OBJECTIVE: This study provides a comprehensive overview of the knowledge structure and research hotspots regarding barriers and strategies for the implementation of clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: Publications on barriers and strategies for guideline implementation were searched for on Web of Science Core Collection from database inception to October 24, 2022. R package bibliometrix, VOSviewer, and CiteSpace were used to conduct the analysis. RESULTS: The search yielded 21,768 records from 3,975 journals by 99,998 authors from 3,964 institutions in 186 countries between 1983 and 2022. The number of published papers had a roughly increasing trend annually. The United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada contributed the majority of records. The University of Toronto, the University of Washington, and the University of Sydney were the biggest node in their cluster on the collaboration network map. The three journals that published the greatest number of relevant studies were Implementation Science, BMJ Open, and BMC Health Services Research. Grimshaw JM was the author with the most published articles, and was the second most co-cited author. Research hotspots in this field focused on public health and education, evidence-based medicine and quality promotion, diagnosis and treatment, and knowledge translation and barriers. Challenges and barriers, as well as societal impacts and inequalities, are likely to be key directions for future research. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first bibliometric study to comprehensively summarize the research trends of research on barriers and strategies for clinical practice guideline implementation. A better understanding of collaboration patterns and research hotspots may be useful for researchers. SPANISH ABSTRACT: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A247.

Background Metabolic disorders exhibit strong inflammatory underpinnings and vice versa. This study aimed to investigate the association between metabolic health status, genetic predisposition, and the risk of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), and to explore the potential benefits of maintaining ideal metabolic status for individuals with a predetermined genetic risk of IBD. Method This population-based prospective study included 385,820 unrelated European descent participants from the UK Biobank. Using multivariable Cox regression, we assessed the relationship of metabolic phenotypes with risk of IBD and its subtypes. We also developed a polygenic risk score to examine how metabolic health status interacted with genetic risk in relation to IBD risk. Results During the follow-up period of 4,328,895 person-years, 2,044 newly-diagnosed IBD cases were identified. Higher genetic risk and an increasing number of abnormal metabolic phenotypes were associated with elevated IBD risk (p-trend <0.001). Individuals with high genetic risk and poor metabolic health had a significantly higher risk of IBD (HR=4.56, 95 % CI=3.27–6.36) compared to those with low genetic risk and ideal metabolic health. These results remained consistent for IBD subtypes. Maintaining ideal metabolic status reduced IBD risk within each genetic risk category and jointly decreased subsequent risk by 40 % in high genetic risk individuals. Conclusion Our study reveals a combined impact of poor metabolic health and genetic risk on IBD incidence. Those with low genetic risk and optimal metabolic health exhibit the lowest IBD risk, offering insights into potential management strategies for individuals at predefined genetic risk.

Background: There has been a growing interest in using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment to reimburse inpatient care worldwide. But its effects on healthcare and health outcomes are controversial, and the evidence from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is especially scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in China. Method: A systematic review was conducted. We searched literature databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed for empirical studies examining the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare in mainland China. We performed a narrative synthesis of outcomes regarding expenditure, efficiency, quality and equity of healthcare, and assessed the quality of evidence. Results: Twenty-three publications representing thirteen DRGs payment studies were included, including six controlled before after studies, two interrupted time series studies and five uncontrolled before-after studies. All studies compared DRGs payment to fee-for-service, with or without an overall budget, in settings of tertiary (7), secondary (7) and primary care (1). The involved participants varied from specific groups to all inpatients. DRGs payment mildly reduced the length of stay. Impairment of equity of healthcare was consistently reported, especially for patients exempted from DRGs payment, including: patient selection, cost-shifting and inferior quality of healthcare. However, findings on total expenditure, out of pocket payment (OOP) and quality of healthcare were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low due to the study design and potential risk of bias of included studies. Conclusion: DRGs payment may mildly improve the efficiency but impair the equity and quality of healthcare, especially for patients exempted from this payment scheme, and may cause up-coding of medical records. However, DRGs payment may or may not contain the total expenditure or OOP, depending on the components design of the payment. Policymakers should very carefully consider each component of DRGs payment design against policy goals. Well-designed randomised trials or comparative studies are warranted to consolidate the evidence of the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in LMICs to inform policymaking.

BACKGROUND: There has been a growing interest in using diagnosis-related groups (DRGs) payment to reimburse inpatient care worldwide. But its effects on healthcare and health outcomes are controversial, and the evidence from low- and middle- income countries (LMICs) is especially scarce. The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in China. METHOD: A systematic review was conducted. We searched literature databases of PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and SinoMed for empirical studies examining the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare in mainland China. We performed a narrative synthesis of outcomes regarding expenditure, efficiency, quality and equity of healthcare, and assessed the quality of evidence. RESULTS: Twenty-three publications representing thirteen DRGs payment studies were included, including six controlled before after studies, two interrupted time series studies and five uncontrolled before-after studies. All studies compared DRGs payment to fee-for-service, with or without an overall budget, in settings of tertiary (7), secondary (7) and primary care (1). The involved participants varied from specific groups to all inpatients. DRGs payment mildly reduced the length of stay. Impairment of equity of healthcare was consistently reported, especially for patients exempted from DRGs payment, including: patient selection, cost-shifting and inferior quality of healthcare. However, findings on total expenditure, out of pocket payment (OOP) and quality of healthcare were inconsistent. The quality of the evidence was generally low or very low due to the study design and potential risk of bias of included studies. CONCLUSION: DRGs payment may mildly improve the efficiency but impair the equity and quality of healthcare, especially for patients exempted from this payment scheme, and may cause up-coding of medical records. However, DRGs payment may or may not contain the total expenditure or OOP, depending on the components design of the payment. Policymakers should very carefully consider each component of DRGs payment design against policy goals. Well-designed randomised trials or comparative studies are warranted to consolidate the evidence of the effects of DRGs payment on healthcare and health outcomes in LMICs to inform policymaking.

Background Long-term use of evidence-based medications is recommended by international guidelines for the management of stable coronary artery disease, however, non-adherence to medications is common. This meta-analysis aims to systematically evaluate the impact of medication adherence on clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease. Methods Articles from January 1960-December 2015 were retrieved from the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases without any language restriction. A meta-analysis was performed to investigate the risk ratios of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction/hospitalization between groups with good medication adherence and poor medication adherence. Studies were independently reviewed by two investigators. Data from eligible studies were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed using R Version 3.1.0 software. Results A total of 10 studies were included in the analysis, with a total of 106,002 coronary artery disease patients. The results showed that good adherence to evidence-based medication regimens, including β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin receptor blockers, antiplatelet drugs, and statins, was related to a lower risk of all-cause mortality(risk ratio 0.56; 95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.69), cardiovascular mortality(risk ratio 0.66; 95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.87), and cardiovascular hospitalization/myocardial infarction(risk ratio 0.61; 95% confidence interval: 0.45-0.82). Conclusions This meta-analysis confirms the significant impact of good medication adherence on clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease. More strategy and planning are needed to improve medication adherence.

BACKGROUND: Poor adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment can lead to prolonged infectivity and poor treatment outcomes. Directly observed treatment (DOT) seeks to improve adherence to TB treatment by observing patients while they take their anti-TB medication. Although community-based DOT (CB-DOT) programs have been widely studied and promoted, their effectiveness has been inconsistent. The aim of this study was to critical appraise and summarize evidence of the effects of CB-DOT on TB treatment outcomes. METHODS: Studies published up to the end of February 2015 were identified from three major international literature databases: Medline/PubMed, EBSCO, and EMBASE. Unpublished data from the grey literature were identified through Google and Google Scholar searches. RESULTS: Seventeen studies involving 12,839 pulmonary TB patients (PTB) in eight randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and nine cohort studies from 12 countries met the criteria for inclusion in this review and 14 studies were included in meta-analysis. Compared with clinic-based DOT, pooled results of RCTs for all PTB cases (including smear-negative or -positive, new or retreated TB cases) and smear-positive PTB cases indicated that CB-DOT promoted successful treatment [pooled RRs (95%CIs): 1.11 (1.02-1.19) for all PTB cases and 1.11 (1.02-1.19) for smear-positive PTB cases], and completed treatment [pooled RRs (95%CIs): 1.74(1.05, 2.90) for all PTB cases and 2.22(1.16, 4.23) for smear-positive PTB cases], reduced death [pooled RRs (95%CIs): 0.44 (0.26-0.72) for all PTB cases and 0.39 (0.23-0.66) for smear-positive PTB cases], and transfer out [pooled RRs (95%CIs): 0.37 (0.23-0.61) for all PTB cases and 0.42 (0.25-0.70) for smear-positive PTB cases]. Pooled results of all studies (RCTs and cohort studies) with all PTB cases demonstrated that CB-DOT promoted successful treatment [pooled RR (95%CI): 1.13 (1.03-1.24)] and curative treatment [pooled RR (95%CI): 1.24 (1.04-1.48)] compared with self-administered treatment. CONCLUSIONS: CB-DOT did improved TB treatment outcomes according to the pooled results of included studies in this review. Studies on strategies for implementation of patient-centered and community-centered CB-DOT deserve further attention

OBJECT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of telemedicine on changes in body mass index for overweight and obese people as well as for diabetes and hypertension patients. METHODS: A systematic review of articles published before 31 August 2014, was conducted using searches of Medline, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. The inclusion criteria were randomised controlled trials that compared telemedicine interventions with usual care or standard treatment in adults and reported a change in body mass index. A meta-analysis was conducted for eligible studies, and the primary outcome was a change in body mass index. Subgroup analysis was performed for the type of telemedicine, main purpose of intervention, and length of intervention. RESULTS: Twenty-five randomised controlled trials comprising 6253 people were included in the qualitative and quantitative analyses. The length of intervention ranged from nine weeks to two years. The meta-analysis revealed significant differences in body mass index changes (pooled difference in means = -0.49, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.34, p /= 6 months significantly decreased body mass index compared to controls. CONCLUSION: Both patients with chronic disease and overweight/obese people could benefit from telemedicine interventions. We suggest that an effective telemedicine approach should be longer than six months and emphasise the importance of post-interventional follow-ups.

BACKGROUND: Remote home management is a new healthcare model that uses information technology to enhance patients' self-management of disease in a home setting. This study is designed to identify the effects of remote home management on patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). METHODS: A comprehensive search of PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed in January 2015. The reference listings of the included articles in this review were also manually examined. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) designed to evaluate the effects of remote home management on patients with CKD were included. RESULTS: Eight trials were identified. The results of this study suggest that the quality of life (QOL) enabled by remote home management was higher than typical care in certain dimensions. However, the effects of remote home management on blood pressure (BP) remain inconclusive. The studies that assessed health service utilization demonstrated a significant decrease in hospital readmission, emergency room visits, and number of days in the hospital. Another favorable result of this study is that regardless of their gender, age or nationality, patients tend to comply with remote home management programs and the use of related technologies. CONCLUSIONS: The available data indicate that remote home management may be a novel and effective disease management strategy for improving CKD patients' QOL and influencing their attitudes and behaviors. And, relatively little is known about BP and cost-effectiveness, so future research should focus on these two aspects for the entire population of patients with CKD