Protocol for the modeling the epidemiologic transition study: a longitudinal observational study of energy balance and change in body weight, diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The prevalence of obesity has increased in societies of all socio-cultural backgrounds. To date, guidelines set forward to prevent obesity have universally emphasized optimal levels of physical activity. However there are few empirical data to support the assertion that low levels of energy expenditure in activity is a causal factor in the current obesity epidemic are very limited. METHODS: The Modeling the Epidemiologic Transition Study (METS) is a cohort study designed to assess the association between physical activity levels and relative weight, weight gain and diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk in five population-based samples at different stages of economic development. Twenty-five hundred young adults, ages 25-45, were enrolled in the study; 500 from sites in Ghana, South Africa, Seychelles, Jamaica and the United States. At baseline, physical activity levels were assessed using accelerometry and a questionnaire in all participants and by doubly labeled water in a subsample of 75 per site. We assessed dietary intake using two separate 24-h recalls, body composition using bioelectrical impedance analysis, and health history, social and economic indicators by questionnaire. Blood pressure was measured and blood samples collected for measurement of lipids, glucose, insulin and adipokines. Full examination including physical activity using accelerometry, anthropometric data and fasting glucose will take place at 12 and 24 months. The distribution of the main variables and the associations between physical activity, independent of energy intake, glucose metabolism and anthropometric measures will be assessed using cross-section and longitudinal analysis within and between sites. DISCUSSION: METS will provide insight on the relative contribution of physical activity and diet to excess weight, age-related weight gain and incident glucose impairment in five populations' samples of young adults at different stages of economic development. These data should be useful for the development of empirically-based public health policy aimed at the prevention of obesity and associated chronic diseases.

Changing healthcare: stakeholder perceptions of the burden of chronic disease and the value of teams, measurements and communication.

Canadian healthcare is changing. Over the course of the past decade, the Health Care in Canada Survey (HCIC) has annually measured the reactions of the public and professional stakeholders to many of these change forces. In HCIC 2008, for the first time, the public's perception of their health status and all stakeholders' views of the burden and effective management of chronic diseases were sought. Overall, Canadians perceive themselves as healthy, with 84% of adults reporting good-to-excellent health. However, good health decreased with age as the occurrence of chronic illness rose, from 12% in the age group 18-24 to 65% for the population =65 years. More than 70% of all stakeholders were strongly or somewhat supportive of the implementation of coordinated care, or disease management programs, to improve the care of patients with chronic illnesses. Concordant support was also expressed for key disease management components, including coordinated interventions to improve home, community and self-care; increased wellness promotion; and increased use of clinical measurements and feedback to all stakeholders. However, there were also important areas of non-concordance. For example, the public and doctors consistently expressed less support than other stakeholders for the value of team care, including the use of non-physician professionals to provide patient care; increased patient involvement in decision-making; and the use of electronic health records to facilitate communication. The actual participation in disease management programs averaged 34% for professionals and 25% for the public. We conclude that chronic diseases are common, age-related and burdensome in Canada. Disease management or coordinated intervention often delivered by teams is also relatively common, despite its less-than-universal acceptance by all stakeholders. Further insights are needed, particularly into the variable perceptions of the value and efficacy of team-delivered healthcare and its important components.

Team Effectiveness in Patient Health Management: An Overview of Reviews

Background: The desire to improve the quality of health care for an aging population with multiple chronic diseases is fostering a rapid growth in inter-professional team care, supported by health professionals, governments, businesses and public institutions. However, the weight of evidence measuring the impact of team care on patient and health system outcomes has not, heretofore, been clear. To address this deficiency, we evaluated published evidence for the clinical effectiveness of team care within a chronic disease management context in a systematic overview. Methods: A search strategy was built for Medline using medical subject headings and other relevant keywords. After testing for perform- ance, the search strategy was adapted to other databases (Cinhal, Cochrane, Embase, PsychInfo) using their specific descriptors. The searches were limited to reviews published between 1996 and 2011, in English and French languages. The results were analyzed by the number of studies favouring team intervention, based on the direction of effect and statistical significance for all reported outcomes. Results: Sixteen systematic and 7 narrative reviews were included. Diseases most frequently targeted were depression, followed by heart failure, diabetes and mental disorders. Effective- ness outcome measures most commonly used were clinical endpoints, resource utilization (e.g., emergency room visits, hospital admissions), costs, quality of life and medication adherence. Briefly, while improved clinical and resource utilization endpoints were commonly reported as positive outcomes, mixed directional results were often found among costs, medication adherence, mortality and patient satisfaction outcomes. Conclusions: We conclude that, although suggestive of some specific benefits, the overall weight of evidence for team care efficacy remains equivocal. Further studies that examine the causal interactions between multidisciplinary team care and clinical and economic outcomes of disease management are needed to more accurately assess its net program efficacy and population effectiveness.