2.6 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking or heating. Accelerating access to cleaner solutions is crucial to reduce the negative effects of solid fuel use. Despite abundant evidence on how... Show more2.6 billion people rely on solid fuels for cooking or heating. Accelerating access to cleaner solutions is crucial to reduce the negative effects of solid fuel use. Despite abundant evidence on how to implement these solutions, previous attempts have been disappointing. An overview of the evidence is missing and the translation of the evidence into practice is poor. We conducted an umbrella review using eight databases to: consolidate evidence on the factors that influence the implementation of improved solid fuel cookstoves and clean fuels in low-income and middle-income countries; weigh the level of confidence in existing evidence; and develop two practical implementation strategy tools. We identified 31 relevant reviews (13 systematic reviews and 18 narrative reviews) that covered over 479 primary studies. We found 15 implementation factors supported by the highest level of evidence. Regarding improved solid fuel cookstoves, these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and compatibility. For clean fuels these factors included: cost; knowledge and beliefs about the innovation; and external policy and incentives. The factors were synthesised into the Cleaner Cookstove Implementation Tool and the Clean Fuel Implementation Tool. These tools can be used to optimise the implementation of cleaner cooking solutions, thereby improving health, environmental, climate, and gender equity outcomes. Show less
Schnoor, K.; Versluis, A.; Bakema, R.; Luenen, S. van; Kooij, M.J.; Heuvel, J.M. van den; ... ; Aardoom, J.J. 2022
AbstractBackground:Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affect millions of people worldwide. While medication can control and improve disease symptoms, incorrect use of... Show moreAbstractBackground:Asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) affect millions of people worldwide. While medication can control and improve disease symptoms, incorrect use of medication is a common problem. The eHealth intervention SARA (Service Apothecary Respiratory Advice) aims to improve participants’ correct use of inhalation medication by providing information and as-needed tailored follow-up support by a pharmacist.Objective:The primary aim of this study was to investigate the effect of SARA on exacerbation rates in participants with asthma and COPD. Secondary aims were to investigate its effects in terms of adherence to maintenance medication and antimycotic treatment.Methods:In this nonrandomized pre-post study, medication dispensing data from 382 Dutch community pharmacies were included. Exacerbation rates were assessed with dispensed short-course oral corticosteroids. Medication adherence between new and chronic users was assessed by calculating the proportion of days covered from dispensed inhalation maintenance medication. Antimycotic treatment was investigated from dispensed oral antimycotics in participants who were also dispensed inhaled corticosteroids (ICS). Outcomes were assessed 1 year before and 1 year after implementation of SARA and were compared between SARA participants and control participants. More specifically, for exacerbation rates and medication adherence, a difference score was calculated (ie, 1 year after SARA minus 1 year before SARA) and was subsequently compared between the study groups with independent-samples t tests. For antimycotics, the relative number of participants who were dispensed antimycotics was calculated and subsequently analyzed with a mixed-effects logistic regression.Results:The study population comprised 9452 participants, of whom 2400 (25.39%) were SARA participants. The mean age of the population was 60.8 (15.0) years, and approximately two-thirds (n=5677, 60.06%) were female. The results showed an increase in mean exacerbation rates over time for both study groups (SARA: 0.05; control: 0.15). However, this increase in exacerbation rates was significantly lower for SARA participants (t9450=3.10, 95% CI 0.04-0.16; P=.002; Cohen d=0.06). Chronic users of inhalation medication in both study groups showed an increase in mean medication adherence over time (SARA: 6.73; control: 4.48); however, this increase was significantly higher for SARA participants (t5886=–2.74, 95% CI –3.86 to –0.84; P=.01; Cohen d=–0.07). Among new users of inhalation medication, results showed no significant difference in medication adherence between SARA and control participants in the year after implementation of SARA (t1434=–1.85, 95% CI –5.60 to 0.16; P=.06; Cohen d=–0.10). Among ICS users, no significant differences between the study groups were found over time in terms of the proportion of participants who were dispensed antimycotics (t5654=0.29, 95% CI –0.40 to 0.54; P=.76; Cohen d=0).Conclusions:This study provides preliminary evidence that the SARA eHealth intervention might have the potential to decrease exacerbation rates and improve medication adherence among patients with asthma and COPD. Show less
BackgroundPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary... Show moreBackgroundPeople with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) show considerable variation in symptoms, limitations, and well-being; this often complicates medical care. A multi-disciplinary and multi-component programme that addresses different elements of care could improve quality of life (QoL) and exercise tolerance, while reducing the number of exacerbations.ObjectivesTo compare the effectiveness of integrated disease management (IDM) programmes versus usual care for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in terms of health-related quality of life (QoL), exercise tolerance, and exacerbation-related outcomes.Search methodsWe searched the Cochrane Airways Group Register of Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL for potentially eligible studies. Searches were current as of September 2020.Selection criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared IDM programmes for COPD versus usual care were included. Interventions consisted of multi-disciplinary (two or more healthcare providers) and multi-treatment (two or more components) IDM programmes of at least three months' duration.Data collection and analysisTwo review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. If required, we contacted study authors to request additional data. We performed meta-analyses using random-effects modelling. We carried out sensitivity analyses for the quality of included studies and performed subgroup analyses based on setting, study design, dominant intervention components, and region.Main resultsAlong with 26 studies included in the 2013 Cochrane Review, we added 26 studies for this update, resulting in 52 studies involving 21,086 participants for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Follow-up periods ranged between 3 and 48 months and were classified as short-term (up to 6 months), medium-term (6 to 15 months), and long-term (longer than 15 months) follow-up. Studies were conducted in 19 different countries. The mean age of included participants was 67 years, and 66% were male. Participants were treated in all types of healthcare settings, including primary (n =15), secondary (n = 22), and tertiary care (n = 5), and combined primary and secondary care (n = 10). Overall, the level of certainty of evidence was moderate to high.We found that IDM probably improves health-related QoL as measured by St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) total score at medium-term follow-up (mean difference (MD) -3.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.16 to -1.63; 18 RCTs, 4321 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). A comparable effect was observed at short-term follow-up (MD -3.78, 95% CI -6.29 to -1.28; 16 RCTs, 1788 participants). However, the common effect did not exceed the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) of 4 points. There was no significant difference between IDM and control for long-term follow-up and for generic QoL.IDM probably also leads to a large improvement in maximum and functional exercise capacity, as measured by six-minute walking distance (6MWD), at medium-term follow-up (MD 44.69, 95% CI 24.01 to 65.37; 13 studies, 2071 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The effect exceeded the MCID of 35 metres and was even greater at short-term (MD 52.26, 95% CI 32.39 to 72.74; 17 RCTs, 1390 participants) and long-term (MD 48.83, 95% CI 16.37 to 80.49; 6 RCTs, 7288 participants) follow-up.The number of participants with respiratory-related admissions was reduced from 324 per 1000 participants in the control group to 235 per 1000 participants in the IDM group (odds ratio (OR) 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.81; 15 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 4207 participants; high-certainty evidence). Likewise, IDM probably results in a reduction in emergency department (ED) visits (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.50 to 0.93; 9 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 8791 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), a slight reduction in all-cause hospital admissions (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.57 to 0.98; 10 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 9030 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and fewer hospital days per person admitted (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.98 to -0.56; 14 RCTs, median follow-up 12 months, 3563 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Statistically significant improvement was noted on the Medical Research Council (MRC) Dyspnoea Scale at short- and medium-term follow-up but not at long-term follow-up. No differences between groups were reported for mortality, courses of antibiotics/prednisolone, dyspnoea, and depression and anxiety scores. Subgroup analysis of dominant intervention components and regions of study suggested context- and intervention-specific effects. However, some subgroup analyses were marked by considerable heterogeneity or included few studies. These results should therefore be interpreted with caution.Authors' conclusionsThis review shows that IDM probably results in improvement in disease-specific QoL, exercise capacity, hospital admissions, and hospital days per person. Future research should evaluate which combination of IDM components and which intervention duration are most effective for IDM programmes, and should consider contextual determinants of implementation and treatment effect, including process-related outcomes, long-term follow-up, and cost-effectiveness analyses. Show less
Jimenez, G.; Spinazze, P.; Matchar, D.; Huat, G.K.C.; Kleij, R.M.J.J. van der; Chavannes, N.H.; Car, J. 2020
Background: Despite digital health providing opportunities to enhance the quality, efficiency and safety of primary healthcare, the adoption of digital tools and technologies has been slow, partly... Show moreBackground: Despite digital health providing opportunities to enhance the quality, efficiency and safety of primary healthcare, the adoption of digital tools and technologies has been slow, partly because of poor digital health literacy. For primary healthcare systems to take full advantage of these technologies, a capable, digitally literate workforce is necessary. Still, the essential digital health competencies (DHCs) for primary healthcare have not been explored. This review aims to examine the broad literature on DHCs as it applies to Primary Care (PC) settings.Methods: We performed a scoping review on all types of research linking DHCs to PC. We searched all major databases including Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane Library in November 2019. Concurrently, a thorough grey literature search was performed through OpenGrey, ResearchGate, Google Scholar, and key government and relevant professional associations' websites. Screening and selection of studies was performed in pairs, and data was analysed and presented using a narrative, descriptive approach. Thematic analysis was performed to identify key DHC domains.Results: A total of 28 articles were included, most of them (54 %) published before 2005. These articles were primarily aimed at PC physicians or general practitioners, and focused on improving knowledge about information technologies and medical informatics, basic computer and information literacy, and optimal use of electronic medical records. We identified 17 DHC domains, and important knowledge gaps related to digital health education and curriculum integration, the need for evidence of the impact of services, and the importance of wider support for digital health.Conclusions: Literature explicitly linking DHCs to PC was mostly published over a decade ago. There is a need for an updated and current set of DHCs for PC professionals to more consistently reap the benefits of digital technologies. This review identified key DHC domains and statements that may be used to guide on the development of a set of DHC for PC, and critical knowledge gaps and needs to be considered. Such a DHC set may be used for curricula development and for ensuring that the essential DHC for PC are met at a clinical or organizational level, and eventually improve health outcomes. Show less
Brakema, E.A.; Gemert, F.A. van; Williams, S.; Sooronbaev, T.; Emilov, B.; Mademilov, M.; ... ; FRESH Air Collaborators 2020
Randomized studies have shown that financial incentives can significantly increase the effect of smoking cessation treatment in company settings. Evidence of effectiveness alone is, however, not... Show moreRandomized studies have shown that financial incentives can significantly increase the effect of smoking cessation treatment in company settings. Evidence of effectiveness alone is, however, not enough to ensure that companies will offer this intervention. Knowledge about the barriers and facilitators for implementation in the workplace is needed, in order to develop an implementation strategy. We performed a qualitative needs assessment among 18 employers working in companies with relatively many employees with a low educational level, and our study revealed priority actions that aim to improve the implementation process in these types of workplaces. First, employers need training and support in how to reach their employees and convince them to take part in the group training. Second, employers need to be convinced that their non-smoking employees will not consider the incentives unfair, or they should be enabled to offer alternative incentives that are considered less unfair. Third, the cost-effectiveness of smoking cessation group trainings including financial incentives should be explained to employers. Finally, smoking cessation should become a standard part of workplace-based health policies. Show less
OBJECTIVES: Older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),hospitalized for an acute exacerbation, often do not receive recommendedpost-acute pulmonary rehabilitation. This... Show moreOBJECTIVES: Older patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD),hospitalized for an acute exacerbation, often do not receive recommendedpost-acute pulmonary rehabilitation. This underuse might be related to theimpaired clinical and functional status of these patients, who are more likely topresent with frailty, comorbidities, and disability. Having developed andimplemented a geriatric rehabilitation program for these patients (GR_COPD), theprimary aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of this program.DESIGN AND INTERVENTION: A prospective cohort study with a 3-month follow-upperiod. Patients who declined the GR_COPD program were considered as controls.SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: The study was conducted at the pulmonary department of2 hospitals. Patients were eligible when hospitalized as a result of an acuteexacerbation of COPD and indicated for the GR_COPD program based on standardizedcriteria.METHODS: Primary outcome was defined as change in disease-specific health statusmeasured with the clinical COPD questionnaire (CCQ), secondary outcome as theexacerbation rate ratio during follow-up. To balance potential confoundersbetween the intervention and control group, propensity score-based weightedlinear regression analyses were performed.RESULTS: Of the 158 included patients [78 (49.4%) male, mean age 70.8 (±8.1)years, mean forced expiratory volume in 1 second: 35.5 (±12.8) as % ofpredicted], 78 received the GR_COPD program. The results of the CCQ showed asignificant and clinically relevant treatment effect of -0.56 points [95%confidence interval (CI) -0.89, -0.23; P = .001). Patients in the control grouphad 2.77 times more exacerbations compared with the intervention group (95% CI2.13, 3.58; P < .001).CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: This study shows a clinically relevant effect of theGR_COPD program on disease-specific health status and exacerbation rate.Implementation of the program for older patients with severe COPD hospitalizedfor an acute exacerbation is recommended. Show less
Background: Mobile health can be used to generate innovative insights into optimizing treatment to improve allergic rhinitis (AR) control.Objectives: A cross-sectional real-world observational... Show moreBackground: Mobile health can be used to generate innovative insights into optimizing treatment to improve allergic rhinitis (AR) control.Objectives: A cross-sectional real-world observational study was undertaken in 22 countries to complement a pilot study and provide novel information on medication use, disease control, and work productivity in the everyday life of patients with AR.Methods: A mobile phone app (Allergy Diary, which is freely available on Google Play and Apple stores) was used to collect the data of daily visual analogue scale (VAS) scores for (1) overall allergic symptoms; (2) nasal, ocular, and asthma symptoms; (3) work; and (4) medication use by using a treatment scroll list including all allergy medications (prescribed and over-the-counter) customized for 22 countries. The 4 most common intranasal medications containing intranasal corticosteroids and 8 oral H-1-antihistamines were studied.Results: Nine thousand one hundred twenty-two users filled in 112,054 days of VASs in 2016 and 2017. Assessment of days was informative. Control of days with rhinitis differed between no (best control), single (good control for intranasal corticosteroid-treated days), or multiple (worst control) treatments. Users with the worst control increased the range of treatments being used. The same trend was found for asthma, eye symptoms, and work productivity. Differences between oral H-1-antihistamines were found.Conclusions: This study confirms the usefulness of the Allergy Diary in accessing and assessing behavior in patients with AR. This observational study using a very simple assessment tool (VAS) on a mobile phone had the potential to answer questions previously thought infeasible. Show less
