Oxidative stress (OS) and inflammatory processes initiate the first stage of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Flavonoid consumption has been related to significantly improved flow-mediated dilation and blood pressure. Antioxidant and anti-inflammatory mechanisms are thought to be involved. The effect of flavonoids on markers of oxidative stress and inflammation, in at risk individuals is yet to be reviewed. Systematic literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL and SCOPUS databases. Randomised controlled trials in a Western country providing a food-based flavonoid intervention to participants with one or two modifiable risk factors for CVD measuring a marker of OS and/or inflammation, were included. Reference lists were hand-searched. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess study quality. The search strategy retrieved 1248 articles. Nineteen articles meeting the inclusion criteria were reviewed. Eight studies were considered at low risk of bias. Cocoa flavonoids provided to Type 2 diabetics and olive oil flavonoids to mildly-hypertensive women reduced OS and inflammation. Other food sources had weaker effects. No consistent effect on OS and inflammation across patients with varied CVD risk factors was observed. Study heterogeneity posed a challenge for inter-study comparisons. Rigorously designed studies will assist in determining the effectiveness of flavonoid interventions for reducing OS and inflammation in patients at risk of CVD.

Background: As the need for health care services rise, alternative service delivery models such as student-led health interventions become attractive alternatives to alleviate the burden on healthcare. Predominantly, studentled health interventions were free clinics servicing socially disadvantaged communities in the USA. A 2015 systematic review identified that students value these student-run clinics and reported skill and knowledge attainment from participating. Previous research has reported on patient satisfaction outcomes, but less frequently about the clinical outcomes patients accrue from these student-delivered services. As cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death worldwide, this review aimed to explore the effectiveness of student-led health interventions through examining their impact on objective clinical outcomes, using the case of patients at risk of, or with, cardiovascular disease. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in eight electronic databases to identify student-led health interventions conducted on adults with a cardiovascular disease risk factor or established cardiovascular disease, and a clinical outcome of interest. Through double-blinded screening and data extraction, sixteen studies were identified for synthesis. Results: The majority of student-led health interventions for patients at risk of cardiovascular disease demonstrated a positive impact on patient health. Statistically significant changes amongst patients at risk of cardiovascular disease appeared to be associated with student-led individualised intervention or group-based interventions amongst patients with diabetes or those who are overweight or obese. The evidence was of moderate quality, as included studies lacked a control group for comparison and detail to enable the intervention to be replicated. Conclusions: Future research applying a student-led health intervention through a randomised control trial, with rigorous reporting of both student and patient interventions and outcomes, are required to further understand the effectiveness of this alternative service delivery model.

Background Greater continuity of care has been associated with lower hospital admissions and patient mortality. This systematic review aims to examine the impact of relational continuity between primary care professionals and older people receiving aged care services, in residential or home care settings, on health care resource use and person-centred outcomes. Methods Systematic review of five databases, four trial registries and three grey literature sources to October 2020. Included studies (a) aimed to increase relational continuity with a primary care professional, (b) focused on older people receiving aged care services (c) included a comparator and (d) reported outcomes of health care resource use, quality of life, activities of daily living, mortality, falls or satisfaction. Cochrane Collaboration or Joanna Briggs Institute criteria were used to assess risk of bias and GRADE criteria to rate confidence in evidence and conclusions. Results Heterogeneity in study cohorts, settings and outcome measurement in the five included studies (one randomised) precluded meta-analysis. None examined relational continuity exclusively with non-physician providers. Higher relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospital admissions (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity hazard ratio (HR) 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.92–0.96, n = 178,686; incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.99, 95%CI 0.76–1.27, n = 246) and emergency department (ED) presentations (moderate certainty evidence; high versus low continuity HR 0.90, 95%CI 0.89–0.92, n = 178,686; IRR 0.91, 95%CI 0.72–1.15, n = 246) for older community-dwelling aged care recipients. The benefit of providing on-site primary care for relational continuity in residential settings is uncertain (low certainty evidence, 2 studies, n = 2,468 plus 15 care homes); whilst there are probably lower hospitalisations and may be fewer ED presentations, there may also be an increase in reported mortality and falls. The benefit of general practitioners’ visits during hospital admission is uncertain (very low certainty evidence, 1 study, n = 335). Conclusion Greater relational continuity with a primary care physician probably reduces hospitalisations and ED presentations for community-dwelling aged care recipients, thus policy initiatives that increase continuity may have cost offsets. Further studies of approaches to increase relational continuity of primary care within aged care, particularly in residential settings, are needed. Review registration CRD42021215698.

No abstract

No abstract