Interventions for increasing uptake in screening programmes

Introduction: Opportunities for the early detection of disease are not sufficiently being taken advantage of. Specific interventions could increase the uptake of prevention programmes. A comprehensive analysis of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these interventions with reference to Germany is still needed. Objectives: This report aimed to describe and assess interventions to increase uptake in primary and secondary prevention and to explore the assessment of their cost-effectiveness. Methods: 29 scientific databases were systematically searched in a wide strategy. Additional references were located from bibliographies. All published systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed for inclusion without language restrictions. Teams of two reviewers identified the literature, extracted data and assessed the quality of the publications independently. Results: Four HTA reports and 22 systematic reviews were identified for the medical evaluation covering a variety of interventions. The economic evaluation was based on two HTA-reports, one meta-analysis and 15 studies. The evidence was consistent for the effectiveness of invitations and reminders aimed at users, and for prompts aimed at health care professionals. These interventions were the most commonly analysed. (Financial) Incentives for users and professionals were identified in a small number of studies. Limited evidence was available for cost-effectiveness showing incremental costs for follow-up reminders and invitations by telephone. Evidence for ethical, social and legal aspects pointed to needs in vulnerable populations. Discussion: The material was heterogeneous regarding interventions used, study populations and settings. The majority of references originated from the United States and focused on secondary prevention. Approaching all target groups by invitations and reminders was recommended to increase uptake in prevention programmes in general. Conclusions: Further research should aim to focus on primary prevention. Future research should also focus on specific interventions aiming to include vulnerable target groups and individuals, who have not previously made use of opportunities for prevention

REVEALING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VALUE JUDGMENTS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Background: Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, HTA is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments. Methods: A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation. Results: Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the processes of deciding on how to select, frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process. Conclusions: HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HT

Ethical issues in autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) in advanced breast cancer: A systematic literature review

BACKGROUND: An effectiveness assessment on ASCT in locally advanced and metastatic breast cancer identified serious ethical issues associated with this intervention. Our objective was to systematically review these aspects by means of a literature analysis. METHODS: We chose the reflexive Socratic approach as the review method using Hofmann's question list, conducted a comprehensive literature search in biomedical, psychological and ethics bibliographic databases and screened the resulting hits in a 2-step selection process. Relevant arguments were assembled from the included articles, and were assessed and assigned to the question list. Hofmann's questions were addressed by synthesizing these arguments. RESULTS: Of the identified 879 documents 102 included arguments related to one or more questions from Hofmann's question list. The most important ethical issues were the implementation of ASCT in clinical practice on the basis of phase-II trials in the 1990s and the publication of falsified data in the first randomized controlled trials (Bezwoda fraud), which caused significant negative effects on recruiting patients for further clinical trials and the doctor-patient relationship. Recent meta-analyses report a marginal effect in prolonging disease-free survival, accompanied by severe harms, including death. ASCT in breast cancer remains a stigmatized technology. Reported health-related-quality-of-life data are often at high risk of bias in favor of the survivors. Furthermore little attention has been paid to those patients who were dying. CONCLUSIONS: The questions were addressed in different degrees of completeness. All arguments were assignable to the questions. The central ethical dimensions of ASCT could be discussed by reviewing the published literature

REVEALING AND ACKNOWLEDGING VALUE JUDGMENTS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Background: Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, health technology assessment is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments. 5 6 7 Methods: A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation. 8 9 Results: Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the selection of studies to include, and in deciding on how to frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process. 10 11 12 13 Conclusions: HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HTA

Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: Information-seeking behaviour is necessary to improve knowledge on diabetes therapy and complications. Combined with other self-management skills and autonomous handling of the disease, it is essential for achieving treatment targets. However, a systematic review addressing this topic is lacking. The aims of this systematic review were to identify and analyse existing knowledge of information-seeking behaviour: (1) types information-seeking behaviour, (2) information sources, (3) the content of searched information, and (4) associated variables that may affect information-seeking behaviour. METHODS: The systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) requirements. MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, ScienceDirect, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CCMed, ERIC, Journals@OVID, Deutsches Ärzteblatt and Karlsruher virtueller Katalog (KvK) databases were searched. Publications dealing with information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus published up to June 2015 were included. A forward citation tracking was performed in September 2016 and June 2017. Additionally, an update of the two main databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL) was conducted, considering studies published up to July 2017. Studies published in languages other than English or German were excluded, as well as letters, short reports, editorials, comments and discussion papers. A study selection and the critical appraisal of the selected studies were performed independently by two reviewers. A third reviewer was consulted if any disagreement was found. Data extraction and content analysis were performed using selected dimensions of Wilson’s ‘model of information behaviour’. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies were included. Five ‘types of information-seeking behaviour’ were identified, e.g. passive and active search. The ‘Internet’ and ‘healthcare professionals’ were the most frequently reported sources. ‘Diet’, ‘complications’, ‘exercise’ and ‘medications and pharmacological interactions’ were the most frequently identified content of information. Seven main categories including associated variables were identified, e.g. ‘socioeconomic’, ‘duration of DM’, and ‘lifestyle’. CONCLUSION: The systematic review provides a valuable overview of available knowledge on the information-seeking behaviour of people with diabetes mellitus, although there are only a few studies. There was a high heterogeneity regarding the research question, design, methods and participants. Although the Internet is often used to seek information, health professionals still play an important role in supporting their patients’ information-seeking behaviour. Specific needs of people with diabetes must be taken into consideration

Correction to: Diabetes-related information-seeking behaviour: a systematic review

Correction During the production process for this article [1] some errors were introduced into Table 2. The correct version of Table 2 can be found below; the original article [1] has also been updated with the correct version of Table 2. BMC apologises to the authors and to readers for this error

Incidence of lower extremity amputation in the diabetic compared to the non-diabetic population: a systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND: Diabetic individuals have a largely increased risk of lower extremity amputation (LEA) compared with non-diabetic patients. Prior systematic reviews of incidence of LEA have some limitations with respect to lack of consensus in the definition of LEA, level of LEA (all, major, minor), and definition of source population (general population or population with diabetes at risk). The purpose of our review is to evaluate the incidence of LEA in the diabetic population and its differences with regard to sex, ethnicity, age, and regions; to compare the incidence rate (IR) in the diabetic and non-diabetic population; and to investigate time trends. METHODS/ DESIGN: We will perform a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Knowledge, and publisher databases such as Journals@OVID and ScienceDirect. We will develop comprehensive systematic search strategies according to established guidelines for meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology (the MOOSE group). Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full text of all references on the basis of inclusion criteria with respect to types of study, types of population, and the main outcome. We will exclude studies if they report solely incidences of LEA among persons with diabetes mellitus when referring to the total population (diabetic and non-diabetic) and not exclusively to the diabetic population. Data extraction and assessment of risk of bias will be undertaken by two review authors working independently. We will assess incidence rate (IR) or cumulative incidence (CumI), relative risk of amputations comparing the diabetic to non-diabetic populations, cause of LEA, and type of diabetes. If we find subsets of studies to be homogeneous enough, we will perform meta-analyses for incidence rates by Poisson generalized linear mixed models (GLMM).SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD4201501780

The Incidence of End-Stage Renal Disease in the Diabetic (Compared to the Non-Diabetic) Population: A Systematic Review

End-stage renal disease (ESRD) in diabetes is a life threatening complication resulting in a poor prognosis for patients as well as high medical costs. The aims of this systematic review were (1) to evaluate the incidence of ESRD due to all causes and due to diabetic nephropathy in the diabetic population and differences between incidences of ESRD with respect to sex, ethnicity, age and regions, (2) to compare incidence rates in the diabetic and non-diabetic population, and (3) to investigate time trends. The systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA group guidelines by performing systematic literature searches in the biomedical databases until January 3rd 2015; thirty-two studies were included. Among patients with incident type 1 diabetes the 30-year cumulative incidence ranged from 3.3% to 7.8%. Among patients with prevalent diabetes, incidence rates of ESRD due to all causes ranged from 132.0 to 167.0 per 100,000 person-years, whereas incidence rates of ESRD due to diabetic nephropathy varied from 38.4 to 804.0 per 100,000 person-years. The incidence of ESRD in the diabetic population was higher compared to the non-diabetic population, and relative risks varied from 6.2 in the white population to 62.0 among Native Americans. The results regarding time trends were inconsistent. The review conducted demonstrates the considerable variation of incidences of ESRD among the diabetic population. Consistent findings included an excess risk when comparing the diabetic to the non-diabetic population and ethnic differences. We recommend that newly designed studies should use standardized methods for the determination of ESRD and population at risk

Psychosocial barriers to healthcare use among individuals with diabetes mellitus: A systematic review

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review regarding psychosocial barriers to healthcare use in individuals with diabetes mellitus, using a well-established model of health-service use as a theoretical framework. METHODS: We used database-specific controlled vocabularies and additional free text terms, and conducted searches via MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, OVID Journals. Included studies were rated according to the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) criteria. A narrative data synthesis was conducted, using the Andersen model and developing categories from the included studies. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: In total, 2923 studies were identified, and 15 finally included. We identified barriers according to the main categories “population characteristics”, “norms and values”, and “healthcare services” on a contextual and individual level, as well as “health status”. Frequently reported barriers were “socioeconomic status”, and “physician characteristics”. Ethnic minorities were frequently analysed and may have specific barriers, e.g. “cultural beliefs” and “language". MAJOR CONCLUSIONS: We identified a broad range of barriers to healthcare use in individuals with diabetes mellitus. However, the number of studies is low. Further research is needed to analyse barriers in more detail considering special subgroups