Search

Abstract Background Evidence synthesis is used by decision-makers in various ways, such as developing evidence-based recommendations for clinical guidelines. Clinical guideline development groups (GDGs) typically discuss evidence synthesis findings in a multidisciplinary group, including patients, healthcare providers, policymakers, etc. A recent mixed methods systematic review (MMSR) identified no gold standard format for optimally presenting evidence synthesis findings to these groups. However, it provided 94 recommendations to help produce more effective summary formats for general evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews). To refine the MMSR recommendations to create more actionable guidance for summary producers, we aimed to explore these 94 recommendations with participants involved in evidence synthesis and guideline development. Methods We conducted a descriptive qualitative study using online focus group workshops in February and March 2023. These groups used a participatory co-design approach with interactive voting activities to identify preferences for a summary format's essential content and style. We created a topic guide focused on recommendations from the MMSR with mixed methods support, ≥ 3 supporting studies, and those prioritized by an expert advisory group via a pragmatic prioritization exercise using the MoSCoW method (Must, Should, Could, and Will not haves). Eligible participants must be/have been involved in GDGs and/or evidence synthesis. Groups were recorded and transcribed. Two independent researchers analyzed transcripts using directed content analysis with 94 pre-defined codes from the MMSR. Results Thirty individuals participated in six focus groups. We coded 79 of the 94 pre-defined codes. Participants suggested a “less is more” structured approach that minimizes methodological steps and statistical data, promoting accessibility to all audiences by judicious use of links to further information in the full report. They emphasized concise, consistently presented formats that highlight key messages, flag readers to indicators of trust in the producers (i.e., logos, websites, and conflict of interest statements), and highlight the certainty of evidence (without extenuating details). Conclusions This study identified guidance based on the preferences of guideline developers and evidence synthesis producers about the format of evidence synthesis summaries to support decision-making. The next steps involve developing and user-testing prototype formats through one-on-one semi-structured interviews to optimize evidence synthesis summaries and support decision-making.

Abstract Background Incorporating Public and Patient Involvement (PPI) into doctoral research is valued by PhD funders and scholars. Providing early career researchers with appropriate training to develop skills to conduct meaningful PPI involvement is important. The Health Research Board (HRB) Collaborative Doctoral Award in MultiMorbidity programme (CDA-MM) embedded formal PPI training in its structured education. The four participating PhD scholars established a PPI panel comprising people living with two or more chronic conditions, presenting an opportunity for experiential PPI training. This study aimed to evaluate the process and impact of embedding PPI training in a structured PhD programme. Methods This study was a longitudinal mixed-methods evaluation, conducted over 24 months (June 2020 to June 2022). A process evaluation provided an understanding of how PPI was embedded and explored the experiences of key stakeholders involved. An impact evaluation assessed the impact of embedding PPI training in the programme. Participants included PhD scholars, PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. The data collection and analysis was led by an independent researcher not aligned with the CDA-MM. Data collection methods included five focus groups, individual interviews (n = 6), an impact log, activity logs and group reflections. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic and content analysis and quantitative data analysed using descriptive statistics. Results Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is feasible. Both approaches to training are fundamental to building PPI capacity. Involvement of an experienced and knowledgeable PPI lead throughout is perceived as critical. The PPI panel approach offered a good example of embedded consultation and worked well in a structured PhD programme, providing PhD scholars with ample opportunities for learning about PPI and its implementation. For PPI contributors, culture was the most important indicator of quality and was positively evaluated. Key roles for PhD supervisors were identified. Embedding formal and experiential PPI training impacted positively on many different aspects of individual PhD research projects and on PhD scholars as researchers. There were positive impacts for PPI contributors and PhD supervisors. Conclusions Embedding formal and experiential PPI training in a structured PhD programme is a novel approach. The evaluation has identified a number of lessons that can inform future doctoral programmes seeking to embed formal and experiential PPI training.

Abstract Background Patients with multimorbidity are frequent users of healthcare, but fragmented care may lead to suboptimal treatment. Yet, this has never been examined across healthcare sectors on a national scale. We aimed to quantify care fragmentation using various measures and to analyze the associations with patient outcomes. Methods We conducted a register-based nationwide cohort study with 4.7 million Danish adult citizens. All healthcare contacts to primary care and hospitals during 2018 were recorded. Clinical fragmentation indicators included number of healthcare contacts, involved providers, provider transitions, and hospital trajectories. Formal fragmentation indices assessed care concentration, dispersion, and contact sequence. The patient outcomes were potentially inappropriate medication and all-cause mortality adjusted for demographics, socioeconomic factors, and morbidity level. Results The number of involved healthcare providers, provider transitions, and hospital trajectories rose with increasing morbidity levels. Patients with 3 versus 6 conditions had a mean of 4.0 versus 6.9 involved providers and 6.6 versus 13.7 provider transitions. The proportion of contacts to the patient’s own general practice remained stable across morbidity levels. High levels of care fragmentation were associated with higher rates of potentially inappropriate medication and increased mortality on all fragmentation measures after adjusting for demographic characteristics, socioeconomic factors, and morbidity. The strongest associations with potentially inappropriate medication and mortality were found for ≥ 20 contacts versus none (incidence rate ratio 2.83, 95% CI 2.77–2.90) and ≥ 20 hospital trajectories versus none (hazard ratio 10.8, 95% CI 9.48–12.4), respectively. Having less than 25% of contacts with your usual provider was associated with an incidence rate ratio of potentially inappropriate medication of 1.49 (95% CI 1.40–1.58) and a mortality hazard ratio of 2.59 (95% CI 2.36–2.84) compared with full continuity. For the associations between fragmentation measures and patient outcomes, there were no clear interactions with number of conditions. Conclusions Several clinical indicators of care fragmentation were associated with morbidity level. Care fragmentation was associated with higher rates of potentially inappropriate medication and increased mortality even when adjusting for the most important confounders. Frequent contact to the usual provider, fewer transitions, and better coordination were associated with better patient outcomes regardless of morbidity level.

Background: Correct staging and risk stratification is essential in ensuring prostate cancer patients are offered the most appropriate treatment. Interest has been growing in the use of radiotracers targeting prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA), including the use of 18F-PSMA PET-CT, as part of the primary staging or restaging of prostate cancer. Preliminary scoping identified a number of relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, individually, these each appear to look at only part of the picture. An overview of reviews aims to systematically identify, appraise and synthesise multiple systematic reviews, related to a relevant research question or questions. We present a protocol for an overview of reviews, which aims to collate existing evidence syntheses exploring the diagnostic accuracy of 18F-PSMA in staging and restaging of prostate cancer. It also aims to highlight evidence gaps in prostate cancer staging or restaging. Methods: This protocol is reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P). The search strategy will be designed in consultation with a librarian. Searches will be performed in Medline (EBSCO), Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar and the Cochrane Database for Systematic Reviews, supplemented by a targeted grey literature search, forward citation searching and searching reference lists of included reviews. No language or date restrictions will be applied to the eligibility criteria or the search strategy. Title & abstract and full text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Data will be extracted by one reviewer and checked in full by a second reviewer. Quality appraisal will be performed using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool independently by two reviewers, and results will be narratively synthesised. Conclusions: This overview of reviews may be of interest to healthcare professionals, academics and health policy decision-makers. Registration: OSF (September 7, 2023).

Abstract Background Multimorbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, presents significant challenges to patients, healthcare providers and health systems. Despite this, there is ongoing uncertainty about the most effective ways to manage patients with multimorbidity. This review updated and narrowed the focus of a previous Cochrane review and aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings, compared to usual care. Methods We searched eight databases and two trials registers up to 9 September 2019. Two review authors independently screened potentially eligible titles and selected studies, extracted data, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). Interventions were grouped by their predominant focus into care-coordination/self-management support, self-management support and medicines management. Main outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, but the synthesis was predominantly narrative. Results We included 16 RCTs with 4753 participants, the majority being older adults with at least three conditions. There were eight care-coordination/self-management support studies, four self-management support studies and four medicines management studies. There was little or no evidence of an effect on primary outcomes of HRQoL (MD 0.03, 95% CI −0.01 to 0.07, I 2 = 39%) and mental health or on secondary outcomes with a small number of studies reporting that care coordination may improve patient experience of care and self-management support may improve patient health behaviours. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low due to significant variation in study participants and interventions. Conclusions There are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity, despite the growing number of RCTs conducted in this area. Our findings suggest that future research should consider patient experience of care, optimising medicines management and targeted patient health behaviours such as exercise.

Abstract Prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) causes permanent cognitive disability. The enteric microbiome generates microbial-dependent products (MDPs) that may contribute to disorders including autism, depression, and anxiety; it is unknown whether similar alterations occur in PAE. Using a mouse PAE model, we performed untargeted metabolome analyses upon the maternal–fetal dyad at gestational day 17.5. Hierarchical clustering by principal component analysis and Pearson’s correlation of maternal plasma (813 metabolites) both identified MDPs as significant predictors for PAE. The majority were phenolic acids enriched in PAE. Correlational network analyses revealed that alcohol altered plasma MDP-metabolite relationships, and alcohol-exposed maternal plasma was characterized by a subnetwork dominated by phenolic acids. Twenty-nine MDPs were detected in fetal liver and sixteen in fetal brain, where their impact is unknown. Several of these, including 4-ethylphenylsulfate, oxindole, indolepropionate, p-cresol sulfate, catechol sulfate, and salicylate, are implicated in other neurological disorders. We conclude that MDPs constitute a characteristic biosignature that distinguishes PAE. These MDPs are abundant in human plasma, where they influence physiology and disease. Their altered abundance here may reflect alcohol’s known effects on microbiota composition and gut permeability. We propose that the maternal microbiome and its MDPs are a previously unrecognized influence upon the pathologies that typify PAE.

Introduction: Evidence syntheses, often in the form of systematic reviews, are essential for clinical guideline development and informing changes to health policies. However, clinical guideline development groups (CGDG) are multidisciplinary, and participants such as policymakers, healthcare professionals and patient representatives can face obstacles when trying to understand and use evidence synthesis findings. Summary formats to communicate the results of evidence syntheses have become increasingly common, but it is currently unclear which format is most effective for different stakeholders. This mixed-methods systematic review (MMSR) evaluates the effectiveness and acceptability of different evidence synthesis summary formats for CGDG members. Methods: This protocol follows guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute on MMSRs and is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA)-P guideline. A comprehensive search of six databases will be performed with no language restrictions. Primary outcomes are those relating to the effectiveness and preferences for and attitudes towards the different summary formats. We will include qualitative research and randomised controlled trials. Two reviewers will perform title, abstract, and full-text screening. Independent double-extraction of study characteristics and critical appraisal items will be undertaken using a standardised form. We will use a convergent segregated approach to analyse quantitative and qualitative data separately; results will then be integrated. Discussion: The results of this systematic review will provide an overview of the effectiveness and acceptability of different summary formats for evidence synthesis findings. These findings can be helpful for those in or communicating to guideline development groups. The results can also inform the development and pilot-testing of summary formats for evidence summaries.

Abstract Background Individuals exposed to gestational stressors such as alcohol exhibit a spectrum of growth patterns, suggesting individualized responses to the stressors. We hypothesized that intrauterine growth responses to gestational alcohol are modified not only by the stressor’s severity but by fetal sex and the placenta’s adaptive capacity. Methods Pregnant C57BL/6J mice were assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 consumed a normal protein diet (18% protein by weight) and received 4.5 g alcohol/kg body weight (NP-Alc-8) or isocaloric maltodextrin (NP-MD-8) daily from embryonic day (E) 8.5–E17.5. Group 2 consumed the same diet but received alcohol (NP-Alc-13) or maltodextrin (NP-MD-13) daily from E13.5–E17.5. Group 3 consumed the same diet but containing a lower protein content (12% protein by weight) from E0.5 and also received alcohol (LP-Alc-8) or maltodextrin (LP-MD-8) daily from E8.5–E17.5. Maternal, placental, and fetal outcomes were assessed on E17.5 using 2-way ANOVA or mixed linear model. Results We found that intrauterine growth differed in the alcohol-exposed fetuses depending on sex and insult severity. Both NP-Alc-8 (vs. NP-MD-8) males and females had lower body weight and asymmetrical growth, but only NP-Alc-8 females had lower placental weight (P < 0.05). NP-Alc-13 (vs. NP-MD-13) females, but not their male littermates, had lower body weight (P = 0.019). Alcohol exposure beginning from E8.5 (vs. E13.5) decreased the ratio of fetal liver-to-body weight and increased the ratio of fetal brain-to-liver weight in both sexes (P < 0.05). LP-Alc-8 (vs. NP-MD-8) group had smaller litter size (P = 0.048), but the survivors had normal placental and body weight at E17.5. Nevertheless, LP-Alc-8 fetuses still showed asymmetrical growth. Correlation analyses reveal a relationship between litter size and placental outcomes, which were related to fetal outcomes in a sex-dependent manner, suggesting that the placenta may mediate the consequence of LP-Alc-altered litter size on fetal development. Conclusions Our data indicate that the placenta is strongly involved in the fetal stress response and adapts in a sex-dependent fashion to support fetal development under the alcohol stressor. These variables may further influence the spectrum of intrauterine growth outcomes observed in those diagnosed with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder.

Introduction: General practitioners (GPs) strive to use a patient centered approach to achieve shared decision making by integrating clinical evidence, clinical judgement, and patient priorities. In order to achieve this standard of care, GPs require relevant, up to date and high quality evidence. Currently there is a gap in the literature regarding the role of GP professional organisations internationally in producing and publishing evidence based guidance and clinical guidelines for GPs. This protocol outlines a scoping review to identify what evidence-based guidance is produced by general practitioner professional organisations internationally in terms of topic content, the structure and methods used to develop guidance and ways of disseminating this guidance, to support general practice clinical decision making. Methods: This scoping review will be conducted using the framework proposed by the Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), will be used to guide the reporting. Two researchers will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Scopus), grey literature sources and contact international GP professional organisations directly to identify appropriate studies for inclusion. Key information will be categorised and classified to generate a summary of the methods used internationally to develop and implement evidence-based guides for general practitioners and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will examine current practice internationally regarding the role of General Practice professional organisations in producing and publishing clinical guidelines and evidence based guidance to support general practitioner’s clinical decision making to benefit patient care.

Background There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work. Conclusions The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680. Caroline McCarthy and colleagues investigate the effect of a general practitioner-delivered, individualized medication review on polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing in community dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in Irish primary care. Author summary Why was this study done? Polypharmacy is frequently cited as a major concern by patients with multimorbidity. More evidence-based medicines management interventions are needed to improve care for this growing and vulnerable population. What did the researchers do and find? We conducted a pragmatic, 2-arm cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) in Irish primary care to investigate whether a general practitioner (GP)-delivered individualised medication review with a deprescribing approach could reduce polypharmacy and improve prescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. There was a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines in the intervention compared to control group at follow-up but no significant effect on potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP). Out of 826 medicines stopped in the intervention group, just 15 adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs) were reported. What do these findings mean? A primary care–based medication review intervention that aims to reduce significant polypharmacy is safe and could lead to the deprescription of unnecessary medicines. However, this may have a greater impact at a population rather than individual patient level. Improvements in the control group suggest that identification of patients with significant polypharmacy may in itself lead to reduction in the number of medicines. Recruitment and retention of patients with a high degree of disease and treatment burden into RCTs are possible but require significant resource and planning, and targeting those with less severe disease burden may be more appropriate and may lead to greater gains for individual patients.

Background: The burden of osteoarthritis (OA) to individuals and health systems is substantial and is expected to increase due to population ageing and rising prevalence of obesity and multimorbidity. Primary care-based models of care (MoCs) are being increasingly developed in response to this growing burden. However, these MoCs have yet to be formally reviewed. A MoC can be defined as an ‘evidence-informed strategy, framework or pathway that outlines the optimal manner in which condition-specific care should be delivered to consumers within a local health system’. Objective: To identify and describe the available research regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of MoCs for OA that have been developed or evaluated in primary care. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and LILACs will be conducted from 2010 to present, aligning with publication dates of recent clinical guidelines. A structured iterative search of grey literature will be conducted. Full-text original quantitative or mixed method studies which describe the development or evaluation of MoCs for OA in primary care will be considered. Data will be charted and synthesised and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a broad overview regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of the available literature on primary care based MoCs for OA. Findings will be used to identify gaps in the current evidence to identify areas for future research.

Introduction Understanding primary care practices’ ‘readiness’ to engage in trials and their experience is important to inform trial procedures and supports. Few studies report on the feasibility of study procedures though this is a central part of pilot trials. We explored the acceptability and feasibility of study procedures of a cluster randomised pilot trial of an intervention in primary care to improve uptake of Ireland’s national diabetic retinopathy programme. Methods As part of the embedded mixed-methods process evaluation, quantitative and qualitative data were gathered across four general practices participating in the intervention. Interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of staff. Research logs on time spent on intervention delivery, staff assignment, resources, problems/changes, and reasons for drop-outs, were maintained over the course of intervention rollout, and practice audit data were analysed. Quantitative outcomes included recruitment, retention, completion, and data quality and completeness. Qualitative data on perceptions and experience of the pilot trial procedures were analysed using the Framework Method. Findings Nine staff (3 GPs, 4 nurses, 2 administrators) were interviewed. An interest in the topic area or in research motivated practices to take part in the trial. Reimbursement meant they could ‘afford’ to participate. Staff valued the researcher briefing at the start of the trial, to avoid ‘going in slightly blind’. While staff varied in audit skills and confidence, and some found this aspect of data collection challenging, a ‘step-by-step’ audit manual and regular researcher contact, helped them stay on track and troubleshoot during data collection. Audit quality was acceptable overall, however there were some issues, incorrect assignment of patient status being most common. Conclusion The IDEAs trial procedures were acceptable and feasible for primary care staff, however, challenges with conducting the audit may reflect staff skills gaps and the need for greater guidance and support from researchers.

Background: The burden of osteoarthritis (OA) to individuals and health systems is substantial and is expected to increase due to population ageing and rising prevalence of obesity and multimorbidity. Primary care-based models of care (MoCs) are being increasingly developed in response to this growing burden. However, these MoCs have yet to be formally reviewed. A MoC can be defined as an ‘evidence-informed strategy, framework or pathway that outlines the optimal manner in which condition-specific care should be delivered to consumers within a local health system’. Objective: To identify and describe the available research regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of MoCs for OA that have been developed or evaluated in primary care. Methods: A scoping review will be conducted in accordance with the Arksey and O’Malley scoping review framework and the PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, Web of Science and LILACs will be conducted from 2010 to present, aligning with publication dates of recent clinical guidelines. A structured iterative search of grey literature will be conducted. Full-text original quantitative or mixed method studies which describe the development or evaluation of MoCs for OA in primary care will be considered. Data will be charted and synthesised and a narrative synthesis will be conducted. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide a broad overview regarding the extent, nature and characteristics of the available literature on primary care based MoCs for OA. Findings will be used to identify gaps in the current evidence to identify areas for future research.

Background Multimorbidity, defined as two or more chronic conditions is increasing in prevalence and is associated with increased health care use, fragmented care and poorer health outcomes. Link workers are non-health or social care professionals who support people to connect with resources in their community to improve their well-being, a process commonly referred to as social prescribing. The use of link workers in primary care may be an effective intervention in helping those with long‐term conditions manage their illness and improve health and well‐being, but the evidence base in limited. The LinkMM study is a randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of link workers based in primary care, providing social prescribing and health and social care coordination for people with multimorbidity. The aim of the LinkMM process evaluation is to investigate the implementation of the link worker intervention, mechanisms of impact and influence of the specific context on these, as per the Medical Research Council framework, using quantitative and qualitative methods. Methods Quantitative data will be gathered from a number of sources including researcher logbooks, participant baseline questionnaires, client management database, and will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Semi structured interviews with participants will investigate their experiences of the intervention. Interviews with link workers, practices and community stakeholders will explore how the intervention was implemented and barriers and facilitators to this. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts will be conducted. Discussion The process evaluation of the LinkMM trial will provide important information allowing a more in-depth understanding of how the intervention worked and lessons for future wider scale implementation.

Background: The relationship between procedural volume and outcomes for percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is contentious, with previous reviews suggesting an inverse volume-outcome relationship. The aim of this study was to systematically review contemporary evidence to re-examine this relationship. Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis was undertaken to examine the relationship between PCI procedural volume (both at hospital- and operator-levels) and outcomes in adults. The primary outcome was mortality. The secondary outcomes were complications, healthcare utilisation and process outcomes. Searches were conducted from 1 January 2008 to 28 May 2019. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using ‘Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations’ (GRADE). Screening, data extraction, quality appraisal and GRADE assessments were conducted independently by two reviewers. Results: Of 1,154 unique records retrieved, 22 observational studies with 6,432,265 patients were included. No significant association was found between total PCI hospital volume and mortality (odds ratio [OR]: 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.69-1.03, I2 = 86%). A temporal trend from significant to non-significant pooled effect estimates was observed. The pooled effect estimate for mortality was found to be significantly in favour of high-volume operators for total PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.63-0.94, I2 = 93%), and for high-volume hospitals for primary PCI procedures (OR: 0.77, 95% CI: 0.62-0.94, I2 = 78%). Overall, GRADE certainty of evidence was ‘very low’. There were mixed findings for secondary outcomes. Conclusions: A volume-outcome relationship may exist in certain situations, although this relationship appears to be attenuating with time, and there is ‘very low’ certainty of evidence. While volume might be important, it should not be the only standard used to define an acceptable PCI service and a broader evaluation of quality metrics should be considered that encompass patient experience and clinical outcomes. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42019125288

Introduction: The use of link workers for social prescribing and health and social care coordination is increasing, but there is insufficient data to demonstrate their effectiveness or for whom they work best. Multimorbidity is increasing in prevalence and affects those living in deprived areas ten years earlier than affluent areas. This systematic review aims to examine the evidence for the effectiveness and costs of link workers in improving health outcomes. We will also look for evidence for the use of link workers specifically for people living with multimorbidity and in deprived areas. Methods: Databases of published and grey literature will be searched for randomised and non-randomised controlled trials examining use of link workers based in primary care for community dwelling adults compared to usual care. Primary outcomes will be health related quality of life and mental health. Data on costs will be extracted. Studies will be selected for inclusion by title and abstract review by two reviewers. A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) flow diagram will document the selection process. A standardised form will be used to extract data. Data quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised controlled trials, a narrative synthesis will be completed and the GRADE assessment tool used to comment on evidence quality. A meta-analysis of effect size of primary outcomes and subgroup analysis for multimorbidity and social deprivation will be performed if there are sufficient comparable data. Conclusion: This systematic review will give an important overview of the evidence for the use of link workers providing social prescribing and health and social care coordination in primary care. This will help inform intervention development and guide policy makers on whether these interventions are cost effective and which groups stand to benefit most. Prospero registration: CRD42019134737 (04/07/2019)

Background: Diagnosis of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection typically involves collection of venous blood samples prior to serological investigation of an antibody response followed by a confirmatory viral load or antigen test to verify active HCV infection. This conventional pathway poses logistical challenges for the implementation of reflex testing, whereby the confirmatory test is performed on the same sample used for serological investigation. Dried blood spot (DBS) testing, in which capillary blood is deposited on filter paper, is a less invasive alternative that can enable reflex testing without the need for venepuncture, centrifugation and freezing of samples. Methods: This systematic review aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of DBS compared with venous blood samples for diagnosis of chronic HCV infection. Observational studies which compare diagnostic tests using DBS with those using serum, plasma or whole blood in patients with chronic or resolved HCV infection will be included. Electronic searches will be conducted in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs and the Cochrane library. Citation screening, data extraction and quality appraisal of included studies will be performed in duplicate using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A meta-analysis will be conducted to derive pooled estimates of sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios, negative likelihood ratios, and diagnostic odds ratios. Sensitivity analyses and meta-regression will also be performed. Quality of the evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE criteria. Discussion: Identifying and linking people with currently undiagnosed chronic HCV infection to care is pivotal to attaining global viral hepatitis elimination targets. The use of DBS could simplify diagnostic testing strategies by integrating reflex testing into the care pathway and reducing drop-off along the cascade of care. Registration: PROSPERO, CRD42020205204. Registered 19th September 2020.

Introduction: Multimorbidity is increasingly important due to its high disease burden, prevalence and related high healthcare utilisation. For patients, there is also a high financial burden due to direct and indirect costs arising from their multimorbidity. It is unclear how this financial burden affects patients. This study aims to synthesise qualitative evidence exploring the experience of financial burden from the perspective of patients with multimorbidity. Methods: The review will be reported using the ENTREQ guidelines. A systematic search of Lilacs, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts will be conducted using a predefined search strategy. A search of fourteen pre-specified websites will be conducted for grey literature. Forward and backward citation checking of included studies will be conducted also. Studies will be included if they contain primary qualitative research and reference the experience of financial burden from the perspective of adult (≥ 18 years) community dwelling patients with multimorbidity. Studies from any country and in any language will be included. Titles and abstracts of search results will be screened; if a study appears relevant, then full-texts will be screened for eligibility. Study characteristics of included articles will be extracted. Study quality will be evaluated using the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) checklist for qualitative research. These three processes will be carried out by two reviewers independently. Thematic-synthesis will be used to analyse data. This will be carried out by one reviewer and cross-checked by a second reviewer. The GRADE CERQual approach will be used to assess the overall confidence in the evidence. Discussion: This review will identify evidence on the experiences of financial burden for patients with multimorbidity and forms part of a project to support consideration of financial burden for patients in the development of clinical guidelines in Ireland. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019135284

Introduction: Coordinating prescribing for patients with polypharmacy is a challenge for general practitioners. Pharmacists may improve management and outcomes for patients with polypharmacy. This systematic review aims to examine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to optimise prescribing and improve health outcomes in patients with polypharmacy in primary care settings. Methods: The review will be reported using the PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search of 10 databases from inception to present, with no language restrictions will be conducted. Studies will be included where they evaluate the clinical or cost-effectiveness of a clinical pharmacist in primary care on potentially inappropriate prescriptions using validated indicators and number of medicines. Secondary outcomes will include health related quality of life measures, health service utilisation, clinical outcomes and data relating to cost effectiveness. Randomised controlled trials, non-randomised controlled trials, controlled before-after, interrupted-time-series and health economic studies will be eligible for inclusion. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened for inclusion by two reviewers. Data will be extracted using a standard form. Risk of bias in all included studies will be assessed using the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) criteria. Economic studies will be assessed using the Consensus Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) list as per the Cochrane Handbook for critical appraisal of methodological quality. A narrative synthesis will be performed, and the certainty of evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Where data support quantitative synthesis, a meta-analysis will be performed. Discussion: This systematic review will give an overview of the effectiveness of pharmacist interventions to improve prescribing and health outcomes in a vulnerable patient group. This will provide evidence to policy makers on strategies involving clinical pharmacists integrated within general practice, to address issues which arise in polypharmacy and multimorbidity. PROSPERO Registration: CRD42019139679 (28/08/19)

Background: Multimorbidity (the presence of two or more chronic conditions) is associated with poorer health outcomes, particularly for patients with significant polypharmacy (≥15 medications), due to the higher risk of adverse events and drug interactions. The SPPiRE study will assess the effectiveness of a complex intervention to support general practitioners (GPs) to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing and consider deprescribing in older people with multimorbidity and significant polypharmacy. The aim of the SPPiRE process evaluation is to understand how and why the intervention is effective or ineffective and to explore the potential for system wide implementation of the intervention using the Medical Research Council general themes of context, implementation and mechanism of impact. Methods: The SPPiRE study is a clustered randomised controlled trial (RCT), aiming to recruit 55 general practices and 400 patients (≥65 years) on ≥15 medications throughout the Republic of Ireland. This mixed-methods process evaluation of the SPPiRE study will integrate both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be collected on use of the intervention elements and from GP questionnaires. Qualitative data will be collected from semi-structured telephone interviews with all intervention GPs and a purposeful sample of patients from intervention practices. The topic guide will explore barriers and facilitators to participation and implementation of the intervention. Quantitative data will be analysed using descriptive statistics. Interviews will be transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data will be then be integrated. Discussion: The SPPiRE cluster RCT will provide evidence regarding the effectiveness and practicability of delivering a structured medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescribing for patients with multimorbidity. This process evaluation will provide information on how the intervention was implemented, how it was or was not effective and the potential for a system wide implementation. Trial registration: ISRCTN 12752680, registration: 20/10/2016

BackgroundPotentially inappropriate medication (PIM) is associated with negative health outcomes and can serve as an indicator of treatment quality. Previous studies have identified social inequality in treatment but often relied on narrow understandings of social position or failed to account for mediation by differential disease risk among social groups. Understanding how social position influences PIM exposure is crucial for improving the targeting of treatment quality and addressing health disparities. This study investigates the association between social position and PIM, considering the mediation effect of long-term conditions.Methods and findingsThis cross-sectional study utilized data from the 2017 Danish National Health Survey, including 177,495 individuals aged 18 or older. Data were linked to national registers on individual-level. PIM was defined from the STOPP/START criteria and social position was assessed through indicators of economic, cultural, and social capital (from Bourdieu's Capital Theory). We analyzed odds ratios (ORs) and prevalence proportion differences (PPDs) for PIM using logistic regression, negative binomial regression, and generalized structural equation modeling. The models were adjusted for age and sex and analyzed separately for indicators of under- (START) and overtreatment (STOPP). The mediation analysis was conducted to separate direct and indirect effects via long-term conditions. Overall, 14.7% of participants were exposed to one or more PIMs, with START PIMs being more prevalent (12.5%) than STOPP PIMs (3.1%). All variables for social position except health education were associated with PIM in a dose-response pattern. Individuals with lower wealth (OR: 1.85 [95% CI 1.77, 1.94]), lower income (OR: 1.78 [95% CI 1.69, 1.87]), and lower education level (OR: 1.66 [95% CI 1.56, 1.76]) exhibited the strongest associations with PIM. Similar associations were observed for immigrants, people with low social support, and people with limited social networks. The association with PIM remained significant for most variables after accounting for mediation by long-term conditions. The disparities were predominantly related to overtreatment and did not relate to the number of PIMs. The study's main limitation is the risk of reverse causation due to the complex nature of social position and medical treatment.ConclusionsThe findings highlight significant social inequalities in PIM exposure, driven by both economic, cultural, and social capital despite a universal healthcare system. Understanding the social determinants of PIM can inform policies to reduce inappropriate medication use and improve healthcare quality and equity.

Background Patients with multimorbidity (two or more chronic conditions) are now the norm in clinical practice, and place an increasing burden on the healthcare system. Management of these patients is challenging, and requires doctors who are skilled in the complexity of multiple chronic diseases. Objective To perform a systematic review of the literature to ascertain whether there are education and training formats which have been used to train postgraduate medical doctors in the management of patients with multimorbidity in primary and/or secondary care, and which have been shown to improve knowledge, skills, attitudes, and/or patient outcomes. Methods Overall, 75,110 citations were screened, of which 65 full-text articles were then independently assessed for eligibility by two reviewers, and two studies met the inclusion criteria for the review. Results The two included studies implemented and evaluated multimorbidity workshops, and highlight the need for further research addressing the learning needs of doctors tasked with managing patients with multimorbidity in their daily practice. Conclusion While much has been published about the challenges presented to medical staff by patients with multimorbidity, published research regarding education of doctors to manage these problems is lacking. Further research is required to determine whether there is a need for, or benefit from, specific training for doctors to manage patients with multimorbidity. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42013004010.

Multimorbidity is a major challenge for patients and healthcare providers. The limited evidence of the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity means that there is a need for much more research and trials of potential interventions. Here we present a consensus view from a group of international researchers working to improve care for people with multimorbidity to guide future studies of interventions. We suggest that there is a need for careful consideration of whom to include, how to target interventions that address specific problems and that do not add to treatment burden, and selecting outcomes that matter both to patients and the healthcare system. Innovative design of these interventions will be necessary as many will be introduced in service settings and it will be important to ensure methodological rigour, relevance to service delivery, and generalizability across healthcare systems.

Background While physical activity is widely recommended for many long-term conditions, it may be difficult to achieve for patients managing multiple conditions. We aimed to determine the feasibility of an inter-agency exercise and education programme for patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Methods We conducted an uncontrolled pilot study with adults with multimorbidity, recruited in two community healthcare organisations in an urban area in Ireland. The six-week pilot intervention combined an individually tailored gym-based exercise programme and education to support self-management. Feasibility of the Activ8 programme was assessed using a mixed methods process evaluation. Outcome measures at baseline and at 6 weeks included recruitment and retention, gait speed, grip strength, quality of life and self-efficacy. Focus groups and interviews explored participants and facilitators’ perceptions of the programme. Results 19 participants with ≥2 chronic conditions were recruited over three-weeks with similar attrition at both sites (≤40%). Overall, the results indicate that Activ8 was feasible and acceptable to patients and practitioners. Quantitative outcome measures suggested improvements in most outcomes. Qualitative data analysis indicated that Activ8 addressed an overarching concept of patient-centeredness among participants. Three key themes included perceived personal programme impact, the personalised composition of the programme and the evolving nature of primary care practice. Conclusion While further definitive evidence is needed and attrition from the programme needs to be considered, the Activ8 Programme was acceptable to both patients and professionals in two different primary care areas with the potential for positive impacts for adults living with multimorbidity.

Introduction: Individuals with multimorbidity in deprived areas experience worse health outcomes and fragmented care. Research suggests that primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing have potential to improve health and well-being. This paper reports the results of a pilot study conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to test the effectiveness of primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing in improving health outcomes for people with multimorbidity who attend general practices in deprived areas in Ireland. Methods: An uncontrolled pilot study of an intervention based on the Glasgow Deep End links worker programme, in a single general practice, tested the feasibility and acceptability of planned processes for a RCT. Outcomes were recruitment and retention rates and acceptability of the trial processes and intervention to patients, general practitioners (GPs) and the link worker. Structured interviews were conducted with six patients, the link worker and two GPs within the practice and analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis. Feedback from a Public Patient Involvement group and an Implementation Advisory Group of key stakeholders was incorporated into the evaluation process. Results: Twelve out of 14 patients completed the intervention. Selection and recruitment processes were lengthier than expected. GPs recommended including psychosocial need in the selection process. Interviewed patients, the GPs and the link worker were positive about the intervention. Conclusion: A range of adaptations were identified for the main trial, mainly considering psychosocial need in the selection process to reflect normal referral pathways. This has resulted in a pragmatic RCT design.