The effectiveness of brief alcohol interventions in primary care settings: A systematic review

2009 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 301-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
EILEEN F. S. KANER ◽  
HEATHER O. DICKINSON ◽  
FIONA BEYER ◽  
ELIZABETH PIENAAR ◽  
CARLA SCHLESINGER ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Alcohol Interventions

scholarly journals Technology-Based Alcohol Interventions in Primary Care: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex T Ramsey ◽  
Jason M Satterfield ◽  
Donald R Gerke ◽  
Enola K Proctor
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Implementation Strategy ◽  
Treatment As Usual ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Alcohol Interventions ◽  
Reduced Drinking ◽  
Care Technology

BACKGROUND Primary care settings are uniquely positioned to reach individuals at risk of alcohol use disorder through technology-delivered behavioral health interventions. Despite emerging effectiveness data, few efforts have been made to summarize the collective findings from these delivery approaches. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to review recent literature on the use of technology to deliver, enhance, or support the implementation of alcohol-related interventions in primary care. We focused on addressing questions related to (1) categorization or target of the intervention, (2) descriptive characteristics and context of delivery, (3) reported efficacy, and (4) factors influencing efficacy. METHODS We conducted a comprehensive search and systematic review of completed studies at the intersection of primary care, technology, and alcohol-related problems published from January 2000 to December 2018 within EBSCO databases, ProQuest Dissertations, and Cochrane Reviews. Of 2307 initial records, 42 were included and coded independently by 2 investigators. RESULTS Compared with the years of 2000 to 2009, published studies on technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care nearly tripled during the years of 2010 to 2018. Of the 42 included studies, 28 (64%) were randomized controlled trials. Furthermore, studies were rated on risk of bias and found to be predominantly low risk (n=18), followed by moderate risk (n=16), and high risk (n=8). Of the 24 studies with primary or secondary efficacy outcomes related to drinking and drinking-related harms, 17 (71%) reported reduced drinking or harm in all primary and secondary efficacy outcomes. Furthermore, of the 31 studies with direct comparisons with treatment as usual (TAU), 13 (42%) reported that at least half of the primary and secondary efficacy outcomes of the technology-based interventions were superior to TAU. High efficacy was associated with provider involvement and the reported use of an implementation strategy to deliver the technology-based intervention. CONCLUSIONS Our systematic review has highlighted a pattern of growth in the number of studies evaluating technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care. Although these interventions appear to be largely beneficial in primary care, outcomes may be enhanced by provider involvement and implementation strategy use. This review enables better understanding of the typologies and efficacy of these interventions and informs recommendations for those developing and implementing technology-based alcohol interventions in primary care settings.

scholarly journals Medicines Related Problems (MRPs) Originating in Primary Care Settings in Older Adults - A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 089719002110236
Author(s):  
Rosetta Chinyere Ude-Okeleke ◽  
Zoe Aslanpour ◽  
Soraya Dhillon ◽  
Nkiruka Umaru
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Library Science ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Bases ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Preventative Interventions ◽  
Use Of Health Services

Background: As people age, they become increasingly vulnerable to the untoward effects of medicines due to changes in body systems. These may result in medicines related problems (MRPs) and consequent decline or deterioration in health. Aim: To identify MRPs, indicators of deterioration associated with these MRPs, and preventative interventions from the literature. Design and Setting: Systematic review of primary studies on MRPs originating in Primary Care in older people. Methods: Relevant studies published between 2001 and April 2018 were obtained from Medline (via PubMed), CINAHL, Embase, Psych Info, PASCAL, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Science Direct, and Zetoc. Falls, delirium, pressure ulcer, hospitalization, use of health services and death were agreed indicators of deterioration. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Down and Black tool. Results: There were 1858 articles retrieved from the data bases. Out of these, 21 full text articles met inclusion criteria for the review. MRPs identified were medication error, potentially inappropriate medicines, adverse drug reaction and non-adherence. These were associated with indicators of deterioration. Interventions that involved doctors, pharmacists and patients in planning and implementation yielded benefits in halting MRPs. Conclusion: This Systematic review summarizes MRPs and associated indicators of deterioration. Appropriate interventions appeared to be effective against certain MRPs and their consequences. Further studies to explore deterioration presented in this systematic review is imperative.

scholarly journals Physical activity promotion for multimorbid patients in primary care settings: A protocol for a systematic review evaluating health benefits and harms.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone Schweda ◽  
Inga Krauß
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Benefits ◽  
The Body ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Activity Promotion

Background: To date multimorbidity has not received much attention in health policies, even though multiple chronic diseases put high demands on the health care system in industrial nations. Enormous costs of care and a physically, mentally and socially reduced quality of life are common consequences of multimorbidity. Physical activity (PA) has a positive preventive and therapeutic effect on common non-communicable . The objective of this study will be to evaluate the halth benefits and harms of PA interventions for sedentary adults with multimorbidity in primary care settings. Methods: This is the study protocol for a systematic review. We will serach PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), Web of Science, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library (from inception onwards). In addition, clinical trial registers and reference lists of included studies will be searched. We will include randomised controlled trials, quasi-experimental and non-randomised trials examining the health benefits and harms of PA interventions with or without additional lifestyle interventions for sedentary adult patients with multimorbidity (e.g. two or more chronic non-communicable diseases) in primary care. Eligible control groups will be standard care, placebo or medications. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, abstracts data and full text articles. The primary outcomes will be health related quality of life and mortality. Secondary outcomes will include cardiovascular fitness, muscular strength and disease specific outcomes (e.g. depression score), biomarkers as well as control of metabolic risk factors (e.g. blood pressure, HBA1c, body weight) and any adverse event. The study methodological quality will be appraised using appropriate tools. If feasible, we will conduct random effects meta-analysis. Additional analyses will be conducted to explore the potential sources of heterogeneity (e.g. study design, geographical location, or type of intervention). Strength of the body of evidence will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE). Discussion: This review will evaluate the evidence on health benefits and harms of PA interventions for sedentary adults with multimorbidity in primary care settings. We anticipate our findings to be of interest to patients, their families, caregivers and healthcare professionals in selecting and conducting optimal health promotion programs. Possible implications for further research will be discussed.

How cost-effective is nutrition care delivered in primary healthcare settings? A systematic review of trial-based economic evaluations

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katelyn A Barnes ◽  
Zoe Szewczyk ◽  
Jaimon T Kelly ◽  
Katrina L Campbell ◽  
Lauren E Ball
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Incremental Cost ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Outcome Variable ◽  
Primary Care Settings ◽  
Nutrition Care ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Context Nutrition care is an effective lifestyle intervention for the treatment and prevention of many noncommunicable diseases. Primary care is a high-value setting in which to provide nutrition care. Objective The objective of this review was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of nutrition care interventions provided in primary care settings. Data Sources Medline, Embase, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EconLit, and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) were searched from inception to May 2021. Data Extraction Data extraction was guided by the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) reporting guidelines. Randomized trials of nutrition interventions in primary care settings were included in the analysis if incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were reported. The main outcome variable incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and reported interpretations were used to categorize interventions by the cost-effectiveness plane quadrant. Results Of 6837 articles identified, 10 were included (representing 9 studies). Eight of the 9 included studies found nutrition care in primary care settings to be more costly and more effective than usual care . High study heterogeneity limited further conclusions. Conclusion Nutrition care in primary care settings is effective, though it requires investment; it should, therefore, be considered in primary care planning. Further studies are needed to evaluate the long-term cost-effectiveness of providing nutrition care in primary care settings. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42020201146.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document