Public Health Research Institute

About: Public Health Research Institute is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Randomized controlled trial. The organization has 4889 authors who have published 8149 publications receiving 276945 citations.

Pharmacy-led interventions to improve medication adherence among adults with diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract: Background Control of blood glucose and a reduced risk of complications are important treatment goals in diabetes. Medication non-adherence can influence the outcome of diabetes. Involvement of a pharmacist in diabetes care might help patients to achieve better treatment outcomes. Existing literature reviews have focused on a limited number of interventions and outcome measures, and have involved different healthcare professionals. None of the previous reviews have used a standardized effect size to compare the effects of different pharmacist-led interventions and different outcome measures. Objective To review pharmacist-led interventions to improve medication adherence in patients with diabetes and to assess the effectiveness of these interventions on medication adherence. Methods Six databases were systematically searched between March and September 2017 for randomized controlled trials: PubMed, Cochrane library, EMBASE, CINAHL, JSTOR, and Web of Science. The outcome measures used were: medication adherence, HbA1c, fasting plasma glucose (FPG), post-prandial blood glucose (PPG), or random blood glucose (RBG). Cohen's d, a standardized effect size, enabled a comparison of studies with different outcome measures. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the studies. Results Fifty-nine studies were included in this review. Pharmacist-led interventions enhanced outcomes in patients with diabetes (standardized mean difference (SMD) −0.68; 95% CI -0.79, −0.58; p Conclusion This finding supports the role of the pharmacist in diabetes care to enhance medication adherence.

Criteria for evaluating transferability of health interventions: a systematic review and thematic synthesis

Abstract: Improving the public’s health in different countries requires the consideration of diverse health care systems and settings. For evidence-based public health, decision-makers need to consider the transferability of effective health interventions from a primary context to their specific target context. The aim of this systematic review was to develop a model for the assessment of transferability of health interventions through identification and systematization of influencing criteria, including facilitators and barriers. A systematic literature search was performed in the databases PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO. Articles were eligible if they were published in English or German and provided a description of transferability criteria. Included articles were ranked based on their thematic relevance and methodological support of transferability criteria. Using a qualitative approach, a thematic synthesis was conducted. Thirty-seven articles were included in the review. The thematic synthesis revealed 44 criteria, covered by 4 overarching themes, which influence transferability of health interventions: The population (P), the intervention (I), and the environment (E) represent 30 conditional transferability criteria, and the transfer of the intervention (T) represents 14 process criteria for transferring the intervention to the target context. Transferability (-T) depends on the dynamic interaction of conditional criteria in the primary and target context as well as on the process of transfer. The description of facilitators and barriers deepens the understanding of the criteria. The synthesis resulted in two related models: the conceptual PIET-T model explains the underlying mechanism of transferability of health interventions and the PIET-T process model provides practical guidance for a transferability assessment. Transferability of health interventions is a complex concept, which needs systematic consideration of the primary and target context. It should be anticipated before and evaluated after an intervention is implemented in the target context. Therefore, decision-makers need systematic and practically relevant knowledge on transferability. The synthesized PIET-T conceptual and process models with systematized criteria, facilitators, and barriers are intended as a theoretical basis to determine transferability of health interventions. Further research is needed to develop a practical tool for the PIET-T models and to evaluate the tool’s usefulness for decision-making processes and intervention transfer.

European Society of ColoProctology: guideline for haemorrhoidal disease

Abstract: Aim The goal of this European Society of ColoProctology project was to establish a multidisciplinary, international guideline for haemorrhoidal disease (HD) and to provide guidance on the most effective (surgical) treatment for patients with HD. Methods The development process consisted of six phases. In phase one we defined the scope of the guideline. The patient population included patients with all stages of haemorrhoids. The target group for the guideline was all practitioners treating patients with haemorrhoids and, in addition, healthcare workers and patients who desired information regarding the treatment management of HD. The guideline needed to address both the diagnosis of and the therapeutic modalities for HD. Phase two consisted of the compilation of the guideline development group (GDG). All clinical members needed to have affinity with the diagnosis and treatment of haemorrhoids. Further, attention was paid to the geographical distribution of the clinicians. Each GDG member identified at least one patient in their country who could read English to comment on the draft guideline. In phase three review questions were formulated, using a reversed process, starting with possible recommendations based on the GDG's knowledge. In phase four a literature search was performed in MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, Embase (Ovid) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The search was focused on existing systematic reviews addressing each review question, supplemented by other studies published after the time frame covered by the systematic reviews. In phase five data of the included papers were extracted by the surgical resident (RT) and checked by the methodologist (JK) and the GDG. If needed, meta-analysis of the systematic reviews was updated by the surgical resident and the methodologist using Review Manager. During phase six the GDG members decided what recommendations could be made based on the evidence found in the literature using GRADE. Results There were six sections: (i) symptoms, diagnosis and classification; (ii) basic treatment; (iii) outpatient procedures; (iv) surgical interventions; (v) special situations; (vi) other surgical techniques. Thirty-four recommendations were formulated. Conclusion This international, multidisciplinary guideline provides an up to date and evidence based summary of the current knowledge of the management of HD and may serve as a useful guide for patients and clinicians.