Development of a core outcome set for multimorbidity trials in low/middle-income countries (COSMOS): study protocol

A primary care research agenda for multiple long-term conditions: a Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Multiple long-term conditions (MLTC), also known as multimorbidity, has been identified as a priority research topic globally. Research priorities from the perspectives of patients and research funders have been described. Although most care for MLTC is delivered in primary care, the priorities of academic primary care have not been identified.

AIM

To identify and prioritise the academic primary care research agenda for MLTC.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This was a three-phase study with primary care MLTC researchers from the UK and other high-income countries.

METHOD

The study consisted of: an open-ended survey question, a face-to-face workshop to elaborate questions with researchers from the UK and Ireland, and a two-round Delphi consensus survey with international multimorbidity researchers.

RESULTS

Twenty-five primary care researchers responded to the initial open-ended survey and generated 84 potential research questions. In the subsequent workshop discussion (n = 18 participants), this list was reduced to 31 questions. The longlist of 31 research questions was included in round 1 of the Delphi; 27 of the 50 (54%) round 1 invitees and 24 of the 27 (89%) round 2 invitees took part in the Delphi. Ten questions reached final consensus. These questions focused broadly on addressing the complexity of the patient group with development of new models of care for multimorbidity, and methods and data development.

CONCLUSION

These high-priority research questions offer funders and researchers a basis on which to build future grant calls and research plans. Addressing complexity in this research is needed to inform improvements in systems of care and for disease prevention.

Core outcome sets for trials of interventions to prevent and to treat multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries: the COSMOS study

Introduction

The burden of multimorbidity is recognised increasingly in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), creating a strong emphasis on the need for effective evidence-based interventions. A core outcome set (COS) appropriate for the study of multimorbidity in LMIC contexts does not presently exist. This is required to standardise reporting and contribute to a consistent and cohesive evidence-base to inform policy and practice. We describe the development of two COS for intervention trials aimed at the prevention and treatment of multimorbidity in LMICs.

Methods

To generate a comprehensive list of relevant prevention and treatment outcomes, we conducted a systematic review and qualitative interviews with people with multimorbidity and their caregivers living in LMICs. We then used a modified two-round Delphi process to identify outcomes most important to four stakeholder groups with representation from 33 countries (people with multimorbidity/caregivers, multimorbidity researchers, healthcare professionals, and policy makers). Consensus meetings were used to reach agreement on the two final COS. Registration: https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1580.

Results

The systematic review and qualitative interviews identified 24 outcomes for prevention and 49 for treatment of multimorbidity. An additional 12 prevention, and six treatment outcomes were added from Delphi round one. Delphi round two surveys were completed by 95 of 132 round one participants (72.0%) for prevention and 95 of 133 (71.4%) participants for treatment outcomes. Consensus meetings agreed four outcomes for the prevention COS: (1) Adverse events, (2) Development of new comorbidity, (3) Health risk behaviour, and (4) Quality of life; and four for the treatment COS: (1) Adherence to treatment, (2) Adverse events, (3) Out-of-pocket expenditure, and (4) Quality of life.

Conclusion

Following established guidelines, we developed two COS for trials of interventions for multimorbidity prevention and treatment, specific to LMIC contexts. We recommend their inclusion in future trials to meaningfully advance the field of multimorbidity research in LMICs.

An interpretative phenomenological analysis of the lived experience of people with multimorbidity in low- and middle-income countries

People living with multimorbidity (PLWMM) have multiple needs and require long-term personalised care, which necessitates an integrated people-centred approach to healthcare. However, people-centred care may risk being a buzzword in global health and cannot be achieved unless we consider and prioritise the lived experience of the people themselves. This study captures the lived experiences of PLWMM in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) by exploring their perspectives, experiences, and aspirations.We analysed 50 semi-structured interview responses from 10 LMICs across three regions-South Asia, Latin America, and Western Africa-using an interpretative phenomenological analysis approach.The bodily, social, and system experiences of illness by respondents were multidirectional and interactive, and largely captured the complexity of living with multimorbidity. Despite expensive treatments, many experienced little improvements in their conditions and felt that healthcare was not tailored to their needs. Disease management involved multiple and fragmented healthcare providers with lack of guidance, resulting in repetitive procedures, loss of time, confusion, and frustration. Financial burden was exacerbated by lost productivity and extreme finance coping strategies, creating a vicious cycle. Against the backdrop of uncertainty and disruption due to illness, many demonstrated an ability to cope with their conditions and navigate the healthcare system. Respondents' priorities were reflective of their desire to return to a pre-illness way of life-resuming work, caring for family, and maintaining a sense of independence and normalcy despite illness. Respondents had a wide range of needs that required financial, health education, integrated care, and mental health support.In discussion with respondents on outcomes, it appeared that many have complementary views about what is important and relevant, which may differ from the outcomes established by clinicians and researchers. This knowledge needs to complement and be incorporated into existing research and treatment models to ensure healthcare remains focused on the human and our evolving needs.

Awareness and experiences on core outcome set development and use amongst stakeholders from low- and middle- income countries: An online survey

Harmonization of outcomes to be measured in clinical trials can reduce research waste and enhance research translation. One of the ways to standardize measurement is through development and use of core outcome sets (COS). There is limited involvement of low- and middle-income country (LMIC) stakeholders in COS development and use. This study explores the level of awareness and experiences of LMIC stakeholders in the development and use of COS. We conducted an online survey of LMIC stakeholders. Three existing COS (pre-eclampsia, COVID-19, palliative care) were presented as case scenarios, and respondents asked to state (with reason(s)) if they would or would not use the COS if they were working in that area. Quantitative data were analyzed descriptively while qualitative data were analyzed thematically. Of 81 respondents, 26 had COS experience, 9 of whom had been involved in COS development. Personal research interests and prevalence of disease are key drivers for initiation/participation in a given COS project. Most respondents would use the COS for pre-eclampsia (18/26) and COVID-19 (19/26) since the development process included key stakeholders. More than half of the respondents were not sure or would not use the palliative care COS as they felt stakeholder engagement was limited and it was developed for a different resource setting. Respondents reported that use of COS can be limited by (i) feasibility of measuring the outcomes in the COS, (ii) knowledge on the usefulness and availability of COS and (iii) lack of wide stakeholder engagement in the COS development process including having patients and carers in the development process. To ensure the development and use of COS in LMICs, collaborations are essential in awareness raising on COS utility, training, and COS development. The COS also needs to be made accessible in locally understandable languages and feasible to measure in LMICs.

Primary-level and community worker interventions for the prevention of mental disorders and the promotion of well-being in low- and middle-income countries

BACKGROUND

There is a significant research gap in the field of universal, selective, and indicated prevention interventions for mental health promotion and the prevention of mental disorders. Barriers to closing the research gap include scarcity of skilled human resources, large inequities in resource distribution and utilization, and stigma.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness of delivery by primary workers of interventions for the promotion of mental health and universal prevention, and for the selective and indicated prevention of mental disorders or symptoms of mental illness in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). To examine the impact of intervention delivery by primary workers on resource use and costs.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Global Index Medicus, PsycInfo, WHO ICTRP, and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to 29 November 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of primary-level and/or community health worker interventions for promoting mental health and/or preventing mental disorders versus any control conditions in adults and children in LMICs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Standardized mean differences (SMD) or mean differences (MD) were used for continuous outcomes, and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data, using a random-effects model. We analyzed data at 0 to 1, 1 to 6, and 7 to 24 months post-intervention. For SMDs, 0.20 to 0.49 represented small, 0.50 to 0.79 moderate, and ≥ 0.80 large clinical effects. We evaluated the risk of bias (RoB) using Cochrane RoB2.

MAIN RESULTS

Description of studies We identified 113 studies with 32,992 participants (97 RCTs, 19,570 participants in meta-analyses) for inclusion. Nineteen RCTs were conducted in low-income countries, 27 in low-middle-income countries, 2 in middle-income countries, 58 in upper-middle-income countries and 7 in mixed settings. Eighty-three RCTs included adults and 30 RCTs included children. Cadres of primary-level workers employed primary care health workers (38 studies), community workers (71 studies), both (2 studies), and not reported (2 studies). Interventions were universal prevention/promotion in 22 studies, selective in 36, and indicated prevention in 55 RCTs. Risk of bias The most common concerns over risk of bias were performance bias, attrition bias, and reporting bias. Intervention effects 'Probably', 'may', or 'uncertain' indicates 'moderate-', 'low-', or 'very low-'certainty evidence. *Certainty of the evidence (using GRADE) was assessed at 0 to 1 month post-intervention as specified in the review protocol. In the abstract, we did not report results for outcomes for which evidence was missing or very uncertain. Adults Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced anxiety symptoms (MD -0.14, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.27 to -0.01; 1 trial, 158 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.24, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.08; 4 trials, 722 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD -0.69, 95% CI -1.08 to -0.30; 4 trials, 223 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 547 participants) - probably slightly reduced functional impairment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.15; 4 trials, 663 participants) Children Promotion/universal prevention, compared to usual care: - may improve the quality of life (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.11; 2 trials, 803 participants) - may reduce adverse events (1 trial, 694 participants) - may slightly reduce depressive symptoms (MD -3.04, 95% CI -6 to -0.08; 1 trial, 160 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD -2.27, 95% CI -3.13 to -1.41; 1 trial, 183 participants) Selective prevention, compared to usual care: - probably slightly reduced depressive symptoms (SMD 0, 95% CI -0.16 to -0.15; 2 trials, 638 participants) - may slightly reduce anxiety symptoms (MD 4.50, 95% CI -12.05 to 21.05; 1 trial, 28 participants) - probably slightly reduced distress/PTSD symptoms (MD -2.14, 95% CI -3.77 to -0.51; 1 trial, 159 participants) Indicated prevention, compared to usual care: - decreased slightly functional impairment (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.47 to -0.10; 2 trials, 448 participants) - decreased slightly depressive symptoms (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.04; 4 trials, 771 participants) - may slightly reduce distress/PTSD symptoms (SMD 0.24, 95% CI -1.28 to 1.76; 2 trials, 448 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence indicated that prevention interventions delivered through primary workers - a form of task-shifting - may improve mental health outcomes. Certainty in the evidence was influenced by the risk of bias and by substantial levels of heterogeneity. A supportive network of infrastructure and research would enhance and reinforce this delivery modality across LMICs.

Multimorbidity

Multimorbidity (two or more coexisting conditions in an individual) is a growing global challenge with substantial effects on individuals, carers and society. Multimorbidity occurs a decade earlier in socioeconomically deprived communities and is associated with premature death, poorer function and quality of life and increased health-care utilization. Mechanisms underlying the development of multimorbidity are complex, interrelated and multilevel, but are related to ageing and underlying biological mechanisms and broader determinants of health such as socioeconomic deprivation. Little is known about prevention of multimorbidity, but focusing on psychosocial and behavioural factors, particularly population level interventions and structural changes, is likely to be beneficial. Most clinical practice guidelines and health-care training and delivery focus on single diseases, leading to care that is sometimes inadequate and potentially harmful. Multimorbidity requires person-centred care, prioritizing what matters most to the individual and the individual's carers, ensuring care that is effectively coordinated and minimally disruptive, and aligns with the patient's values. Interventions are likely to be complex and multifaceted. Although an increasing number of studies have examined multimorbidity interventions, there is still limited evidence to support any approach. Greater investment in multimorbidity research and training along with reconfiguration of health care supporting the management of multimorbidity is urgently needed.