Search

Background Compared to men, women have lower treatment rates for cardiovascular disease (CVD), are at higher risk for medication non-adherence and have different reasons for being non-adherent. The aim of this study was to synthesize and evaluate gender-specific adherence-promoting interventions for cardiovascular medication and gender-specific effects of gender-neutral interventions. Methods A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Library from January 2007 to October 2019. Intervention studies (with control group) aimed at improving cardiovascular medication adherence with minimally 14 weeks follow-up were included. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Full text was obtained for selected abstracts and screened for final inclusion. Data extraction included gender-specific targeting or analysis. Results The search identified 6502 citations. After screening title and abstract, full text was obtained from 127 potentially eligible articles. Ultimately, 11 articles were included that analyzed gender differences in gender-neutral interventions. Two reported a gender-specific intervention effect. Using an electronic reminder device, one study increased statin adherence in women. The other found a larger increase in adherence to CVD medication following telephone counseling for men than women. Nine studies did not identify a gender-specific effect. Conclusion Despite differences in levels of and reasons for non-adherence, most studies addressing adherence did not analyze potential differences in effect by gender. Moreover, none of the identified studies used gender-specific adherence promoting interventions. Increasing awareness about gender differences in adherence might lead to better tailoring of interventions to gender-specific needs and better results in improving adherence.

Background: Selective prevention of cardiometabolic diseases (CMD)—that is, preventive measures specifically targeting the high-risk population—may represent the most effective approach for mitigating rising CMD rates. Objectives: To develop a universal concept of selective CMD prevention that can guide implementation within European primary care. Methods: Initially, 32 statements covering different aspects of selective CMD prevention programmes were identified based on a synthesis of evidence from two systematic literature reviews and surveys conducted within the SPIMEU project. The Rand/UCLA appropriateness method (RAM) was used to find consensus on these statements among an international panel consisting of 14 experts. Before the consensus meeting, statements were rated by the experts in a first round. In the next step, during a face-to-face meeting, experts were provided with the results of the first rating and were then invited to discuss and rescore the statements in a second round. Results: In the outcome of the RAM procedure, 28 of 31 statements were considered appropriate and three were rated uncertain. The panel deleted one statement. Selective CMD prevention was considered an effective approach for preventing CMD and a proactive approach was regarded as more effective compared to case-finding alone. The most efficient method to implement selective CMD prevention systematically in primary care relies on a stepwise approach: initial risk assessment followed by interventions if indicated. Conclusion: The final set of statements represents the key characteristics of selective CMD prevention and can serve as a guide for implementing selective prevention actions in European primary care.

Additional file 3. Flowchart fall preventive care offered to frail older patients

Additional file 2. Questionnaire used to investigate GPs daily practice regarding falls prevention

Background The majority of childhood cancer survivors are at risk of treatment-related adverse health outcomes. Survivorship care to mitigate these late effects is endorsed, but it is not available for many adult survivors of childhood cancer in Europe. The PanCareFollowUp project was initiated to improve their health and quality of life (QoL) by facilitating person-centred survivorship care. Methods The PanCareFollowUp consortium was established in 2018, consisting of 14 project partners from ten European countries, including survivor representatives. The consortium will develop two PanCareFollowUp Interventions, including a person-centred guideline–based model of care (Care Intervention) and eHealth lifestyle coaching (Lifestyle Intervention). Their development will be informed by several qualitative studies and systematic reviews on barriers and facilitators for implementation and needs and preferences of healthcare providers (HCPs) and survivors. Implementation of the PanCareFollowUp Care Intervention as usual care will be evaluated prospectively among 800 survivors from Belgium, Czech Republic, Italy and Sweden for survivor empowerment, detection of adverse health conditions, satisfaction among survivors and HCPs, cost-effectiveness and feasibility. The feasibility of the PanCareFollowUp Lifestyle Intervention will be evaluated in the Netherlands among 60 survivors. Results Replication manuals, allowing for replication of the PanCareFollowUp Care and Lifestyle Intervention, will be published and made freely available after the project. Moreover, results of the corresponding studies are expected within the next five years. Conclusions The PanCareFollowUp project is a novel European collaboration aiming to improve the health and QoL of all survivors across Europe by developing and prospectively evaluating the person-centred PanCareFollowUp Care and Lifestyle Interventions.

Background: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are the number one cause of death. Selective prevention of CMDs by general practitioners (GPs) could help reduce the burden of CMDs. This measure would entail the identification of individuals at high risk of CMDs-but currently asymptomatic-followed by interventions to reduce their risk. No data were available on the attitude and the extent to which European GPs have incorporated selective CMD prevention into daily practice. Methods: A survey among 575 GPs from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017, within the framework of the SPIMEU-project. Results: On average, 71% of GPs invited their patients to attend for CMD risk assessment. Some used an active approach (47%) while others used an opportunistic approach (53%), but these values differed between countries. Most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful (82%) and saw it as part of their normal duties (84%). GPs who did find selective prevention useful were more likely to actively invite individuals compared with their counterparts who did not find prevention useful. Most GPs had a disease management programme for individuals with risk factor(s) for cardiovascular disease (71%) or diabetes (86%). Conclusions: Although most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful, it was not universally implemented. The biggest challenge was the process of inviting individuals for risk assessment. It is important to tailor the implementation of selective CMD prevention in primary care to the national context, involving stakeholders at different levels.

Background: Cardiometabolic diseases (CMDs) are the number one cause of death. Selective prevention of CMDs by general practitioners (GPs) could help reduce the burden of CMDs. This measure would entail the identification of individuals at high risk of CMDs-but currently asymptomatic-followed by interventions to reduce their risk. No data were available on the attitude and the extent to which European GPs have incorporated selective CMD prevention into daily practice.Methods: A survey among 575 GPs from the Czech Republic, Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and Sweden was conducted between September 2016 and January 2017, within the framework of the SPIMEU-project.Results: On average, 71% of GPs invited their patients to attend for CMD risk assessment. Some used an active approach (47%) while others used an opportunistic approach (53%), but these values differed between countries. Most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful (82%) and saw it as part of their normal duties (84%). GPs who did find selective prevention useful were more likely to actively invite individuals compared with their counterparts who did not find prevention useful. Most GPs had a disease management programme for individuals with risk factor(s) for cardiovascular disease (71%) or diabetes (86%).Conclusions: Although most GPs considered selective CMD prevention as useful, it was not universally implemented. The biggest challenge was the process of inviting individuals for risk assessment. It is important to tailor the implementation of selective CMD prevention in primary care to the national context, involving stakeholders at different levels.