Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"Although depression is a major cause of illness and disability, the quality of care offered is often poor. Research evidence demonstrating how the quality of primary care can be improved is dispersed in different academic journals and written in technical jargon. Depression in Primary Care: Evidence and Practice summarizes this research in a clear and useable format. This collection of high quality reviews of research evidence takes the form of a series of clinical and economic evaluations. Each provides a clear summary of the best evidence from trials and an accessible 'how to do it' guide, written by international experts. Global approaches towards the organization and delivery of primary care for depression are presented, from the UK, North America, Europe and the developing world. An important source of practical guidance about how to implement quality improvement programs in clinical practice, this book will assist practitioners, researchers and policy makers alike. - Combines clear evidence summaries with a simple and practical guide about how to implement quality improvement programmes in practice - Prepared by international experts and of interest and relevance in all countries and healthcare settings - Addresses a major healthcare priority identified by the World Health Organization, US Agency for Healthcare Research and UK National Institute for Clinical Excellence\"--Provided by publisher.

Background Anxiety disorders are common, yet treatment options in general practice are often limited to medication or CBT. There is a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of exercise in the treatment of anxiety in patients who present to general practice and also about the intensity of exercise required to lead to improvement. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the use of exercise versus waiting list control groups in the treatment of anxiety and also to assess the benefit of high intensity exercise vs low intensity exercise. Long term follow up scores were also analysed. We included patients who met diagnostic criteria for anxiety disorders or had clinically raised anxiety levels on a validated rating scale and performed a subgroup analysis of the outcomes between the two groups. The intervention was any aerobic exercise programme carried out for at least two weeks, or exercise carried out at high intensity for at least two weeks. The comparison groups were either a waiting list control group or low intensity exercise. Method Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Three databases were searched; CENTRAL, Medline and Embase. Outcome assessment was based on validated anxiety rating scales. The quality of the studies was appraised according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Effect sizes were calculated using the standardised mean difference. Results Fifteen studies were identified with a total of 675 patients. Nine trials had participants with diagnosed anxiety disorders and six trials had participants with raised anxiety on a validated rating scale. Aerobic exercise was effective in the treatment of raised anxiety compared to waiting list control groups (effect size − 0.41, 95% CI = − 0.70 to − 0.12). High intensity exercise programmes showed greater effects than low intensity programmes. There was no significant difference in outcomes between groups of patients with diagnosed anxiety disorders and patients who had raised anxiety on a rating scale. Conclusions were limited by the small number of studies and wide variation in the delivery of exercise interventions. Conclusion Exercise programmes are a viable treatment option for the treatment of anxiety. High intensity exercise regimens were found to be more effective than low intensity regimens. The results have implications for the use of exercise schemes in General Practice.

AbstractObjectiveTo systematically quantify the prevalence, severity, and nature of preventable patient harm across a range of medical settings globally.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, PubMed, PsycINFO, Cinahl and Embase, WHOLIS, Google Scholar, and SIGLE from January 2000 to January 2019. The reference lists of eligible studies and other relevant systematic reviews were also searched.Review methodsObservational studies reporting preventable patient harm in medical care. The core outcomes were the prevalence, severity, and types of preventable patient harm reported as percentages and their 95% confidence intervals. Data extraction and critical appraisal were undertaken by two reviewers working independently. Random effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta regression. Heterogeneity was quantified by using the I2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated.ResultsOf the 7313 records identified, 70 studies involving 337 025 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled prevalence for preventable patient harm was 6% (95% confidence interval 5% to 7%). A pooled proportion of 12% (9% to 15%) of preventable patient harm was severe or led to death. Incidents related to drugs (25%, 95% confidence interval 16% to 34%) and other treatments (24%, 21% to 30%) accounted for the largest proportion of preventable patient harm. Compared with general hospitals (where most evidence originated), preventable patient harm was more prevalent in advanced specialties (intensive care or surgery; regression coefficient b=0.07, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.10).ConclusionsAround one in 20 patients are exposed to preventable harm in medical care. Although a focus on preventable patient harm has been encouraged by the international patient safety policy agenda, there are limited quality improvement practices specifically targeting incidents of preventable patient harm rather than overall patient harm (preventable and non-preventable). Developing and implementing evidence-based mitigation strategies specifically targeting preventable patient harm could lead to major service quality improvements in medical care which could also be more cost effective.

Background Understanding why people take part in health research is critical to improve research efficiency and generalisability. The aim of this overview of systematic reviews was to identify psychosocial determinants of research participation and map them to psychological theory and empirical recruitment research, to identify effective strategies to increase research participation. Methods Qualitative and quantitative systematic reviews were systematically identified. No date or language limits were applied. Two reviewers independently selected reviews. Methodological quality was rated using AMSTAR, and poor-quality reviews (scoring 0–3) were excluded. Barriers and facilitators were coded to psychological theory (Theoretical Domains Framework) and empirical recruitment research (recruitment interventions that had been subjected to randomised controlled trial evaluation). Results We included 26 systematic reviews (429 unique primary studies), covering a wide range of patient populations and health settings. We identified five groups of facilitators, of which three were dominant (potential for personal benefit, altruism, trust) and appear to be relevant across research setting and design. We identified nine groups of barriers, which were more dependent on the particular study (context, population, design). Two determinants (participant information, social influences) were found to be both barriers and facilitators. Barriers and facilitators could be coded to the Motivation and Opportunity components of the Theoretical Domains Framework; only one was coded to a Capability component. There was some overlap between psychosocial determinants and empirical recruitment research, but some barriers and facilitators had not been tested at all. Conclusions Identifying effective recruitment strategies could increase the efficiency and generalisability of primary research. We identified a number of barriers and facilitators that could be addressed by researchers. There is a need for more research to identify effective recruitment strategies that draw on the psychosocial facilitators and barriers identified in this overview.

As the global burden of chronic disease rises, policy makers are showing a strong interest in adopting telehealth technologies for use in long term condition management, including COPD. However, there remain barriers to its implementation and sustained use. To date, there has been limited qualitative investigation into how users (both patients/carers and staff) perceive and experience the technology. We aimed to systematically review and synthesise the findings from qualitative studies that investigated user perspectives and experiences of telehealth in COPD management, in order to identify factors which may impact on uptake. Systematic review and meta-synthesis of published qualitative studies of user (patients, their carers and clinicians) experience of telehealth technologies for the management of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. ASSIA, CINAHL, Embase, Medline, PsychInfo and Web of Knowledge databases were searched up to October 2014. Reference lists of included studies and reference lists of key papers were also searched. Quality appraisal was guided by an adapted version of the CASP qualitative appraisal tool. 705 references (after duplicates removed) were identified and 10 papers, relating to 7 studies were included in the review. Most authors of included studies had identified both positive and negative experiences of telehealth use in the management of COPD. Through a line of argument synthesis we were able to derive new insights from the data to identify three overarching themes that have the ability to either impede or promote positive user experience of telehealth in COPD: the influence on moral dilemmas of help seeking-(enables dependency or self-care); transforming interactions (increases risk or reassurance) and reconfiguration of 'work' practices (causes burden or empowerment). Findings from this meta-synthesis have implications for the future design and implementation of telehealth services. Future research needs to include potential users at an earlier stage of telehealth/service development.

Digital diabetes prevention programs (digital-DPPs) are being implemented as population-based approaches to type 2 diabetes mellitus prevention in several countries to address problems with the uptake of traditional face-to-face diabetes prevention programs. However, assessments of digital-DPPs have largely focused on clinical outcomes and usability among those who have taken them up, whereas crucial information on decision-making about uptake (eg, whether a user downloads and registers on an app) and engagement (eg, the extent of use of an app or its components over time) is limited. Greater understanding of factors that influence uptake and engagement decisions may support large-scale deployments of digital-DPPs in real-world settings. This study aimed to explore the key influences on uptake and engagement decisions of individuals who were offered the National Health Service Healthier You: Digital Diabetes Prevention Programme (NHS-digital-DPP). A qualitative interview study was conducted using semistructured interviews. Participants were adults, aged ≥18 years, diagnosed with nondiabetic hyperglycemia, and those who had been offered the NHS-digital-DPP. Recruitment was conducted via 4 providers of the NHS-digital-DPP and 3 primary care practices in England. Interviews were conducted remotely and were guided by a theoretically informed topic guide. Analysis of interviews was conducted using an inductive thematic analysis approach. Interviews were conducted with 32 participants who had either accepted or declined the NHS-digital-DPP. In total, 7 overarching themes were identified as important factors in both decisions to take up and to engage with the NHS-digital-DPP. These were knowledge and understanding, referral process, self-efficacy, self-identity, motivation and support, advantages of digital service, and reflexive monitoring. Perceptions of accessibility and convenience of the NHS-digital-DPP were particularly important for uptake, and barriers in terms of the referral process and health care professionals' engagement were reported. Specific digital features including health coaches and monitoring tools were important for engagement. This study adds to the literature on factors that influence the uptake of and engagement with digital-DPPs and suggests that digital-DPPs can overcome many barriers to the uptake of face-to-face diabetes prevention programs in supporting lifestyle changes aimed at diabetes prevention.

Background Mitigating or reducing the risk of medication harm is a global policy priority. But evidence reflecting preventable medication harm in medical care and the factors that derive this harm remain unknown. Therefore, we aimed to quantify the prevalence, severity and type of preventable medication harm across medical care settings. Methods We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies to compare the prevalence of preventable medication harm. Searches were carried out in Medline, Cochrane library, CINAHL, Embase and PsycINFO from 2000 to 27 January 2020. Data extraction and critical appraisal was undertaken by two independent reviewers. Random-effects meta-analysis was employed followed by univariable and multivariable meta-regression. Heterogeneity was quantified using the I 2 statistic, and publication bias was evaluated. PROSPERO: CRD42020164156. Results Of the 7780 articles, 81 studies involving 285,687 patients were included. The pooled prevalence for preventable medication harm was 3% (95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 4%, I 2  = 99%) and for overall medication harm was 9% (95% CI 7 to 11%, I 2  = 99.5%) of all patient incidence records. The highest rates of preventable medication harm were seen in elderly patient care settings (11%, 95% 7 to 15%, n  = 7), intensive care (7%, 4 to 12%, n  = 6), highly specialised or surgical care (6%, 3 to 11%, n  = 13) and emergency medicine (5%, 2 to 12%, n  = 12). The proportion of mild preventable medication harm was 39% (28 to 51%, n  = 20, I 2  = 96.4%), moderate preventable harm 40% (31 to 49%, n  = 22, I 2  = 93.6%) and clinically severe or life-threatening preventable harm 26% (15 to 37%, n  = 28, I 2  = 97%). The source of the highest prevalence rates of preventable harm were at the prescribing (58%, 42 to 73%, n  = 9, I 2  = 94%) and monitoring (47%, 21 to 73%, n  = 8, I 2  = 99%) stages of medication use. Preventable harm was greatest in medicines affecting the ‘central nervous system’ and ‘cardiovascular system’. Conclusions This is the largest meta-analysis to assess preventable medication harm. We conclude that around one in 30 patients are exposed to preventable medication harm in medical care, and more than a quarter of this harm is considered severe or life-threatening. Our results support the World Health Organisation’s push for the detection and mitigation of medication-related harm as being a top priority, whilst highlighting other key potential targets for remedial intervention that should be a priority focus for future research.

An ageing population with multimorbidity is putting pressure on health systems. A popular method of managing this pressure is identification of patients in primary care 'at-risk' of hospitalisation, and delivering case management to improve outcomes and avoid admissions. However, the effectiveness of this model has not been subjected to rigorous quantitative synthesis. We carried out a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of case management for 'at-risk' patients in primary care. Six bibliographic databases were searched using terms for 'case management', 'primary care', and a methodology filter (Cochrane EPOC group). Effectiveness compared to usual care was measured across a number of relevant outcomes: Health--self-assessed health status, mortality; Cost--total cost of care, healthcare utilisation (primary and non-specialist care and secondary care separately), and; Satisfaction--patient satisfaction. We conducted secondary subgroup analyses to assess whether effectiveness was moderated by the particular model of case management, context, and study design. A total of 15,327 titles and abstracts were screened, 36 unique studies were included. Meta-analyses showed no significant differences in total cost, mortality, utilisation of primary or secondary care. A very small significant effect favouring case management was found for self-reported health status in the short-term (0.07, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.14). A small significant effect favouring case management was found for patient satisfaction in the short- (0.26, 0.16 to 0.36) and long-term (0.35, 0.04 to 0.66). Secondary subgroup analyses suggested the effectiveness of case management may be increased when delivered by a multidisciplinary team, when a social worker was involved, and when delivered in a setting rated as low in initial 'strength' of primary care. This was the first meta-analytic review which examined the effects of case management on a wide range of outcomes and considered also the effects of key moderators. Current results do not support case management as an effective model, especially concerning reduction of secondary care use or total costs. We consider reasons for lack of effect and highlight key research questions for the future. The review protocol is available as part of the PROSPERO database (registration number: CRD42014010824).

Background Communication between patients and staff is a crucial component of safe and effective healthcare. As people age, they have more consultations and these become more complex. As such, older people may be more likely to experience gaps and breakdowns in communication. Objective To develop a better understanding of older people's communication in interactions with primary care staff and the barriers to and enablers of this. Search Strategy Four databases were searched. Search terms covered the sample (older people), domain (verbal communication in healthcare interactions), context (primary care) and research type (qualitative research). Data Extraction and Synthesis A meta‐ethnographic approach was followed by one researcher, with input from the wider team. Twelve studies were included. Details of the designs, participants, methods and results were extracted. Data were synthesised through reciprocal translation, and a line of argument was developed. Main Results Barriers to communication were found in relation to raising and addressing concerns. Barriers arose from patient perceptions of their role, the nature of their relationship with staff, patient and staff perceptions of responsibility and reluctance to broach a topic, individual factors such as memory, how staff respond when concerns are raised and the degree of patient involvement in consultations. Potential enablers of communication were preparation and support from family or peers. Conclusions Synthesising the existing qualitative literature on older people's communication in healthcare interactions enabled the identification of barriers and enablers that can be used to inform the development of an intervention to improve communication with primary care staff. Patient or Public Contribution By identifying healthcare communication as the most important topic for the patient safety of older people with multiple long‐term conditions in primary care and setting the scope of the review, patients and the public were involved in the design of the study. Four public contributors (older people with multiple long‐term conditions and carers of older people with multiple long‐term conditions) attended regular meetings, provided their reflections on the study findings and supported the interpretation of the data.

To assess the effectiveness of interventions to improve the mental health of women in the perinatal period and to evaluate any effect on the health, growth and development of their offspring, in low- and middle-income (LAMI) countries. Seven electronic bibliographic databases were systematically searched for papers published up to May 2012 describing controlled trials of interventions designed to improve mental health outcomes in women who were pregnant or had recently given birth. The main outcomes of interest were rates of common perinatal mental disorders (CPMDs), primarily postpartum depression or anxiety; measures of the quality of the mother-infant relationship; and measures of infant or child health, growth and cognitive development. Meta-analysis was conducted to obtain a summary measure of the clinical effectiveness of the interventions. Thirteen trials representing 20 092 participants were identified. In all studies, supervised, non-specialist health and community workers delivered the interventions, which proved more beneficial than routine care for both mothers and children. The pooled effect size for maternal depression was -0.38 (95% confidence interval: -0.56 to -0.21; I (2) = 79.9%). Where assessed, benefits to the child included improved mother-infant interaction, better cognitive development and growth, reduced diarrhoeal episodes and increased immunization rates. In LAMI countries, the burden of CPMDs can be reduced through mental health interventions delivered by supervised non-specialists. Such interventions benefit both women and their children, but further studies are needed to understand how they can be scaled up in the highly diverse settings that exist in LAMI countries.