Bruno Riverin

Vitamin D Supplementation for Childhood Asthma: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Importance There is growing evidence that vitamin D plays a role in the pathogenesis of asthma but it is unclear whether supplementation during childhood may improve asthma outcomes. Objectives The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment or adjunct treatment for asthma. Data Sources We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and CINAHL through July 2014. Study Selection We included RCTs that evaluated vitamin D supplementation in children versus active control or placebo for asthma. Data Extraction and Synthesis One reviewer extracted data and one reviewer verified data accuracy. We qualitatively summarized the main results of efficacy and safety and meta-analyzed data on comparable outcomes across studies. We used GRADE for strength of evidence. Main Outcome Measures Main planned outcomes measures were ED visits and hospitalizations. As secondary outcomes, we examined measures of asthma control, including frequency of asthma exacerbations, asthma symptom scores, measures of lung function, β2-agonist use and daily steroid use, adverse events and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels. Results Eight RCTs (one parallel, one crossover design) comprising 573 children aged 3 to 18 years were included. One study (moderate-quality, n = 100) reported significantly less ED visits for children treated with vitamin D. No other studies examined the primary outcome (ED visits and hospitalizations). There was a reduced risk of asthma exacerbations in children receiving vitamin D (low-quality; RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.63, 3 studies, n = 378). There was no significant effect for asthma symptom scores and lung function. The serum 25(OH)D level was higher in the vitamin D group at the end of the intervention (low-quality; MD 19.66 nmol/L, 95% CI 5.96 nmol/L to 33.37 nmol/L, 5 studies, n = 167). Limitations We identified a high degree of clinical diversity (interventions and outcomes) and methodological heterogeneity (sample size and risk of bias) in included trials. Conclusions and Relevance Randomized controlled trials provide some low-quality evidence to support vitamin D supplementation for the reduction of asthma exacerbations. Evidence on the benefits of vitamin D supplementation for other asthma-related outcomes in children is either limited or inconclusive. We recommend that future trials focus on patient-relevant outcomes that are comparable across studies, including standardized definitions of asthma exacerbations.

The impact of primary care reform on health system performance in Canada: a systematic review

BackgroundWe aimed to synthesize the evidence of a causal effect and draw inferences about whether Canadian primary care reforms improved health system performance based on measures of health service utilization, processes of care, and physician productivity.MethodsWe searched the Embase, PubMed and Web of Science databases for records from 2000 to September 2015. We based our risk of bias assessment on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Full-text studies were synthesized and organized according to the three outcome categories: health service utilization, processes of care, and physician costs and productivity.ResultsWe found moderate quality evidence that team-based models of care led to reductions in emergency department use, but the evidence was mixed for hospital admissions. We also found low quality evidence that team-based models, blended capitation models and pay-for-performance incentives led to small and sometimes non-significant improvements in processes of care. Studies examining new payment models on physician costs and productivity were of high methodological quality and provided a coherent body of evidence assessing enhanced fee-for-service and blended capitation payment models.ConclusionA small number of studies suggested that team-based models contributed to reductions in emergency department use in Quebec and Alberta. Regarding processes of diabetes care, studies found higher rates of testing for blood glucose levels, retinopathy and cholesterol in Alberta’s team-based primary care model and in practices eligible for pay-for-performance incentives in Ontario. However pay-for-performance in Ontario was found to have null to moderate effects on other prevention and screening activities. Although blended capitation payment in Ontario contributed to decreases in the number of services delivered and patients seen per day, the number of enrolled patients and number of days worked in a year was similar to that of enhanced fee-for-service practices.

Team-based versus traditional primary care models and short-term outcomes after hospital discharge

BACKGROUND: Strategies to reduce hospital readmission have been studied mainly at the local level. We assessed associations between population-wide policies supporting team-based primary care delivery models and short-term outcomes after hospital discharge. METHODS: We extracted claims data on hospital admissions for any cause from 2002 to 2009 in the province of Quebec. We included older or chronically ill patients enrolled in team-based or traditional primary care practices. Outcomes were rates of readmission, emergency department visits and mortality in the 90 days following hospital discharge. We used inverse probability weighting to balance exposure groups on covariates and used marginal structural survival models to estimate rate differences and hazard ratios. RESULTS: We included 620 656 index admissions involving 312 377 patients. Readmission rates at any point in the 90-day post-discharge period were similar between primary care models. Patients enrolled in team-based primary care practices had lower 30-day rates of emergency department visits not associated with readmission (adjusted difference 7.5 per 1000 discharges, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.2 to 10.8) and lower 30-day mortality (adjusted difference 3.8 deaths per 1000 discharges, 95% CI 1.7 to 5.9). The 30-day difference for mortality differed according to morbidity level (moderate morbidity: 1.0 fewer deaths per 1000 discharges in team-based practices, 95% CI 0.3 more to 2.3 fewer deaths; very high morbidity: 4.2 fewer deaths per 1000 discharges, 95% CI 3.0 to 5.3; p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Our study showed that enrolment in the newer team-based primary care practices was associated with lower rates of postdischarge emergency department visits and death. We did not observe differences in readmission rates, which suggests that more targeted or intensive efforts may be needed to affect this outcome.

Early career researchers’ perspectives and roles in patient-oriented research

Plain English summaryPatient-oriented research (POR) has received increasing attention in recent years. In this approach, patients’ experiential knowledge, derived from their experiences of living with a condition or illness and of interacting with the healthcare system, is recognized, valued, and seen as complementary to scientific knowledge. Early career researchers (ECRs) are the next generation of researchers, but little is known about how they perceive POR. In this study, ECRs were invited to reflect on what POR is, how patients can best contribute to research, and ECRs’ own role in developing POR. Using a technique designed to collect expert opinions and find consensus—the Delphi method—a panel of 16 ECRs responded, in three rounds, to three questionnaires, with the second and third being built on responses to the preceding ones. Based on their understanding, the panelists agreed that the most important element in defining POR would be valuing, mobilizing, and legitimizing the experiential knowledge of patients who live with a particular health condition. Panelists considered patients to be integral members of the research team, but were less convinced that they should be considered co-researchers. The panelists saw themselves as taking part in developing POR by sharing information, teaching, and encouraging POR among their peers, as well as by participating actively in organizations interested in POR. This is the first study to examine the perspectives of ECRs, who, along with many others, have an important role in supporting the on-going development of POR so that it becomes more widely adopted.AbstractBackground Literature on patient-oriented research (POR) is growing rapidly. This field is increasingly encouraged by funders and structured by new research networks. POR involves moving away from considering patients as ‘subjects’, towards perceiving them as experts with experience-based knowledge. However, little is known about how early-career researchers (ECRs) perceive POR and their roles in developing it. This study examined how ECRs perceive POR, patients’ roles, the future of POR, and their own role in developing this approach. Methods A three-round Delphi study was conducted with Quebec’s Strategy for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials (SUPPORT) Unit awardees, composed of graduate students and clinicians, all ECRs. Of the 25 invited, 18 agreed to participate (72%), with a three-round retention rate of 89% (n = 16 on 18). Panelists answered open-ended questions, selected the most salient statements, and rated their (dis)agreement with proposals using a 7-point scale. Results Five main themes emerged: 1) ECRs’ knowledge of and experience with POR; 2) the POR definition; 3) patients’ roles and contributions; 4) the future of POR; and 5) ECRs’ roles in POR development. This study revealed that the ECRs were not so familiar with POR, even given their opportunities for networking within a scholarship program. Panelists agreed on the main components of a POR definition: valuing, mobilizing, and legitimizing the experiential knowledge of patients living with a health condition; conducting research that focuses on patients’ concerns, participation, and outcomes; and integrating active partnership among a variety of actors. Panelists considered patients to be integral members of the research team (M = 5.31 ± 1.66), but were less convinced they should be considered co-researchers (M = 4.50 ± 1.75). Panelists saw themselves as playing many roles in developing POR, such as becoming well-informed about it and acting as knowledge brokers, motivators, doers, delegators, and activists. Conclusion The ECRs’ perspectives are informative on how the next generation of researchers envision POR, its future and how they might contribute to developing this approach. There is a clear need for a coherent and concerted strategy for POR capacity development, in which ECRs’ perspectives and their specific needs are taken into account.