BackgroundPrimary care provision is important in the delivery of health care but many countries face primary care workforce challenges. Increasing demand, enlarged workloads, and current and anticipated physician shortages in many countries have led to the introduction of mid-level professionals, such as Physician Assistants (PAs). Objective: This systematic review aimed to appraise the evidence of the contribution of PAs within primary care, defined for this study as general practice, relevant to the UK or similar systems.MethodsMedline, CINAHL, PsycINFO, BNI, SSCI and SCOPUS databases were searched from 1950 to 2010. Eligibility criteria: PAs with a recognised PA qualification, general practice/family medicine included and the findings relevant to it presented separately and an English language journal publication. Two reviewers independently identified relevant publications, assessed quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tools and extracted findings. Findings were classified and synthesised narratively as factors related to structure, process or outcome of care.Results2167 publications were identified, of which 49 met our inclusion criteria, with 46 from the United States of America (USA). Structure: approximately half of PAs are reported to work in primary care in the USA with good support and a willingness to employ amongst doctors. Process: the majority of PAs’ workload is the management of patients with acute presentations. PAs tend to see younger patients and a different caseload to doctors, and require supervision. Studies of costs provide mixed results. Outcomes: acceptability to patients and potential patients is consistently found to be high, and studies of appropriateness report positively. Overall the evidence was appraised as of weak to moderate quality, with little comparative data presented and little change in research questions over time.Limitations: identification of a broad range of studies examining ‘contribution’ made meta analysis or meta synthesis untenable.ConclusionsThe research evidence of the contribution of PAs to primary care was mixed and limited. However, the continued growth in employment of PAs in American primary care suggests that this professional group is judged to be of value by increasing numbers of employers. Further specific studies are needed to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about the effectiveness of PAs’ contribution to the international primary care workforce.

No abstract

ObjectivesThe objectives of the study were to assess glycaemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2DM) at a tertiary care diabetes centre in Ningbo, China and to determine factors that independently predict their glycaemic control.DesignRetrospective cross-sectional study using an existing database, the Diabetes Information Management System.SettingTertiary care diabetes centre in Ningbo, China.ParticipantsThe study included adult patients with T2DM, registered and received treatment at the diabetes centre for at least six consecutive months. The study inclusion criteria were satisfied by 1387 patients, from 1 July 2012 to 30 June 2017.Primary outcome measureGlycaemic control (poor was defined as glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)>=7% or fasting blood glucose (FBG)>7.0 mmol/L).ResultsIn terms of HbA1c and FBG, the 5-year period prevalence of poor glycaemic control was 50.3% and 57.3%, respectively. In terms of HbA1c and FBG, the odds of poor glycaemic control increased with the duration of T2DM (>1 to 2 years: OR 1.84, 95% CI 1.06 to 3.19; >2 to 4 years: 3.32, 1.88 to 5.85 and >4 years: 5.98, 4.09 to 8.75 and >1 to 2 years: 2.10, 1.22 to 3.62; >2 to 4 years: 2.48, 1.42 to 4.34 and >4 years: 3.34, 2.32 to 4.80) and were higher in patients residing in rural areas (1.68, 1.24 to 2.28 and 1.42, 1.06 to 1.91), with hyperlipidaemia (1.57, 1.12 to 2.19 and 1.68, 1.21 to 2.33), on diet, physical activity and oral hypoglycaemic drug (OHD) as part of their T2DM therapeutic regimen (1.80, 1.01 to 3.23 and 2.40, 1.36 to 4.26) and on diet, physical activity, OHD and insulin (2.47, 1.38 to 4.41 and 2.78, 1.58 to 4.92), respectively.ConclusionsMore than half of patients with T2DM at the diabetes centre in Ningbo, China have poor glycaemic control, and the predictors of glycaemic control were identified. The study findings could be taken into consideration in future interventional studies aimed at improving glycaemic control in these patients.

Introduction: Many Ayurvedic medicines have the potential for managing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), with previous systematic reviews demonstrating effectiveness and safety for specific Ayurvedic medicines. However, many of the reviews need updating and none provide a comprehensive summary of all the Ayurvedic medicines evaluated for managing T2DM.Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic medicines for managing T2DM.Inclusion criteria: Published and unpublished RCTs assessing the effectiveness and safety of Ayurvedic medicines for managing T2DM in adults.Methods: The JBI systematic review methodology was followed. A comprehensive search of sources (including 18 electronic databases) from inception to 16 January 2021 was made. No language restrictions were applied. Data synthesis was conducted using narrative synthesis and random effects meta-analyses, where appropriate. Pooled results are reported as mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).Results: Out of 32,519 records identified from the searches, 219 articles were included in the systematic review representing 199 RCTs (21,191 participants) of 98 Ayurvedic medicines. Overall, in the studies reviewed the methodology was not adequately reported, resulting in poorer methodological quality scoring. Glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) was reduced using Aegle marmelos (L.) Corrêa (MD -1.6%; 95% CI −3 to −0.3), Boswellia serrata Roxb. (−0.5; −0.7 to −0.4), Gynostemma pentaphyllum (Thunb.) Makino (−1; −1.5 to −0.6), Momordica charantia L. (−0.3; −0.4 to −0.1), Nigella sativa L. (−0.4; −0.6 to −0.1), Plantago ovata Forssk. (−0.9; −1.4 to −0.3), Tinospora cordifolia (Willd.) Hook.f. and Thomson (−0.5; −0.6 to −0.5), Trigonella foenum-graecum L. (−0.6; −0.9 to −0.4), and Urtica dioica L. (−1.3; −2.4 to −0.2) compared to control. Similarly, fasting blood glucose (FBG) was reduced by 4–56 mg/dl for a range of Ayurvedic medicines. Very few studies assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Adverse events were not reported in many studies, and if reported, these were mostly none to mild and predominately related to the gastrointestinal tract.Conclusion: The current evidence suggests the benefit of a range of Ayurvedic medicines in improving glycemic control in T2DM patients. Given the limitations of the available evidence and to strengthen the evidence base, high-quality RCTs should be conducted and reported.