Healthcare-related factors affecting the management of HIV infected patients: a systematic review of qualitative evidence

Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection is a major health concern that is associated with high mortality and socioeconomic burden on both patients and healthcare authorities. This systematic review aimed to qualitatively explore the healthcare-related factors influencing the management of HIV in adult patients. Seven online databases (PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, CINAHL, PsycInfo, PsycExtra, and International Pharmaceutical Abstract) were searched. Articles published in English language between September 2000 and September 2018 were eligible for inclusion. Quality assessment tool developed by the EPPI-Centre was used to assess the quality of the included studies. A cross-case thematic analysis was conducted using NVivo 10. A total of 30 studies were included in the review. The qualitative analysis identified four major themes influencing the management of HIV: awareness of healthcare professionals (HCPs), attitudes of HCPs, lack of healthcare infrastructure, and stigma associated with HIV. The findings of this review suggest that people living with HIV are at an increased risk of experiencing poor disease management due to various healthcare-related factors. HCPs and policy makers should acknowledge the presence of these factors with the aim of providing quality care to people living with HIV.

Quality indicators for responsible use of medicines: a systematic review

ObjectiveAll healthcare systems require valid ways to evaluate service delivery. The objective of this study was to identify existing content validated quality indicators (QIs) for responsible use of medicines (RUM) and classify them using multiple frameworks to identify gaps in current quality measurements.DesignSystematic review without meta-analysis.SettingAll care settings.Search strategyCINAHL, Embase, Global Health, International Pharmaceutical Abstract, MEDLINE, PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to April 2018. An internet search was also conducted. Articles were included if they described medication-related QIs developed using consensus methods. Government agency websites listing QIs for RUM were also included.AnalysisSeveral multidimensional frameworks were selected to assess the scope of QI coverage. These included Donabedian’s framework (structure, process and outcome), the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system and a validated classification for causes of drug-related problems (c-DRPs; drug selection, drug form, dose selection, treatment duration, drug use process, logistics, monitoring, adverse drug reactions and others).Results2431 content validated QIs were identified from 131 articles and 5 websites. Using Donabedian’s framework, the majority of QIs were process indicators. Based on the ATC code, the largest number of QIs pertained to medicines for nervous system (ATC code: N), followed by anti-infectives for systemic use (J) and cardiovascular system (C). The most common c-DRPs pertained to ‘drug selection’, followed by ‘monitoring’ and ‘drug use process’.ConclusionsThis study was the first systematic review classifying QIs for RUM using multiple frameworks. The list of the identified QIs can be used as a database for evaluating the achievement of RUM. Although many QIs were identified, this approach allowed for the identification of gaps in quality measurement of RUM. In order to more effectively evaluate the extent to which RUM has been achieved, further development of QIs may be required.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the association between vitamin A intake, serum vitamin A, and risk of liver cancer

Background: Previous evidence supports that vitamin A decreases the risk of several types of cancer. However, the association between vitamin A and liver cancer is inconclusive. Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis summarizes the existing literature, discussing the association between vitamin A intake, serum vitamin A, and liver cancer in adult populations. Methods: A systematic literature review was performed by searching the EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases using terms related to vitamin A (e.g. retinol, α-carotene, β-carotene, and β-cryptoxanthin) and hepatic cancer without applying any time restriction. A meta-analysis was performed using random effect models. Results: The meta-analysis of five studies showed no association between serum retinol and liver cancer (pooled risk ratio = 1.90 (0.40–9.02); n = 5 studies, I2 = 92%). In addition, the systematic review of studies from 1955 to July 2017 found studies that indicated no association between the intake and serum level of α-carotene ( n = 2) and β-cryptoxanthin ( n = 1) and the risk of liver cancer. Further, the associations between retinol intake ( n = 3), β-carotene intake ( n = 3), or serum β-carotene ( n = 3) and liver cancer were inconclusive. Conclusions: Current information on the association between vitamin A intake and liver cancer or serum vitamin A and liver cancer are limited. Most studies demonstrated no association between dietary vitamin A and the risk of liver cancer. However, the finding was based on a small number of studies with potential publication bias. Therefore, large observational studies should be conducted to confirm these associations.

What are the effects of medication adherence interventions in rheumatic diseases: a systematic review

ObjectivesConsistent reports of suboptimal treatment adherence among patients with inflammatory arthritis underscore the importance of understanding how adherence can be promoted and supported. Our objectives were to identify and classify adherence interventions; and assess the evidence on the effects of adherence interventions on outcomes of patients with rheumatic diseases.MethodsWe conducted a mapped search of Medline, Embase and International Pharmaceutical Abstract databases to identify studies meeting inclusion criteria of: (1) patient population with inflammatory arthritis; (2) evaluation of an intervention or programme targeting medication adherence directly or indirectly; (3) reporting of one or more measures of medication adherence and disease outcome; (4) publication in English, French or Spanish. For our first objective, we applied a structured framework to classify interventions according target (patient vs provider), focus (educational vs behavioural vs affective), implementation (generalised vs tailored), complexity (single vs multifaceted) and provider. For the second objective, we appraised the evidence of effects of interventions on adherence and disease outcomes.ResultsWe identified 23 studies reporting adherence interventions that directly or indirectly addressed treatment adherence in rheumatic diseases and further appraised included RCTs. Interventions that were shown to impact adherence outcomes were generally interventions directed at adherence, tailored to patients and delivered by a healthcare provider. For interventions that were not shown to have impacts, reasons may be those related to the intervention itself, patient characteristics or study methodology.ConclusionsOur systematic review shows limited research on adherence interventions in rheumatic diseases with inconsistent impacts on adherence or disease outcome.