Evaluation and pilot implementation of essential interventions for the management of hypertension and prevention of cardiovascular diseases in primary health care in the Republic of Tajikistan.
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 May 2021
18 May 2021
Historique:
received:
29
08
2020
accepted:
06
05
2021
entrez:
19
5
2021
pubmed:
20
5
2021
medline:
21
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of implementing and evaluating essential interventions for the management of hypertension and prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary healthcare in Tajikistan. The study protocol was published a priori. A pragmatic, sequential, mixed methods explanatory design was piloted. The quantitative strand is reported here. All primary health care facilities that met inclusion criteria in Shahrinav district were included and computer randomized to either usual care or intervention. The intervention consisted of: adaptation of WHO PEN/HEARTS clinical algorithms for hypertension and diabetes, a two-day training of doctors and nurses, supportive supervision visits, clinical decision support tools, and quality improvement support. Data were collected from paper-based clinical records at baseline and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was blood pressure control among patients with hypertension, in addition to several secondary process indicators along the care pathway. Age and sex adjusted logistic regression models were used for intervention and control clinics to determine changes between baseline and follow-up and to assess interactions between allocation group and time. For continuous variables, multivariate linear regression models were used. 19 primary health care centres were included of which ten were randomized to intervention and nine to control. 120 clinicians received training. The records of all registered hypertensive patients were reviewed at baseline and follow-up for a total of 1,085 patient records. Blood pressure control significantly improved in the intervention clinics (OR 3.556, 95 % CI 2.219, 5.696) but not the control clinics (OR 0.644, 95 % CI 0.370, 1.121) (p < 0.001 for interaction). Smoking assessment, statin prescribing, triple therapy prescribing, and blood pressure measurement significantly improved in intervention clinics relative to control, whereas cholesterol and glucose testing, and aspirin prescribing did not. It is feasible to use routine, paper-based, clinical records to evaluate essential CVD interventions in primary health care in Tajikistan. Adapted WHO PEN/HEARTS guidelines in the context of a complex intervention significantly improved blood pressure control after 12 months.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility of implementing and evaluating essential interventions for the management of hypertension and prevention of cardiovascular disease in primary healthcare in Tajikistan.
METHODS
METHODS
The study protocol was published a priori. A pragmatic, sequential, mixed methods explanatory design was piloted. The quantitative strand is reported here. All primary health care facilities that met inclusion criteria in Shahrinav district were included and computer randomized to either usual care or intervention. The intervention consisted of: adaptation of WHO PEN/HEARTS clinical algorithms for hypertension and diabetes, a two-day training of doctors and nurses, supportive supervision visits, clinical decision support tools, and quality improvement support. Data were collected from paper-based clinical records at baseline and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome was blood pressure control among patients with hypertension, in addition to several secondary process indicators along the care pathway. Age and sex adjusted logistic regression models were used for intervention and control clinics to determine changes between baseline and follow-up and to assess interactions between allocation group and time. For continuous variables, multivariate linear regression models were used.
RESULTS
RESULTS
19 primary health care centres were included of which ten were randomized to intervention and nine to control. 120 clinicians received training. The records of all registered hypertensive patients were reviewed at baseline and follow-up for a total of 1,085 patient records. Blood pressure control significantly improved in the intervention clinics (OR 3.556, 95 % CI 2.219, 5.696) but not the control clinics (OR 0.644, 95 % CI 0.370, 1.121) (p < 0.001 for interaction). Smoking assessment, statin prescribing, triple therapy prescribing, and blood pressure measurement significantly improved in intervention clinics relative to control, whereas cholesterol and glucose testing, and aspirin prescribing did not.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
It is feasible to use routine, paper-based, clinical records to evaluate essential CVD interventions in primary health care in Tajikistan. Adapted WHO PEN/HEARTS guidelines in the context of a complex intervention significantly improved blood pressure control after 12 months.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34006266
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06490-5
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06490-5
pmc: PMC8132349
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
472Subventions
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : 001
Pays : International
Organisme : Government of Russian Federation
ID : Government of Russian Federation
Organisme : World Health Organization
ID : World Health Organization
Pays : International
Organisme : CDC HHS
ID : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Pays : United States
Références
F1000Res. 2016 Oct 14;5:2522
pubmed: 28357040
BMJ Glob Health. 2020 Feb 12;5(2):e002111
pubmed: 32133194
Confl Health. 2017 Jul 17;11:14
pubmed: 28725259
BMJ Glob Health. 2018 Dec 30;3(6):e001077
pubmed: 30687524
F1000Res. 2019 Sep 13;8:1639
pubmed: 32953086
J Hypertens. 2014 May;32(5):961-73
pubmed: 24577409
Eur J Public Health. 2020 Dec 11;30(6):1146-1151
pubmed: 32298428
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Dec 3;19(1):925
pubmed: 31796016