Seidu S, Walker N S, Bodicoat D H, Davies M J, Khunti K
Leicester Diabetes Centre, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK; Diabetes Research Centre, University of Leicester, Leicester General Hospital, Gwendolen Road, Leicester LE5 4WP, UK.
Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, 22-28 Princess Road West, Leicester LE1 6TP, UK.
Diabetes Res Clin Pract. 2016 Mar;113:1-13. doi: 10.1016/j.diabres.2016.01.022. Epub 2016 Jan 21.
To review the interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on glycaemic and cardiovascular risk factor control in people with diabetes.
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials evaluating the effectiveness of interventions targeting primary care or community based professionals on diabetes and cardiovascular risk factor control. We conducted searches in MEDLINE database from inception up to 27th September 2015. We also retrieved articles related to diabetes from the Cochrane EPOC database and EMBASE and scanned bibliographies for key articles.
There was heterogeneity in terms of interventions and participants amongst the 30 studies (39,439 patients) that met the inclusion criteria. Nine of the studies focused on general or family practitioners, five on pharmacists, three on nurses and one each on dieticians and community workers. Twelve studies targeted multi-disciplinary teams. Educational interventions did not seem to have a positive impact on HbA1c, systolic blood pressure or lipid profiles. The use of telemedicine, clinician reminders and feedback showed mixed results but there was a level of consistency in improvement in HbA1c when multifaceted interventions on multidisciplinary teams were implemented. Targeting general or family physicians was largely ineffective in improving the cardiovascular risk factors considered, except when using a computer application on insulin handling of type 2 diabetes or customised simulated cases with feedbacks. Similarly, interventions targeting nurses did not improve outcomes compared to standard care.
Multifaceted professional interventions were more effective than single interventions targeting single primary or community care professionals in improving glycaemic control.
回顾针对基层医疗或社区专业人员进行的糖尿病患者血糖及心血管危险因素控制干预措施。
对评估针对基层医疗或社区专业人员进行的糖尿病及心血管危险因素控制干预措施有效性的随机对照试验进行系统综述。我们检索了MEDLINE数据库从建库至2015年9月27日的数据。我们还从Cochrane EPOC数据库和EMBASE中检索了与糖尿病相关的文章,并浏览了关键文章的参考文献。
在符合纳入标准的30项研究(39439例患者)中,干预措施和参与者存在异质性。其中9项研究聚焦于普通或家庭医生,5项聚焦于药剂师,3项聚焦于护士,1项分别聚焦于营养师和社区工作者。12项研究针对多学科团队。教育干预似乎对糖化血红蛋白、收缩压或血脂水平没有积极影响。远程医疗、临床医生提醒和反馈的使用结果不一,但在多学科团队实施多方面干预时,糖化血红蛋白水平有所改善,且具有一定的一致性。针对普通或家庭医生的干预措施在改善所考虑的心血管危险因素方面大多无效,除非使用计算机应用程序处理2型糖尿病胰岛素问题或定制模拟病例并给予反馈。同样,与标准护理相比,针对护士的干预措施并未改善结局。
在改善血糖控制方面,多方面专业干预比针对单一基层或社区护理专业人员的单一干预更有效。