Supporting self-management for people with hypertension: a meta-review of quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews

Self-management support for people with dementia is important to help them and their family caregivers to cope with challenges in daily live. Insight into the effects of self-management support interventions on people with dementia is however lacking, despite existing relevant systematic reviews. We therefore conducted a meta-review of relevant systematic reviews, following the PRISMA statement. Systematic literature searches were conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, Embase and PsycINFO. The searches were done in December 2015, and all relevant references until then were taken into consideration. No conclusions about the effects of self-management support interventions on people with dementia could be drawn. Recommendations for future research and practice include that self-management support interventions and effect measurements should be wider in scope than psychological well-being.

Download Full-text

Supported self-management for people with type 2 diabetes: a meta-review of quantitative systematic reviews

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-024262 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 8 (12) ◽

pp. e024262 ◽

Cited By ~ 27

Author(s):

Mireille Captieux ◽

Gemma Pearce ◽

Hannah L Parke ◽

Eleni Epiphaniou ◽

Sarah Wild ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Type 2 Diabetes ◽

Glycaemic Control ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Self Management ◽

Management Support ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Support Strategies ◽

Meta Review ◽

Secondary Outcomes

ObjectivesSelf-management support aims to give people with chronic disease confidence to actively manage their disease, in partnership with their healthcare provider. A meta-review can inform policy-makers and healthcare managers about the effectiveness of self-management support strategies for people with type 2 diabetes, and which interventions work best and for whom.DesignA meta-review of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) was performed adapting Cochrane methodology.Setting and participantsEight databases were searched for systematic reviews of RCTs from January 1993 to October 2016, with a pre-publication update in April 2017. Forward citation was performed on included reviews in Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Proceedings. We extracted data and assessed quality with the Revised-Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR).Primary and secondary outcome measuresGlycaemic control as measured by glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) was the primary outcome. Body mass Index, lipid profiles, blood pressure and quality of life scoring were secondary outcomes. Meta-analyses reporting HbA1c were summarised in meta-forest plots; other outcomes were synthesised narratively.Results41 systematic reviews incorporating data from 459 unique RCTs in diverse socio-economic and ethnic communities across 33 countries were included. R-AMSTAR quality score ranged from 20 to 42 (maximum 44). Apart from one outlier, the majority of reviews found an HbA1c improvement between 0.2% and 0.6% (2.2–6.5 mmol/mol) at 6 months post-intervention, but attenuated at 12 and 24 months. Impact on secondary outcomes was inconsistent and generally non-significant. Diverse self-management support strategies were employed; no single approach appeared optimally effective (or ineffective). Effective programmes tended to be multi-component and provide adequate contact time (>10 hours). Technology-facilitated self-management support showed a similar impact as traditional approaches (HbA1c MD −0.21% to −0.6%).ConclusionsSelf-management interventions using a range of approaches improve short-term glycaemic control in people with type 2 diabetes including culturally diverse populations. These findings can inform researchers, policy-makers and healthcare professionals re-evaluating the provision of self-management support in routine care. Further research should consider implementation and sustainability.

Download Full-text

Experiences of Self-Management Support Following a Stroke: A Meta-Review of Qualitative Systematic Reviews

PLoS ONE ◽

10.1371/journal.pone.0141803 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e0141803 ◽

Cited By ~ 23

Author(s):

Gemma Pearce ◽

Hilary Pinnock ◽

Eleni Epiphaniou ◽

Hannah L. Parke ◽

Emily Heavey ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Self Management ◽

Management Support ◽

Meta Review

Download Full-text

Psychological resilience during COVID-19: a meta-review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051417 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (6) ◽

pp. e051417

Author(s):

Katie Seaborn ◽

Mark Chignell ◽

Jacek Gwizdka

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Well Being ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Psychological Resilience ◽

Key Points ◽

Meta Review ◽

Ethical Approval ◽

Registration Number ◽

Review Protocol

IntroductionThe global COVID-19 pandemic continues to have wide-ranging implications for health, including psychological well-being. A growing corpus of research reviews has emerged on the topic of psychological resilience in the context of the pandemic. However, this body of work has not been systematically reviewed for its quality, nor with respect to findings on the effectiveness of tools and strategies for psychological resilience. To this end, a meta-review protocol is proposed with the following objectives: (1) identify review work on the topic of psychological resilience during COVID-19; (2) assess the quality of this review work using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews; (3) assess the risk of bias in this work; (4) generate a narrative summary of the key points, strengths and weaknesses; (5) identify the psychological resilience strategies that have been reviewed; (6) identify how these strategies have been evaluated for their effectiveness; (7) identify what outcomes were measured and (8) summarise the findings on strategies for psychological resilience so far, providing recommendations, if possible.Methods and analysisA systematic meta-review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Protocols and Joanna Briggs Institute umbrella review guidelines. Electronic searches of general databases, especially Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed, will be conducted. Only results from January 2020 onwards will be considered, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic. Only results in English will be included. Descriptive statistics, thematic analysis and narrative summaries describing the nature of the reviewed work and evaluation of psychological resilience strategies will be carried out.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not needed for systematic review protocols. The results of the meta-review will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal. The raw and summarised data will be shared in the journal or other open venues.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021235288.

Download Full-text

Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

npj Digital Medicine ◽

10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anne M. Finucane ◽

Hannah O’Donnell ◽

Jean Lugton ◽

Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽

Connie Swenson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Psychological Symptoms ◽

Digital Health ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Information Provision ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Download Full-text

Not All Systematic Reviews are Systematic: A Meta-review of the Quality of Current Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure

Heart Lung and Circulation ◽

10.1016/j.hlc.2013.05.201 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 22 ◽

pp. S84-S85

Author(s):

R. Clark ◽

A. Conway ◽

S. Inglis ◽

M. Horton-Breshears ◽

J. Cleland

Keyword(s):

Heart Failure ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Remote Monitoring ◽

Meta Review ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective

BMC Medicine ◽

10.1186/s12916-017-0823-7 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 73

Author(s):

Hilary Pinnock ◽

◽

Hannah L. Parke ◽

Maria Panagioti ◽

Luke Daines ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Self Management ◽

Healthcare Perspective ◽

Meta Review

Download Full-text

Updated meta-review of evidence on support for carers

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy ◽

10.1177/1355819618766559 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 23 (3) ◽

pp. 196-207 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Jane Dalton ◽

Sian Thomas ◽

Melissa Harden ◽

Alison Eastwood ◽

Gillian Parker

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Mental Health Problems ◽

Psychosocial Support ◽

Psychosocial Interventions ◽

Negative Effects ◽

High Quality ◽

People With Dementia ◽

Meta Review

Objective To update a 2010 meta-review of systematic reviews of effective interventions to support carers of ill, disabled, or older adults. In this article, we report the most promising interventions based on the best available evidence. Methods Rapid meta-review of systematic reviews published from January 2009 to 2016. Results Sixty-one systematic reviews were included (27 high quality, 25 medium quality, and nine low quality). The quality of reviews has improved since the original review, but primary studies remain limited in quality and quantity. Fourteen high quality reviews focused on carers of people with dementia, four on carers of those with cancer, four on carers of people with stroke, three on carers of those at the end of life with various conditions, and two on carers of people with mental health problems. Multicomponent interventions featured prominently, emphasizing psychosocial or psychoeducational content, education and training. Improved outcomes for carers were reported for mental health, burden and stress, and wellbeing or quality of life. Negative effects were reported in reviews of respite care. As with earlier work, we found little robust evidence on the cost-effectiveness of reviewed interventions. Conclusions There is no ‘one size fits all’ intervention to support carers. There is potential for effective support in specific groups of carers, such as shared learning, cognitive reframing, meditation, and computer-delivered psychosocial support for carers of people with dementia. For carers of people with cancer, effective support may include psychosocial interventions, art therapy, and counselling. Carers of people with stroke may also benefit from counselling. More good quality, theory-based, primary research is needed.

Download Full-text