Models of comprehensive care for older persons with chronic diseases: a systematic review with a focus on effectiveness

Introduction
Ageing entails a variety of physiological changes that increase the risk of chronic non-communicable diseases. The prevalence of these diseases leads to an increase in the use of health services. The care models implemented by health systems should provide comprehensive long-term healthcare. We conducted this systematic review to determine whether any model of care for older persons have proven to be effective.

Methods
A systematic review of literature was carried out to identify randomised clinical trials that have assessed how effective a care model for older patients with chronic diseases. A searches electronic databases such as MEDLINE, Turning Research Into Practice Database, Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of controlled Trials was conducted from January 1966 to January 2021. Two independent reviewers assessed the eligibility of the studies. Interventions were identified and classified according to the taxonomies developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care and Cochrane Consumers and Communication groups.

Results
Of the 4952 bibliographic references that were screened, 577 were potentially eligible and the final sample included 25 studies that evaluated healthcare models in older people with chronic diseases. In the 25 care models, the most frequently implemented interventions were educational, and those based on the provision of healthcare. Only 22% of the outcomes of interventions were identified as being effective, whereas 21% were identified as being partially effective; thus, more than 50% of the outcomes were identified as being ineffective.

Conclusions
It was not possible to determine a care model as effective. The interventions implemented in the models are variable. The most effective outcomes were focused on improving the patient–healthcare professional relationship in the early stages of the intervention. The interventions addressed in the studies were similar to public health interventions as their main objectives focused on promoting health. Most studies were of low methodological quality.

Leggi
Agosto 2022

Effectiveness of a family customised online FOCUS programme aimed on building resiliency in dyad relationship to support dyadic illness management in persons with heart failure and their informal caregiver: a randomised clinical trial protocol

Introduction
Living with heart failure (HF), is a shared journey and arduous work for patients and their informal family caregivers. Given the key role and limited evidence of dyad illness management in improving dyad health in the context of HF, we developed a customisable, relationship focused, family online dynamic disease management programme—FOCUS programme—to improve dyad health for HF patients and their informal caregivers in China.

Methods and analysis
Based on the Theory of Dyadic Illness Management and the Systemic Transactional Model of Stress and Coping, the family customised online FOCUS programme has five modules: (1) family participatory; (2) open communication; (3) coping effectiveness; (4) uncertainty reduction and 5) shared dyad life stories. HF family dyads will be recruited in the cardiology wards of four university-affiliated hospitals in China. The dyads (N=142) will be randomly allocated to the intervention group that will receive the family customised online FOCUS programme, and the attention control group that will not receive elements of the FOCUS programme. Dyadic coping, HF somatic perception, self-care, anxiety and depression for patients and family caregivers and all-cause mortality and hospital admission for patients will be measured at baseline, 4 weeks (after the discharge, T1), 12 weeks (after the discharge, T2) and 24 weeks (after the discharge, T3). Statistical analysis will be performed using SPSS V. 22.0 software.

Ethics and dissemination
The study protocol was approved by the ethics committees of Tianjin Medical University (Reference number TMUHEC2019002) that covers all the centres enrolled in this study. The findings of this study will be published in scientific journals and will be presented at scientific conferences.

Trial registration number
ChiCTR2100053168.

Leggi
Luglio 2022

Experiences of general practitioners explaining central sensitisation to patients with persistent physical symptoms: a focus group study

Objective
Patients with persistent physical symptoms (PPS) require an explanation that is acceptable and comprehensible to them. Central sensitisation (CS) is an explanatory model for PPS and chronic pain that has been broadly applied in the context of pain medicine, but, until recently, not by general practitioners (GPs). We explored how GPs used the CS model in their consultations with patients with PPS.

Design and setting
A qualitative focus group study among GPs in the Netherlands.

Methods
We instructed 33 GPs on how to explain CS to patients with PPS. After 0.5–1.5 years of using the CS model, 26 GPs participated in focus groups and interviews to report and discuss their experiences with CS as an explanatory model. Audio recordings were transcribed and two researchers independently analysed the data. The text was coded, codes were organised into themes and discussed until consensus was reached.

Results
We identified eleven themes and grouped these into four categories.
The GPs regarded the CS model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient. On the other hand, they found explaining the CS model difficult and time-consuming. They tailored the CS model to their patients’ needs and used multiple consultations to explain the model. The GPs reported that the use of the CS model seemed to improve the understanding and acceptance of the symptoms by the patients and seemed to reduce their need for more diagnostic tests. Furthermore, patients seemed to become more motivated to accept appropriate therapy.

Conclusion
GPs reported that they were able to provide explanations with the CS model to their patients with PPS. They regarded the model as evidence-based, credible and giving recognition to the patient, but explaining it difficult and time-consuming.

Leggi
Luglio 2022