47 research outputs found
Automated telephone communication systems for preventive healthcare and management of long-term conditions
Background
Automated telephone communication systems (ATCS) can deliver voice messages and collect health-related information from patients
using either their telephone’s touch-tone keypad or voice recognition software. ATCS can supplement or replace telephone contact
between health professionals and patients. There are four different types of ATCS: unidirectional (one-way, non-interactive voice
communication), interactive voice response (IVR) systems, ATCS with additional functions such as access to an expert to request advice
(ATCS Plus) and multimodal ATCS, where the calls are delivered as part of a multicomponent intervention.
Objectives
To assess the effects of ATCS for preventing disease and managing long-term conditions on behavioural change, clinical, process,
cognitive, patient-centred and adverse outcomes.
Search methods
We searched 10 electronic databases (the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials; MEDLINE; Embase; PsycINFO; CINAHL;
Global Health; WHOLIS; LILACS; Web of Science; and ASSIA); three grey literature sources (Dissertation Abstracts, Index to Theses,
Australasian Digital Theses); and two trial registries (www.controlled-trials.com; www.clinicaltrials.gov) for papers published between
1980 and June 2015.
Selection criteria
Randomised, cluster- and quasi-randomised trials, interrupted time series and controlled before-and-after studies comparing ATCS
interventions, with any control or another ATCS type were eligible for inclusion. Studies in all settings, for all consumers/carers, in any
preventive healthcare or long term condition management role were eligible.
Data collection and analysis
We used standard Cochrane methods to select and extract data and to appraise eligible studies.
Main results
We included 132 trials (N = 4,669,689). Studies spanned across several clinical areas, assessing many comparisons based on evaluation
of different ATCS types and variable comparison groups. Forty-one studies evaluated ATCS for delivering preventive healthcare, 84 for
managing long-term conditions, and seven studies for appointment reminders. We downgraded our certainty in the evidence primarily
because of the risk of bias for many outcomes. We judged the risk of bias arising from allocation processes to be low for just over half
the studies and unclear for the remainder. We considered most studies to be at unclear risk of performance or detection bias due to
blinding, while only 16% of studies were at low risk. We generally judged the risk of bias due to missing data and selective outcome
reporting to be unclear.
For preventive healthcare, ATCS (ATCS Plus, IVR, unidirectional) probably increase immunisation uptake in children (risk ratio (RR)
1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.18 to 1.32; 5 studies, N = 10,454; moderate certainty) and to a lesser extent in adolescents (RR
1.06, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.11; 2 studies, N = 5725; moderate certainty). The effects of ATCS in adults are unclear (RR 2.18, 95% CI
0.53 to 9.02; 2 studies, N = 1743; very low certainty).
For screening, multimodal ATCS increase uptake of screening for breast cancer (RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.55 to 3.04; 2 studies, N = 462;
high certainty) and colorectal cancer (CRC) (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.88 to 2.55; 3 studies, N = 1013; high certainty) versus usual care.
It may also increase osteoporosis screening. ATCS Plus interventions probably slightly increase cervical cancer screening (moderate
certainty), but effects on osteoporosis screening are uncertain. IVR systems probably increase CRC screening at 6 months (RR 1.36,
95% CI 1.25 to 1.48; 2 studies, N = 16,915; moderate certainty) but not at 9 to 12 months, with probably little or no effect of IVR
(RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.99, 1.11; 2 studies, 2599 participants; moderate certainty) or unidirectional ATCS on breast cancer screening.
Appointment reminders delivered through IVR or unidirectional ATCS may improve attendance rates compared with no calls (low
certainty). For long-term management, medication or laboratory test adherence provided the most general evidence across conditions
(25 studies, data not combined). Multimodal ATCS versus usual care showed conflicting effects (positive and uncertain) on medication
adherence. ATCS Plus probably slightly (versus control; moderate certainty) or probably (versus usual care; moderate certainty) improves
medication adherence but may have little effect on adherence to tests (versus control). IVR probably slightly improves medication
adherence versus control (moderate certainty). Compared with usual care, IVR probably improves test adherence and slightly increases
medication adherence up to six months but has little or no effect at longer time points (moderate certainty). Unidirectional ATCS,
compared with control, may have little effect or slightly improve medication adherence (low certainty). The evidence suggested little or
no consistent effect of any ATCS type on clinical outcomes (blood pressure control, blood lipids, asthma control, therapeutic coverage)
related to adherence, but only a small number of studies contributed clinical outcome data.
The above results focus on areas with the most general findings across conditions. In condition-specific areas, the effects of ATCS
varied, including by the type of ATCS intervention in use.
Multimodal ATCS probably decrease both cancer pain and chronic pain as well as depression (moderate certainty), but other ATCS
types were less effective. Depending on the type of intervention, ATCS may have small effects on outcomes for physical activity,
weight management, alcohol consumption, and diabetes mellitus. ATCS have little or no effect on outcomes related to heart failure,
hypertension, mental health or smoking cessation, and there is insufficient evidence to determine their effects for preventing alcohol/
substance misuse or managing illicit drug addiction, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, HIV/AIDS, hypercholesterolaemia,
obstructive sleep apnoea, spinal cord dysfunction or psychological stress in carers.
Only four trials (3%) reported adverse events, and it was unclear whether these were related to the intervention
Accuracy of Automatic Carbohydrate, Protein, Fat and Calorie Counting Based on Voice Descriptions of Meals in People with Type 1 Diabetes
The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of automatic macronutrient and calorie counting based on voice descriptions of meals provided by people with unstable type 1 diabetes using the developed expert system (VoiceDiab) in comparison with reference counting made by a dietitian, and to evaluate the impact of insulin doses recommended by a physician on glycemic control in the study’s participants. We also compared insulin doses calculated using the algorithm implemented in the VoiceDiab system. Meal descriptions were provided by 30 hospitalized patients (mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%, i.e., 68 mmol/mol). In 16 subjects, the physician determined insulin boluses based on the data provided by the system, and in 14 subjects, by data provided by the dietitian. On one hand, differences introduced by patients who subjectively described their meals compared to those introduced by the system that used the average characteristics of food products, although statistically significant, were low enough not to have a significant impact on insulin doses automatically calculated by the system. On the other hand, the glycemic control of patients was comparable regardless of whether the physician was using the system-estimated or the reference content of meals to determine insulin doses
Insulin in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes—Should the Dose of Insulin Before a Meal be Based on Glycemia or Meal Content?
The aim of this review was to investigate existing guidelines and scientific evidence on determining insulin dosage in people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes, and in particular to check whether the prandial insulin dose should be calculated based on glycemia or the meal composition, including the carbohydrates, protein and fat content in a meal. By exploring the effect of the meal composition on postprandial glycemia we demonstrated that several factors may influence the increase in glycemia after the meal, which creates significant practical difficulties in determining the appropriate prandial insulin dose. Then we reviewed effects of the existing insulin therapy regimens on glycemic control. We demonstrated that in most existing algorithms aimed at calculating prandial insulin doses in type 1 diabetes only carbohydrates are counted, whereas in type 2 diabetes the meal content is often not taken into consideration. We conclude that prandial insulin doses in treatment of people with diabetes should take into account the pre-meal glycemia as well as the size and composition of meals. However, there are still open questions regarding the optimal way to adjust a prandial insulin dose to a meal and the possible benefits for people with type 1 and type 2 diabetes if particular parameters of the meal are taken into account while calculating the prandial insulin dose. The answers to these questions may vary depending on the type of diabetes
Insulin in Type 1 and Type 2 Diabetes—Should the Dose of Insulin Before a Meal be Based on Glycemia or Meal Content?
NLRP3 Inflammasome at the Interface of Inflammation, Endothelial Dysfunction, and Type 2 Diabetes
Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), accounting for 90–95% cases of diabetes, is characterized by chronic inflammation. The mechanisms that control inflammation activation in T2DM are largely unexplored. Inflammasomes represent significant sensors mediating innate immune responses. The aim of this work is to present a review of links between the NLRP3 inflammasome, endothelial dysfunction, and T2DM. The NLRP3 inflammasome activates caspase-1, which leads to the maturation of pro-inflammatory cytokines interleukin 1β and interleukin 18. In this review, we characterize the structure and functions of NLRP3 inflammasome as well as the most important mechanisms and molecules engaged in its activation. We present evidence of the importance of the endothelial dysfunction as the first key step to activating the inflammasome, which suggests that suppressing the NLRP3 inflammasome could be a new approach in depletion hyperglycemic toxicity and in averting the onset of vascular complications in T2DM. We also demonstrate reports showing that the expression of a few microRNAs that are also known to be involved in either NLRP3 inflammasome activation or endothelial dysfunction is deregulated in T2DM. Collectively, this evidence suggests that T2DM is an inflammatory disease stimulated by pro-inflammatory cytokines. Finally, studies revealing the role of glucose concentration in the activation of NLRP3 inflammasome are analyzed. The more that is known about inflammasomes, the higher the chances to create new, effective therapies for patients suffering from inflammatory diseases. This may offer potential novel therapeutic perspectives in T2DM prevention and treatment
Accuracy of Automatic Carbohydrate, Protein, Fat and Calorie Counting Based on Voice Descriptions of Meals in People with Type 1 Diabetes
The aim of this work was to assess the accuracy of automatic macronutrient and calorie counting based on voice descriptions of meals provided by people with unstable type 1 diabetes using the developed expert system (VoiceDiab) in comparison with reference counting made by a dietitian, and to evaluate the impact of insulin doses recommended by a physician on glycemic control in the study’s participants. We also compared insulin doses calculated using the algorithm implemented in the VoiceDiab system. Meal descriptions were provided by 30 hospitalized patients (mean hemoglobin A1c of 8.4%, i.e., 68 mmol/mol). In 16 subjects, the physician determined insulin boluses based on the data provided by the system, and in 14 subjects, by data provided by the dietitian. On one hand, differences introduced by patients who subjectively described their meals compared to those introduced by the system that used the average characteristics of food products, although statistically significant, were low enough not to have a significant impact on insulin doses automatically calculated by the system. On the other hand, the glycemic control of patients was comparable regardless of whether the physician was using the system-estimated or the reference content of meals to determine insulin doses