RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Primary care has a vital role in supporting patient autonomy to enable people with long-term conditions to manage their own health and wellness. Evidence is needed on whether education and training of health professionals helps support patient self-management and improves outcomes. The authors' first systematic review included only two articles showing patient outcomes following health professional training for promoting patient self-management. AIM: To present an updated review undertaken from September 2013 to August 2018. DESIGN & SETTING: A systematic review was undertaken using the PRISMA guidelines, following the methodology of the first review and is outlined in the PROSPERO registered protocol. METHOD: Six databases were searched - Cochrane Library, PubMed, ERIC, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and PsycINFO - in addition to web searches, hand searches, and bibliographies for articles published from 1 September 2013 to 31 August 2018. RESULTS: The updated systematic review showed more evidence is now available with 18 articles in the 5-year period from the 4284 abstracts located. Twelve of these articles showed a difference between intervention and control groups. Of the 18 articles identified, 11 were assessed as having a low risk of bias and five overall were rated of weak quality. The educational interventions with health professionals spanned a range of techniques and modalities, and many incorporated multiple interventions including patient components. There may be a lack of adoption owing to several challenges, including that complex interventions may not be delivered as planned and are difficult to assess, and owing to patient engagement and the need for ongoing follow-up. CONCLUSION: More high-quality research is needed on what methods work best, for which patients, and for what clinical conditions in the primary care setting. The practical implications of training healthcare professionals require specific attention.
RESUMO
Background: Maternal caffeine intake is associated with adverse birth outcomes, but in most studies the primary caffeine source is coffee; the influence of tea caffeine remains unclear. Objective: The aim of the study was to examine the association between maternal caffeine intake and birth outcomes in a population with tea as the predominant caffeine source. Design: Data from 941 Irish mother-child pairs of the Lifeways Cross Generation Cohort Study were examined. Maternal dietary intakes in early pregnancy were assessed using a validated food-frequency questionnaire. Caffeine intake was derived from coffee, tea, soft drinks, and cocoa-containing foods and beverages. Associations of maternal caffeine intake with continuous (birth weight, birth length, and gestational age) and binary [low birth weight (LBW) (<2500 g) and preterm birth (PB) (<37 wk gestational age)] birth outcomes were investigated using multiple linear and logistic regressions, respectively, with adjustment for potential confounders. Results: Tea was the predominant caffeine source (48%), followed by coffee (39%). In the fully adjusted model, maternal caffeine intake was associated with lower birth weight [ß (95% CI): -71.9 (-105.4, -38.4) g · 100 mg-1 · d-1 caffeine increment], shorter birth length [-0.30 (-0.49, -0.11) cm], smaller head circumference [-0.12 (-0.24, -0.01) cm], and shorter gestational age [-0.13 (-0.25, -0.02) wk]; higher risks for LBW [OR (95% CI): 1.47 (1.14, 1.90)] and PB [1.36 (1.07, 1.74)] were also observed (all P < 0.05). The associations were robust to the exclusion of participants with pregnancy complications and in never smokers. Similar higher risks of adverse birth outcomes were observed for the highest caffeine intake categories from coffee [ORLBW: 3.10 (1.08, 8.89); ORPB: 2.74 (1.05, 7.16)] and tea [ORLBW: 2.47 (1.02, 6.01); ORPB: 2.56 (1.14, 5.75)], compared with the lowest intake categories (all P < 0.05). Conclusions: Maternal caffeine intake from both coffee and tea is associated with adverse birth outcomes. This prospective observational study was registered at ISRCTN Registry as ISRCTN16537904.
