OBJECTIVE: This study examined the efficacy of a health education technology program on self-management adherence behavior and quality of life among people with type 2 diabetes (T2D).
METHODS: A randomized experimental study design was employed. A total of 110 subjects was recruited. The experimental group received a novel technology education program plus routine shared care. The control group received routine shared care alone. Quality of life and adherence to self-management behavior questionnaires were used to measure outcomes. A linear mixed-effects model was used to analyze changes in quality of life after controlling for pre-test effects. The odds ratio was calculated for differences in adherence behavior between the two groups.
RESULTS: The between-group mean difference in quality of life scores and adherence to physical activity comparing pre-test at 3 months follow-up showed significant progress at 3 months post-test compared with the control group. However, the increase in mean quality of life scores and adherence behavior at 6 months did not demonstrate a sustained between-group difference.
CONCLUSIONS: The results showed adherence to physical activity and improved quality of life in patients with T2D at 3 months post intervention. Therefore, the program can be used as an intensive model for diabetes shared care.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to assess the numbers of eligible people living with HIV attending one HIV clinic and receiving statins, the factors increasing the likelihood of statin prescription, the knowledge and involvement of primary care in cardiovascular risk prevention in people living with HIV, and the barriers to and drivers of shared care between general practitioners (GPs) and an HIV centre.
METHODS: This was a retrospective case note review identifying cardiovascular risk, medications, and communication between the HIV clinic and GPs via an electronic survey of GPs identifying their knowledge about statin indications in people living with HIV.
RESULTS: In total, 62% of GPs were unaware of the indication for statins in people living with HIV aged >40 years. A total of 33% of patients received statins, rising to 61% of patients with independent indications for statins. 92% of all statin prescriptions were provided by the GP. Statins were recommended in 25% of clinic letters but were not prescribed in 72% of these cases. There was discordance between antiretrovirals prescribed by the HIV clinic and those documented on the GP record in 60% of cases and in 40% of non-antiretroviral medications.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that GPs can engage people living with HIV in cardiovascular risk reduction measures but may not consider HIV a cardiovascular risk. Written communication alone is insufficient to improve safe patient care. Shared HIV care needs bidirectional shared medical records. Ongoing work needs to ensure that HIV is recognized as an independent cardiovascular risk factor.

OBJECTIVE: Survivors of blood and marrow transplantation (BMT) require life-long follow-up involving both tertiary transplant and primary care services. This paper explores the attitudes and preferences of BMT survivors and their carers regarding the transition from BMT centre care to primary care.
METHODS: This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with BMT survivors and carers from New South Wales, Australia. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.
RESULTS: Twenty-two BMT survivors and six carers were interviewed. Two themes emerged: (1) \'Relationships with health professionals\' and (2) \'Challenges of long-term care\'. Participants, particularly rural/regional survivors, had diverse views on the availability of community BMT expertise and identified a range of strategies to optimise care for BMT survivors.
CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight the importance BMT survivors and carers place on their relationships with, and ongoing access to, specialised BMT teams for long-term care. While some are happy to receive community-based care, concerns exist about the capacity of primary care providers, particularly in rural and regional areas. Improved support, communication and coordination between BMT centres and primary care may help facilitate a person-centred, sustainable shared care model. Provider education, use of telehealth and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities may assist in this transition.
CONCLUSIONS: As BMT survivors live longer post-treatment, transitions of care and sustainable long-term care models are needed. A shared care approach, integrating specialised BMT teams and local primary care, may optimise outcomes but requires further development to balance accessibility, preferences, and specialised care needs.

Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are increasingly implanted in patients with advanced heart failure. Currently, LVAD care is predominantly concentrated at specialized tertiary care hospitals. However, the increasing workload and logistical burden for implanting centres pose significant challenges to accessing care for individual patients in remote areas. An emerging approach to LVAD patient management is the use of a shared care model (SCM), which facilitates collaboration between implanting centres and local non-implanting hospitals. This scoping review explores and synthesizes the current scientific evidence on the use of SCMs in LVAD care management. Eligible studies were identified in EMBASE, PubMed MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane and Google Scholar. Findings were synthesized in accordance with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. Of the 950 records screened, five articles met the inclusion criteria. Four review articles focused on the proposed benefits and challenges of using SCMs. Main benefits included improved patient satisfaction and continuity of care. Important challenges were initial education of non-implanting centre staff and maintaining competency. One prospective study showed that absence of LVAD-specific care was associated with impaired survival and higher rates of pump thrombosis and LVAD-related infections. The use of SCMs is a promising approach in the long-term management of LVAD patients. However, sufficient evidence about the impact of SCMs on patients and the healthcare system is not currently available. Standardized protocols based on prospective studies are needed to develop safe and effective shared care for LVAD patients.

Collaboration between the implantation centers, management centers, and regional core hospitals is a key factor in securing long-term implantable ventricular assist device (VAD) management. In Kyushu, a management system for patients with implantable VADs has been established at the prefectural and regional levels. Presently, six implantable VAD implantation centers and seven management centers exists in the eight prefectures of Kyushu and Okinawa, with at least one specialized VAD centers in each prefecture. This collaborative management system allows patients with VADs to receive seamless treatment based on the same management concept wherever they live. In fact, approximately half of the present outpatients treated at our center reside outside the prefecture and are managed in collaboration with management centers and regional core hospitals. Among our patients, there were no significant differences in survival or rehospitalization-free rates between patients with VADs in and out of the prefecture, suggesting that the place of residence did not affect the outcome. With the increase in the number of patients with VADs and the diversification of patients, patient management has become more complex. Mutual collaboration between the implantation centers, management centers, and regional core hospitals, is essential to improve the quality of VAD management. This review was created based on a translation of the Japanese review written in the Japanese Journal of Artificial Organs in 2023 (Vol. 52, No. 1, pp. 85-88), with some modifications.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder, for which there are effective pharmacological treatments that improve symptoms and reduce complications. Guidelines published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommend that primary care practitioners prescribe medication for adult ADHD under shared-care agreements with Adult Mental Health Services (AMHS). However, provision remains uneven, with some practitioners reporting a lack of support.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to describe elements of support, and their availability/use, in primary care prescribing for adult ADHD medication in England to improve access for this underserved population and inform service improvement.
METHODS: Cross-sectional surveys were used to elicit data from commissioners, health professionals (HPs), and people with lived experience of ADHD (LE) across England about elements supporting pharmacological treatment of ADHD in primary care.
METHODS: Three interlinked cross-sectional surveys were used to ask every integrated care board in England (commissioners), along with convenience samples of HPs and LEs, about prescribing rates, AMHS availability, wait times, and shared-care agreement protocols/policies for the pharmacological treatment of ADHD in primary care. Descriptive analyses, percentages, and confidence intervals were used to summarise responses by stakeholder group. Variations in reported provision and practice were explored and displayed visually using mapping software.
RESULTS: Data from 782 responders (42 commissioners, 331 HPs, 409 LEs) revealed differences in reported provision by stakeholder group, including for prescribing (95% of HPs versus 64% of LEs). In all, >40% of responders reported extended AMHS wait times of ≥2 years. There was some variability by NHS region - for example, London had the lowest reported extended wait time (25%), while East of England had the highest (55%).
CONCLUSIONS: Elements supporting appropriate shared-care prescribing of ADHD medication via primary care are not universally available in England. Coordinated approaches are needed to address these gaps.

Harmful use of illicit drugs and/or alcohol is linked to life-limiting illness and complex health and social care needs, but people who use substances and have complex needs do not receive timely palliative care and fail to achieve quality standards for a good death. They and their families often require support from multiple health and social care services which are shown to be poorly integrated and fail to deliver interdisciplinary care. This study aimed to identify the existing barriers and facilitators within and between services in providing this population with a good death. Using a mixed methods approach of survey, focus groups and semi-structured interviews, we explored the perspectives of practitioner and management staff across a range of health and social disciplines and organisations in one combined authority in a large city in the north west of England. Our findings indicate that practitioners want to provide better care for this client group, but face structural, organisational and professional boundary barriers to delivering integrated and shared care. Differences in philosophy of care, piecemeal commissioning and funding of services, and regulatory frameworks for different services, lead to poor and inequitable access to health and social care services. Ways forward for improving care are suggested as bespoke hostel-based accommodation for palliative care for this client group, and specialist link workers who can transcend professional and organisational boundaries to support co-ordination of services and support. We conclude that it is no longer adequate to call for more training, better communication and improved joint working. Complex care at the end of life requires creative and cohesive systemic responses that enable multi-disciplinary practitioners to provide the care they wish to give and enables individuals using substances to get the respect and quality service they deserve.

UNASSIGNED: Epilepsy is the most common neurological condition globally. Integrating health and social care is fundamental in epilepsy management, but the scope of progress in this area is unclear. This scoping review aimed to capture the range and type of integrated care components and models in epilepsy management.
UNASSIGNED: Four databases were searched for articles published since 2010 that reported on integrated care in epilepsy. Data were extracted and synthesised into components of integrated care that had been implemented or recommended only. Models of integrated care were identified, and their components tabulated.
UNASSIGNED: Fifteen common and interrelated components of integrated care emerged that were aligned with four broad areas: healthcare staff and pathways (e.g., epilepsy nurses); tasks and services (e.g., care coordination); education and engagement (e.g., shared decision making); and technology for diagnosis and communication (e.g., telehealth). Twelve models of integrated care were identified; seven were implemented and five were recommended.
UNASSIGNED: There is a growing evidence-base supporting integrated, person-centred epilepsy care, but implementation is challenged by entrenched silos, underdeveloped pathways for care, and deficits in epilepsy education.
UNASSIGNED: Integrating epilepsy care relies on changes to workforce development and policy frameworks to support whole-of-system vision for improving care.

UNASSIGNED: Primary- and specialist-level palliative care services are needed. They should work collaboratively and synergistically. Although several service models have been described, these remain open to different interpretations and deployment.
UNASSIGNED: This article describes a conceptual framework, the Consultation-Shared Care-Takeover (C-S-T) Framework, its evolution and its applications.
UNASSIGNED: An iterative process informed the development of the Framework. This included a symposium, literature searches, results from three studies, and real-life applications.
UNASSIGNED: The C-S-T Framework represents a spectrum anchored by the Consultation model at one end, the Takeover model at the other end, and the Shared Care model in the center. Indicators, divided into five domains, help differentiate one model from the other. The domains are (1) Scope (What aspects of care are addressed by the palliative care clinician?); (2) Prescriber (Who prescribes the treatments?); (3) Communication (What communication occurs between the palliative care clinician and the patient\'s attending clinician?); (4) Follow-up (Who provides the follow-up visits and what is their frequency?); and (5) Most responsible practitioner (MRP) (Who is identified as MRP?). Each model demonstrates strengths, limitations, uses, and roles.
UNASSIGNED: The C-S-T Framework can be used to better describe, understand, assess, and monitor models being used by specialist palliative care teams in their interactions with primary care providers and other specialist services. Large studies are needed to test the application of the Framework on a broader scale in health care systems.

OBJECTIVE: Lymphoma is the sixth most common cancer in Australia and comprises 2.8% of worldwide cancer diagnoses. Research targeting development and evaluation of post-treatment care for debilitating complications resulting from the disease and its treatment is limited. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a nurse-led survivorship intervention, post-treatment in Hodgkin\'s and non-Hodgkin\'s lymphoma survivors.
METHODS: A single-center, prospective, 3-arm, pilot, randomized controlled, parallel-group trial was used. People with lymphoma were recruited and randomized to the intervention (ENGAGE), education booklet only, or usual care arm. Participants receiving ENGAGE received an educational booklet and were offered 3 consultations (via various modes) with a cancer nurse to develop a survivorship care plan and healthcare goals. Participant distress and intervention acceptability was measured at baseline and 12-wk. Acceptability was measured via a satisfaction survey using a 11-point scale. Feasibility was measured using participation, retention rates, and process outcomes. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.
RESULTS: Thirty-four participants with HL and NHL were recruited to the study (11 = intervention, 11 = information only, 12 = usual care). Twenty-seven participants (79%) completed all time points from baseline to 12 wk. Seven (88%) of the 8 participants receiving ENGAGE completed all consultations using various modes to communicate with the nurse (videoconference 14/23, 61%; phone 5/23, 22%; face-to-face 4/23, 17%). Participants who completed the intervention were highly satisfied with ENGAGE.
CONCLUSIONS: The ENGAGE intervention is feasible and highly acceptable for lymphoma survivors. These findings will inform a larger trial assessing effectiveness and cost effectiveness of ENGAGE.