así como con la Lista Modelo de Medicamentos Esenciales de la OMS (20ª edición) y la lista del Fondo Rotatorio Regional para Suministros Estratégicos de Salud Pública de la Organización Panamericana de la Salud. Resultados. El número de diferencias entre las LNME de la Región y la Lista Modelo de la OMS fue similar dentro de esos países (mediana: 295; rango intercuartil (RIC): 265 a 347). Las LNME de la Región en general fueron similares entre sí. Si bien las LNME de la Región mostraron una coincidencia adecuada con la lista del Fondo Rotatorio, algunos medicamentos no estaban incluidos en ninguna de las primeras. Todas las LNME de la Región incluían algunos medicamentos que habían sido retirados del mercado por las autoridades regulatorias nacionales debido a efectos adversos (mediana: 8 medicamentos retirados en cada lista; RIC: 4 a 12). Conclusiones. Las LNME en la Región de las Américas son bastante similares entre sí y con la Lista Modelo de la OMS y la lista del Fondo Rotatorio de la OPS. Sin embargo, se identificaron algunas áreas terapéuticas y algunos medicamentos específicos que los países deberían reevaluar al revisar sus LNME.

[RESUMO]. Objetivos. Comparar as listas nacionais de medicamentos essenciais (LNME) dos países da Região das Américas e identificar oportunidades potenciais de melhoria. Métodos. Em junho de 2017, as LNME de 31 países das Américas foram obtidas de documentos incluídos em um repositório da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS). As listas foram comparadas entre si, com listas de fora da Região, com a Lista Modelo de Medicamentos Essenciais da OMS (20ª edição) e com a lista do Fundo Rotativo Regional para Fornecimentos Estratégicos de Saúde Pública da Organização Pan-Americana da Saúde (Fundo Estratégico). Resultados. As LNME dos países das Américas eram semelhantes entre si e apresentaram um número semelhante de diferenças em relação à Lista Modelo da OMS (mediana: 295; intervalo interquartil: 265-347). Embora as LNME nas Américas fossem altamente consistentes com a lista do Fundo Estratégico, alguns dos medicamentos do Fundo não apareciam em nenhuma dessas LNME. Todas as LNME nas Américas incluíam medicamentos retirados do mercado por algum organismo regulador nacional devido a efeitos adversos (mediana: 8 medicamentos retirados por LNME; intervalo interquartil: 4-12). Conclusões. As LNME nas Américas são bastante semelhantes entre si e próximas da Lista Modelo da OMS e da lista do Fundo Estratégico. Contudo, foram identificadas algumas áreas terapêuticas e alguns medicamentos específicos que os países deveriam reavaliar ao rever as suas LNME.

Health outcomes related to the provision of free, tangible goods: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Free provision of tangible goods that may improve health is one approach to addressing discrepancies in health outcomes related to income, yet it is unclear whether providing goods for free improves health. We systematically reviewed the literature that reported the association between the free provision of tangible goods and health outcomes. METHODS: A search was performed for relevant literature in all languages from 1995-May 2017. Eligible studies were observational and experimental which had at least one tangible item provided for free and had at least one quantitative measure of health. Studies were excluded if the intervention was primarily a service and the free good was relatively unimportant; if the good was a medication; or if the data in a study was duplicated in another study. Covidence screening software was used to manage articles for two levels of screening. Data was extracted using an adaption of the Cochrane data collection template. Health outcomes, those that affect the quality or duration of life, are the outcomes of interest. The study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017069463). FINDINGS: The initial search identified 3370 articles and 59 were included in the final set with a range of 20 to 252 246 participants. The risk of bias assessment revealed that overall, the studies were of medium to high quality. Among the studies included in this review, 80 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the intervention, 19 health outcomes were statistically significant favouring the control, 141 health outcomes were not significant and significance was unknown for 28 health outcomes. INTERPRETATION: The results of this systematic review provide evidence that free goods can improve health outcomes in certain circumstances, although there were important gaps and limitations in the existing literature.

Exploring the experiences of people in Ontario, Canada who have trouble affording medicines: a qualitative concept mapping study.

OBJECTIVES: The experiences of people who report cost-related medicine non-adherence are not well documented. We aimed to present experiences relating to accessing medicines reported by the participants in a randomised controlled trial of free medicine distribution. METHODS: The trial consisted of primary care patients from a large urban family practice and three rural family practices who reported cost-related medicine non-adherence. Participants were randomly allocated to continue their poor access (control) or to receive free and easily accessible medicines (intervention). As part of data collection for the first year of the trial, participants were asked closed and open-ended questions to assess their adherence to medication, health outcomes and their experiences in relation to medicine accessibility. We conducted a qualitative concept mapping study in which we analysed and summarised participants' responses to the open-ended question on a concept map to visually present their experiences relating to accessing medicines. RESULTS: Of the 524 trial participants contacted, 198 (38%) responded to the open-ended question. The concept map contains clusters that represent eight types of experiences of participants related to medicine access including stress, relationship with doctor, health impact, quality of life, sacrificing other essentials, medicines are expensive, financial impact and adherence. These experiences fall under two major themes, experiences relating to personal finances and experiences relating to well-being, which are bridged by a central cluster of adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The experiences shared by the participants demonstrate that access to medicines impacts people's finances and well-being as well as their adherence to prescribed medicines. These results indicate that effects on personal finances and general well-being should be measured for interventions and policy changes aimed at improving medicine access. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This article is linked to the Carefully Selected and Easily Accessible at No Charge Medicines (CLEAN Meds) randomised controlled trial (trial registration number: NCT02744963).