Background: Adherence rates of preventative medication for cardiovascular disease (CVD) have been reported as 57%, and approximately 9% of all CVD events in Europe are attributable to poor medication adherence. Mobile health technologies, particularly mobile apps, have the potential to improve medication adherence and clinical outcomes.Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the effects of mobile health care apps on medication adherence and health-related outcomes in patients with CVD. This study also evaluates apps’ functionality and usability and the involvement of health care professionals in their use.Methods: Electronic databases (MEDLINE [Ovid], PubMed Central, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, PsycINFO [Ovid], Embase [Ovid], and Google Scholar) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate app-based interventions aimed at improving medication adherence in patients with CVD. RCTs published in English from inception to January 2020 were reviewed. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess the included studies. Meta-analysis was performed for clinical outcomes and medication adherence, with meta-regression analysis used to evaluate the impact of app intervention duration on medication adherence.Results: This study included 16 RCTs published within the last 6 years. In total, 12 RCTs reported medication adherence as the primary outcome, which is the most commonly self-reported adherence. The duration of the interventions ranged from 1 to 12 months, and sample sizes ranged from 24 to 412. Medication adherence rates showed statistically significant improvements in 9 RCTs when compared with the control, and meta-analysis of the 6 RCTs reporting continuous data showed a significant overall effect in favor of the app intervention (mean difference 0.90, 95% CI 0.03-1.78) with a high statistical heterogeneity (I2=93.32%). Moreover, 9 RCTs assessed clinical outcomes and reported an improvement in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels in the intervention arm. Meta-analysis of these clinical outcomes from 6 RCTs favored app interventions, but none were significant. In the 7 trials evaluating app usability, all were found to be acceptable. There was a great variation in the app characteristics. A total of 10 RCTs involved health care professionals, mainly physicians and nurses, in the app-based interventions. The apps had mixed functionality: 2 used education, 7 delivered reminders, and 7 provided reminders in combination with educational support.Conclusions: Apps tended to increase medication adherence, but interventions varied widely in design, content, and delivery. Apps have an acceptable degree of usability; yet the app characteristics conferring usability and effectiveness are ill-defined. Future large-scale studies should focus on identifying the essential active components of successful apps.Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019121385; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=121385

Aims: To conduct a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the effectiveness of general practice‐based pharmacist interventions in reducing the medical risk factors for the primary prevention of cardiovascular events.Methods: A systemic search was undertaken in 8 databases: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBAS, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Plus, SCOPUS and Science Citation Index, with no start date up to 27 March 2019. Randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness of pharmacist‐led interventions delivered in the general practice in reducing the medical risk factors of cardiovascular events were included in the review. The risk of bias in the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Results: A total of 1604 studies were identified, with 21 randomised controlled trials (8933 patients) meeting the inclusion criteria. Fourteen studies were conducted in patients with diabetes, 7 in hypertension, 2 involving dyslipidaemia, and 2 with hypertension and diabetes together. The most frequently used interventions were medication review and medication management. The quality of the included studies was variable. Patients receiving pharmacist‐led interventions were associated with a statistically significant reduction in their systolic blood pressure (−9.33 mmHg [95% Confidence Interval (CI) −13.36 to −5.30]), haemoglobin A1C (−0.76% [95% CI −1.15 to −0.37]) and low‐density lipoprotein–cholesterol (−15.19 mg/dL [95% CI −24.05 to −6.33]). Moreover, practice‐based pharmacists' interventions were also reported to have a positive impact on patient adherence to medications.Conclusion: The findings of this review suggest that pharmacist‐led interventions in general practice can significantly reduce the medical risk factors of cardiovascular disease events. These findings support the involvement of pharmacists as healthcare providers in managing patients with hypertension, diabetes and dyslipidaemia.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health status of healthcare professionals (HCPs) and undergraduate students in the health sciences center (HSCUs). In addition, it explored the factors associated with the increased levels of mental health burden among the study population. Methods: A cross-sectional study was performed using two online-administered questionnaires: the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-item (GAD-7), which were distributed in parallel to HCPs and HSCUs in Kuwait. These instruments are validated assessment scales to assess mental health status: depression (PHQ-9) and anxiety (GAD-7). Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS- version 25. Results: A total of 857 individuals (559 HCPs and 298 HSCUs) participated in this study. The prevalence of moderately severe depression or severe depression (PHQ-9 total score of ≥15) among respondents was 66.6%. The median (interquartile range, IQR) PHQ-9 score was significantly higher among HSCUs (20 {11.5}) compared to HCPs (17 {8}). The prevalence of severe anxiety (GAD-7 total score of ≥15) among respondents was 36.7%. There were no significant differences between the median (IQR) GAD-7 scores among the HCPs (14 {7}) and HSCUs (13 {8}). Binary logistic regression analysis revealed that three variables were significantly and independently associated with severe depression among HCPs. The prevalence of severe depression was found to be greater among females compared to males. In addition, it was significantly lower among those who were aged ≥50 years, and those who reported that they were not in direct contact with COVID-19 patients. Among HSCUs, females showed greater depression than males. In contrast, those aged >29 years and who had no history of chronic disease showed lower depression compared to their counterparts in the 18–29 years age group and who had a chronic disease history. Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant negative impact on the mental health of HCPs and HSCUs in Kuwait. This highlights the need for proactive efforts to support their mental health and well-being through educational campaigns and psychological support programs.

A systematic review and network-meta analysis (NMA) were performed to estimate significance of the anxiolytic effect of lavender essential oil taken as silexan capsules versus other comparators (i.e., placebo/paroxetine/lorazepam). The outcome of interest was Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA). Weighted mean differences (WMD) were calculated to estimate the treatment effect at the confidence interval of 95%. League tables were generated using treatment effect, for all pairwise comparisons, where WMD < 0 favors the column-defining treatment. Five studies were identified with a total of 524 participants receiving treatment with silexan 80 mg and 121 participants taking silexan 160 mg. The NMA results indicated that consumption of silexan 160 mg resulted in higher decline of HAMA score [WMD −1.14 (−1.10, 3.39)] in comparison to silexan 80 mg, placebo [−2.20 (−4.64, 0.24)] and paroxetine [−1.24 (−5.34, 2.85)]. The effect of silexan 80 mg was observed to be same as that of paroxetine. Overall, silexan 160 mg was noticed to be a more efficient treatment giving significant decline in HAMA score across other comparators. However, no improvements in HAMA score was observed for the group receiving lorazepam 0.5 mg when compared to silexan 160 mg, silexan 80 mg, paroxetine 20 mg, and placebo.

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the impact of regularity in treatment follow-up appointments on treatment outcomes among hypertensive patients attending different healthcare settings in Islamabad, Pakistan. Additionally, factors associated with regularity in treatment follow-up were also identified.Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken in selected primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare settings between September, 2017 and December, 2018 in Islamabad, Pakistan. A structured data collection form was used to gather sociodemographic and clinical data of recruited patients. Binary logistic regression analyses were undertaken to determine association between regularity in treatment follow-up appointments and blood pressure control and to determine covariates significantly associated with regularity in treatment follow-up appointments.Results: A total of 662 patients with hypertension participated in the study. More than half 346 (52%) of the patients were females. The mean age of participants was 54 ± 12 years. Only 274 (41%) patients regularly attended treatment follow-up appointments. Regression analysis found that regular treatment follow-up was an independent predictor of controlled blood pressure (OR 1.561 [95% CI 1.102–2.211;P = 0.024]). Gender (OR 1.720 [95% CI 1.259–2.350;P = 0.001]), age (OR 1.462 [CI 95%:1.059–2.020;P = 0.021]), higher education (OR 1.7 [95% CI 1.041–2.778;P = 0.034]), entitlement to free medical care (OR 3.166 [95% CI 2.284–4.388;P = 0.0001]), treatment duration (OR 1.788 [95% CI 1.288–2.483;P = 0.001]), number of medications (OR 1.585 [95% CI 1.259–1.996;P = 0.0001]), presence of co-morbidity (OR 3.214 [95% CI 2.248–4.593;P = 0.0001]) and medication adherence (OR 6.231 [95% CI 4.264–9.106;P = 0.0001]) were significantly associated with regularity in treatment follow-up appointments.Conclusion: Attendance at follow-up visits was alarmingly low among patients with hypertension in Pakistan which may explain poor treatment outcomes in patients. Evidence-based targeted interventions should be developed and implemented, considering local needs, to improve attendance at treatment follow-up appointments.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the knowledge and practices of the general public in the Middle Eastern countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: A cross-sectional study using an online survey was conducted between the 19th of March and the 6th of April 2020 in three Middle Eastern countries (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait) to explore the knowledge and practices of the Middle Eastern population regarding COVID-19. A previously developed questionnaire was adapted and used for this study. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to identify predictors of COVID-19 knowledge. Results: A total of 1208 participants (members of the public) participated from the three countries (Jordan = 389, Saudi Arabia = 433, and Kuwait = 386). The majority of participants (n = 810, 67.2%) were females aged 30 to 49 years (n = 501, 41.5%). Participants had moderate overall COVID-19 knowledge, with a mean (SD) score of 7.93 (±1.72) out of 12 (66.1%). Participants had better knowledge about disease prevention and control (83.0%), whereas the lowest sub-scale scores were for questions about disease transmission routes (43.3%). High education level was an important predictor of greater COVID-19 knowledge scores (p < 0.01). Conclusions: Further public education is needed to address the relatively low level of education regarding the transmission of COVID-19 in the Middle Eastern countries. Policymakers are recommended to develop informative COVID-19 related campaigns that specifically target young people (university students), unemployed individuals, and those with lower levels of education.