Health Care Team Interventions to Reduce Distress Behaviors in Older Adults: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: This review examines health care team-focused interventions on managing persistent or recurrent distress behaviors among older adults in long-term residential or inpatient health care settings. METHODS: We searched interventions addressing health care worker (HCW) knowledge and skills related to distress behavior management using Ovid MEDLINE, Elsevier Embase, and Ovid PsycINFO from December 2002 through December 2022. RESULTS: We screened 6,582 articles; 29 randomized trials met inclusion criteria. Three studies on patient-facing HCW interactions (e.g. medication management, diagnosing distress) showed mixed results on agitation; one study found no effect on quality of life. Six HCW-focused studies suggested short-term reduction in distress behaviors. Quality-of-life improvement or decreased antipsychotic use was not evidenced. Among 17 interventions combining HCW-focused and patient-facing activities, 0 showed significant distress reduction, 8 showed significant antipsychotic reduction (OR = 0.79, 95%CI [0.69, 0.91]) and 9 showed quality of life improvements (SMD = 0.71, 95%CI [0.39, 1.04]). One study evaluating HCW, patient-, and environmental-focused intervention activities showed short-term improvement in agitation. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Novel health care models combining HCW training and patient management improve patient quality of life, reduce antipsychotic use, and may reduce distress behaviors. Evaluation of intervention's effects on staff burnout and utilization is needed.

A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Family Health History Platform to Identify and Manage Patients at Increased Risk for Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining comprehensive family health history (FHH) to inform colorectal cancer (CRC) risk management in primary care settings is challenging. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effectiveness of a patient-facing FHH platform to identify and manage patients at increased CRC risk. DESIGN: Two-site, two-arm, cluster-randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial with primary care providers (PCPs) randomized to immediate intervention versus wait-list control. PARTICIPANTS: PCPs treating patients at least one half-day per week; patients aged 40-64 with no medical conditions that increased CRC risk. INTERVENTIONS: Immediate-arm patients entered their FHH into a web-based platform that provided risk assessment and guideline-driven decision support; wait-list control patients did so 12 months later. MAIN MEASURES: McNemar's test examined differences between the platform and electronic medical record (EMR) in rates of increased risk documentation. General estimating equations using logistic regression models compared arms in risk-concordant provider actions and patient screening test completion. Referral for genetic consultation was analyzed descriptively. KEY RESULTS: Seventeen PCPs were randomized to each arm. Patients (n = 252 immediate, n = 253 control) averaged 51.4 (SD = 7.2) years, with 83% assigned male at birth, 58% White persons, and 33% Black persons. The percentage of patients identified as increased risk for CRC was greater with the platform (9.9%) versus EMR (5.2%), difference = 4.8% (95% CI: 2.6%, 6.9%), p < .0001. There was no difference in PCP risk-concordant action [odds ratio (OR) = 0.7, 95% CI (0.4, 1.2; p = 0.16)]. Among 177 patients with a risk-concordant screening test ordered, there was no difference in test completion, OR = 0.8 [0.5,1.3]; p = 0.36. Of 50 patients identified by the platform as increased risk, 78.6% immediate and 68.2% control patients received a recommendation for genetic consultation, of which only one in each arm had a referral placed. CONCLUSIONS: FHH tools could accurately assess and document the clinical needs of patients at increased risk for CRC. Barriers to acting on those recommendations warrant further exploration. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02247336 https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02247336.

Barriers and facilitators to the implementation and adoption of improvement coaching: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organisations and teams perform improvement activities to facilitate high-quality healthcare. The use of an improvement coach who provides support and guidance to the healthcare team may facilitate improvement activities; however, no systematic review exists on the facilitators and barriers to implementing an improvement coach. AIMS: We conducted a qualitative evidence synthesis to examine the facilitators and barriers to the implementation of improvement coaching. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE® , Embase and CINAHL. The final search was in March 2021. The screening eligibility criteria included the following: interdisciplinary team receiving the coaching, improvement coaching, designs with a qualitative component and primary purpose of evaluating practice facilitation in OECD countries. An ecologically-informed consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) served as the framework for coding. Patterns of barriers and facilitators across domains were identified through matrix analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using Critical Appraisal Skills Program. PRISMA reporting guidelines served as a guide for reporting this review. RESULTS: Nineteen studies with a qualitative component met the inclusion criteria. Four themes of barriers and facilitators crossed multiple CFIR domains: adaptability (e.g. making adjustments to the project; process, or approach); knowledge and skills (e.g. understanding of content and process for the project); engagement (e.g. willingness to be involved in the process) and resources (e.g. assets required to complete the improvement process). CONCLUSION: Improvement coaching is a complex intervention that influences the context, healthcare team being coached and improvement activities. Improvement coaches should understand how to minimise barriers and promote facilitators that are unique to each improvement project across the domains. Limitations of the study are related to the nature of the intervention including potential publication bias given quality improvement focus; the variety of terms similar to improvement coaching or selection of framework.

Videoconferencing of Movement-Based and Psychologically Informed Interventions for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review and Horizon Scan.

Introduction: With the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, use of telehealth technology increased dramatically. Nonpharmacological approaches to pain management may be well suited for virtual care. Yet, it is not widely understood if this treatment modality is effective when delivered via videoconferencing. This review examines the effectiveness of movement-based and psychologically informed chronic pain management interventions delivered via videoconferencing compared to in-person care. Methods: Searches of MEDLINE® (via Ovid®), Embase (via Elsevier), CINAHL Complete (via EBSCO), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (via Ovid) were performed from inception to June 10, 2021. All articles meeting eligibility criteria were included for data abstraction. Results: Eight thousand two hundred fifty-two citations were identified, and after removing duplicates, 4,661 citations remained. One study investigating acceptance and commitment therapy met eligibility criteria. The noninferiority randomized trial found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between delivery modalities. A horizon scan was conducted to assess planned or recent studies. Horizon scan results yielded six protocols in trial databases, one pilot study, and three published protocols for ongoing studies. Discussion: Findings from this study indicate that virtually delivered pain management is a possible substitute for in-person care. Given the paucity of evidence on this topic, further comparative and adequately powered studies that assess the impact of movement-based and psychologically informed pain management delivered via videoconferencing are needed. Conclusions: Research is needed to understand patient preferences of such interventions within a variety of settings. Such evaluations will be needed to guide clinical and operations practice to optimize equitable deployment and access to high-quality health care delivered via videoconferencing.

Primary Care Engagement Among Individuals with Experiences of Homelessness and Serious Mental Illness: an Evidence Map.

BACKGROUND: Experiences of homelessness and serious mental illness (SMI) negatively impact health and receipt of healthcare. Interventions that promote the use of primary care services for people with both SMI and homelessness may improve health outcomes, but this literature has not been evaluated systematically. This evidence map examines the breadth of literature to describe what intervention strategies have been studied for this population, elements of primary care integration with other services used, and the level of intervention complexity to highlight gaps for future intervention research and program development. METHODS: We followed an a priori protocol developed in collaboration with clinical stakeholders. We systematically searched the published literature to identify interventions for adults with homelessness who also had SMI. We excluded case reports, editorials, letters, and conference abstracts. Data abstraction methods followed standard practice. Data were categorized into intervention strategies and primary care integration strategies. Then we applied the Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR) to characterize intervention complexity. RESULTS: Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria evaluating 15 unique interventions to promote engagement in primary care for adults with experiences of homelessness and SMI. Study designs varied widely from randomized controlled trials and cohort studies to single-site program evaluations. Intervention strategies varied across studies but primarily targeted patients directly (e.g., health education, evidence-based interactions such as motivational interviewing) with fewer strategies employed at the clinic (e.g., employee training, multidisciplinary teams) or system levels (e.g., data sharing). We identified elements of primary care integration, including referral strategies, co-location, and interdisciplinary care planning. Interventions displayed notable complexity around the number of intervention components, interaction between intervention components, and extent to which interventions were tailored to specific patient populations. DISCUSSION: We identified and categorized elements used in various combinations to address the primary care needs of individuals with experiences of homeless and SMI.

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Coaching on Process Outcomes in Health Care Settings: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: A culture of improvement is an important feature of high-quality health care systems. However, health care teams often need support to translate quality improvement (QI) activities into practice. One method of support is consultation from a QI coach. The literature suggests that coaching interventions have a positive impact on clinical outcomes. However, the impact of coaching on specific process outcomes, like adoption of clinical care activities, is unknown. Identifying the process outcomes for which QI coaching is most effective could provide specific guidance on when to employ this strategy. METHODS: We searched multiple databases from inception through July 2021. Studies that addressed the effects of QI coaching on process of care outcomes were included. Two reviewers independently extracted study characteristics and assessed risk of bias. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: We identified 1983 articles, of which 23 cluster-randomized trials met eligibility criteria. All but two took place in a primary care setting. Overall, interventions typically targeted multiple simultaneous processes of care activities. We found that coaching probably has a beneficial effect on composite process of care outcomes (n = 9) and ordering of labs and vital signs (n = 6), and possibly has a beneficial effect on changes in organizational process of care (n = 5), appropriate documentation (n = 5), and delivery of appropriate counseling (n = 3). We did not perform meta-analyses because of conceptual heterogeneity around intervention design and outcomes; rather, we synthesized the data narratively. Due to imprecision, inconsistency, and high risk of bias of the included studies, we judged the certainty of these results as low or very low. CONCLUSION: QI coaching interventions may affect certain processes of care activities such as ordering of labs and vital signs. Future research that advances the identification of when QI coaching is most beneficial for health care teams seeking to implement improvement processes in pursuit of high-quality care will support efficient use of QI resources. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42020165069).

Women Veterans' Healthcare Needs, Utilization, and Preferences in Veterans Affairs Primary Care Settings.

BACKGROUND: The Veterans Health Administration (VA) is the largest integrated health system in the US and provides access to comprehensive primary care. Women Veterans are the fastest growing segment of new VA users, yet little is known about the characteristics of those who routinely access VA primary care in general or by age group. OBJECTIVE: Describe healthcare needs, utilization, and preferences of women Veterans who routinely use VA primary care. PARTICIPANTS: 1,391 women Veterans with 3+ primary care visits within the previous year in 12 VA medical centers (including General Primary Care Clinics, General Primary Care Clinics with designated space for women, and Comprehensive Women's Health Centers) in nine states. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey (45% response rate) of sociodemographic characteristics, health status (including chronic disease, mental health, pain, and trauma exposure), utilization, care preferences, and satisfaction. Select utilization data were extracted from administrative data. Analyses were weighted to the population of routine users and adjusted for non-response in total and by age group. KEY RESULTS: While 43% had health coverage only through VA, 62% received all primary care in VA. In the prior year, 56% used VA mental healthcare and 78% used VA specialty care. Common physical health issues included hypertension (42%), elevated cholesterol (39%), pain (35%), and diabetes (16%). Many screened positive for PTSD (41%), anxiety (32%), and depression (27%). Chronic physical and mental health burdens varied by age. Two-thirds (62%) had experienced military sexual trauma. Respondents reported satisfaction with VA women's healthcare and preference for female providers. CONCLUSIONS: Women Veterans who routinely utilize VA primary care have significant multimorbid physical and mental health conditions and trauma histories. Meeting women Veterans' needs across the lifespan will require continued investment in woman-centered primary care, including integrated mental healthcare and emphasis on trauma-informed, age-specific care, guided by women's provider preferences.

Addressing Hypertension Outcomes Using Telehealth and Population Health Managers: Adaptations and Implementation Considerations.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: There is a growing evidence base describing population health approaches to improve blood pressure control. We reviewed emerging trends in hypertension population health management and present implementation considerations from an intervention called Team-supported, Electronic health record-leveraged, Active Management (TEAM). By doing so, we highlight the role of population health managers, practitioners who use population level data and to proactively engage at-risk patients, in improving blood pressure control. RECENT FINDINGS: Within a population health paradigm, we discuss telehealth-delivered approaches to equitably improve hypertension care delivery. Additionally, we explore implementation considerations and complementary features of team-based, telehealth-delivered, population health management. By leveraging the unique role and expertise of a population health manager as core member of team-based telehealth, health systems can implement a cost-effective and scalable intervention that addresses multi-level barriers to hypertension care delivery. We describe the literature of telehealth-based population health management for patients with hypertension. Using the TEAM intervention as a case study, we then present implementation considerations and intervention adaptations to integrate a population health manager within the health care team and effectively manage hypertension for a defined patient population. We emphasize practical considerations to inform implementation, scaling, and sustainability. We highlight future research directions to advance the field and support translational efforts in diverse clinical and community contexts.

Telehealth for the Longitudinal Management of Chronic Conditions: Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Extensive literature support telehealth as a supplement or adjunct to in-person care for the management of chronic conditions such as congestive heart failure (CHF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Evidence is needed to support the use of telehealth as an equivalent and equitable replacement for in-person care and to assess potential adverse effects. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to address the following question: among adults, what is the effect of synchronous telehealth (real-time response among individuals via phone or phone and video) compared with in-person care (or compared with phone, if synchronous video care) for chronic management of CHF, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and T2DM on key disease-specific clinical outcomes and health care use? METHODS: We followed systematic review methodologies and searched two databases (MEDLINE and Embase). We included randomized or quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the effect of synchronously delivered telehealth for relevant chronic conditions that occurred over ≥2 encounters and in which some or all in-person care was supplanted by care delivered via phone or video. We assessed the bias using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care risk of bias (ROB) tool and the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. We described the findings narratively and did not conduct meta-analysis owing to the small number of studies and the conceptual heterogeneity of the identified interventions. RESULTS: We identified 8662 studies, and 129 (1.49%) were reviewed at the full-text stage. In total, 3.9% (5/129) of the articles were retained for data extraction, all of which (5/5, 100%) were randomized controlled trials. The CHF study (1/5, 20%) was found to have high ROB and randomized patients (n=210) to receive quarterly automated asynchronous web-based review and follow-up of telemetry data versus synchronous personal follow-up (in-person vs phone-based) for 1 year. A 3-way comparison across study arms found no significant differences in clinical outcomes. Overall, 80% (4/5) of the studies (n=466) evaluated synchronous care for patients with T2DM (ROB was judged to be low for 2, 50% of studies and high for 2, 50% of studies). In total, 20% (1/5) of the studies were adequately powered to assess the difference in glycosylated hemoglobin level between groups; however, no significant difference was found. Intervention design varied greatly from remote monitoring of blood glucose combined with video versus in-person visits to an endocrinology clinic to a brief, 3-week remote intervention to stabilize uncontrolled diabetes. No articles were identified for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. CONCLUSIONS: This review found few studies with a variety of designs and interventions that used telehealth as a replacement for in-person care. Future research should consider including observational studies and studies on additional highly prevalent chronic diseases.

Racial Differences in the Cesarean Section Rates Among Women Veterans Using Department of Veterans Affairs Community Care.

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality remain a pressing public health problem. Variations in cesarean section (C-section) rates among racial and ethnic groups have been well documented, though reasons for these variations remain unknown. In the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), nearly half of all women Veterans are of reproductive age and >40% of these women are racial and ethnic minorities. Because the VA does not provide obstetrical services, all obstetrical care is provided by community obstetrical providers under the auspices of the VA Community Care Network. However, little is known regarding the rates and correlates of C-sections among women Veterans receiving community obstetrical care. OBJECTIVE: To examine predictors of C-section deliveries among a cohort of racially diverse pregnant Veterans enrolled in VA care at 15 VA medical facilities nationwide. RESEARCH DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of a longitudinal, prospective, multisite, observational cohort study of pregnant, and postpartum Veterans receiving community-based obstetrical care. RESULTS: Overall, 659 Veterans delivered babies during the study period, and 35% of the deliveries were C-sections. Predictors of C-section receipt included being a woman of color [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 1.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.19-2.60], having an Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale score ≥10 (AOR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.11-2.65), having a higher body mass indexes (AOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04-1.11), and women who were older (AOR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.03-1.13). There was a substantial racial variation in C-section rates across our 15 study sites, with C-section rates meeting or exceeding 50% for WOC in 8 study sites. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial racial and geographic variation in C-section rates among pregnant Veterans receiving obstetrical care through VA community care providers. Future research should carefully examine variations in C-sections by the hospital, and which providers and hospitals are included in VA contracts. There should also be an increased focus on the types of providers women Veterans have access to for obstetrical care paid for by the VA and the quality of care delivered by those providers.

Options for Meaningful Engagement in Clinical Research for Busy Frontline Clinicians.

In order for health care innovations to be effective and actionable, they must align with the needs and practice patterns of those delivering care at the bedside. While research has started to incorporate the patient voice, it has yet to fully invest in the expertise of frontline clinicians. Frontline clinicians carry a wealth of clinical knowledge and the lived experience of providing real-world medical care that the research community seeks to improve. We consider options for clinicians as research stakeholders along a continuum of engagement as outlined by the UCSF Clinical and Translational Science Institute from minimal to supportive to participatory. In order to make an effective value proposition to support reallocation of clinician time to research engagement, we advocate evaluating the impact of clinicians as stakeholders at both the process level (e.g., clinician satisfaction, study recruitment rates) and endpoint level (e.g., clinical outcomes). Investing in clinicians as research stakeholders can offer benefits for the individual, health system, and population by increasing the generalizability, adoption, and sustainability of effective interventions.

Accelerating Implementation of Virtual Care in an Integrated Health Care System: Future Research and Operations Priorities.

BACKGROUND: Virtual care is critical to Veterans Health Administration (VHA) efforts to expand veterans' access to care. Health care policies such as the Veterans Access, Choice, and Accountability (CHOICE) Act and the Maintaining Internal Systems and Strengthening Integrated Outside Networks (MISSION) Act impact how the VHA provides care. Research on ways to refine virtual care delivery models to meet the needs of veterans, clinicians, and VHA stakeholders is needed. OBJECTIVE: Given the importance of virtual approaches for increasing access to high-quality VHA care, in December 2019, we convened a Think Tank, Accelerating Implementation of Virtual Care in VHA Practice, to consider challenges to virtual care research and practice across the VHA, discuss novel approaches to using and evaluating virtual care, assess perspectives on virtual care, and develop priorities to enhance virtual care in the VHA. METHODS: We used a participatory approach to develop potential priorities for virtual care research and activities at the VHA. We refined these priorities through force-ranked prioritization and group discussion, and developed solutions for selected priorities. RESULTS: Think Tank attendees (n = 18) consisted of VHA stakeholders, including operations partners (e.g., Office of Rural Health, Office of Nursing Services, Health Services Research and Development), clinicians (e.g., physicians, nurses, psychologists, physician assistants), and health services researchers. We identified an initial list of fifteen potential priorities and narrowed these down to four. The four priorities were (1) scaling evidence-based practices, (2) centralizing virtual care, (3) creating high-value care within the VHA with virtual care, and (4) identifying appropriate patients for virtual care. CONCLUSION: Our Think Tank took an important step in setting a partnered research agenda to optimize the use of virtual care within the VHA. We brought together research and operations stakeholders and identified possibilities, partnerships, and potential solutions for virtual care.

Risk for Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis After Exposure to Newer Gadolinium Agents: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: The risk for nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) after exposure to newer versus older gadolinium-based contrast agents (GBCAs) remains unclear. PURPOSE: To synthesize evidence about NSF risk with newer versus older GBCAs across the spectrum of kidney function. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science for English-language references from inception to 5 March 2020. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies that assessed NSF occurrence after GBCA exposure. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were abstracted by 1 investigator and verified by a second. Investigator pairs assessed risk of bias by using validated tools. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 32 included studies, 20 allowed for assessment of NSF risk after exposure to newer GBCAs and 12 (11 cohort studies and 1 case-control study) allowed for comparison of NSF risk between newer and older GBCAs. Among 83 291 patients exposed to newer GBCAs, no NSF cases developed (exact 95% CI, 0.0001 to 0.0258 case). Among the 12 studies (n = 118 844) that allowed risk comparison between newer and older GBCAs, 37 NSF cases developed after exposure to older GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0001 to 0.0523 case) and 4 occurred (3 confounded) after exposure to newer GBCAs (exact CI, 0.0018 to 0.0204 case). Data were scant for patients with acute kidney injury or those at risk for chronic kidney disease. LIMITATIONS: Study heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis. Risk of bias was high in most studies because of inadequate exposure and outcome ascertainment. CONCLUSION: Although NSF occurrence after exposure to newer GBCAs is very rare, the relatively scarce data among patients with acute kidney injury and those with risk factors for chronic kidney disease limit conclusions about safety in these populations. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42019135783).

Implementing remote triage in large health systems: A qualitative evidence synthesis.

Remote triage (RT) allows interprofessional teams (e.g., nurses and physicians) to assess patients and make clinical decisions remotely. RT use has developed widespread interest due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and has future potential to address the needs of a rapidly aging population, improve access to care, facilitate interprofessional team care, and ensure appropriate use of resources. However, despite rapid and increasing interest in implementation of RT, there is little research concerning practices for successful implementation. We conducted a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis of practices that impact the implementation of RT for adults seeking clinical care advice. We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE, and CINAHL from inception through July 2018. We included 32 studies in this review. Our review identified four themes impacting the implementation of RT: characteristics of staff who use RT, influence of RT on staff, considerations in selecting RT tools, and environmental and contextual factors impacting RT. The findings of our systemic review underscore the need for a careful consideration of (a) organizational and stakeholder buy-in before launch, (b) physical and psychological workplace environment, (c) staff training and ongoing support, and (d) optimal metrics to assess the effectiveness and efficiency of implementation. Our findings indicate that preimplementation planning, as well as evaluating RT by collecting data during and after implementation, is essential to ensuring successful implementation and continued adoption of RT in a health care system.

Effectiveness of Acute Care Remote Triage Systems: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Technology-based systems can facilitate remote decision-making to triage patients to the appropriate level of care. Despite technologic advances, the effects of implementation of these systems on patient and utilization outcomes are unclear. We evaluated the effects of remote triage systems on healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes. METHODS: English-language searches of MEDLINE (via PubMed), EMBASE, and CINAHL were performed from inception until July 2018. Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of remote triage services that reported healthcare utilization, case resolution, and patient safety outcomes were included. Two reviewers assessed study and intervention characteristics independently for study quality, strength of evidence, and risk of bias. RESULTS: The literature search identified 5026 articles, of which eight met eligibility criteria. Five randomized, two controlled before-and-after, and one interrupted time series study assessed 3 categories of remote triage services: mode of delivery, triage professional type, and system organizational level. No study evaluated any other delivery mode other than telephone and in-person. Meta-analyses were unable to be performed because of study design and outcome heterogeneity; therefore, we narratively synthesized data. Overall, most studies did not demonstrate a decrease in primary care (PC) or emergency department (ED) utilization, with some studies showing a significant increase. Evidence suggested local, practice-based triage systems have greater case resolution and refer fewer patients to PC or ED services than regional/national systems. No study identified statistically significant differences in safety outcomes. CONCLUSION: Our review found limited evidence that remote triage reduces the burden of PC or ED utilization. However, remote triage by telephone can produce a high rate of call resolution and appears to be safe. Further study of other remote triage modalities is needed to realize the promise of remote triage services in optimizing healthcare outcomes. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: This study was registered and followed a published protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42019112262).

Self-management of Epilepsy: A Systematic Review.

Background: Although self-management is recommended for persons with epilepsy, its optimal strategies and effects are uncertain. Purpose: To evaluate the components and efficacy of self-management interventions in the treatment of epilepsy in community-dwelling persons. Data Sources: English-language searches of MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, and CINAHL in April 2018; the MEDLINE search was updated in March 2019. Study Selection: Randomized and nonrandomized comparative studies of self-management interventions for adults with epilepsy. Data Extraction: An investigator assessed study characteristics; intervention details, including 6 components of self-management; and outcomes, which were verified by a second reviewer. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed independently by 2 investigators. Data Synthesis: 13 randomized and 2 nonrandomized studies (2514 patients) evaluated self-management interventions. Interventions were delivered primarily in group settings, used a median of 4 components, and followed 2 general strategies: 1 based on education and the other on psychosocial therapy. Education-based approaches improved self-management behaviors (standardized mean difference, 0.52 [95% CI, 0.0 to 1.04]), and psychosocial therapy-based approaches improved quality of life (mean difference, 6.64 [CI, 2.51 to 10.77]). Overall, self-management interventions did not reduce seizure rates, but 1 educational intervention decreased a composite of seizures, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations. Limitation: High ROB in most studies, incomplete intervention descriptions, and studies limited to English-language publications. Conclusion: There is limited evidence that self-management strategies modestly improve some patient outcomes that are important to persons with epilepsy. Overall, self-management research in epilepsy is limited by the range of interventions tested, the small number of studies using self-monitoring technology, and uncertainty about components and strategies associated with benefit. Primary Funding Source: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (PROSPERO: CRD42018098604).

Qualitative Exploration of Engaging Patients as Advisors in a Program of Evidence Synthesis: Cobuilding the Science to Enhance Impact.

BACKGROUND: There is an increasing expectation for research to involve patient stakeholders. Yet little guidance exists regarding patient-engaged research in evidence synthesis. Embedded in a learning health care system, the Veteran Affairs Evidence Synthesis Program (ESP) provides an ideal environment for exploring patient-engaged research in a program of evidence synthesis. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore views, barriers, resources, and perceived values of engaging patient advisors in a national program of evidence synthesis research. METHODS: We conducted 10 qualitative interviews with ESP researchers and 2 focus groups with patient stakeholder informants. We queried for challenges to patient involvement, resources needed to overcome barriers, and perceived values of patient engagement. We analyzed qualitative data using applied thematic and matrix techniques. RESULTS: Patient stakeholders and researchers expressed positive views on the potential role for patient engagement in the Veteran Affairs ESP. Possible contributions included topic prioritization, translating findings for lay audiences, and identifying clinically important outcomes relevant to patients. There were numerous barriers to patient involvement, which were more commonly noted by ESP researchers than by patient stakeholders. Although informants were able to articulate multiple values, we found a lack of clarity around measurable outcomes of patient involvement in systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: The research community increasingly seeks patient input. There are many perceived and actual barriers to seeking robust patient engagement in systematic reviews. This study outlines emerging practices that other evidence synthesis programs should consider, such as the careful selection of stakeholders; codeveloped expectations and goals; and adequate training and appropriate resources to ensure meaningful engagement.

The Gulf War Era Cohort and Biorepository: A Longitudinal Research Resource of Veterans of the 1990-1991 Gulf War Era.

The US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Gulf War Era Cohort and Biorepository (GWECB) is a nationally representative longitudinal cohort of US veterans who served during the 1990-1991 Gulf War era. The GWECB combines survey data, such as demographic, health behavior, and environmental exposure data; medical records; and a linked biorepository of blood specimens that can support a broad range of future research regarding health concerns unique to veterans of this era. To build this resource, the VA Cooperative Studies Program initiated a pilot study (2014-2016) to establish the GWECB and evaluate the processes required to build and maintain the resource. Participants (n = 1,275) consented to future sharing of their data and biospecimens for research purposes. Here we describe the pilot study, including recruitment and enrollment procedures, data collection and management, quality control, and challenges experienced. The GWECB data available to investigators under approved sharing mechanisms and the procedures for accessing them are extensively detailed. The study's consenting documents and a website link for the research survey are provided. Our hope is that new research drawing on the GWECB data and biospecimens will result in effective treatments and improved approaches to address the health concerns of Gulf War-era veterans.

Telemedicine cardiovascular risk reduction in veterans: The CITIES trial.

BACKGROUND: Comprehensive programs addressing tailored patient self-management and pharmacotherapy may reduce barriers to cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk reduction. METHODS: This is a 2-arm (clinical pharmacist specialist-delivered, telehealth intervention and education control) randomized controlled trial including Veterans with poorly controlled hypertension and/or hypercholesterolemia. Primary outcome was Framingham CVD risk score at 6 and 12 months, with systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; total cholesterol; low-density lipoprotein; high-density lipoprotein; body mass index; and, for those with diabetes, HbA1c as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Among 428 Veterans, 50% were African American, 85% were men, and 33% had limited health literacy. Relative to the education control group, the clinical pharmacist specialist-delivered intervention did not show a reduction in CVD risk score at 6 months (-1.8, 95% CI -3.9 to 0.3; P = .10) or 12 months (-0.3, 95% CI -2.4 to 1.7; P = .74). No differences were seen in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, or low-density lipoprotein at 6 or 12 months. We did observe a significant decline in total cholesterol at 6 months (-7.0, 95% CI -13.4 to -0.6; P = .03) in the intervention relative to education control group. Among patients in the intervention group, 34% received at least 5 of the 12 planned intervention calls and were considered "compliers." A sensitivity analysis of the "complier average causal effect" of intervention compared to control showed a mean difference in CVD risk score reduction of 5.7 (95% CI -12.0 to 0.7) at 6 months and -1.7 (95% CI -7.6 to 4.8) at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: Despite increased access to pharmacist resources, we did not observe significant improvements in CVD risk for patients randomized to the intervention compared to education control over 12 months. However, the intervention may have positive impact among those who actively participate, particularly in the short term.