This review was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The protocol is available at: http://www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/diabetes-mobile-devices/research-protocol .

No abstract

Purpose of Review This review evaluates the efficacy, usability, and features of commercially available mobile applications (apps) for diabetes self-management. Key Messages • Although hundreds of apps for diabetes self-management are commercially available, we only identified health outcomes studies on 11 apps. • Of the 11 apps, studies showed only 5 were associated with clinically significant improvements in HbA1c, an important clinical test for monitoring diabetes. (For Type 1 diabetes-Glucose Buddy, Diabeo Telesage; For Type 2 diabetes-Blue Star, WellTang, Gather Health) • None of the studies showed patient improvements in quality of life, blood pressure, weight, or body mass index. More rigorous and longer-term research studies could determine whether apps help people manage their diabetes and reduce complications. • Studies had methodological issues: they were short (2-12 months); inconsistent in reporting of randomization, allocation, masking, and drop-out analysis; and often used co-interventions that hindered interpretation of results. None of the included studies are considered to be high quality. This report is based on research conducted by the Scientific Resource Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract Nos. 290-2012-0004-C and 290-2017-00003-C). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers-patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others-make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information, i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients. This report is made available to the public under the terms of a licensing agreement between the author and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This report may be used and reprinted without permission except those copyrighted materials that are clearly noted in the report. Further reproduction of those copyrighted materials is prohibited without the express permission of copyright holders. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of any derivative products that may be developed from this report, such as clinical practice guidelines, other quality enhancement tools, or reimbursement or coverage...

No abstract

This study examines European decision makers' consideration and use of quantitative preference data. Methods:The study reviewed quantitative preference data usage in 31 European countries to support marketing authorization, reimbursement, or pricing decisions. Use was defined as: agency guidance on preference data use, sponsor submission of preference data, or decision-maker collection of preference data. The data could be collected from any stakeholder using any method that generated quantitative estimates of preferences. Data were collected through: (1) documentary evidence identified through a literature and regulatory websites review, and via key opinion leader outreach; and (2) a survey of staff working for agencies that support or make healthcare technology decisions.Results: Preference data utilization was identified in 22 countries and at a European level. The most prevalent use (19 countries) was citizen preferences, collected using time-trade off or standard gamble methods to inform health state utility estimation. Preference data was also used to: (1) value other impact on patients, (2) incorporate non-health factors into reimbursement decisions, and (3) estimate opportunity cost. Pilot projects were identified (6 countries and at a European level), with a focus on multi-criteria decision analysis methods and choice-based methods to elicit patient preferences. Conclusion:While quantitative preference data support reimbursement and pricing decisions in most European countries, there was no utilization evidence in European-level marketing authorization decisions. While there are commonalities, a diversity of usage was identified between jurisdictions. Pilots suggest the potential for greater use of preference data, and for alignment between decision makers.

Selecting medical equipment is a complex multidisciplinary task requiring mathematical tools, considering associated uncertainties. This paper offers an in-depth study of multiple-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) methods to identify the most appropriate ones for performing management tasks in resource-limited settings. The chosen articles were divided into three topics: evaluation of projects and equipment, selection of projects and equipment, and development of medical devices. Three methods (analytic hierarchy process [AHP], multi-attribute utility theory and elimination and choice expressing reality) were selected for detailed analyses of their application for medical equipment management. Twenty-one work using MCDA, artificial neural networks, human factors engineering, and value analysis were analysed in the framework of medical equipment management. The important aspects of the procedure were described, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. It was determined that the AHP approach corresponds to all defined criteria for selecting large medical equipment. Managing large medical equipment using MCDA will reduce uncertainties, and provide a rational selection and purchase of the most efficient equipment in resource-limited settings. The direction for improving the AHP method was determined.

Context: Although screening recommendations for prostate cancer using prostate-specific antigen testing often include shared decision making, the effect of patient decision aids on patients’ intention and uptake is unclear. This study aimed to review the effect of decision aids on men’s screening intention, screening utilization, and the congruence between intentions and uptake. Evidence acquisition: Data sources were searched until April 6, 2018, and included MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, CT.gov, Cochrane report, PsycARTICLES, PsycINFO, and reference lists. This study included RCTs and observational studies of decision aids that measured prostate screening intention or behavior. The analysis was completed in April 2018. Evidence synthesis: Eighteen studies (13 RCTs, four before–after studies, one non-RCT) reported data on screening intention for ≅8,400 men and screening uptake for 2,385 men. Compared with usual care, the use of decision aids in any format results in fewer men (aged ≥40 years) planning to undergo prostate-specific antigen testing (risk ratio=0.88, 95% CI=0.81, 0.95, p=0.006, I2=66%, p<0.001, n=8). Many men did not follow their screening intentions during the first year after using a decision aid; however, most men who were planning to undergo screening did so (probability that men who wanted to be screened would receive screening was 95%). Conclusions: Integration of decision aids in clinical practice may result in a decrease in the number of men who elect prostate-specific antigen testing, which may in turn reduce screening uptake. To ensure high congruence between intention and screening utilization, providers should not delay the shared decision-making discussion after patients use a decision aid.

IMPORTANCE Cardiovascular disease and cancer are the 2 leading causes of death in the US, and vitamin and mineral supplementation has been proposed to help prevent these conditions. OBJECTIVE To review the benefits and harms of vitamin and mineral supplementation in healthy adults to prevent cardiovascular disease and cancer to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, PubMed (publisher-supplied records only), Cochrane Library, and Embase (January 2013 to February 1, 2022); prior reviews. STUDY SELECTION English-language randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of vitamin or mineral use among adults without cardiovascular disease or cancer and with no known vitamin or mineral deficiencies; observational cohort studies examining serious harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Single extraction, verified by a second reviewer. Quantitative pooling methods appropriate for rare events were used for most analyses. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Mortality, cardiovascular disease events, cancer incidence, serious harms. RESULTS Eighty-four studies (N=739 803) were included. In pooled analyses, multivitamin use was significantly associated with a lower incidence of any cancer (odds ratio [OR], 0.93 [95% CI, 0.87-0.99]; 4 RCTs [n=48 859]; absolute risk difference [ARD] range among adequately powered trials, −0.2% to −1.2%) and lung cancer (OR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.58-0.95]; 2 RCTs [n=36 052]; ARD, 0.2%). However, the evidence for multivitamins had important limitations. Beta carotene (with or without vitamin A) was significantly associated with an increased risk of lung cancer (OR, 1.20 [95% CI, 1.01-1.42]; 4 RCTs [n=94 830]; ARD range, −0.1% to 0.6%) and cardiovascular mortality (OR, 1.10 [95% CI, 1.02-1.19]; 5 RCTs [n=94 506] ARD range, −0.8% to 0.8%). Vitamin D use was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.91-1.02]; 27 RCTs [n=117 082]), cardiovascular disease (eg, composite cardiovascular disease event outcome: OR, 1.00 [95% CI, 0.95-1.05]; 7 RCTs [n=74 925]), or cancer outcomes (eg, any cancer incidence: OR, 0.98 [95% CI, 0.92-1.03]; 19 RCTs [n=86 899]). Vitamin E was not significantly associated with all-cause mortality (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.97-1.07]; 9 RCTs [n=107 772]), cardiovascular disease events (OR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.90-1.04]; 4 RCTs [n=62 136]), or cancer incidence (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; 5 RCTs [n=76 777]). Evidence for benefit of other supplements was equivocal, minimal, or absent. Limited evidence suggested some supplements may be associated with higher risk of serious harms (hip fracture [vitamin A], hemorrhagic stroke [vitamin E], and kidney stones [vitamin C, calcium]).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Vitamin and mineral supplementation was associated with little or no benefit in preventing cancer, cardiovascular disease, and death, with the exception of a small benefit for cancer incidence with multivitamin use. Beta carotene was associated with an increased risk of lung cancer and other harmful outcomes in persons at high risk of lung cancer.