Osteoporosis group consultations are as effective as usual care: Results from a non‐inferiority randomized trial

Abstract

has the right to grant on behalf of all authors and does grant on behalf of all authors, a worldwide licence to the Publishers and its licensees in perpetuity, in all forms, formats and media (whether known now or created in the future), to (a) publish, reproduce, distribute, display and store the Contribution, (b) translate the Contribution into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections and create summaries, extracts and/or, abstracts of the Contribution, (c) create any other derivative work(s) based on the Contribution, (d) to exploit all subsidiary rights in the Contribution, (e) the inclusion of electronic links from the Contribution to third party material where-ever it may be located and (f) licence any third party to do any or all of the above.

Effectiveness of shared medical appointments delivered in primary care for improving health outcomes in patients with long-term conditions: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials

“…Three trials were tailored for non-English speaking participants, where written materials were available in Spanish[34,38,53]. The majority of participants were over 50 years old, the mean age of participants ranged between 50.5[21,22] to 74 years old[52]. Two trials were specifically for older patients over 55 or 60 years respectively[19,51], and two trials excluded patients over 75[44] and 80 years[32].…”

“…Sixteen trials (70%) were for a single LTC, of these: 13 were for diabetes [23,25,26,[29][30][31][32][33][34][37][38][39]53], two for hypertension [50,51]; and one was for osteoporosis [52]. Eight trials considered multiple LTCs: three were diabetes and hypertension/cardiovascular risk [40][41][42]46]; one was diabetes and depression [43], one was for overweight patients with diabetes [44]; one was chronic pain and depression [22] two in China [32,50] and one each in Australia [31], Germany [51] and the United Kingdom [52]. Twelve trials were measured the effectiveness, impact or efficacy of SMAs compared to usual care [19,22,23,26,29,32,33,38,39,42,46,53], nine trials examined feasibility parameters [24,30,31,34,37,38,…”

“…Eight trials considered multiple LTCs: three were diabetes and hypertension/cardiovascular risk [40][41][42]46]; one was diabetes and depression [43], one was for overweight patients with diabetes [44]; one was chronic pain and depression [22] two in China [32,50] and one each in Australia [31], Germany [51] and the United Kingdom [52]. Twelve trials were measured the effectiveness, impact or efficacy of SMAs compared to usual care [19,22,23,26,29,32,33,38,39,42,46,53], nine trials examined feasibility parameters [24,30,31,34,37,38,43,50], and two trials were non-inferiority/superiority trials [44,45,52].…”

“…SMAs were delivered face-to-face in all trials, although three SMA models included digital technologies, namely website and telephone support [22] and phone calls or text message support and/or reminders [37,38]. In three trials [33,41,52] SMAs were delivered by a single healthcare professional though mostly they were delivered by multidisciplinary teams.…”

Inaugural Lifestyle Medicine Editorial

“…We suggest you add it to your table of contents alerts, read it, submit high‐quality articles, and consider reviewing or joining the editorial board. We want to build the evidence base for lifestyle medicine, so will welcome articles from all disciplines that improve our understanding of the effects of lifestyle interventions, including exercise, nutrition, sleep, stress management, relationships, and avoidance of toxins, as well as interventions that support or enable lifestyle changes like group consultations, 25 whether or not they are compared to drugs or other interventions 26 . We have seen how powerful open access publication can be but would argue that rapid, robust peer review is highly desirable to ensure that decisions are made on the best evidence.…”