One potential solution to limited healthcare access in low and middle income countries (LMIC) is task-shifting- the training of non-physician healthcare workers (NPHWs) to perform tasks traditionally undertaken by physicians. The aim of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of studies involving task-shifting for the management of non-communicable disease (NCD) in LMIC. A search strategy with the following terms “task-shifting”, “non-physician healthcare workers”, “community healthcare worker”, “hypertension”, “diabetes”, “cardiovascular disease”, “mental health”, “depression”, “chronic obstructive pulmonary disease”, “respiratory disease”, “cancer” was conducted using Medline via Pubmed and the Cochrane library. Two reviewers independently reviewed the databases and extracted the data. Our search generated 7176 articles of which 22 were included in the review. Seven studies were randomised controlled trials and 15 were observational studies. Tasks performed by NPHWs included screening for NCDs and providing primary health care. The majority of studies showed improved health outcomes when compared with usual healthcare, including reductions in blood pressure, increased uptake of medications and lower depression scores. Factors such as training of NPHWs, provision of algorithms and protocols for screening, treatment and drug titration were the main enablers of the task-shifting intervention. The main barriers identified were restrictions on prescribing medications and availability of medicines. Only two studies described cost-effective analyses, both of which demonstrated that task-shifting was cost-effective. Task-shifting from physicians to NPHWs, if accompanied by health system re-structuring is a potentially effective and affordable strategy for improving access to healthcare for NCDs. Since the majority of study designs reviewed were of inadequate quality, future research methods should include robust evaluations of such strategies.

Background: Electronic health (eHealth) literacy is a growing area of research parallel to the ongoing development of eHealth interventions. There is, however, little and conflicting information regarding the factors that influence eHealth literacy, notably in chronic disease. We are similarly ill-informed about the relationship between eHealth and health literacy, 2 related yet distinct health-related literacies. Objective: The aim of our study was to investigate the demographic, socioeconomic, technology use, and health literacy predictors of eHealth literacy in a population with moderate-to-high cardiovascular risk. Methods: Demographic and socioeconomic data were collected from 453 participants of the CONNECT (Consumer Navigation of Electronic Cardiovascular Tools) study, which included age, gender, education, income, cardiovascular-related polypharmacy, private health care, main electronic device use, and time spent on the Internet. Participants also completed an eHealth Literacy Scale (eHEALS) and a Health Literacy Questionnaire (HLQ). Univariate analyses were performed to compare patient demographic and socioeconomic characteristics between the low (eHEALS<26) and high (eHEALS≥26) eHealth literacy groups. To then determine the predictors of low eHealth literacy, multiple-adjusted generalized estimating equation logistic regression model was used. This technique was also used to examine the correlation between eHealth literacy and health literacy for 4 predefined literacy themes: navigating resources, skills to use resources, usefulness for oneself, and critical evaluation. Results: The univariate analysis showed that patients with lower eHealth literacy were older (68 years vs 66 years, P=.01), had lower level of education (P=.007), and spent less time on the Internet (P<.001). However, multiple-adjusted generalized estimating equation logistic regression model demonstrated that only the time spent on the Internet (P=.01) was associated with the level of eHealth literacy. Regarding the comparison between the eHEALS items and HLQ scales, a positive linear relationship was found for the themes “usefulness for oneself” (P=.049) and “critical evaluation” (P=.01). Conclusions: This study shows the importance of evaluating patients’ familiarity with the Internet as reflected, in part, by the time spent on the Internet. It also shows the importance of specifically assessing eHealth literacy in conjunction with a health literacy assessment in order to assess patients’ navigational knowledge and skills using the Internet, specific to the use of eHealth applications.

Most individuals at high cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk worldwide do not receive any or optimal preventive drugs. We aimed to determine whether fixed dose combinations of generic drugs (‘polypills’) would promote use of such medications. We conducted a randomized, open-label trial involving 623 participants from Australian general practices. Participants had established CVD or an estimated five-year CVD risk of ≥15%, with indications for antiplatelet, statin and ≥2 blood pressure lowering drugs (‘combination treatment’). Participants randomized to the ‘polypill-based strategy’ received a polypill containing aspirin 75 mg, simvastatin 40 mg, lisinopril 10 mg and either atenolol 50 mg or hydrochlorothiazide 12.5 mg. Participants randomized to ‘usual care’ continued with separate medications and doses as prescribed by their doctor. Primary outcomes were self-reported combination treatment use, systolic blood pressure and total cholesterol. After a median of 18 months, the polypill-based strategy was associated with greater use of combination treatment (70% vs. 47%; relative risk 1.49, (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.30 to 1.72) p < 0.0001; number needed to treat = 4.4 (3.3 to 6.6)) without differences in systolic blood pressure (−1.5 mmHg (95% CI −4.0 to 1.0) p = 0.24) or total cholesterol (0.08 mmol/l (95% CI −0.06 to 0.22) p = 0.26). At study end, 17% and 67% of participants in polypill and usual care groups, respectively, were taking atorvastatin or rosuvastatin. Provision of a polypill improved self-reported use of indicated preventive treatments. The lack of differences in blood pressure and cholesterol may reflect limited study power, although for cholesterol, improved statin use in the polypill group counter-balanced use of more potent statins with usual care.

Objectives To quantify contemporary differences in cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor assessment and management between women and men in Australian primary healthcare services. Methods Records of routinely attending patients were sampled from 60 Australian primary healthcare services in 2012 for the Treatment of Cardiovascular Risk using Electronic Decision Support study. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to compare the rate of CVD risk factor assessment and recommended medication prescriptions, by gender. Results Of 53 085 patients, 58% were female. Adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics, women were less likely to have sufficient risk factors measured for CVD risk assessment (OR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.81 to 0.96)). Among 13 294 patients (47% women) in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup, the adjusted odds of prescription of guideline-recommended medications were greater for women than men: 1.12 (1.01 to 1.23). However, there was heterogeneity by age (p <0.001), women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged 35–54 years were less likely to be prescribed the medications (0.63 (0.52 to 0.77)), and women in the CVD/high CVD risk subgroup aged ≥65 years were more likely to be prescribed the medications (1.34 (1.17 to 1.54)) than their male counterparts. Conclusions Women attending primary healthcare services in Australia were less likely than men to have risk factors measured and recorded such that absolute CVD risk can be assessed. For those with, or at high risk of, CVD, the prescription of appropriate preventive medications was more frequent in older women, but less frequent in younger women, compared with their male counterparts. Trial registration number 12611000478910, Pre-results.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet