TY - JOUR
T1 - A systematic review of models of care for polycystic ovary syndrome highlights the gap in the literature, especially in developing countries
AU - Melson, Eka
AU - Davitadze, Meri
AU - Malhotra, Kashish
AU - Mousa, Aya
AU - Teede, Helena
AU - Boivin, Jacky
AU - Thondan, Mala
AU - Tay, Chau Thien
AU - Kempegowda, Punith
AU - PCOS SEva working group
N1 - Funding Information:
We would like to acknowledge Marie Misso who helped in developing the search strategy.
Funding Information:
AM is supported by a biomedical research fellowship provided by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. HT is an NHMRC Medical Research Future Fund Practitioner Fellow. CT is supported by the NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life.
Publisher Copyright:
Copyright © 2023 Melson, Davitadze, Malhotra, PCOS SEva working group, Mousa, Teede, Boivin, Thondan, Tay and Kempegowda.
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - Introduction: The aim of the study was to identify available polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) models of care (MoCs) and describe their characteristics and alignment with the international PCOS guideline. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, All EBM, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception until 11 July 2022. Any study with a description of a PCOS MoC was included. Non-evidence-based guidelines, abstracts, study protocols, and clinical trial registrations were excluded. We also excluded MoCs delivered in research settings to minimize care bias. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity across MoCs. We describe and evaluate each MoC based on the recommendations made by the international evidence-based guideline for assessing and managing PCOS. Results: Of 3,671 articles, six articles describing five MoCs were included in our systematic review. All MoCs described a multidisciplinary approach, including an endocrinologist, dietitian, gynecologist, psychologist, dermatologist, etc. Three MoCs described all aspects of PCOS care aligned with the international guideline recommendations. These include providing education on long-term risks, lifestyle interventions, screening and management of emotional well-being, cardiometabolic diseases, and the dermatological and reproductive elements of PCOS. Three MoCs evaluated patients’ and healthcare professionals’ satisfaction, with generally positive findings. Only one MoC explored the impact of their service on patients’ health outcomes and showed improvement in BMI. Conclusion: There is limited literature describing PCOS MoCs in routine practice. Future research should explore developing cost-effective co-created multidisciplinary PCOS MoCs globally. This may be facilitated by the exchange of best practices between institutions with an established MoC and those who are interested in setting one up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=346539, identifier CRD42022346539.
AB - Introduction: The aim of the study was to identify available polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) models of care (MoCs) and describe their characteristics and alignment with the international PCOS guideline. Methods: Ovid MEDLINE, All EBM, PsycINFO, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from inception until 11 July 2022. Any study with a description of a PCOS MoC was included. Non-evidence-based guidelines, abstracts, study protocols, and clinical trial registrations were excluded. We also excluded MoCs delivered in research settings to minimize care bias. Meta-analysis was not performed due to heterogeneity across MoCs. We describe and evaluate each MoC based on the recommendations made by the international evidence-based guideline for assessing and managing PCOS. Results: Of 3,671 articles, six articles describing five MoCs were included in our systematic review. All MoCs described a multidisciplinary approach, including an endocrinologist, dietitian, gynecologist, psychologist, dermatologist, etc. Three MoCs described all aspects of PCOS care aligned with the international guideline recommendations. These include providing education on long-term risks, lifestyle interventions, screening and management of emotional well-being, cardiometabolic diseases, and the dermatological and reproductive elements of PCOS. Three MoCs evaluated patients’ and healthcare professionals’ satisfaction, with generally positive findings. Only one MoC explored the impact of their service on patients’ health outcomes and showed improvement in BMI. Conclusion: There is limited literature describing PCOS MoCs in routine practice. Future research should explore developing cost-effective co-created multidisciplinary PCOS MoCs globally. This may be facilitated by the exchange of best practices between institutions with an established MoC and those who are interested in setting one up. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=346539, identifier CRD42022346539.
KW - model of care
KW - multidisciplinary care
KW - PCOS
KW - polycystic ovary syndrome
KW - quality of life
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85168580405&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fendo.2023.1217468
DO - 10.3389/fendo.2023.1217468
M3 - Article
C2 - 37614710
AN - SCOPUS:85168580405
SN - 1664-2392
VL - 14
JO - Frontiers in Endocrinology
JF - Frontiers in Endocrinology
M1 - 1217468
ER -