Understanding the healthcare providers' perspective for bringing the assessment of burden of chronic conditions tool to practice:A protocol for an implementation study

Introduction The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool is developed and validated to support and facilitate a personalised approach to care for people with chronic conditions. The benefit of using the ABCC-tool greatly depends on how it is implemented. To enable a deeper understanding of when, how and by whom the ABCC-tool is used, this study protocol describes the design of an implementation study in which the context, experiences and implementation process of the ABCC-tool by primary care healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Netherlands will be investigated. Methods and analysis This protocol describes an implementation study alongside an effectiveness trial, in which the ABCC-tool is evaluated in general practices. The implementation strategy of the tool in the trial confines to providing written information and an instruction video explaining the technical use of the ABCC-tool. The outcomes include a description of: (1) the barriers and facilitators of HCPs for implementation of the ABCC-tool, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and (2) the implementation outcomes guided by the Reach-Effect-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework Carroll's fidelity framework. All outcomes will be gathered through individual semistructured interviews throughout 12 months of use. Interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis for identifying barriers and facilitators (based on CFIR) and thematic analyses of HCPs' experiences (based on the RE-AIM and the fidelity frameworks). Ethics and dissemination The presented study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen (METCZ20180131). Written informed consent is mandatory prior to participation in the study. The results from the study in this protocol will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.</p

Antibiotics versus placebo for acute bacterial conjunctivitis: Findings from a Cochrane systematic review

Purpose To summarize key findings from a Cochrane review of the benefits and safety of antibiotic therapy compared with placebo (or vehicle) for acute bacterial conjunctivitis. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We included placebo-controlled randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared topical antibiotics with placebo. We followed Cochrane methods for trial selection, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and evidence synthesis. Results Twenty-one RCTs involving 8805 participants with acute bacterial conjunctivitis were included. Fifteen (71%) RCTs examined fluoroquinolone (FQ) drops, 3 tested macrolides, alone or in combination with steroids, and another 3 compared other non-FQ antibiotics. Intention-to-treat estimates suggested that compared with placebo, antibiotics may increase clinical recovery by 26% (risk ratio [RR]: 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.09-1.46) at the end of therapy (5 RCTs, 1474 participants). Modified intention-to-treat estimates, in which only participants with laboratory-confirmed bacterial conjunctivitis were analyzed, indicated that antibiotics were associated with 53% higher likelihood of microbiological cure as compared with placebo (RR: 1.53; 95% CI: 1.34-1.74; 10 RCTs, 2827 participants). Non-FQs (RR: 4.05; 95% CI: 1.36-12.00), but not FQs (RR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.54-0.90), were likely to increase treatment-associated ocular complications such as eye pain, discomfort, and allergic reactions; the certainty of level of evidence was very low. Conclusions Moderate level certainty of evidence suggested that antibiotics may increase the likelihood of clinical recovery and microbiological clearance compared with placebo. Very low-level certainty of evidence suggested that antibiotics may be associated with potential harm in patients with acute bacterial conjunctivitis, but the potential risk of bias from study design, inconsistency in outcome measurement, and reporting limit the evidence to very low certainty

A mixed methods study on evaluating the performance of a multi-strategy national health program to reduce maternal and child health disparities in Haryana, India

Background: A multi pronged community based strategy, known as National Rural Health Mission (NRHM), was implemented from 2005-06 to 2012-13 in India to curtail maternal and child health (MCH) disparities between poor and rich, rural and urban areas, and boys and girls,. This study aimed to determine the degree to which MCH plans of NRHM implemented, and resulted in improving the MCH outcomes and reducing the inequalities. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study was conducted, first to assess the degree of implementation of MCH plans by estimating the budget utilization rates of each MCH plan, and the effectiveness of these plans by comparing demographic health surveys data conducted post (2012-13), during (2007-08) and pre- (2002-04) NRHM implementation period, in the quantitative study. Then, perceptions and beliefs of stakeholders regarding extent and effectiveness of NRHM in Haryana were explored in the qualitative study during 2013. A logistic regression analysis was done for quantitative data, and inductive applied thematic analysis for qualitative data. The findings of the quantitative and qualitative parts of study were mixed at the interpretation level. Results: The MCH plans, like free ambulance service, availability of free drugs and logistics, accredited social health activists were fully implemented according to the budget spent on implementing these activities in Haryana. This was also validated by qualitative study. Availability of free medicines and treatment in the public health facilities had benefitted the poor patients the most. Accredited Social Health Activists scheme was also the most appreciated scheme that had increased the institutional delivery rates. There was acute shortage of human resources in-spite of full utilization of funds allocated for this plan. The results of the qualitative study validated the findings of quantitative study of significant (p < 0.05) improvement in MCH indicators and reduction in MCH disparities between higher and lower socioeconomic groups, and rural and urban areas. Conclusions: MCH plans of NRHM might have succeeded in improving the MCH outcomes and reducing the geographical and socioeconomic MCH inequalities by successfully implementing the schemes like accredited social health activists, free ambulance services, free treatment and medicines in hospitals for the poor and in rural areas

Corrigendum to “Association of high cortisol levels in pregnancy and altered fetal growth. Results from the MAASTHI, a prospective cohort study, Bengaluru” [The Lancet Regional Health – Southeast Asia 14 (2023) 100196]

The authors regret that the affiliation of Dr. Giridhara R. Babu has been updated as “Department of Population Medicine, College of Medicine, QU Health, Qatar University”. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused

Association of high cortisol levels in pregnancy and altered fetal growth. Results from the MAASTHI, a prospective cohort study, Bengaluru

Background: The role of maternal stress levels on mothers’ mental health and fetal growth has been previously studied. However, the evidence linking cortisol exposure during pregnancy to growth outcomes in infants is sparsely available from lower and middle-income countries. We aim to investigate the association of serum cortisol levels in pregnancy with infant birth outcomes and postpartum depressive symptoms in a public health facility in India. Methods: The current study is a part of the maternal antecedents of adiposity and studying the transgenerational role of hyperglycemia and insulin (MAASTHI) prospective cohort. We assessed the relationship between maternal exposure to serum cortisol and adverse neonatal outcomes and postpartum depressive symptoms. Serum cortisol levels in stored blood samples were measured in 230 pregnant women as a biomarker for stress during pregnancy. Pregnant women between 18 and 45 years of age were recruited for the study, presenting at =14 weeks of gestation and providing voluntary written informed consent. The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale assessed postpartum depressive symptoms, and detailed infant anthropometric measurements were carried out at birth. Findings: We found that higher levels (&gt;17.66 µg/L) are significantly associated with low birth weight (OR = 2.28; 95% CI 1.21–4.32) and lower weight for length (OR = 2.16; 95% CI 1.07–4.35). The odds of developing postpartum depressive symptoms in pregnant women with higher mean cortisol cut-off levels is 2.3-fold [OR: 2.33, 95% CI (1.17, 4.64)] compared than women with lower cortisol levels. No significant association was found between serum cortisol and infants' birth weight for gestational age, head circumference, the sum of skinfold thickness, and crown-rump length. Interpretation: Our results support the hypothesis that higher maternal cortisol levels may adversely impact birth weight, weight for length in newborns, and postpartum depressive symptoms in mothers. Funding: This study was supported by the India Alliance Senior Fellowship [Grant No. IA/CPHS/20/1/505278] awarded to Giridhara R. Babu

Economic burden of infectious diseases and its equity implications in Indian households: Estimates from a nationally representative household survey (2017–18)

Infectious diseases remain one of the major causes of health and economic burden for Indian households. Furthermore, the magnitude of economic losses on account of infectious disease episodes varies widely across rich and poor households. The primary objective of this research is to estimate the equity impact of infectious disease episodes on out-of-pocket expenditure (OOPE) and wage losses among Indian households. We analysed the Social Consumption: Health (SCH) data from the 75th round (2017–18) of India's National Sample Survey (NSSO). The sample included approximately 113,823 households and 555,352 individuals through a multistage stratified sampling process. We report i) the prevalence of infectious disease and healthcare utilisation rate by levels of care; ii) medical and non-medical OOPE per episode; iii) OOPE and wage loss as a share of households' monthly non-medical consumption expenditure (non-medical MPCE) across wealth quintiles. We adopted a microeconomic cost of illness approach to estimate the OOPE on infectious disease episodes for outpatient care and hospitalization. We also estimated potential wage losses due to a reduction in effective labour supply at the household level because of infectious disease using a production function approach. The overall prevalence of infectious diseases and hospitalization rate were 31 and 9 per thousand persons, respectively. Per capita medical OOPE was more in higher wealth quintiles for outpatient care and hospitalization. However, OOPE as a share of non-medical MPCE was higher in the poorest 20% households (outpatient: 14%; hospitalization: 153%) in comparison to the richest 20% households (outpatient: 5.5%; hospitalization: 96%). Similarly, the wage losses as a share of non-medical MPCE were higher among the poorest 20% households (outpatient: 21%; hospitalization:38%) in comparison to the richest 20% households (outpatient: 15%; hospitalization:11%). Furthermore, the proportion of households reporting the sale of assets and borrowing to finance hospitalization was higher in the poorest (24%) compared to the richest (12.5%). To our knowledge, this is the first paper which contributes to developing an understanding of the equity impact of infectious disease on households in India. We recommend improved targeting and coverage of publicly funded health insurance schemes among socially disadvantaged populations

Feeding styles and adiposity in children of 6 months– 5 years of age:Protocol for a systematic review and meta- analysis

Obesity in children is a major public health concern due to the increased risk of developing adverse health outcomes in their future, and disability in adulthood. The existing systematic reviews on the topic are limited in scope, focusing solely on high-income countries and children aged 4–12 years. Hence, we propose to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to understand, how exposure to authoritative feeding style versus authoritarian, indulgent, uninvolved compare in terms of its association with adiposity in children aged 6 months to 5 years. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines were followed for ensuring the completeness of the protocol. Case-control and cohort studies will be included. Searches will be done using electronic databases viz. PubMed, Ovid EMBASE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Grey literature will be searched using OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report. We will only include quantitative studies using the developed search strategy. For categorical outcomes, relative risks, odds ratios, and hazard ratios with confidence intervals and for continuous outcomes mean difference with confidence intervals will be used. Risk of Bias In Non-randomized Studies- of Exposure (ROBINS-E) will be used for the evaluation of risk of bias in the individual observational studies. Considering the inherent variability in the observational studies, random effects meta-analysis will also be conducted. If between-study heterogeneity exists, a subgroup analysis based on low and middle-income countries vs. high income countries will be conducted. If the data is not suitable for combining quantitatively, a narrative synthesis will be undertaken. We propose to identify publication bias by using contour-enhanced funnel plots and “trim and fill” method. Outcome reporting bias will be ascertained by comparing the outcomes published in the protocol and the published report. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system will be used to understand the confidence we can have on the effect estimates. Registration: This protocol has been registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 13 March 2023 with registration number CRD42023356014

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool in patients with COPD, asthma, diabetes mellitus type 2 and heart failure: protocol for a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental study

Introduction The number of people that have one or multiple condition(s) with a chronic course is rising, which consequently challenges healthcare systems. Healthcare geared to long-term care should focus on patient-centredness, shared decision making and self-management. The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool was developed to integrate these elements in daily healthcare practice. The ABCC tool assesses and visualises burden of disease(s), helps to make shared decisions and stimulates self-management. The present paper documents a protocol for a quasi-experimental study investigating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the ABCC tool for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, type 2 diabetes mellitus and/or heart failure.Methods and analysis The study has a pragmatic clustered quasi-experimental design and will be conducted in the Netherlands. The intervention will be allocated at the level of general practice. The intervention group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will use the ABCC tool during regular consultations; the control group (18 general practices, 180 patients) will maintain usual care. Outcomes include change in quality of care (Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care), quality of life (EuroQol-5D-5L), capability well-being (ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults), patients’ activation (Patient Activation Measure) and costs. Follow-up time will be 18 months. Outcomes will be analysed using linear mixed models.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethics Committee Zuyderland-Zuyd Heerlen, the Netherlands (METCZ20180131). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and will be presented at national and international conferences.Trial registration number ClinicalTrials.gov Registry (NCT04127383)