Multimorbidity: Technical Series on Safer Primary Care

No abstract available

Participant demographics reported in "Table 1" of randomised controlled trials: a case of "inverse evidence"?

Introduction. Data supporting external validity of trial results allows clinicians to assess the applicability of a study's findings to their practice population. Socio-economic status (SES) of trial participants may be critical to external validity given the relationship between social and economic circumstances and health. We explored how this is documented in reports of RCTs in four major general medical journals. Methods. The contents lists of four leading general medical journals were hand searched to identify 25 consecutive papers reporting RCT results in each journal (n = 100). Data on demographic characteristics were extracted from each paper's Table 1 only (or equivalent). Results. Authors infrequently reported key demographic characteristics relating to SES of RCT participants. Age and gender of participants were commonly reported. Less than 10% reported occupational group, employment status, income or area based measures of disadvantage. Conclusions. Without adequate reporting of key indicators of SES in trial participants it is unclear if lower SES groups are under-represented. If such groups are systematically under-recruited into trials, this may limit the external validity and applicability of study findings to these groups. This is in spite of the higher health-care need in more disadvantaged populations. Under-representation of low SES groups could underestimate the reported effect of an intervention for those with a higher baseline risk. The marginal benefit identified in a trial with poor or no representation of lower SES participants could significantly underestimate the potential benefit to a low SES community. More transparency in this reporting and greater attention to the impact of SES on intervention outcomes in clinical trials is needed. This could be considered in the next revision of the CONSORT statement

Narrative literature review on incentives for primary health care team service provision: learning and working together in primary health care

Governments are encouraging team work between primary health care (PHC) providers using various incentive approaches, particularly for patients with complex and chronic illness. To date, no Australian focused literature review has been conducted considering the use of combined incentive approaches to encourage team work to inform PHC policy decision making.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and Development Strategy

Designing community-based health programs to address the needs of marginalised and disadvantaged communities

The focus of the visit by Dr Julie Will was to explore evidence based approaches for improving access and equity in primary health care, with a particular emphasis on preventing and managing chronic conditions and health problems of people who are unemployed. Dr Will is a senior epidemiologist in the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. For the past 13 years, she served as the WISEWOMAN Team Leader, Acting Team Lead for the Applied Research and Translation Team, and Senior Epidemiologist for Health Services Research and Registry Team.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research Evaluation and

SIREN project: systems innovation and reviews of evidence in primary health care: narrative review of innovative models for comprehensive primary health care delivery

This review looks at innovative models for comprehensive primary health care (PHC) and lessons for Australia in terms of critical relationships, funding, quality frameworks, meso-level organisations and infrastructure.The research reported in this paper is a project of the Australian Primary Health Care Research Institute, which is supported by a grant from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing under the Primary Health Care Research, Evaluation and Development Strategy

Developments in Australian general practice 2000–2002: what did these contribute to a well functioning and comprehensive Primary Health Care System?

BACKGROUND: In recent years, national and state/territory governments have undertaken an increasing number of initiatives to strengthen general practice and improve its links with the rest of the primary health care sector. This paper reviews how far these initiatives were contributing to a well functioning and comprehensive primary health care system during the period 2000–2002, using a normative model of primary health care and data from a descriptive study to evaluate progress. RESULTS: There was a significant number of programs, at both state/territory and national level. Most focused on individual care, particularly for chronic disease, rather than population health approaches. There was little evidence of integration across programs: each tended to be based in and focus on a single jurisdiction, and build capacity chiefly within the services funded through that jurisdiction. As a result, the overall effect was patchy, with similar difficulties being noted across all jurisdictions and little gain in overall system capacity for effective primary health care. CONCLUSION: Efforts to develop more effective primary health care need a more balanced approach to reform, with a better balance across the different elements of primary health care and greater integration across programs and jurisdictions. One way ahead is to form a single funding agency, as in the UK and New Zealand, and so remove the need to work across jurisdictions and manage their competing interests. A second, perhaps less politically challenging starting point, is to create an agreed framework for primary health care within which a collective vision for primary health care can be developed, based on population health needs, and the responsibilities of different sectors services can be negotiated. Either of these approaches would be assisted by a more systematic and comprehensive program of research and evaluation for primary health care

Impact of multimorbidity count on all-cause mortality and glycaemic outcomes in people with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol

Introduction: Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a leading health priority worldwide. Multimorbidity (MM) is a term describing the co-occurrence of two or more chronic diseases or conditions. The majority of people living with T2D have MM. The relationship between MM and mortality and glycaemia in people with T2D is not clear. Methods and analysis: Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Complete, The Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS will be searched with a prespecified search strategy. The searches will be limited to quantitative empirical studies in English with no restriction on publication date. One reviewer will perform title screening and two review authors will independently screen the abstract and full texts using Covidence software, with disagreements adjudicated by a third reviewer. Data will be extracted using a using a Population, Exposure, Comparator and Outcomes framework. Two reviewers will independently extract data and undertake the risk of bias (quality) assessment. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus. A narrative synthesis of the results will be conducted and meta-analysis considered if appropriate. Quality appraisal will be undertaken using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale and the quality of the cumulative evidence of the included studies will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. This protocol was prepared in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols guidelines to ensure the quality of our review. Ethics and dissemination: This review will synthesise the existing evidence about the impact of MM on mortality and glycaemic outcomes in people living with T2D and increase our understanding of this subject and will inform future practice and policy. Findings will be disseminated via conference presentations, social media and peer-reviewed publication

Looking forward to the next 15 years: innovation and new pathways for research in health equity

Since our launch in 2002, the International Journal for Equity in Health (IJEqH) has furthered our collective understanding of equity in health and health services by providing a platform on which academics and practitioners can share their work. Today, we celebrate our fifteenth anniversary with an article collection that presents a call for new and novel research in equity in health and we invite our authors to use new approaches and methods, and to focus on emerging areas of research related to health equity in order to set the stage for the next fifteen years of health equity research. Our anniversary issue provides a platform for expanding the conceptualization, diversity of populations and study designs, and for increasing the use of novel methodologies in the field. The IJEqH has helped to support the wider group of researchers, policymakers and practitioners with a commitment to social justice and equity but there is still more to do. With the help of the highly committed editorial team and editorial board, the innovative work of researchers worldwide, and the countless of hours dedicated by hundreds of reviewers, we are confident in the IJEqH’s ability to continue supporting the dissemination of health equity research for years to come.publishedVersio

An International Society and Journal for Equity in Health: 10 years on

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.Commentary June 2010 marked the 10th Anniversary of the foundation meeting of the International Society for Equity in Health (ISEqH). The formation of the Society was a bold statement, with ambitions to be a global body "to promote equity in health and health services internationally through education, research, publication, communication and charitable support"[1]. The Society particularly aimed to be an organisation that facilitated research on how better to understand and address inequities in health. The main activities of the Society have been a series of biannual conferences as well as the establishment of the International Journal for Equity in Health, the official (but independent) publication of the Society. This paper sets out to record some of the milestones of the Society drawing on the reflections of key researchers who attended the conferences as well as others. The history of the Society will help shape its future and how it responds to important issues facing all interested in global efforts to address continuing and unacceptable inequities in health