Background: Breast cancer (BC) clinical guidelines offer evidence-based recommendations to improve quality of healthcare for patients with or at risk of BC. Suboptimal adherence to recommendations has the potential to negatively affect population health. However, no study has systematically reviewed the impact of BC guideline adherence -as prognosis factor- on BC healthcare processes and health outcomes. The objectives are to analyse the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes and on healthcare costs.Methods: We searched systematic reviews and primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase, conducted in European Union (EU) countries (inception to May 2019). Eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and crosschecked by a second. We used random-effects meta-analyses to examine the impact of guideline adherence on overall survival and disease-free survival, and assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.Results: We included 21 primary studies. Most were published during the last decade (90%), followed a retrospective cohort design (86%), focused on treatment guideline adherence (95%), and were at low (80%) or moderate (20%) risk of bias. Nineteen studies (95%) examined the impact of guideline adherence on health outcomes, while two (10%) on healthcare cost. Adherence to guidelines was associated with increased overall survival (HR = 0.67, 95%CI 0.59–0.76) and disease-free survival (HR = 0.35, 95%CI 0.15–0.82), representing 138 more survivors (96 more to 178 more) and 336 patients free of recurrence (73 more to 491 more) for every 1000 women receiving adherent CG treatment compared to those receiving non-adherent treatment at 5 years follow-up (moderate certainty). Adherence to treatment guidelines was associated with higher costs, but adherence to follow-up guidelines was associated with lower costs (low certainty).Conclusions: Our review of EU studies suggests that there is moderate certainty that adherence to BC guidelines is associated with an improved survival. BC guidelines should be rigorously implemented in the clinical setting.Trial registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).

Background Self-management (SM) interventions are supportive interventions systematically provided by healthcare professionals, peers, or laypersons to increase the skills and confidence of patients in their ability to manage chronic diseases. We had two objectives: (1) to summarise the preferences and experiences of patients and their caregivers (informal caregivers and healthcare professionals) with SM in four chronic diseases and (2) to identify and describe the relevant outcomes for SM interventions from these perspectives. Methods We conducted a mixed-methods scoping review of reviews. We searched three databases until December 2020 for quantitative, qualitative, or mixed-methods reviews exploring patients’ and caregivers’ preferences or experiences with SM in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), obesity, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and heart failure (HF). Quantitative data were narratively synthesised, and qualitative data followed a three-step descriptive thematic synthesis. Identified themes were categorised into outcomes or modifiable factors of SM interventions. Results We included 148 reviews covering T2DM (n = 53 [35.8%]), obesity (n = 20 [13.5%]), COPD (n = 32 [21.6%]), HF (n = 38 [25.7%]), and those with more than one disease (n = 5 [3.4%]). We identified 12 main themes. Eight described the process of SM (disease progression, SM behaviours, social support, interaction with healthcare professionals, access to healthcare, costs for patients, culturally defined roles and perceptions, and health knowledge), and four described their experiences with SM interventions (the perceived benefit of the intervention, individualised care, sense of community with peers, and usability of equipment). Most themes and subthemes were categorised as outcomes of SM interventions. Conclusion The process of SM shaped the perspectives of patients and their caregivers on SM interventions. Their perspectives were influenced by the perceived benefit of the intervention, the sense of community with peers, the intervention’s usability, and the level of individualised care. Our findings can inform the selection of patient-important outcomes, decision-making processes, including the formulation of recommendations, and the design and implementation of SM interventions.

Background: Chagas disease has spread beyond its original borders on the American continent with migration. It can be transmitted from mother to child, through organ transplantation and transfusion of blood and blood products. It is necessary to determine when to screen for this infection. Aim: Our objective was to evaluate the appropriateness of screening for Trypanosoma cruzi infection in Latin American migrants and their descendants. Methods: We reviewed the literature using rigorous criteria. The quality of evidence was ranked according to the GRADE classification. An evidence to decision framework was adopted to provide information on the most relevant aspects necessary to formulate recommendations. Results: The 33 studies evaluated revealed a prevalence of T. cruzi infection among Latin American migrants in Europe of 6.08% (95% confidence interval (CI): 3.24–9.69; 28 studies). Vertical transmission occurred in three of 100 live births (95% CI: 1–6; 13 studies). The prevalence of cardiovascular disease was 19% (95% CI: 13–27; nine studies), including only 1% severe cardiac events (95% CI: 0–2; 11 studies). The overall quality of evidence was low because of risk of bias in the studies and considerable heterogeneity of the evaluated populations. The recommendations took into account economic studies on the value of screening strategies and studies on acceptability of screening and knowledge of the disease in the affected population. Conclusions: We identified five situations in which screening for T. cruzi infection is indicated. We recommend screening persons from endemic areas and children of mothers from these areas.

Purpose: Clinical guidelines’ (CGs) adherence supports high-quality care. However, healthcare providers do not always comply with CGs recommendations. This systematic literature review aims to assess the extent of healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe and to identify the factors that impact on healthcare providers’ adherence. Methods: We searched for systematic reviews and quantitative or qualitative primary studies in MEDLINE and Embase up to May 2019. The eligibility assessment, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted by one author and cross-checked by a second author. We conducted a narrative synthesis attending to the modality of the healthcare process, methods to measure adherence, the scope of the CGs, and population characteristics. Results: Out of 8137 references, we included 41 primary studies conducted in eight European countries. Most followed a retrospective cohort design (19/41; 46%) and were at low or moderate risk of bias. Adherence for overall breast cancer care process (from diagnosis to follow-up) ranged from 54 to 69%; for overall treatment process [including surgery, chemotherapy (CT), endocrine therapy (ET), and radiotherapy (RT)] the median adherence was 57.5% (interquartile range (IQR) 38.8–67.3%), while for systemic therapy (CT and ET) it was 76% (IQR 68–77%). The median adherence for the processes assessed individually was higher, ranging from 74% (IQR 10–80%), for the follow-up, to 90% (IQR 87–92.5%) for ET. Internal factors that potentially impact on healthcare providers’ adherence were their perceptions, preferences, lack of knowledge, or intentional decisions. Conclusions: A substantial proportion of breast cancer patients are not receiving CGs-recommended care. Healthcare providers’ adherence to breast cancer CGs in Europe has room for improvement in almost all care processes. CGs development and implementation processes should address the main factors that influence healthcare providers' adherence, especially patient-related ones. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42018092884).