Introduction: Appraising the quality of studies included in systematic reviews combining qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies is challenging. To address this challenge, a critical appraisal tool was developed: the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). The aim of this paper is to present the MMAT. Development: The MMAT was developed in 2006 and was subject to pilot and interrater reliability testing. A revised new version of the MMAT was developed using the results from usefulness testing as well as a literature review on critical appraisal tools and a modified e-Delphi study with methodological experts to identify the core relevant criteria to include in the MMAT. Tool description: The MMAT includes quality criteria of five categories of study designs: (a) qualitative, (b) randomized controlled trial, (c) nonrandomized, (d) quantitative descriptive and (e) mixed methods studies. The MMAT focuses on core relevant methodological criteria and has five criteria per category of study design. Conclusion: The MMAT offers an alternative solution by proposing a unique tool that can appraise the quality of different study designs. Also, by limiting to core criteria, the MMAT can provide a more time efficient appraisal.

Objective: The mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) was developed for critically appraising different study designs. This study aimed to improve the content validity of three of the five categories of studies in the MMAT by identifying relevant methodological criteria for appraising the quality of qualitative, survey, and mixed methods studies.Study Design and Setting: First, we performed a literature review to identify critical appraisal tools and extract methodological criteria. Second, we conducted a two-round modified e-Delphi technique. We asked three method-specific panels of experts to rate the relevance of each criterion on a five-point Likert scale.Results: A total of 383 criteria were extracted from 18 critical appraisal tools and a literature review on the quality of mixed methods studies, and 60 were retained. In the first and second rounds of the e-Delphi, 73 and 56 experts participated, respectively. Consensus was reached for six qualitative criteria, eight survey criteria, and seven mixed methods criteria. These results led to modifications of eight of the 11 MMAT (version 2011) criteria. Specifically, we reformulated two criteria, replaced four, and removed two. Moreover, we added six new criteria.Conclusion: Results of this study led to improve the content validity of this tool, revise it, and propose a new version (MMAT version 2018). Ó

No abstract

Transitions in care from hospital to primary care for older patients with chronic diseases (CD) are complex and lead to increased mortality and service use. In response to these challenges, transitional care (TC) interventions are being widely implemented. They encompass education on self-management, discharge planning, structured follow-up and coordination among the different healthcare professionals. We conducted a systematic review to determine the effectiveness of interventions targeting transitions from hospital to the primary care setting for chronically ill older patients.. Randomized controlled trials were identified through Medline, CINHAL, PsycInfo, EMBASE (1995-2015). Two independent reviewers performed the study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality (Cochrane "Risk of Bias"). Risk differences (RD) and number needed to treat (NNT) or mean differences (MD) were calculated using a random-effects model. From 10,234 references, 92 studies were included. Compared to usual care, significantly better outcomes were observed: a lower mortality at 3 (RD: -0.02 [-0.05, 0.00]; NNT: 50), 6, 12 and 18 months post-discharge, a lower rate of ED visits at 3 months (RD: -0.08 [-0.15, -0.01]; NNT: 13), a lower rate of readmissions at 3 (RD: -0.08 [-0.14, -0.03]; NNT: 7), 6, 12 and 18 months and a lower mean of readmission days at 3 (MD: -1.33; [-2.15, -0.52]), 6, 12 and 18 months. No significant differences were observed in quality of life. In conclusion, TC improves transitions for older patients and should be included in the reorganization of healthcare services.

Since 1989, four Canadian Consensus Conferences on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Dementia (CCCDTD) have provided evidence‐based dementia guidelines for Canadian clinicians and researchers. We present the results of the 5th CCCDTD, which convened in October 2019, to address topics chosen by the steering committee to reflect advances in the field, and build on previous guidelines. Topics included: (1) utility of the National Institute on Aging research framework for clinical Alzheimer's disease (AD) diagnosis; (2) updating diagnostic criteria for vascular cognitive impairment, and its management; (3) dementia case finding and detection; (4) neuroimaging and fluid biomarkers in diagnosis; (5) use of non‐cognitive markers of dementia for better dementia detection; (6) risk reduction/prevention; (7) psychosocial and non‐pharmacological interventions; and (8) deprescription of medications used to treat dementia. We hope the guidelines are useful for clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and the lay public, to inform a current and evidence‐based approach to dementia.

PURPOSE We aimed to determine the impact of transitional care interventions (TCIs) on acute health service use by patients with congestive heart failure in primary care and to identify the most effective TCIs and their optimal duration. METHODSWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, searching the Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the impact of TCI on all-cause hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits. We developed a taxonomy of TCIs based on intensity and assessed the methodologic quality of the trials. We calculated the relative risk (RR) and a 95% confidence interval for each outcome. We conducted a stratified analysis to identify the most effective TCIs and their optimal duration. RESULTSWe identified 41 randomized controlled trials. TCIs significantly reduced risks of readmission and ED visits by 8% and 29%, respectively (relative risk = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.87-0.98; P = .006 and relative risk = 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51-0.98; P = .04). High-intensity TCIs (combining home visits with telephone followup, clinic visits, or both) reduced readmission risk regardless of the duration of follow-up. Moderate-intensity TCIs were efficacious if implemented for a longer duration (at least 6 months). In contrast, low-intensity TCIs, entailing only followup in outpatient clinics or telephone follow-up, were not efficacious. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians and managers who implement TCIs in primary carecan incorporate these results with their own health care context to determine the optimal balance between intensity and duration of TCIs. High-intensity interventions seem to be the best option. Moderate-intensity interventions implemented for 6 months or longer may be another option. INTRODUCTIONC ongestive heart failure (CHF) imposes an increasingly heavy burden on health care systems, most of which can be attributed to numerous hospital readmissions and emergency department (ED) visits. [1][2][3] Multiple exacerbations of CHF result in frequent use of acute health care services by these patients, known as revolving door users. After discharge, 25% of patients are readmitted within the first 30 days, 4,5 and 50% within the first 6 months. 6,7 This frequent use of health care services is mainly due to lack of understanding of a treatment plan, nonadherence to medical therapy, unawareness of CHF symptom exacerbation, and irregular follow-up. [8][9][10][11][12] Lack of coordination and communication between hospitalists and primary care physicians (PCPs) has been documented. 13,14 PCPs too often do not receive discharge summaries, 15 and when they do receive them, the summaries often lack appropriate documentation of medication indication and advice for follow-up. It is therefore difficult for PCPs to plan an appropriate follow-up after hospital discharge. 16To address these issues, transitional care interventions (TCIs) have been implemented with a common objective of reducing the rate of hos- 563pital readmis...

PURPOSE Dementia case management (CM) in primary care is a complex intervention aimed at identifying the various needs of patients with dementia and their caregivers, as well as the organization and coordination of care. A key element of CM is the collaboration of family physicians with case managers. We conducted a systematic mixed-studies review to identify the needs of the patientcaregiver dyad and the effects of CM. METHODSWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and EMBASE up to October 2014, regardless of the study design. Our main outcomes were needs of patients and their caregivers and the effects of CM on these needs. We used narrative syntheses to develop a taxonomy of needs and to describe the effects of CM on those needs. We used meta-analysis to calculate the prevalence of needs and the standardized mean differences to evaluate the effects of CM on the needs identified.RESULTS Fifty-four studies were included. We identified needs of the patientcaregiver dyad and needs of the patient and caregiver individually. CM addressed the majority of the identified needs. Still, some very common needs (eg, early diagnosis) are overlooked while other needs (eg, education on the disease) are well addressed. Fully establishing the value of CM is difficult given the small number of studies of CM in primary care.CONCLUSIONS There is good evidence that case managers, in collaboration with family physicians, have a pivotal role in addressing the needs of the patientcaregiver dyad. 2016;14:166-177. doi: 10.1370/afm.1898. Ann Fam Med INTRODUCTIONT he proportion of people with dementia is growing dramatically. According to the US Alzheimer's Association, by 2030, 50% of Americans aged 65 years and older will be diagnosed with dementia. 1 In Canada in 2011, 747,000 Canadians lived with cognitive impairment.2 Today, the combined costs are $33 billion per year, 1 and they are projected to increase to $872 billion by 2038. 3,4 Worldwide, dementia is the main contributor to disability-adjusted life years (11.2%), representing a greater burden than cerebral vascular accident (9.5%), heart disease (5.0%), or cancer (2.4%). 5People with dementia need help with challenging changes in behavior, memory, physical disability, and mood. 6 The main source of help is family caregivers, who often suffer from the burdens of caregiving and from depression and health problems. 7 It has been shown that early intervention makes the greatest difference in management of symptoms. 1 The World Health Organization states that it would be challenging to intervene without effective involvement of primary care. 8 Dementia case management (CM) interventions are becoming a central component of primary health care organizations in North America and Europe. [9][10][11][12] According to the 167Case Management Society of America, case management is "a collaborative process of assessment, planning, facilitation, care coordination, evaluation, and advocacy for options and services to meet an individual's and family's comprehensive health needs through communi...

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to examine factors associated with the implementation of case management (CM) interventions in primary health care (PHC) and to develop strategies to enhance its adoption by PHC practices.MethodsThis study was designed as a systematic mixed studies review (including quantitative and qualitative studies) with synthesis based on the diffusion of innovation model. A literature search was performed using MEDLINE, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database (1995 to August 2012) to identify quantitative (randomized controlled and nonrandomized) and qualitative studies describing the conditions limiting and facilitating successful CM implementation in PHC. The methodological quality of each included study was assessed using the validated Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.ResultsTwenty-three studies (eleven quantitative and 12 qualitative) were included. The characteristics of CM that negatively influence implementation are low CM intensity (eg, infrequent follow-up), large caseload (more than 60 patients per full-time case manager), and approach, ie, reactive rather than proactive. Case managers need specific skills to perform their role (eg, good communication skills) and their responsibilities in PHC need to be clearly delineated.ConclusionOur systematic review supports a better understanding of factors that can explain inconsistent evidence with regard to the outcomes of dementia CM in PHC. Lastly, strategies are proposed to enhance implementation of dementia CM in PHC.