Search

Exercise interventions show promise in the treatment of anxiety disorders, but effects on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL), work ability, and sick leave are little studied. We investigated these outcomes in a 12-week randomized controlled trial with a 1-year follow-up. Patients aged 18–65 (n = 222) with anxiety disorders from primary care centers in Gothenburg were randomized to a control group or one of two 12-week exercise intervention groups (low-intensity, [LI] and moderate/high-intensity, [HI]); 148 were evaluated at 12-weeks and 113 completed the 1-year follow-up. The EuroQol 5D (EQ5D; index and the visual analogue scale [VAS]), work ability score (WAS), presenteeism, and self-reported sick leave were assessed at baseline, 12 weeks, and 1 year. Improvements were defined by binary cut-offs for each scale. Binary logistic regression with odds ratios (OR) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) were reported. There were improved scores for EQ5D and WAS in the HI group compared to controls after 12 weeks (EQ5D index: 4.74 [1.91–11.7], EQ5D-VAS 4.00, [1.65–9.72], WAS 3.41 [1.24–7.37]) and 1 year (EQ5D index: 3.05 [1.05–8.81], EQ5D-VAS 3.20 [1.16–8.84], WAS 5.50 [1.85–16.3]). Post-hoc analysis showed higher ORs in participants on antidepressants (n = 75) (12-week EQ5D index: OR 9.95 [2.85–34.8]) and significant improvements in EQ5D scores for both intervention groups after 1 year. There were no between-group differences for presenteeism or sick leave. Discontinuation was high, mostly early after randomization (n = 74), as is common for anxiety interventions. HI Exercise improves HR-QoL and work ability in anxiety patients, especially when combined with antidepressants. • High-intensity exercise improves health-related quality of life and work ability with long-lasting effects after 1 year. • There were trends suggesting a dose-response effect of exercise on health-related quality of life and work ability. • Exercise effects are greater in patients with antidepressant medication. • There were no between-group differences for presenteeism or sick leave. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is inconsistent utilisation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening and management by healthcare professionals to identify CVD risk factors early and to intervene using current recommendations. To address this issue, the Cardiovascular Assessment Screening Program (CASP) was developed, implemented, and evaluated. This manuscript reports on the second phase of an exploratory sequential mixed methods study that tested the effectiveness of the CASP with nurse practitioners (NPs) and patients in Canada. Methods: A two-armed, non-blinded, cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) compared the NP-led implementation of CASP with usual care by NPs in community practice clinics across one Canadian province. The NPs were the cluster variable as their screening practices could be affected by their educational training, resources, or other factors. NPs were eligible for inclusion in the study if they were located in different urban and rural community settings and could conduct follow-up visits with patients. NPs recruited and enrolled the patients from their own practices as participants if they were healthy individuals, aged 40–74 years, with no established CVD or vascular disease. Researchers randomly allocated the NPs (n = 10) to the intervention group (IG) or the control group (CG). Results: Eight (8) NPs and 167 patients participated in the cRCT study. Patient participant-level data were analysed by the originally assigned groups IG (n = 68) and CG (n = 99). Utilising GLM (generalized linear modeling) more IG patients (90%; n = 61) received comprehensive CVD screening compared to the CG patients (2%; n = 2), RR = 30.2, 95% CI [8.76, 103.9], p <.0001, controlling for the effect of NP and BP category. Conclusion: NP implementation of CASP was effective for comprehensive screening compared to usual care and led to identifying previously unknown CVD risk factors, calculated FRS, heart health priorities and personalised goal-setting. Trial registration: ClinicalTrial.gov ID#: NCT03170752, date of registration 2017/05/31. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The healthcare needs of People living with Dementia (PlwD) (such as Alzheimer's disease) are often unmet. Information about the needs of community-dwelling PlwD and their association with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics is needed to fill the knowledge gap regarding factors influencing unmet needs among PlwD and to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment to develop tailored interventions. Objective: To describe sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of the InDePendent study population with particular reference to determinants of unmet needs. Methods: We analyzed baseline data of the multi-centre cluster-randomized controlled trial (InDePendent) using descriptive statistics to describe patients' sociodemographic and clinical characteristics and Poisson regression models to predict unmet needs, separated by sex. Data were collected personally via face-to-face interviews. Results: Most of the n = 417 participating PlwD were mild to moderately cognitively impaired, were not depressed, had an average of 10.8 diagnoses, took 6.7 medications, and had, on average, 2.4 unmet needs (62% of PlwD had at least one unmet need) measured by the Camberwell Assessment of Need for the Elderly (CANE). Low social support, a high body-mass-index, a lower education, functional impairment, and worse health status were associated with more unmet needs, regardless of sex. In women, higher unmet needs were associated with more depressive symptoms, a poor financial situation, living alone and not being recently treated by a general practitioner. In males, unmet needs increased with the number of medications taken. Conclusions: PlwD had a broad array of unmet healthcare needs, indicating primary healthcare provision improvement potentials. The results underscore the significance of early assessment of patient's clinical characteristics and unmet needs as a basis for individualized gender-sensible intervention strategies.∥ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04741932, Registered on February 5, 2021 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Frequent attenders in primary care (FAs) consume a disproportionate amount of healthcare resources and often have depression, anxiety, chronic health issues, and interpersonal problems. Despite extensive medical care, they remain dissatisfied with the care and report no improvement in quality of life. To pilot a Telephone-based Interpersonal Counseling intervention for Frequent Attenders (TIPC-FA) and assess its feasibility and efficacy in reducing symptoms and healthcare utilization. Top 10% of primary care visitors were randomly assigned to TIPC-FA, Telephone Supportive Contact (Support), or Treatment as Usual (TAU). TIPC-FA and Support groups received six telephone sessions over twelve weeks, while the TAU group was interviewed twice. Multilevel regression tested for changes over time, considering patient and counselor variance. TIPC-FA and Support groups demonstrated reduced depressive symptoms, and the TIPC-FA group showed decreased somatization and anxiety. The TIPC-FA group demonstrated a trend towards less healthcare utilization than the TAU group. This pilot study suggests that IPC via telephone outreach is a feasible approach to treating FAs, achieving a reduction in symptoms not seen in other groups. Promising reduction in healthcare utilization in the TIPC-FA group warrants further exploration in larger-scale trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of group transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural therapy (tCBT) added to treatment as usual (TAU) for anxiety disorders compared to TAU only from the healthcare system perspective over a 1-year time horizon. Methods: Data from a pragmatic multisite randomized controlled trial where adults (18–65 years) with an anxiety disorder were randomized to tCBT + TAU (n = 117) or TAU (n = 114). Group tCBT is a 12-week (2h weekly sessions) community-based intervention. Health service utilization and related costs were captured from medico-administrative data and included those for the intervention, ambulatory visits, hospitalizations and medications. Effectiveness was based on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The study included measures at baseline, 4, 8, and 12 months. Intention-to-treat and complete case analyses were carried out. Missing data were imputed using multiple imputation analyses. Seemingly unrelated regression analyses were used to assess the effect of the intervention on total costs and QALYs while also adjusting for baseline confounders. The probability of cost-effectiveness of the intervention was assessed according to different willingness-to-pay (WTP) thresholds using the net benefit regression method. Results: The ICER of tCBT + TAU as compared to TAU in the intention-to-treat analysis was $6,581/QALY. Complete case analyses showed a similar ICER of $6,642/QALY. The probability at a WTP threshold of $20,000 and $40,000 that tCBT + TAU as compared to TAU is cost-effective is 93.0% and 99.9%. Conclusion: tCBT added to TAU appears to be cost-effective from the healthcare system perspective for treating adult patients with anxiety disorders. Larger trials including young and older adults as well as a range of anxiety disorders are needed to further investigate the cost-effectiveness of tCBT in different patient populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE Patient outcomes can improve when primary care and behavioral health providers use a collaborative system of care, but integrating these services is difficult. We tested the effectiveness of a practice intervention for improving patient outcomes by enhancing integrated behavioral health (IBH) activities. METHODS We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized controlled trial. The intervention combined practice redesign, quality improvement coaching, provider and staff education, and collaborative learning. At baseline and 2 years, staff at 42 primary care practices completed the Practice Integration Profile (PIP) as a measure of IBH. Adult patients with multiple chronic medical and behavioral conditions completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS-29) survey. Primary outcomes were the change in 8 PROMIS-29 domain scores. Secondary outcomes included change in level of integration. RESULTS Intervention assignment had no effect on change in outcomes reported by 2,426 patients who completed both baseline and 2-year surveys. Practices assigned to the intervention improved PIP workflow scores but not PIP total scores. Baseline PIP total score was significantly associated with patient-reported function, independent of intervention. Active practices that completed intervention workbooks (n = 13) improved patient-reported outcomes and practice integration (P = .05) compared with other active practices (n = 7). CONCLUSION Intervention assignment had no effect on change in patient outcomes; however, we did observe improved patient outcomes among practices that entered the study with greater IBH. We also observed more improvement of integration and patient outcomes among active practices that completed the intervention compared to active practices that did not. Additional research is needed to understand how implementation efforts to enhance IBH can best reach patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gout is the most common form of rheumatic disease in which monosodium urate crystals are deposited in the joints followed by acute inflammatory reactions. There are various approved drugs that can be prescribed for pain relief during an acute gout attack. However, to date, no direct comparison of efficacy of colchicine and prednisolone for the treatment of acute gout attacks has been investigated. Furthermore, the majority of previous research studies were not only conducted in tertiary centres but also excluded patients with common comorbidities due to contraindications to naproxen. Methods: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial investigates whether prednisolone (intervention) is non-inferior to treatment with colchicine (active control) in patients with acute gout. Adult patients presenting with acute gout to their general practitioners in 60 practices across 3 university sites (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) are eligible to participate in the study. Participants in the intervention group receive 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Those in the control group receive low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2–5: 1 mg). The primary outcome is the absolute level of the most severe pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) measured with an 11-item numerical rating scale. Day 0 is the day patients take their study medication for the first time. They are then asked to fill out a study diary the same time each day for pain quantification. Pain scores are used for comparison between the two medications. Secondary outcomes are average response to treatment, swelling, tenderness and physical function of the joint, patients' global assessment of treatment success, use of additional pain medication and non-pharmacological pain therapies. For safety reasons, potential side effects and course of systolic blood pressure are assessed. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of pain reduction and side effects of colchicine and prednisolone in acute gout in primary care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698680 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Gout is the most common form of rheumatic disease in which monosodium urate crystals are deposited in the joints followed by acute inflammatory reactions. There are various approved drugs that can be prescribed for pain relief during an acute gout attack. However, to date, no direct comparison of efficacy of colchicine and prednisolone for the treatment of acute gout attacks has been investigated. Furthermore, the majority of previous research studies were not only conducted in tertiary centres but also excluded patients with common comorbidities due to contraindications to naproxen. Methods: This pragmatic, prospective, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, randomized, non-inferiority trial investigates whether prednisolone (intervention) is non-inferior to treatment with colchicine (active control) in patients with acute gout. Adult patients presenting with acute gout to their general practitioners in 60 practices across 3 university sites (Greifswald, Göttingen, and Würzburg) are eligible to participate in the study. Participants in the intervention group receive 30 mg prednisolone for 5 days. Those in the control group receive low-dose colchicine (day 1: 1.5 mg; days 2–5: 1 mg). The primary outcome is the absolute level of the most severe pain on day 3 (in the last 24 h) measured with an 11-item numerical rating scale. Day 0 is the day patients take their study medication for the first time. They are then asked to fill out a study diary the same time each day for pain quantification. Pain scores are used for comparison between the two medications. Secondary outcomes are average response to treatment, swelling, tenderness and physical function of the joint, patients' global assessment of treatment success, use of additional pain medication and non-pharmacological pain therapies. For safety reasons, potential side effects and course of systolic blood pressure are assessed. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence on the effectiveness of pain reduction and side effects of colchicine and prednisolone in acute gout in primary care. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05698680 first posted on January 26, 2023 (retrospectively registered). URL of trial registry record: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05698680 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: Most alcohol‐dependent people have a moderate level of dependence. General practitioners (GPs) hesitate to engage in this area, and need to have access to treatment they find applicable and feasible to use. The aim of this present study was to test if an open‐ended internet‐based cognitive–behavioral therapy (iCBT) program added to treatment‐as‐usual (TAU) is more effective than TAU‐only for alcohol‐dependent patients in primary care. Design, Setting and Participants: The present study was a two‐group, parallel, randomized controlled superiority trial comparing iCBT+TAU versus TAU‐only at 3‐ and 12‐month follow‐ups. TAU was delivered at 14 primary care centers in Stockholm, Sweden. A total of 264 patients (mean age 51 years, of whom 148 were female and 116 were male) with alcohol dependence and hazardous alcohol consumption were enrolled between September 2017 and November 2019. Measurements: Participants were randomized at a ratio of 1:1 to iCBT, as a self‐help intervention added to TAU (n = 132) or to TAU‐only (n = 132). The GPs gave participants in both treatment arms feedback on the assessments and biomarkers and offered TAU at the primary care center. Primary outcome was weekly alcohol consumption in g/week at 12‐month follow‐up, analyzed according to intention‐to‐treat (n = 132 + 132). The per‐protocol analysis included participants who completed at least one module of iCBT (n = 102 + 132). Findings There was no significant difference in weekly alcohol consumption between iCBT+TAU and TAU in the intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis at 12‐month follow‐up [iCBT+TAU = 133.56 (95% confidence interval, CI = 100.94–166.19) and TAU = 176.20 (95% CI = 144.04–208.35), P = 0.068, d = 0.23]. In the per‐protocol analysis, including only those who initiated iCBT, the iCBT+TAU group showed lower mean weekly alcohol consumption compared with TAU [iCBT+TAU = 107.46 (95% CI = 71.17–143.74), TAU = 176.00 (95% CI = 144.21–207.80), P = 0.010, d = 0.42]. Conclusions: In Sweden, an internet‐based cognitive–behavioral program added to treatment‐as‐usual to reduce alcohol consumption showed weak evidence of a benefit at 12 months in the intention‐to‐treat analysis and good evidence of a benefit in the per‐protocol analysis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: For years it has been stated that the need for prevention and rehabilitation is not always identified early enough. Although many individuals have regular contact with a general practitioner (GP), this access path for applying for a prevention or rehabilitation service has not been fully exploited. The important role of GPs in supporting the intention to apply is highlighted in the research. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the "check-up 45 + " to support GPs both in identifying the need for prevention and rehabilitation services and in submitting applications. Methods: The study is designed as a two-arm, pragmatic 1:1 randomised controlled study (RCT), which will be conducted in about 20 general practices in the German states of Berlin and Brandenburg. Patients (n = 1,654) aged from 45 to 59 years will be recruited by medical assistants. In addition to usual care, both study groups will receive a questionnaire covering socio-economic and occupational variables to be filled out immediately in the waiting room. The intervention group passes through the "check-up 45 + ". This includes the completion of the "screening 45 + " that aims to assess the need for prevention and rehabilitation services. Medical assistants will immediately evaluate this 2-page screening tool. If a need is identified and confirmed by the GP, information and application documents will be handed over. Moreover, the application process for rehabilitation services is simplified. Primary outcome is the proportion of applications for prevention or rehabilitation services financed by the German Pension Insurance. Administrative data will be provided for this purpose. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of approved applications and completed services. In addition, the proportion of persons with a need for prevention or rehabilitation according to the "check-up 45 + " will be examined. Semi-structured interviews will be conducted and content-analysed to determine the practicability and acceptance of the "check-up 45 + " by the relevant stakeholders. Discussion: Prevention and rehabilitation need is insufficiently identified and addressed so far. This study will determine the effectiveness of the "check-up 45 + " in primary care. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00028303, 03.03.2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective To quantify the different types of health outcomes assessed as primary outcomes in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the primary care (PC) setting during the last 20 years and identify whether potential gaps exist in specific types of health care and types of intervention. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from January 2000 to September 2020 for published RCTs in PC. We recorded characteristics of eligible studies and mapped evidence by health outcome category (patient health outcomes, health services outcomes); and for each outcome category, by types of health care (preventive, acute, chronic, palliative), and by types of intervention (drug, behavioural, on structure, and on process). For RCTs assessing patient health outcomes as primary outcomes, we further mapped using the quality-of-care dimensions, that is, effectiveness, safety, and patient-centredness. Results Of the 518 eligible RCTs in PC, 357 (68.9%) evaluated a patient health outcome as the primary outcome, and 161 (31.1%) evaluated only health services outcomes as primary outcomes. Many focused on population with chronic illness (224 trials; 43.2%) and evaluated interventions on processes of health care (239 trials; 46.1%). Research gaps identified include preventive and palliative care, behavioural interventions, and safety and patient-centredness outcomes as primary outcomes. Conclusion Our evidence map showed research gaps in certain types of health care and interventions. It also showed research gaps in assessing safety and measures to place patient at the centre of health care delivery as primary outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Long-term weight loss can reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes for people living with obesity and reduce complications for patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. We investigated whether a telehealth lifestyle-coaching program (Liva) leads to long-term (24 months) weight loss compared to usual care. In a randomized controlled trial, n = 340 participants living with obesity with or without type 2 diabetes were enrolled and randomized via an automated computer algorithm to an intervention group (n = 200) or to a control group (n = 140). The telehealth lifestyle-coaching program comprised of an initial one-hour face-to-face motivational interview followed by asynchronous telehealth coaching. The behavioural change techniques used were enabled by individual live monitoring. The primary outcome was a change in body weight from baseline to 24 months. Data were assessed for n = 136 participants (40%), n = 81 from the intervention group and n = 55 from the control group, who completed the 24-month follow-up. After 24 months mean body weight and body mass index were reduced significantly for completers in both groups, but almost twice as much was registered for those in the intervention group which was not significant between groups -4.4 (CI -6.1; -2.8) kg versus -2.5 (CI -3.9; -1.1) kg, P = 0.101. Haemoglobin A1c was significantly reduced in the intervention group -3.1 (CI -5.0; -1.2) mmol/mol, but not in the control group -0.2 (CI -2.4; -2.0) mmol/mol without a significant between group difference (P = 0.223). Low completion was partly due to coronavirus disease 2019. Telehealth lifestyle coaching improve long-term weight loss (> 24 months) for obese people with and without type 2 diabetes compared to usual care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Health care expenditures for children with functional constipation (FC) are high, while conservative management is successful in only 50% of the children. The aim is to evaluate whether adding physiotherapy to conventional treatment (CT) is a cost-effective strategy in the management of children with FC aged 4-18 years in primary care.Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis was performed alongside a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with 8-month follow-up. Costs were assessed from a societal perspective, effectiveness included both the primary outcome (treatment success defined as the absence of FC and no laxative use) and the secondary outcome (absence of FC irrespective of laxative use). Uncertainty was assessed by bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves (CEACs) were displayed.Results: One hundred and thirty-four children were randomized. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for one additional successfully treated child in the physiotherapy group compared with the CT group was €24,060 (95% confidence interval [CI] €-16,275 to €31,390) and for the secondary outcome €1,221 (95% CI €-12,905 to €10,956). Subgroup analyses showed that for children with chronic laxative use the ICER was €2,134 (95% CI -24,975 to 17,192) and €571 (95% CI 11 to 3,566), respectively. At a value of €1,000, the CEAC showed a probability of 0.53 of cost-effectiveness for the primary outcome, and 0.90 for the secondary outcome.Conclusions: Physiotherapy added to CT as first-line treatment for all children with FC is not cost-effective compared with CT alone. Future studies should consider the cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy added to CT in children with chronic laxative use.Trial Registration: The RCT is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register (NTR4797), on the 8th of September 2014. The first child was enrolled on the 2nd of December 2014. https://www.trialregister.nl/trial/4654. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There are increasing efforts for the integration of mental health services into primary care settings in low- and middle-income countries. However, commonly used approaches to train primary care providers (PCPs) may not achieve the expected outcomes for improved service delivery, as evidenced by low detection rates of mental illnesses after training. One contributor to this shortcoming is the stigma among PCPs. Implementation strategies for training PCPs that reduce stigma have the potential to improve the quality of services.Design: In Nepal, a type 3 hybrid implementation-effectiveness cluster randomized controlled trial will evaluate the implementation-as-usual training for PCPs compared to an alternative implementation strategy to train PCPs, entitled Reducing Stigma among Healthcare Providers (RESHAPE). In implementation-as-usual, PCPs are trained on the World Health Organization Mental Health Gap Action Program Intervention Guide (mhGAP-IG) with trainings conducted by mental health specialists. In RESHAPE, mhGAP-IG training includes the added component of facilitation by people with lived experience of mental illness (PWLE) and their caregivers using PhotoVoice, as well as aspirational figures. The duration of PCP training is the same in both arms. Co-primary outcomes of the study are stigma among PCPs, as measured with the Social Distance Scale at 6 months post-training, and reach, a domain from the RE-AIM implementation science framework. Reach is operationalized as the accuracy of detection of mental illness in primary care facilities and will be determined by psychiatrists at 3 months after PCPs diagnose the patients. Stigma will be evaluated as a mediator of reach. Cost-effectiveness and other RE-AIM outcomes will be assessed. Twenty-four municipalities, the unit of clustering, will be randomized to either mhGAP-IG implementation-as-usual or RESHAPE arms, with approximately 76 health facilities and 216 PCPs divided equally between arms. An estimated 1100 patients will be enrolled for the evaluation of accurate diagnosis of depression, generalized anxiety disorder, psychosis, or alcohol use disorder. Masking will include PCPs, patients, and psychiatrists.Discussion: This study will advance the knowledge of stigma reduction for training PCPs in partnership with PWLE. This collaborative approach to training has the potential to improve diagnostic competencies. If successful, this implementation strategy could be scaled up throughout low-resource settings to reduce the global treatment gap for mental illness.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04282915 . Date of registration: February 25, 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Brief transdiagnostic psychotherapy is a possible approach for emotional disorders in primary care. The objective of the present randomized controlled trial was to determine its effectiveness compared with the treatment as usual based on pharmacological interventions in patients with mild/moderate symptoms. In addition, emotional regulation strategies and cognitive factors were studied as potential predictors. Participants (N = 105) were assigned to brief group therapy based on the Unified Protocol (n = 53) or treatment as usual (n = 52). They were assessed before and after the interventions. Mean differences and stepwise regression analyses were performed. Brief group transdiagnostic psychotherapy was more effective than medication in reducing all clinical symptoms (p =.007 for generalized anxiety; p =.000 for somatization; p =.000 for panic disorder; and p =.041 for depression) and in modifying emotional regulation strategies and cognitive processes (p =.000 for cognitive reappraisal, expressive suppression, worry, rumination, and metacognition) with moderate/high effect sizes. Besides, it was found that these variables acted as predictors of the therapeutic change. It is concluded that brief therapies could be an accurate treatment for mild/moderate emotional disorders in primary care due to their cost-effective characteristics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Physicians' use of self-assessment to guide quality improvement or board certification activities often does not correlate with more objective measures, and they may spend valuable time on activities that support their strengths instead of addressing gaps. Our objective was to study whether viewing quality measures, with peer comparisons, would affect the selection of certification activities.Methods: We conducted a cluster-randomized controlled trial-the Trial of Data Exchange for Maintenance of certification and Raising Quality (TRADEMaRQ)-with 4 partner organizations during 2015-2017. Physicians were presented their quality data within their online certification portfolios before (intervention) vs after (control) they chose board certification activities. The primary outcome was whether the selected activity addressed a quality gap (a quality area in which the physician scored below the mean for the study population).Results: Of 2,570 invited physicians, 254 physicians completed the study: 130 in the intervention group and 124 in the control group. Nearly one-fifth of participating physicians did not complete any certification activities during the study. A sizable minority of those in the intervention group, 18.4%, never reviewed their quality dashboard. Overall, just 27.2% of completed certification activities addressed a quality gap, and there was no significant difference in this outcome in the intervention group vs the control group in either bivariate or adjusted analyses (odds ratio = 1.28; 95% CI, 0.90-1.82).Conclusions: Physicians did not use quality performance data in choosing certification activities. Certification boards are being pressed to make their programs relevant to practice, less burdensome, and supportive of quality improvement in alignment with value-based payment models. Using practice data to drive certification choices would meet these goals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect the globe. After 18 months of the SARS-CoV-2 emergence, clinicians have clearly defined a subgroup of patients with lasting, disabling symptoms. While big strides have been made in understanding the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pathophysiology of long COVID is still largely unknown, and evidence-based, effective treatments for this condition remain unavailable. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of 10 mg oral montelukast every 24 h versus placebo in improving quality of life associated with mild to moderate respiratory symptoms in patients with long COVID as measured with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) questionnaire. The secondary objectives will evaluate the effect of montelukast versus placebo on improving exercise capacity, COVID-19 symptoms (asthenia, headache, mental confusion or brain fog, ageusia, and anosmia), oxygen desaturation during exertion, functional status, and mortality. Methods and analysis: Phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. We will include 18- to 80-year-old patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (experimental treatment with 10 mg/day montelukast) or the control group (placebo group), during a 28-day treatment. Follow-up will finish 56 days after the start of treatment. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life associated with respiratory symptoms according to the COPD Assessment Test 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The following are the secondary outcomes: (a) exercise capacity and oxygen saturation (1-min sit-to-stand test); (b) Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale; (c) other symptoms: asthenia, headache, mental confusion (brain fog), ageusia, and anosmia (Likert scale); (d) use of healthcare resources; (e) mortality; (f) sick leave duration in days; and (g) side effects of montelukast. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (reference number 21/091-C). The trial results will be published in open access, peer-reviewed journals and explained in webinars to increase awareness and understanding about long COVID among primary health professionals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04695704. Registered on January 5, 2021. EudraCT number 2021-000605-24. Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect the globe. After 18 months of the SARS-CoV-2 emergence, clinicians have clearly defined a subgroup of patients with lasting, disabling symptoms. While big strides have been made in understanding the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pathophysiology of long COVID is still largely unknown, and evidence-based, effective treatments for this condition remain unavailable. Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of 10 mg oral montelukast every 24 h versus placebo in improving quality of life associated with mild to moderate respiratory symptoms in patients with long COVID as measured with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) questionnaire. The secondary objectives will evaluate the effect of montelukast versus placebo on improving exercise capacity, COVID-19 symptoms (asthenia, headache, mental confusion or brain fog, ageusia, and anosmia), oxygen desaturation during exertion, functional status, and mortality. Methods and analysis: Phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. We will include 18- to 80-year-old patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (experimental treatment with 10 mg/day montelukast) or the control group (placebo group), during a 28-day treatment. Follow-up will finish 56 days after the start of treatment. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life associated with respiratory symptoms according to the COPD Assessment Test 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The following are the secondary outcomes: (a) exercise capacity and oxygen saturation (1-min sit-to-stand test); (b) Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale; (c) other symptoms: asthenia, headache, mental confusion (brain fog), ageusia, and anosmia (Likert scale); (d) use of healthcare resources; (e) mortality; (f) sick leave duration in days; and (g) side effects of montelukast. Ethics and dissemination: This study has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (reference number 21/091-C). The trial results will be published in open access, peer-reviewed journals and explained in webinars to increase awareness and understanding about long COVID among primary health professionals. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.govNCT04695704. Registered on January 5, 2021. EudraCT number 2021-000605-24. Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Emotional disorders are common, and they have become more prevalent since the COVID-19 pandemic. Due to a high attendance burden at the specialized level, most emotional disorders in Spain are treated in primary care, where they are usually misdiagnosed and treated using psychotropic drugs. This contributes to perpetuate their illness and increase health care costs. Following the IAPT programme and the transdiagnostic approach, the PsicAP project developed a brief group transdiagnostic cognitive-behavioural therapy (tCBT) as a cost-effective alternative. However, it is not suitable for everyone; in some cases, one-on-one sessions may be more effective. The objective of the present study is to compare, in cost-benefit terms, group and individual tCBT with the treatment usually administered in Spanish primary care (TAU). Methods: A randomized, controlled, multicentre, and single-blinded trial will be performed. Adults with mild to moderate emotional disorders will be recruited and placed in one of three arms: group tCBT, individual tCBT, or TAU. Medical data and outcomes regarding emotional symptoms, disability, quality of life, and emotion regulation biases will be collected at baseline, immediately after treatment, and 6 and 12 months later. The data will be used to calculate incremental cost-effectiveness and cost-utility ratios. Discussion: This trial aims to contribute to clinical practice research. The involvement of psychologists in primary care and the implementation of a stepped-care model for mental disorders are recommended. Group therapy and a transdiagnostic approach may help optimize health system resources and unblock waiting lists so that people can spend less time experiencing mental health problems. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04847310; Protocols.io: bx2npqde. (April 19, 2021) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Venous leg ulcers (VLU) have a prevalence of 1-2% in developed countries, and affected patients are severely and long-term impaired in daily activities, work, and social participation. Evidence-based outpatient treatment based on compression therapy is frequently not implemented. The "Ulcus Cruris Care" project was established to develop a disease management concept to improve outpatient treatment for patients with VLU in German primary care. For this purpose, a multifaceted intervention was conceived consisting of an online training for general practitioners and medical assistants, standardized treatment recommendations, e-learning and print-based information for patients, and a software support for case management. The main aims of the Ulcus Cruris Care intervention are to promote standardized treatment according to current scientific knowledge, to facilitate case management for VLU patients exerted by medical assistants, and to support patient education and participation in the treatment process. The UCC trial was designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ulcus Cruris Care intervention.Methods: The UCC trial is a prospective cluster-randomized controlled multicenter trial. Fifty GP practices are intended to be recruited and randomized 1:1 to intervention or control arm. Patients with venous leg ulcers will be recruited by participating GP practices, to include a total of 63 patients in each arm. The primary outcome is time to ulcer healing. Secondary outcomes comprise number and sizes of ulcers, recurrence, pain intensity according to the visual analog scale, health-related quality of life according to EQ-5D-5L, depressiveness according to Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), patient satisfaction according to the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC-5A) query, and adherence to VLU treatment. The outcome analysis of the UCC trial is accompanied by a health economic analysis and a process evaluation.Discussion: The UCC trial will evaluate whether the Ulcus Cruris Care intervention may lead to faster wound healing, higher health-related quality of life, and lower use of medical resources. If the intervention turns out to have a positive impact on assessed outcomes, comprehensive implementation in primary care may be considered.Trial Registration: The trial protocol (version 1 as of July 19, 2021) has been registered in the German Clinical Trials Register on August 30, 2021 ( DRKS00026126 ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is a need for high-quality research regarding exercise interventions for persons with anxiety disorders. We investigate whether a 12-week exercise intervention, with different intensities, could reduce anxiety symptoms in patients with anxiety disorders.Methods: 286 patients were recruited from primary care in Sweden. Severity of symptoms was self-assessed using the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and the Montgomery Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS-S). Participants were randomly assigned to one of two group exercise programs with cardiorespiratory and resistance training and one control/standard treatment non-exercise group, with 1:1:1 allocation.Results: Patients in both exercise groups showed larger improvements in both anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to the control group. No differences in effect sizes were found between the two groups. To study a clinically relevant improvement, BAI and MADRS-S were dichotomized with the mean change in the control group as reference. In adjusted models the odds ratio for improved symptoms of anxiety after low-intensity training was 3.62 (CI 1.34-9.76) and after moderate/high intensity 4.88 (CI 1.66-14.39), for depressive symptoms 4.96 (CI 1.81-13.6) and 4.36 (CI 1.57-12.08) respectively. There was a significant intensity trend for improvement in anxiety symptoms.Limitations: The use of self-rating measures which bears the risk of an under- or overestimation of symptoms.Conclusions: A 12-week group exercise program proved effective for patients with anxiety syndromes in primary care. These findings strengthen the view of physical exercise as an effective treatment and could be more frequently made available in clinical practice for persons with anxiety issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to affect the globe. After 18 months of the SARS-CoV-2 emergence, clinicians have clearly defined a subgroup of patients with lasting, disabling symptoms. While big strides have been made in understanding the acute phase of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the pathophysiology of long COVID is still largely unknown, and evidence-based, effective treatments for this condition remain unavailable.Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of 10 mg oral montelukast every 24 h versus placebo in improving quality of life associated with mild to moderate respiratory symptoms in patients with long COVID as measured with the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) questionnaire. The secondary objectives will evaluate the effect of montelukast versus placebo on improving exercise capacity, COVID-19 symptoms (asthenia, headache, mental confusion or brain fog, ageusia, and anosmia), oxygen desaturation during exertion, functional status, and mortality.Methods and Analysis: Phase III, randomized, double-blind clinical trial. We will include 18- to 80-year-old patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and mild to moderate respiratory symptoms lasting more than 4 weeks. Participants will be randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to the intervention (experimental treatment with 10 mg/day montelukast) or the control group (placebo group), during a 28-day treatment. Follow-up will finish 56 days after the start of treatment. The primary outcome will be health-related quality of life associated with respiratory symptoms according to the COPD Assessment Test 4 weeks after starting the treatment. The following are the secondary outcomes: (a) exercise capacity and oxygen saturation (1-min sit-to-stand test); (b) Post-COVID-19 Functional Status Scale; (c) other symptoms: asthenia, headache, mental confusion (brain fog), ageusia, and anosmia (Likert scale); (d) use of healthcare resources; (e) mortality; (f) sick leave duration in days; and (g) side effects of montelukast.Ethics and Dissemination: This study has been approved by the Clinical Research Ethics Committee of the IDIAPJGol (reference number 21/091-C). The trial results will be published in open access, peer-reviewed journals and explained in webinars to increase awareness and understanding about long COVID among primary health professionals.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04695704 . Registered on January 5, 2021. EudraCT number 2021-000605-24. Prospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little is known about effective strategies to improve advance care planning (ACP) for persons with cognitive impairment in primary care, the most common setting of care. We describe a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of a multicomponent communication intervention, "Sharing Healthcare Wishes in Primary Care" (SHARE). Planned enrollment of 248 dyads of adults 80 years and older with possible cognitive impairment and their care partner, from primary care clinics at 2 Mid-Atlantic health systems. The treatment protocol encompasses an introductory letter from the clinic; access to a designated facilitator trained in ACP; person-family agenda-setting to align perspectives about the family's role; and print education. The control protocol encompasses minimally enhanced usual care, which includes print education and a blank advance directive. Randomization occurs at the individual dyad-level. Patient and care partner surveys are fielded at baseline, 6-, 12-, and 24- months. Fidelity of interventionist delivery of the protocol is measured through audio-recordings of ACP conversations and post-meeting reports, and by ongoing monitoring and support of interventionists. The primary outcome is quality of end-of-life care communication at 6 months; secondary outcomes include ACP process measures. An exploratory aim examines end-of-life care quality and bereaved care partner experiences for patients who die by 24 months. Caregiver burden, clinician barriers, and impaired decisional capacity amplify the difficulty and importance of ACP discussions in the context of cognitive impairment: this intervention will comprehensively examine communication processes for this special subpopulation in a key setting of primary care. Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04593472. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]