Adherence to prescribed medication regimes improves outcomes for patients with severe mental illness such as schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to compare the effectiveness among interventions to improve medication adherence in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorders. Literature published in the last decade was searched for interventions studies to improve adherence in patients with schizophrenia or a bipolar disorder. Interventions were categorised on the basis of type, and the context and effectiveness of the interventions were described. Two review authors independently extracted and assessed data, following criteria outlined by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The GRADEPro (McMaster University, 2020, Ontario, Canada) was used for assessing the quality of the evidence. Twenty-three publications met the selection criteria. Different types of interventions aiming to improve adherence were tested: educational, behavioural, family-based, technological, or a combination of previous types. Meta-analysis could be performed for 10 interventions. When considered separately by subgroups on the basis of intervention type, no significant differences were found in adherence among interventions (p = 0.29; I² = 19.9%). This review concluded that successful interventions used a combination of behavioural and educational approaches that seem easy to implement in daily practice.

Background: Knowing the barriers/enablers to deprescribing in people with a life-limiting disease is crucial for the development of successful deprescribing interventions. These barriers/enablers have been studied, but the available evidence has not been summarized in a systematic review. Aim: To identify the barriers/enablers to deprescribing of medications in people with a life-limiting disease. Design: Systematic review, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42017073693). Data sources: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and CENTRAL was conducted and extended with a hand search. Peer-reviewed, primary studies reporting on barriers/enablers to deprescribing in the context of explicit life-limiting disease were included in this review. Results: A total of 1026 references were checked. Five studies met the criteria and were included in this review. Three types of barriers/enablers were found: organizational, professional and patient (family)-related barriers/enablers. The most prominent enablers were organizational support (e.g. for standardized medication review), involvement of multidisciplinary teams in medication review and the perception of the importance of coming to a joint decision regarding deprescribing, which highlighted the need for interdisciplinary collaboration and involving the patient and his family in the decision-making process. The most important barriers were shortages in staff and the perceived difficulty or resistance of the nursing home resident’s family – or the resident himself. Conclusion and implications of key findings: The scarcity of findings in the literature highlights the importance of filling this gap. Further research should focus on deepening the knowledge on these barriers/enablers in order to develop sustainable multifaceted deprescribing interventions in palliative care.

Smartphone ownership is rising at a stunning rate. Moreover, smartphones prove to be suitable for use in health care due to their availability, portability, user-friendliness, relatively low price, wireless connectivity, far-reaching computing capabilities, and comprehensive memory. To measure vital signs, smartphones are often connected to a mobile sensor or a medical device. However, by using the white light-emitting diode as light source and the phone camera as photodetector, a smartphone could be used to perform photoplethysmography (PPG), enabling the assessment of vital signs. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the available evidence on the use of smartphone apps to measure heart rate by performing PPG in comparison with a validated method. PubMed and ISI Web of Knowledge were searched for relevant studies published between January 1, 2009 and December 7, 2016. The reference lists of included studies were hand-searched to find additional eligible studies. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Diagnostic Test Study checklist and some extra items were used for quality assessment. A fixed effects model of the mean difference and a random effects model of Pearson correlation coefficient were applied to pool the outcomes of the studies. In total, 14 studies were included. The pooled result showed no significant difference between heart rate measurements with a smartphone and a validated method (mean difference -0.32; 99% CI -1.24 to 0.60; P=.37). In adults, the Pearson correlation coefficient of the relation between heart rate measurement with a smartphone and a validated method was always ≥.90. In children, the results varied depending on measuring point and heart rate. The pooled result showed a strong correlation that was significant (correlation coefficient .951; 95% CI 0.906-0.975; P<.001). The reported limits of agreement showed good agreement between a smartphone and a validated method. There was a moderately strong significant negative correlation between the year of publication of the included studies and the mean difference (r=-.69; P<.001). Smartphone apps measuring heart rate by performing PPG appear to agree with a validated method in an adult population during resting sinus rhythm. In a pediatric population, the use of these apps is currently not validated.