MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385198529 · doi:10.1186/s12916-023-02966-9

Efficacy of sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions in chronic disease management in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of complex interventions

2023· review· en· W4385198529 on OpenAlexafffund
Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Charlene Soobiah, Vera Nincic, Yonda Lai, Patricia Rios, H. Robson MacDonald, Paul A. Khan, Marco Ghassemi, Fatemeh Yazdi, Ross C. Brownson, David Chambers, Lisa Dolovich, Annemarie Edwards, Paul Glasziou, Ian D. Graham, Brenda R. Hemmelgarn, Bev Holmes, Wanrudee Isaranuwatchai, France Légaré, Jessie McGowan, Justin Presseau, Janet E. Squires, Henry T. Stelfox, Lisa Strifler, Trudy van der Weijden, Christine Fahim, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon E. Straus

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medicine · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Policy Implementation Science
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioAlberta Health ServicesMcMaster UniversityThe Quebec Population Health Research NetworkOttawa HospitalHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of OttawaUniversity of CalgaryInstitute for Work & HealthCanadian Partnership Against CancerUniversité LavalMichael Smith Health Research BCUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisMEDLINEDisease managementSystematic reviewKnowledge translationFamily medicinePhysical therapyDiseaseNursingInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Chronic disease management (CDM) through sustained knowledge translation (KT) interventions ensures long-term, high-quality care. We assessed implementation of KT interventions for supporting CDM and their efficacy when sustained in older adults. Methods Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis engaging 17 knowledge users using integrated KT. Eligibility criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) including adults (> 65 years old) with chronic disease(s), their caregivers, health and/or policy-decision makers receiving a KT intervention to carry out a CDM intervention for at least 12 months (versus other KT interventions or usual care). Information sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from each database’s inception to March 2020. Outcome measures: Sustainability, fidelity, adherence of KT interventions for CDM practice, quality of life (QOL) and quality of care (QOC). Data extraction, risk of bias (ROB) assessment: We screened, abstracted and appraised articles (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care ROB tool) independently and in duplicate. Data synthesis: We performed both random-effects and fixed-effect meta-analyses and estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data. Results We included 158 RCTs (973,074 participants [961,745 patients, 5540 caregivers, 5789 providers]) and 39 companion reports comprising 329 KT interventions, involving patients (43.2%), healthcare providers (20.7%) or both (10.9%). We identified 16 studies described as assessing sustainability in 8.1% interventions, 67 studies as assessing adherence in 35.6% interventions and 20 studies as assessing fidelity in 8.7% of the interventions. Most meta-analyses suggested that KT interventions improved QOL, but imprecisely (36 item Short-Form mental [SF-36 mental]: MD 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] [− 1.25, 3.47], 14 RCTs, 5876 participants, I 2 = 96%; European QOL-5 dimensions: MD 0.01, 95% CI [− 0.01, 0.02], 15 RCTs, 6628 participants, I 2 = 25%; St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire: MD − 2.12, 95% CI [− 3.72, − 0.51] 44 12 RCTs, 2893 participants, I 2 = 44%). KT interventions improved QOC (OR 1.55, 95% CI [1.29, 1.85], 12 RCTS, 5271 participants, I 2 = 21%). Conclusions KT intervention sustainability was infrequently defined and assessed. Sustained KT interventions have the potential to improve QOL and QOC in older adults with CDM. However, their overall efficacy remains uncertain and it varies by effect modifiers, including intervention type, chronic disease number, comorbidities, and participant age. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42018084810.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.388
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.861
GPT teacher head0.720
Teacher spread0.142 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC MedicineSame topicHealth Policy Implementation ScienceFrench-language works237,207