Patient and family engagement interventions on patients' safety in primary care: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Pang, Y.; Szucs, A.; Cabello, I. R.; Gangannagaripalli, J.; Goh, L. H.; Leong, F. L.; Zhou, L. F.; Valderas, J. M.
Show abstract
ImportanceEngaging patients and their families has been proposed and promoted as a key strategy for improving patient safety of health systems. However, little is known about the use of this approach in the primary care settings. ObjectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the effectiveness of interventions promoting patient and family engagement for patient safety in primary care based on randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Data SourcesFive electronic databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Web of Science, and CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 2023 with key words structured in four blocks (patient and family engagement; patient safety; primary care; randomised controlled trial). Study SelectionDefinition of patient safety included adverse events and non-recommended practices. Two independent study team members screened each record, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. Data Extraction and SynthesisReporting followed PRISMA standards and included risk of bias and level of certainty assessments. For studies reporting on similar safety outcomes, results were combined into meta-analyses using multi-level random-effects models in case of moderate/substantial heterogeneity (30%[≤]I{superscript 2}[≤]75%), and fixed-effect models when heterogeneity was low (I{superscript 2}[≤]30%). Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s)Expected primary study outcomes were adverse events, non-recommended medical practices, and medical errors. Interventions were considered of interest, if they prompted patients and/or families to take actions, focused on patient education about engagement, or had a significant patient engagement component if they were multifaceted interventions. Interventions were rated based on increasing degrees of patient/family engagement as "Inform about engagement", "Empower", and "Partner/Integrate". ResultsSixteen records were identified, among which eight completed RCTs. No intervention reached the highest engagement level. RCTs primarily targeted medication safety outcomes, with meta-analyses showing no significant effects on adverse drug events (OR=0.73, 95%CI [0.46,1.15]) and medication appropriateness using categorical (OR=0.97, 95%CI [0.73,1.17]) and continuous outcome variables (MD=0.56, 95%CI [-0.61, 1.72]). Overall risk of bias was low and the certainty of evidence ranged from moderate to high for most completed studies. Conclusion and RelevancePatient and family engagement strategies in primary care show inconclusive results based on extant randomised controlled evidence. They should delve into more comprehensive levels of engagement and address more diverse patient safety outcomes. Key pointsO_LIQuestion: Is there randomised controlled evidence supporting the use of patient and family engagement interventions in primary care patient safety? C_LIO_LIFindings: Randomised controlled interventions targeting patient safety through patient and family engagement are scarce in primary care, mostly focus on medication safety, and stay at low to intermediate levels of patient and family engagement. Although their combined effectiveness did not reach significance in meta-analyses, favourable results were reported for several patient safety outcomes. C_LIO_LIMeaning: Patient and family engagement interventions for patient safety in primary care show inconclusive results based on the randomised controlled evidence at hand, yet their scarcity and relatively low level of patient/family engagement underscores the need to further test and refine such approaches in all patient safety domains. C_LI
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 92%
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 91%
- Understanding the Challenges of Medicine Optimisation Among Older People From Ethnic Minority Communities (Aged 60 Years and Above) With Polypharmacy in Primary Care: A Realist Review Protocol 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Investigating the use of a one-page infographic to improve recruitment and retention to the BASIL+ Randomised Controlled Trial: A Study Within a Trial (SWAT) 94%
- The Effect of Famotidine on Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 93%
- Colchicine use in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Trends and variation in unsafe prescribing of methotrexate: a cohort study in English NHS primary care. 92%
- Variation in prescription duration for long term conditions: a cohort study in English NHS primary care using OpenPrescribing 91%
- Colchicine for COVID-19 in adults in the community (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, adaptive platform trial 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- The MultimorbiditY COllaborative Medication Review And DEcision Making (MyComrade) study: A protocol for a cross-border pilot cluster randomised controlled trial 95%
- Evaluating Diuretics in Normal Care (EVIDENCE): A feasibility report of a pilot cluster randomised trial of prescribing policy in primary care to compare the effectiveness of thiazide-type diuretics in hypertension 93%
- A complex ePrescribing-based Anti-Microbial Stewardship (ePAMS+) intervention for hospitals combining technological and behavioural components: protocol for a feasibility trial 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 93%
- Evaluation of the General Practice Pharmacist (GPP) intervention to optimise prescribing in Irish primary care: a non-randomised pilot study 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.