Background Task-sharing interventions using non-physician health-care workers might be a potential diabetes management strategy in health systems that are constrained by physician shortages, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of task-sharing intervention strategies for managing type 2 diabetes in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from database inception to Sept 25, 2019, for studies that were randomised control trials or cluster randomised trials with task-shifted or task-shared interventions delivered to adults (≥18 years) by non-physician health workers versus usual care, done in LMICs with glycated haemoglobin (HbA 1c) or fasting blood sugar (FBS) as outcome measures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the population average pooled mean difference for HbA 1c and FBS with 95% CIs. Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018081015). Findings We found 4213 studies from the literature search, of which 46 (1•1%) were eligible for the narrative synthesis, including a total of 16 973 participants. 16 of these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. 24 studies with a total of 5345 participants were included in the meta-analysis of HbA 1c and 18 studies with a total of 3287 participants for FBS. Interventions led to an average reduction in HbA 1c when tasks were delivered by nurses (averaged pooled mean difference −0•54% [95% CI −0•89 to −0•18]; I²=80%) and pharmacists (−0•91% [−1•15 to −0•68]; I²=58%), but not when they were delivered by dietitians (−0•50% [-1•10 to 0•09]; I²=54%) or community health workers (0•05% [0•03 to 0•07]; I²=0%). A reduction in average FBS was also observed when interventions were delivered by pharmacists (average pooled mean difference-36•26 mg/dL [-52•60 to-19•92]; I²=78%) but not nurses (-7•46 mg/dL [-18•44 to 3•52]; I²=79%) or community health workers (-5•41 [-12•74 to 1•92]; I²=71%). Only one study reported on FBS when tasks were delivered by dietitians, with a mean difference of-35•00 mg/dL (-65•96 to-4•04). Interpretation Task sharing interventions with non-physician healthcare workers show moderate effectiveness in diabetes management in LMIC settings. Although relatively high heterogeneity limits the interpretation of the overall findings, interventions led by pharmacists and nurses in LMICs with relatively high physician density are effective strategies in the management of diabetes.

Objective To review the available evidence on the benefit of patient-held health records (PHRs), other than maternal and child health records, for improving the availability of medical information for handover communication between healthcare providers (HCPs) and/or between HCPs and patients in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods The literature searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL databases for manuscripts without any restrictions on dates/language. Additionally, articles were located through citation checking using previous systematic reviews and a grey literature search by contacting experts, searching of the WHO website and Google Scholar. Results Six observational studies in four LMICs met the inclusion criteria. However, no studies reported on health outcomes after using PHRs. Studies in the review reported patients’ experience of carrying the records to HCPs (n=3), quality of information available to HCPs (n=1) and the utility of these records to patients (n=6) and HCPs (n=4). Most patients carry PHRs to healthcare visits. One study assessed the completeness of clinical handover information and found that only 41% (161/395) of PHRs were complete with respect to key information on diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. No protocols or guidelines for HCPs were reported for use of PHRs. The HCPs perceived the use of PHRs improved medical information availability from other HCPs. From the patient perspective, PHRs functioned as documented source of information about their own condition. Conclusion Limited data on existing PHRs make their benefits for improving health outcomes in LMICs uncertain. This knowledge gap calls for research on understanding the dynamics and outcomes of PHR use by patients and HCPs and in health systems interventions. PROSPERO registration number CRD42019139365.

Background: Deficits in quality of care for patients with heart failure (HF) contribute to high mortality in this population. This qualitative study aimed to understand the barriers and facilitators to high-quality HF care in Kerala, India. Methods: Semi-structured, in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of health care providers (n=13), patients and caregivers (n=14). Additionally, focus group discussions (n=3) were conducted with patients and their caregivers. All interviews and focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim. Textual data were analysed using thematic analysis. Results: Patients’ motivation to change their lifestyle behaviours after HF diagnosis and active follow-up calls from health care providers to check on patients’ health status were important enablers of high-quality care. Health care providers’ advice on substance use often motivated patients to stop smoking and consuming alcohol. Although patients expected support from their family members, the level of caregiver support for patients varied, with some patients receiving strong support from caregivers and others receiving minimal support. Emotional stress and lack of structured care plans for patients hindered patients’ self-management of their condition. Further, high patient loads often limited the time health care providers had to provide advice on self-management options. Nevertheless, the availability of experienced nursing staff to support patients improved care within health care facilities. Finally, initiation of guideline-directed medical therapy was perceived as complex by health care providers due to multiple coexisting chronic conditions in HF patients. Conclusions: Structured plans for self-management of HF and more time for patients and health care providers to interact during clinical visits may enable better clinical handover with patients and family members, and thereby improve adherence to self-care options. Quality improvement interventions should also address the stress and emotional concerns of HF patients.

Background Evidence shows that a gap in the documentation of patients’ past medical history leads to errors in, or duplication of, treatment and is a threat to patient safety. Home-based or patient-held records (HBR) are widely used in low and middle-income countries (LMIC) in maternal and childcare. The aim is to systematically review the evidence on HBRs in LMICs for (1) improving informational continuity for providers and women/families across health care visits and facilities, (2) to describe the perceived usefulness by women/families and healthcare providers, and (3) maternal and child health outcomes of using HBRs for maternal and child health care. Methods The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019139365). We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Global Index Medicus databases for studies with home-based records from LMICs. Search terms pertained to women or parent-held records and LMICs. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion using a priori study selection criteria- studies explaining the use of HBRs in LMIC for maternal and child health care. The included study quality was appraised using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Results from all study designs were summarised narratively. Results In total, 41 papers were included in the review from 4514 potential studies. Included studies represented various study designs and 16 countries. The least evaluated function of HBR was information continuity across health care facilities (n = 6). Overall, there were limited data on the usefulness of HBRs to providers and mothers/families. Home-based records were mostly available for providers during health care visits. However, the documentation in HBRs varied. The use of HBRs is likely to lead to improved antenatal visits and immunisation uptake, and skilled birth delivery in some settings. Mothers’ knowledge of breastfeeding practices and danger signs in pregnancy improved with the use of HBRs. One randomised trial found the use of HBRs reduced the risk of cognitive development delay in children and another reported on trial lessened the risk of underweight and stunted growth in children. Conclusion There is limited literature from LMICs on the usefulness of HBRs and for improving information transfer across healthcare facilities, or their use by women at home. Current HBRs from LMICs are sub-optimally documented leading to poor informational availability that defeats the point of them as a source of information for future providers.

No abstract