首页> 外文期刊>BMC Health Services Research >Integration of care for hypertension and diabetes: a scoping review assessing the evidence from systematic reviews and evaluating reporting
【24h】

Integration of care for hypertension and diabetes: a scoping review assessing the evidence from systematic reviews and evaluating reporting

机译:关注高血压和糖尿病的关注:一个范围评估来自系统评价和评估报告的证据

获取原文
       

摘要

With the rise in pre-mature mortality rate from non-communicable disease (NCD), there is a need for evidence-based interventions. We evaluated existing systematic reviews on effectiveness of integration of healthcare services, in particular with focus on delivery of care designed to improve health and process outcomes in people with multi-morbidity, where at least one of the conditions was diabetes or hypertension. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Health Evidence to November 8, 2016 and consulted experts. One review author screened titles, abstracts and two review authors independently screened short listed full-texts and selected reviews for inclusion. We considered systematic reviews evaluating integration of care, compared to usual care, for people with multi-morbidity. One review author extracted data and another author verified it. Two review authors independently evaluated risk of bias using ROBIS and AMSTAR. Inter-rater reliability was analysed for ROBIS and AMSTAR using Cohen's kappa and percent agreement. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess reporting. We identified five systematic reviews on integration of care. Four reviews focused on comorbid diabetes and depression and two covered hypertension and comorbidities of cardiovascular disease, depression, or diabetes. Interventions were poorly described. The health outcomes evaluated included risk of all-cause mortality, measures of depression, cholesterol levels, HbA1c levels, effect of depression on HbA1c levels, symptom improvement, systolic blood pressure, and hypertension control. Process outcomes included access and utilisation of healthcare services, costs, and quality of care. Overall, three reviews had a low and medium risk of bias according to ROBIS and AMSTAR respectively, while two reviews had high risk of bias as judged by both ROBIS and AMSTAR. Findings have demonstrated that collaborative care in general resulted in better health and process outcomes when compared to usual care for both depression and diabetes and hypertension and diabetes. Several knowledge gaps were identified on integration of care for comorbidities with diabetes and/or hypertension: limited research on this topic for hypertension, limited reviews that included primary studies based in low-middle income countries, and limited reviews on collaborative care for communicable and NCDs.
机译:随着从非传染病(NCD)的成熟死亡率率的上升,需要基于证据的干预措施。我们评估了对医疗保健服务整合的有效性的现有系统审查,特别是重点关注旨在改善具有多发性的人们的健康和过程结果的护理,其中至少一种病症是糖尿病或高血压。我们搜索了Medline,Embase,Cochrane图书馆和2016年11月8日和咨询专家的健康证据。一篇评论作者屏幕标题,摘要和两项评论作者独立筛选的简短列出的全文和选定的纳入审查。我们考虑了系统性评论评估护理的整合,与通常的关怀相比,对具有多种发病率的人。一个评论作者提取数据,另一个作者验证了它。两次审查作者独立评估使用Robis和Amstar的偏见风险。使用Cohen的Kappa和百分比协议,分析了Robis和Amstar的帧间间可靠性。用于系统评价和荟萃分析(PRISMA)清单的首选报告项目用于评估报告。我们确定了关于护理融合的五个系统审查。四项评论专注于同型糖尿病和抑郁症,两种覆盖的高血压和心血管疾病的合并症,抑郁症或糖尿病。干预措施描述不佳。评价的健康结果包括全因死亡率,抑郁症,胆固醇水平,HBA1C水平,抑郁症对HBA1C水平,症状改善,收缩压和高血压控制的影响。过程结果包括获得和利用医疗保健服务,费用和护理质量。总体而言,三项评论分别根据Robis和Amstar偏见的偏差低,中等风险,而两次评论有高障碍物和Amstar判断的偏见风险很高。结果表明,与通常护理抑郁症和糖尿病和高血压和糖尿病相比,调查结果一般导致健康和过程结果更好。关于糖尿病和/或高血压的融合性的关心融合的几种知识差距:关于高血压课题的有限研究,有限的评论,其中包括基于低中收入国家的初级研究,以及关于传播和NCD的合作护理的审查有限的审查。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号