English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Reducing Care Utilisation through Self-management Interventions (RECURSIVE): a systematic review and meta-analysis Maria Panagioti,1 Gerry Richardson,2 Elizabeth Murray,3 Anne Rogers,4 Anne Kennedy,4 Stanton Newman,5 Nicola Small1 and Peter Bower1* 1National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK 2Centre for Health Economics, University of York, York, UK 3Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK 4Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK 5School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, UK *Corresponding author peter.bower@manchester.ac.uk Background: A critical part of future service delivery will involve improving the degree to which people become engaged in ‘self-management’. Providing better support for self-management has the potential to make a significant contribution to NHS efficiency, as well as providing benefits in patient health and quality of care. Objective: To determine which models of self-management support are associated with significant reductions in health services utilisation (including hospital use) without compromising outcomes, among patients with long-term conditions. Data sources: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, EconLit (the American Economic Association’s electronic bibliography), EMBASE, Health Economics Evaluations Database, MEDLINE (the US National Library of Medicine’s database), MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and PsycINFO (the behavioural science and mental health database), as well as the reference lists of published reviews of self-management support. Methods: We included patients with long-term conditions in all health-care settings and self-management support interventions with varying levels of additional professional support and input from multidisciplinary teams. Main outcome measures were quantitative measures of service utilisation (including hospital use) and quality of life (QoL). We presented the results for each condition group using a permutation plot, plotting the effect of interventions on utilisation and outcomes simultaneously and placing them in quadrants of the cost-effectiveness plane depending on the pattern of outcomes. We also conducted conventional meta-analyses of outcomes. Results: We found 184 studies that met the inclusion criteria and provided data for analysis. The most common categories of long-term conditions included in the studies were cardiovascular (29%), respiratory (24%) and mental health (16%). Of the interventions, 5% were categorised as ‘pure self-management’ (without additional professional support), 20% as ‘supported self-management’ ( 2 hours’ support) and 28% as ‘case management’ (> 2 hours’ support including input from a multidisciplinary team). We analysed data across categories of long-term conditions and also analysed comparing self-management support (pure, supported, intense) with case management. Only a minority of self-management support studies reported reductions in health-care utilisation in association with decrements in health. Self-management support was associated with small but significant improvements in QoL. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation following self-management support interventions were strongest for interventions in respiratory and cardiovascular disorders. Caution should be exercised in the interpretation of the results, as we found evidence that studies at higher risk of bias were more likely to report benefits on some outcomes. Data on hospital use outcomes were also consistent with the possibility of small-study bias. Limitations: Self-management support is a complex area in which to undertake literature searches. Our analyses were limited by poor reporting of outcomes in the included studies, especially concerning health-care utilisation and costs. Conclusions: Very few self-management support interventions achieve reductions in utilisation while compromising patient outcomes. Evidence for significant reductions in utilisation were strongest for respiratory disorders and cardiac disorders. Research priorities relate to better reporting of the content of self-management support, exploration of the impact of multimorbidity and assessment of factors influencing the wider implementation of self-management support. Study registration: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42012002694. Funding: The National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme. ABSTRACT NIHR Journals Library www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk vi