Exploring value creation in a virtual community of practice: a framework analysis for knowledge and skills development among primary care professionals.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals traditional education reflects constraints to face the complex needs of people with chronic diseases in primary care settings. Since more innovative and practical solutions are required, Virtual Community of Practices (vCoP) seem to better respond to learning updates, improving professional and organizational knowledge. However, little is known about the value created in vCoPs as social learning environments. The objective of this project was to explore the value creation process of a gamified vCoP ("e-mpodera vCoP") aimed at improving the knowledge and attitudes of primary healthcare professionals (PCPs) (nurses and general practitioners) to the empowerment of people with chronic conditions. METHODS: A framework analysis assessed the value creation process using a mixed methods approach. The framework provided awareness about knowledge and usefulness in a learning community through five cycles: (1) immediate value, (2) potential value, (3) applied value, (4) realized value, and (5) reframing value. Quantitative data included vCoP analytics such as logins, contributions, points, badges, and performance metrics. Qualitative data consisted of PCPs' forum contributions from Madrid, Catalonia, and Canary Islands over 14 months. RESULTS: A total of 185 PCPs had access to the e-mpodera vCoPs. The vCoP showed the dynamic participation of 146 PCPs, along 63 content activities posted, including a total of 3,571 contributions (including text, images, links to webpages, and other files). Regarding the value creation process, the e-mpodera vCoP seems to encompass a broad spectrum of value cycles, with indicators mostly related to cycle 1 (immediate value - activities and interactions) and cycle 2 (potential value - knowledge capital); and to a lesser extent for cycle 3 (applied value - changes in practice) and for cycle 4 (realized value - performance improvement). The presence of indicators related to cycle 5 (reframing value), was minimal, due to few individual redefinitions of success. CONCLUSION: To reach a wider range of value possibilities, a combination of learning objectives, competence framework, challenged-based gamified platform, and pathway model of skill development seems crucial. However, additional research is required to gain clearer insights into organizational values, professionals' lifelong educational needs in healthcare, and the long-term sustainability of performance improvement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02757781. Registered on 02/05/2016.

A Virtual Community of Practice to Improve Primary Health Care Professionals' Attitudes Toward Patient Empowerment (e-MPODERA): A Cluster Randomized Trial.

PURPOSE: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a virtual community of practice (vCoP) in improving primary health care professionals' (HCPs') attitudes toward empowering patients with chronic disease. METHODS: We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial. Practices were units of randomization, and primary HCPs and patients were units of analysis. Sixty-three practices in Madrid, Catalonia, and the Canary Islands were randomly allocated to the intervention or control groups. Randominzation of practices was performed after HCP and patient recruitment. The patients and statistician were anonymized to group allocation; it was not possible to anonymize HCPs. The intervention was a 12-month multicomponent tailored vCoP built on the Web 2.0 concept and focused on skills toward patient empowerment. The primary outcome was Patient-Provider Orientation Scale (PPOS) score at baseline and at 12 months. The secondary outcome was the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) score. RESULTS: A total of 321 HCPs and 1,921 patients were assessed. The intervention had a positive effect on PPOS total score (0.14 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.03-0.25; P = .011) and the PPOS Sharing subscale (0.3 points higher in the vCoP arm; 95% CI, 0.15-0.44; P < .001). No effect was found for the PPOS Caring subscale, and no significant differences were found for PAM scores. CONCLUSIONS: A vCoP led to a minor increase in the PPOS Sharing component and the total score but not in the Caring component. However, considerable uncertainty remains, given the observed attrition and other limitations of the study. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of the vCoP model and on how to improve HCP engagement.VISUAL ABSTRACT.

Cross-cultural validation of the patient-practitioner orientation scale among primary care professionals in Spain.

BACKGROUND: In recent decades, many self-report instruments have been developed to assess the extent to which patients want to be informed and involved in decisions about their health as part of the concept of person-centred care (PCC). The main objective of this research was to translate, adapt and validate the Patient-Practitioner Orientation Scale (PPOS) using a sample of primary care health-care professionals in Spain. METHODS: Baseline analysis of PPOS scores for 321 primary care professionals (general practitioners and nurses) from 63 centres and 3 Spanish regions participating in a randomized controlled trial. We analysed missing values, distributions and descriptive statistics, item-to-scale correlations and internal consistency. Performed were confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the 2-factor model (sharing and caring dimensions), scale depuration and principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: Low inter-item correlations were observed, and the CFA 2-factor model only obtained a good fit to the data after excluding 8 items. Internal consistency of the 10-item PPOS was acceptable (0.77), but low for individual subscales (0.70 and 0.55). PCA results suggest a possible 3-factor structure. Participants showed a patient-oriented style (mean = 4.46, SD = 0.73), with higher scores for caring than sharing. CONCLUSION: Although the 2-factor model obtained empirical support, measurement indicators of the PPOS (caring dimension) could be improved. Spanish primary care health-care professionals overall show a patient-oriented attitude, although less marked in issues such as patients' need for and management of medical information.

Acceptability and feasibility of a virtual community of practice to primary care professionals regarding patient empowerment: a qualitative pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Virtual communities of practice (vCoPs) facilitate online learning via the exchange of experiences and knowledge between interested participants. Compared to other communities, vCoPs need to overcome technological structures and specific barriers. Our objective was to pilot the acceptability and feasibility of a vCoP aimed at improving the attitudes of primary care professionals to the empowerment of patients with chronic conditions. METHODS: We used a qualitative approach based on 2 focus groups: one composed of 6 general practitioners and the other of 6 practice nurses. Discussion guidelines on the topics to be investigated were provided to the moderator. Sessions were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic analysis was performed using the ATLAS-ti software. RESULTS: The available operating systems and browsers and the lack of suitable spaces and time were reported as the main difficulties with the vCoP. The vCoP was perceived to be a flexible learning mode that provided up-to-date resources applicable to routine practice and offered a space for the exchange of experiences and approaches. CONCLUSIONS: The results from this pilot study show that the vCoP was considered useful for learning how to empower patients. However, while vCoPs have the potential to facilitate learning and as shown create professional awareness regarding patient empowerment, attention needs to be paid to technological and access issues and the time demands on professionals. We collected relevant inputs to improve the features, content and educational methods to be included in further vCoP implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT02757781 . Registered on 25 April 2016.

[Concordance and usefulness of a stratification system for clinical decision making]. / Concordancia y utilidad de un sistema de estratificación para la toma de decisiones clínicas.

OBJECTIVES: 1) To analyse concordance between the level of risk classification using the Adjusted Groups Morbidity (GMA) tool and the assigned level of intervention by general practitioners (GP). 2) To study the usefulness of the GMA tool as an aid in electronic medical records (EMR) for decision making. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study of concordance. LOCATION: Primary Care. Madrid Health Service. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty eight GPs. A sample of 840 patients assigned to participating GPs was selected by disproportionate stratified random sampling (0.65 kappa, 0.125 precision, 5% positive rate, 95% confidence level). MAIN MEASUREMENTS: Weighted Cohen Kappa index for the degree of concordance between the GMA tool and the GPs. The usefulness of the tool was assessed using an ad hoc developed questionnaire. RESULTS: Kappa weighted index obtained was 0.60 (95%CI: 0.55-0.65). In 3% of cases the disagreement was maximum. The GPs found that the grouping tool had been useful in 76% of cases. CONCLUSION: Moderate strength/good concordance; incorporating a grouping tool in the EMR helps as a reminder for taking more proactive/integrated decisions based on social and health needs of people with chronic diseases.

Healthcare Professionals' Perceptions about the Implementation of Shared Decision-Making in Primary Care: A Qualitative Study from a Virtual Community of Practice.

Background: The incorporation of shared decision making (SDM) is a central part of empowerment processes, as it facilitates greater activation on the part of patients, increasing the likelihood of them gaining control over their healthcare and developing skills to solve their health problems. Despite these benefits, there are still difficulties in the implementation of SDM among healthcare professionals due to internal and external factors related to the context and health systems. Aim: To explore primary care professionals (PCPs)' perceptions of the SDM model, based on their preconceptions and experience in clinical practice. Methods: A framework analysis was conducted on qualitative data derived from a virtual community practice forum, within a cluster-randomized clinical trial developed in the e-MPODERA project. Results: The most important points in the opinions of the PCPs were: exploring the patients' values, preferences and expectations, providing them with and checking their understanding of up-to-date and evidence-based health information. The analysis revealed three themes: determinants of the implementation process of SDM, lack of consistency and dilemmas and benefits of PCP active listening, motivation and positive expectations of SDM. Discussion: In our initial analysis, we examined the connections between the categories of the TDC model and its application in the primary care context. The categories related to the model reflect the theoretical understanding of professionals, while those related to perceptions of its application and use show certain discrepancies. These discrepancies could indicate a lack of understanding of the model and its real-world implications or insufficient commitment on the part of professionals or the organization to ensure its effective implementation. Conclusions: Specific targeted training that addresses knowledge, attitudes and practice may resolve the aforementioned findings.

Antecedentes: La incorporación de la toma de decisiones compartida (TDC) es una parte central del empoderamiento del paciente, ya que facilita una mayor activación, ganar control sobre la atención que recibe y desarrollar habilidades para resolver sus problemas de salud. A pesar de estos beneficios, todavía existen dificultades para implementar la TDC entre los profesionales sanitarios debido a factores internos de los propios profesionales y externos, relacionados con el contexto y los sistemas sanitarios. Objetivo: Explorar en el foro de una comunidad virtual de práctica (CVdP) las percepciones de los profesionales de atención primaria (PAP) sobre el modelo de TDC en función de sus ideas preconcebidas y su experiencia en la práctica clínica. Métodos: Se realizó un análisis de marco desde un abordaje cualitativo de las intervenciones hechas por los PAP en el foro de una CVdP. Esta CVdP se implementó dentro de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado por grupos desarrollado en el proyecto e-MPODERA. Resultados: Los aspectos más importantes relacionados con la TDC desde la perspectiva de los PAP incluyeron: explorar los valores, preferencias y expectativas de los pacientes, proporcionarles información actualizada y basada en la evidencia, y comprobar su comprensión. En el análisis posterior, tres categorías emergieron como los temas más relevantes: determinantes de la implementación del TDC, falta de consistencia y dilemas, y beneficios de la escucha activa de los PAP, motivación y expectativas positivas de la TDC. Discusión: En nuestro análisis inicial, examinamos las conexiones entre las categorías del modelo de TDC y su aplicación en el contexto de atención primaria. Las categorías relacionadas con el modelo reflejan la comprensión teórica de los profesionales, mientras que las relativas a las percepciones de su aplicación y uso muestran ciertas discrepancias. Estas discrepancias podrían indicar una falta de comprensión del modelo y de sus implicaciones en el mundo real o un compromiso insuficiente por parte de los profesionales o de la organización para garantizar su aplicación efectiva. Conclusión: Una formación específica que aborde los conocimientos, las actitudes y la práctica puede resolver los hallazgos mencionados.

Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Heart Failure to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may enhance heart failure (HF) outcomes and address challenges associated with disease management. This study aims to review randomized evidence and identify knowledge gaps in SMIs for adult HF patients. Within the COMPAR-EU project, from 2010 to 2018, we conducted searches in the databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO. We performed a descriptive analysis using predefined categories and developed an evidence map of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We found 282 RCTs examining SMIs for HF patients, comparing two to four interventions, primarily targeting individual patients (97%) globally (34 countries, only 31% from an European country). These interventions involved support techniques such as information sharing (95%) and self-monitoring (62%), often through a mix of in-person and remote sessions (43%). Commonly assessed outcomes included quality of life, hospital admissions, mortality, exercise capacity, and self-efficacy. Few studies have focused on lower socio-economic or minority groups. Nurses (68%) and physicians (30%) were the primary providers, and most studies were at low risk of bias in generating a random sequence for participant allocation; however, the reporting was noticeably unclear of methods used to conceal the allocation process. Our analysis has revealed prevalent support techniques and delivery methods while highlighting methodological challenges. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, clinicians, and policymakers striving to optimize SMIs for individuals living with HF.

Implementation of a virtual community of practice to promote the empowerment of middle-aged people with multimorbidity: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Empowering people living with multimorbidity (multiple chronic conditions) to gain greater confidence in managing their health can enhance their quality of life. Education focused on self-management is a key tool for fostering patient empowerment and is mostly provided on an individual basis. Virtual communities of practice (VCoP) present a unique opportunity for online education in chronic condition self-management within a social context. This research aims to evaluate the effectiveness/cost-effectiveness of individualised, online self-management education compared with VCoP among middle-aged individuals living with multiple chronic conditions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: People aged 30-60, living with ≥2 chronic conditions and receiving care in primary care (PC) centres and outpatient hospital-based clinics in Madrid and Canary Islands will enrol in an 18-month parallel-design, blinded (intervention assessment and data analysts), pragmatic (adhering to the intention-to-treat principle), individually randomised trial. The trial will compare two 12-month web-based educational offers of identical content; one delivered individually (control) and the other with online social interaction (VCoP, intervention). Using repeated measures mixed linear models, with the patient as random effect and allocation groups and time per group as fixed effects, we will estimate between-arm differences in the change in Patient Activation Measure from baseline to 12 months (primary endpoint), including measurements at 6-month and 18-month follow-up. Other outcomes will include measures of depression and anxiety, treatment burden, quality of life. In addition to a process evaluation of the VCoP, we will conduct an economic evaluation estimating the relative cost-effectiveness of the VCoP from the perspectives of both the National Health System and the Community. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial was approved by Clinical Research Ethics Committees of Gregorio Marañón University Hospital in Madrid/Nuestra Señora Candelaria University Hospital in Santa Cruz de Tenerife. The results will be disseminated through workshops, policy briefs, peer-reviewed publications and local/international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT06046326.

Rationale, design and organization of the delayed antibiotic prescription (DAP) trial: a randomized controlled trial of the efficacy and safety of delayed antibiotic prescribing strategies in the non-complicated acute respiratory tract infections in general practice.

BACKGROUND: Respiratory tract infections are an important burden in primary care and it's known that they are usually self-limited and that antibiotics only alter its course slightly. This together with the alarming increase of bacterial resistance due to increased use of antimicrobials calls for a need to consider strategies to reduce their use. One of these strategies is the delayed prescription of antibiotics. METHODS: Multicentric, parallel, randomised controlled trial comparing four antibiotic prescribing strategies in acute non-complicated respiratory tract infections. We will include acute pharyngitis, rhinosinusitis, acute bronchitis and acute exacerbation of chronic bronchitis or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (mild to moderate). The therapeutic strategies compared are: immediate antibiotic treatment, no antibiotic treatment, and two delayed antibiotic prescribing (DAP) strategies with structured advice to use a course of antibiotics in case of worsening of symptoms or not improving (prescription given to patient or prescription left at the reception of the primary care centre 3 days after the first medical visit). DISCUSSION: Delayed antibiotic prescription has been widely used in Anglo-Saxon countries, however, in Southern Europe there has been little research about this topic. The DAP trial wil evaluate two different delayed strategies in Spain for the main respiratory infections in primary care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number http://NCT01363531.

COVID-19 healthcare and social-related needs from the perspective of Spanish patients and healthcare providers: a qualitative analysis of responses to open-ended questions.

Introduction: Identifying stakeholders' needs is crucial to informing decisions and policy development. This study aims to identify healthcare and social-related needs and effective strategies associated with COVID-19 from the first-person perspectives of patients and healthcare providers. Methods: Cross-sectional online survey design including qualitative open-ended questions, conducted in primary care and hospital settings across Spain, with 12 out of 19 regions represented. Adults aged 18 years and older, who (a) resided in Spain and had a history of COVID-19 or (b) worked as healthcare providers delivering direct or indirect care for people with COVID-19 in Spanish primary care or hospitals during 2020 were eligible to participate. Recruitment was conducted via social-media networks (Twitter, LinkedIn, and WhatsApp) and communication channels of key organizations including patient and professional associations and groups. A total of 182 people were invited to complete the surveys and 76 people completed the surveys (71% women), of which 33 were home-isolated patients, 14 were hospitalized patients, 16 were primary care professionals, and 13 were hospital care professionals. Results: A total of 327 needs and 86 effective strategies and positive aspects were identified across surveys and classified into the following overarching themes: (i) Accessibility, (ii) Basic needs, (iii) Clinical care, (iv) Person-and-family centered care, (v) Caring for the healthcare professional, (vi) Protocolization, information, health campaigns, and education, (vii) Resource availability, (viii) and Organizational needs/strategies. Discussion: Findings indicate the Spanish health and social care systems were generally unprepared to combat COVID-19. Implications for research, practice, and policy focus on integrating first-person perspectives as best practice to identify, prioritize and address needs to increase health and social care systems capacity and preparedness, as well as providing well-co-coordinated responses across government, healthcare, and non-government sectors to promote and protect the physical and mental health of all.

Self-management interventions for adults living with obesity to improve patient-relevant outcomes: An evidence map.

OBJECTIVES: To conduct an evidence map on self-management interventions and patient-relevant outcomes for adults living with overweight/obesity. METHODS: Following Arksey and O'Malley methodology, we searched in five electronical databases including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for overweight/obesity. We used the terms "self-management", "adult" and "obesity" for content. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, a second checked accuracy. RESULTS: We identified 497 RCTs (58% US, 20% Europe) including 99,741 (median 112, range 11-5145) adults living with overweight/obesity. Most research evaluated clinical outcomes (617, 55%) and behaviors adherence (255, 23%). Empowerment skills, quality of life and satisfaction were less targeted (8%, 7%, 0.2%, respectively). The most frequent techniques included sharing information (858, 99%), goal setting (619, 72%) and self-monitoring training (614, 71%), provided face-to-face (386, 45%) or in combination with remote techniques (256, 30%). Emotional management, social support and shared-decision were less frequent (18%, 26%, 4%). Socio-economic status, minorities or health literacy were seldom reported. CONCLUSION: There is a need of widening the scope of research by focusing on outcomes important to patients, assessing emotional/social/share-decision support, exploring remote techniques and including vulnerable populations.

Self-Management Interventions for Adults Living with Type II Diabetes to Improve Patient-Important Outcomes: An Evidence Map.

Self-management interventions (SMIs) may be promising in the treatment of Diabetes Mellitus Type 2 (T2DM). However, accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness are challenging, partly due to a lack of clarity and detail regarding the intervention content being evaluated. This study summarizes intervention components and characteristics in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) related to T2DM using a taxonomy for SMIs as a framework and identifies components that are insufficiently incorporated into the design of the intervention or insufficiently reported. Following evidence mapping methodology, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycINFO from 2010 to 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on SMIs for T2DM. We used the terms 'self-management', 'adult' and 'T2DM' for content. For data extraction, we used an online platform based on the taxonomy for SMIs. Two independent reviewers assessed eligible references; one reviewer extracted data, and a second checked accuracy. We identified 665 RCTs for SMIs (34% US, 21% Europe) including 164,437 (median 123, range 10-14,559) adults with T2DM. SMIs highly differed in design and content, and characteristics such as mode of delivery, intensity, location and providers involved were poorly described. The majority of interventions aimed to improve clinical outcomes like HbA1c (83%), weight (53%), lipid profile (45%) or blood pressure (42%); 27% (also) targeted quality of life. Improved knowledge, health literacy, patient activation or satisfaction with care were hardly used as outcomes (<16%). SMIs most often used education (98%), self-monitoring (56%), goal-setting (48%) and skills training (42%) to improve outcomes. Management of emotions (17%) and shared decision-making (5%) were almost never mentioned. Although diabetes is highly prevalent in some minority groups, in only 13% of the SMIs, these groups were included. Our findings highlight the large heterogeneity that exists in the design of SMIs for T2DM and the way studies are reported, making accurate comparisons of their relative effectiveness challenging. In addition, SMIs pay limited attention to outcomes other than clinical, despite the importance attached to these outcomes by patients. More standardized and streamlined research is needed to better understand the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of SMIs of T2DM and benefit patient care.

Characteristics of Critical Incident Reporting Systems in Primary Care: An International Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to support the development of future critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) in primary care by collecting information on existing systems. Our focus was on processes used to report and analyze incidents, as well as strategies used to overcome difficulties. METHODS: Based on literature from throughout the world, we identified existing CIRS in primary care. We developed a questionnaire and sent it to operators of a purposeful sample of 17 CIRS in primary care. We used cross-case analysis to compare the answers and pinpoint important similarities and differences in the CIRS in our sample. RESULTS: Ten CIRS operators filled out the questionnaire, and 9 systems met our inclusion criteria. The sample of CIRS came from 8 different countries and was rather heterogeneous. The reporting systems invited a broad range of professions to report, with some also including reports by patients. In most cases, reporting was voluntary and conducted via an online reporting form. Reports were analyzed locally, centrally, or both. The various CIRS used interesting ideas to deal with barriers. Some, for example, used confidential reporting modes as a compromise between anonymity and the need for follow-up investigations, whereas others used smartphone applications and call centers to speed up the reporting process. CONCLUSIONS: We found multiple CIRS that have operated in primary care for many years and have received a high number of reports. They were largely developed in accordance with recommendations found in literature. Developers of future systems may find this overview useful.

Effectiveness of exercise and physical activity interventions to improve long-term patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in people living with mild cognitive impairment: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) is a clinical syndrome characterised by persistent cognitive deficits that do not yet fulfil the criteria of dementia. Delaying the onset of dementia using secondary preventive measures such as physical activity and exercise can be a safe way of reducing the risk of further cognitive decline and maintaining independence and improving quality of life. The aim is to systematically review the literature to assess the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions to improve long-term patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in people living with MCI, including meta-analyses if applicable. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search five electronic databases from 1995 onward to identify trials reporting on the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions to improve long-term (12+ months) patient-relevant cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes in adults (50+ years) with MCI. Screening procedures, selection of eligible full-texts, data extraction and risk of bias assessment will be performed in dual-review mode. Additionally, the reporting quality of the exercise interventions will be assessed using the Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template. A quantitative synthesis will only be conducted if studies are homogeneous enough for effect sizes to be pooled. Where quantitative analysis is not applicable, data will be represented in a tabular form and synthesised narratively. People living with MCI will be involved in defining outcome measures most relevant to them in order to assess in how far randomised controlled trials report endpoints that matter to those concerned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Results will be disseminated to both scientific and lay audiences by creating a patient-friendly video abstract. This work will inform professionals in primary care about the effectiveness of physical activity and exercise interventions and support them to make evidence-based exercise recommendations for the secondary prevention of dementia in people living with MCI. No ethical approval required. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021287166.

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Development and Implementation of a Polypharmacy Management Program in Germany: Results of a Qualitative Study.

Structured management programs have been developed for single diseases but rarely for patients with multiple medications. We conducted a qualitative study to investigate the views of stakeholders on the development and implementation of a polypharmacy management program in Germany. Overall, we interviewed ten experts in the fields of health policy and clinical practice. Using content analysis, we identified inclusion criteria for the selection of suitable patients, the individual elements that should make up such a program, healthcare providers and stakeholders that should be involved, and factors that may support or hinder the program's implementation. All stakeholders were well aware of polypharmacy-related risks and challenges, as well as the urgent need for change. Intervention strategies should address all levels of care and include all concerned patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and stakeholders, and involved parties should agree on a joint approach.

Evidence-Based Decision Support for a Structured Care Program on Polypharmacy in Multimorbidity: A Guideline Upgrade Based on a Realist Synthesis.

Evidence-based clinical guidelines generally consider single conditions, and rarely multimorbidity. We developed an evidence-based guideline for a structured care program to manage polypharmacy in multimorbidity by using a realist synthesis to update the German polypharmacy guideline including the following five methods: formal prioritization in focus groups; systematic guideline review of evidence-based multimorbidity/polypharmacy guidelines; evidence search/synthesis and recommendation development; multidisciplinary consent of recommendations; feasibility test of updated guideline. We identified the need for a better description of the target group, decision support, prioritization of medication, consideration of patient preferences and anticholinergic properties, and of healthcare interfaces. We conducted a systematic guideline review of eight guidelines and extracted and synthesized recommendations using the Ariadne principles. We also included 48 systematic reviews. We formulated and agreed upon 34 recommendations for the revised guideline. During the feasibility test, guideline use enabled 57% of GPs to identify problems, leading to medication changes in 49% and self-assessed improvement in 56% of patients. Although 58% of GPs felt that it was too long, 92% recommended it. Polypharmacy should be systematically reviewed at least annually. Patients, family members, and healthcare professionals should monitor and adjust it using prospective process validation, taking into account patient preferences and agreed treatment goals.

Global Healthcare Needs Related to COVID-19: An Evidence Map of the First Year of the Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed gaps and areas of need in health systems worldwide. This work aims to map the evidence on COVID-19-related healthcare needs of adult patients, their family members, and the professionals involved in their care during the first year of the pandemic. We searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full texts for eligibility. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. Descriptive data were extracted and inductive qualitative content analysis was used to generate codes and derive overarching themes. Thirty-six studies met inclusion criteria, with the majority reporting needs from the perspective of professionals (35/36). Professionals' needs were grouped into three main clusters (basic, occupational, and psycho-socio-emotional needs); patients' needs into four (basic, healthcare, psycho-socio-emotional, and other support needs); and family members' needs into two (psycho-socio-emotional and communication needs). Transversal needs across subgroups were also identified and grouped into three main clusters (public safety, information and communication, and coordination and support needs). This evidence map provides valuable insight on COVID-19-related healthcare needs. More research is needed to assess first-person perspectives of patients and their families, examine whether needs differ by country or region, and evaluate how needs have evolved over time.

Development of an intervention to improve informational continuity of care in older patients with polypharmacy at the interface between general practice and hospital care: protocol for a participatory qualitative study in Germany.

INTRODUCTION: Older patients with multimorbidity, polypharmacy and related complex care needs represent a growing proportion of the population and a challenge for healthcare systems. Particularly in transitional care (hospital admission and hospital discharge), medical errors, inappropriate treatment, patient concerns and lack of confidence in healthcare are major problems that may arise from a lack of information continuity. The aim of this study is to develop an intervention to improve informational continuity of care at the interface between general practice and hospital care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A qualitative approach will be used to develop our participatory intervention. Overall, 32 semistructured interviews with relevant stakeholders will be conducted and analysed. The stakeholders will include healthcare professionals from the outpatient setting (general practitioners, healthcare assistants, ambulatory care nurses) and the inpatient setting (clinical doctors, nurses, pharmacists, clinical information scientists) as well as patients and informal caregivers. At a series of workshops based on the results of the stakeholder analyses, we aim to develop a participatory intervention that will then be implemented in a subsequent pilot study. The same stakeholder groups will be invited for participation in the workshops. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was waived by the Ethics Committee of Goethe University Frankfurt because of the nature of the proposed study. Written informed consent will be obtained from all study participants prior to participation. Results will be tested in a pilot study and disseminated at (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTATION NUMBER: Clinical Trials Register: registration number DRKS00027649.

Everyday lives of middle-aged persons living with multimorbidity: protocol of a mixed-methods systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Multimorbidity is the simultaneous occurrence of several (chronic) diseases. Persons living with multimorbidity not only have complex care needs, but the burden of care often has a negative impact on their family lives, leisure time and professional activities. The aim of this project is to systematically review the literature to assess how multimorbidity affects the everyday lives of middle-aged persons, and to find out what abilities and resources help in the development of coping strategies to overcome the challenges of living with it. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will systematically search for studies reporting on the everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons (30-60 years) with multimorbidity (≥2 chronic conditions) in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Social Sciences Citation Index, Social Sciences Citation Index Expanded, PSYNDEX and The Cochrane Library from inception. We will include all primary studies that use quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies, irrespective of publication date/study setting.Two independent reviewers will screen titles/abstracts/full texts, extract data from the selected studies and present evidence in terms of study/population characteristics, data collection method and the phenomenon of interest, that is, everyday life experiences of middle-aged persons with multimorbidity. Risk of bias will be independently assessed by two reviewers using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We will use a convergent integrated approach on qualitative/quantitative studies, whereby information will be synthesised narratively and, if possible, quantitatively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required due to the nature of the proposed systematic review. Results from this research will be disseminated at relevant (inter)national conferences and via publication in peer-reviewed journals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021226699.

Self-management interventions for adults living with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): The development of a Core Outcome Set for COMPAR-EU project.

BACKGROUND: A large body of evidence suggests that self-management interventions (SMIs) may improve outcomes in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, accurate comparisons of the relative effectiveness of SMIs are challenging, partly due to heterogeneity of outcomes across trials and uncertainty about the importance of these outcomes for patients. We aimed to develop a core set of patient-relevant outcomes (COS) for SMIs trials to enhance comparability of interventions and ensure person-centred care. METHODS: We undertook an innovative approach consisting of four interlinked stages: i) Development of an initial catalogue of outcomes from previous EU-funded projects and/or published studies, ii) Scoping review of reviews on patients and caregivers' perspectives to identify outcomes of interest, iii) Two-round Delphi online survey with patients and patient representatives to rate the importance of outcomes, and iv) Face-to-face consensus workshop with patients, patient representatives, health professionals and researchers to develop the COS. RESULTS: From an initial list of 79 potential outcomes, 16 were included in the COS plus one supplementary outcome relevant to all participants. These were related to patient and caregiver knowledge/competence, self-efficacy, patient activation, self-monitoring, adherence, smoking cessation, COPD symptoms, physical activity, sleep quality, caregiver quality of life, activities of daily living, coping with the disease, participation and decision-making, emergency room visits/admissions and cost effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The development of the COPD COS for the evaluation of SMIs will increase consistency in the measurement and reporting of outcomes across trials. It will also contribute to more personalized health care and more informed health decisions in clinical practice as patients' preferences regarding COPD outcomes are more systematically included.