Search

Background: The African Surgical OutcomeS-2 (ASOS-2) trial tested an enhanced postoperative surveillance intervention to reduce postoperative mortality in Africa. We undertook a concurrent evaluation to understand the process of intervention delivery.Methods: Mixed-methods process evaluation, including field notes, interviews, and post-trial questionnaire responses. Qualitative analysis used the framework method with subsequent creation of comparative case studies, grouping hospitals by intervention fidelity. A post-trial questionnaire was developed using initial qualitative analyses. Categorical variables were summarised as count (%) and continuous variables as median (inter-quartile range [IQR]). Odds ratios (OR) were used to rank influences by impact on fidelity.Results: The dataset included eight in-depth case studies, and 96 questionnaire responses (response rate 67%) plus intervention fidelity data for each trial site. Overall, 57% (n=55/96) of hospitals achieved intervention delivery using an inclusive definition of fidelity. Delivery of the ASOS-2 interventions and data collection presented a significant burden to the investigators, outstripping limited resources. The influences most associated with fidelity were: surgical staff enthusiasm for the trial (OR=3.0; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3-7.0); nursing management support of the trial (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.5); performance of a dummy run (OR=2.6; 95% CI, 1.1-6.1); nursing colleagues seeing the value of the intervention(s) (OR=2.1; 95% CI, 0.9-5.7); and site investigators' belief in the effectiveness of the intervention (OR=3.2; 95% CI, 1.2-9.4).Conclusions: ASOS-2 has proved that coordinated interventional research across Africa is possible, but delivering the ASOS-2 interventions was a major challenge for many investigators. Future improvement science efforts must include better planning for intervention delivery, additional support to investigators, and promotion of strong inter-professional teamwork.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials gov NCT03853824. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Coronary heart disease (CHD) is the leading cause of death and years of life lost worldwide. While effective treatments are available for both acute and chronic disease stages there are unmet needs for effective interventions to support patients in health behaviors required for secondary prevention. Psychosocial distress is a common comorbidity in patients with CHD and associated with substantially reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), poor health behavior, and low treatment adherence.Methods: In a confirmatory, randomized, controlled, two-arm parallel group, multicenter behavioral intervention trial we will randomize 440 distressed CHD patients with at least one insufficiently controlled cardiac risk factor to either their physicians' usual care (UC) or UC plus 12-months of blended collaborative care (TeamCare = TC). Trained nurse care managers (NCM) will proactively support patients to identify individual sources of distress and risk behaviors, establish a stepwise treatment plan to improve self-help and healthy behavior, and actively monitor adherence and progress. Additional e-health resources are available to patients and their families. Intervention fidelity is ensured by a treatment manual, an electronic patient registry, and a specialist team regularly supervising NCM via videoconferences and recommending protocol and guideline-compliant treatment adjustments as indicated. Recommendations will be shared with patients and their physicians who remain in charge of patients' care. Since HRQoL is a recommended outcome by both, several guidelines and patient preference we chose a ≥ 50% improvement over baseline on the HeartQoL questionnaire at 12 months as primary outcome. Our primary hypothesis is that significantly more patients receiving TC will meet the primary outcome criterion compared to the UC group. Secondary hypotheses will evaluate improvements in risk factors, psychosocial variables, health care utilization, and durability of intervention effects over 18-30 months of follow-up.Discussion: TEACH is the first study of a blended collaborative care intervention simultaneously addressing distress and medical CHD risk factors conducted in cardiac patients in a European health care setting. If proven effective, its results can improve long-term chronic care of this vulnerable patient group and may be adapted for patients with other chronic conditions.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00020824, registered on 4 June, 2020; https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00020824. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A considerable proportion of patients with mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (TBI) experience long-lasting somatic, cognitive, and emotional symptoms that may hamper their capacity to return to work (RTW). Although several studies have described medical, psychological, and work-related factors that predict RTW after TBI, well-controlled intervention studies regarding RTW are scarce. Furthermore, there has traditionally been weak collaboration among health-related rehabilitation services, the labor and welfare sector, and workplaces.Methods/design: This study protocol describes an innovative randomized controlled trial in which we will explore the effect of combining manualized cognitive rehabilitation (Compensatory Cognitive Training [CCT]) and supported employment (SE) on RTW and related outcomes for patients with mild to moderate TBI in real-life competitive work settings. The study will be carried out in the southeastern region of Norway and thereby be performed within the Norwegian welfare system. Patients aged 18-60 years with mild to moderate TBI who are employed in a minimum 50% position at the time of injury and sick-listed 50% or more for postconcussive symptoms 2 months postinjury will be included in the study. A comprehensive assessment of neurocognitive function, self-reported symptoms, emotional distress, coping style, and quality of life will be performed at baseline, immediately after CCT (3 months after inclusion), following the end of SE (6 months after inclusion), and 12 months following study inclusion. The primary outcome measures are the proportion of participants who have returned to work at 12-month follow-up and length of time until RTW, in addition to work stability as well as work productivity over the first year following the intervention. Secondary outcomes include changes in self-reported symptoms, emotional and cognitive function, and quality of life. Additionally, a qualitative RTW process evaluation focused on organizational challenges at the workplace will be performed.Discussion: The proposed study will combine cognitive and vocational rehabilitation and explore the efficacy of increased cross-sectoral collaboration between specialized health care services and the labor and welfare system. If the intervention proves effective, the project will describe the cost-effectiveness and utility of the program and thereby provide important information for policy makers. In addition, knowledge about the RTW process for persons with TBI and their workplaces will be provided.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03092713 . Registered on 10 March 2017. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Randomised clinical trials are key to advancing medical knowledge and to enhancing patient care, but major barriers to their conduct exist. The present paper presents some of these barriers.Methods: We performed systematic literature searches and internal European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN) communications during face-to-face meetings and telephone conferences from 2013 to 2017 within the context of the ECRIN Integrating Activity (ECRIN-IA) project.Results: The following barriers to randomised clinical trials were identified: inadequate knowledge of clinical research and trial methodology; lack of funding; excessive monitoring; restrictive privacy law and lack of transparency; complex regulatory requirements; and inadequate infrastructures. There is a need for more pragmatic randomised clinical trials conducted with low risks of systematic and random errors, and multinational cooperation is essential.Conclusions: The present paper presents major barriers to randomised clinical trials. It also underlines the value of using a pan-European-distributed infrastructure to help investigators overcome barriers for multi-country trials in any disease area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is a common illness with great human costs and a significant burden on the public economy. Previous studies have indicated that collaborative care (CC) has a positive effect on symptoms when provided to people with depression, but CC has not yet been applied in a Danish context. We therefore developed a model for CC (the Collabri model) to treat people with depression in general practice in Denmark. Since systematic identification of patients is an "active ingredient" in CC and some literature suggests case finding as the best alternative to standard detection, the two detection methods are examined as part of the study. The aim is to investigate if treatment according to the Collabri model has an effect on depression symptoms when provided to people with depression in general practice in Denmark, and to examine if case finding is a better method to detect depression in general practice than standard detection.Methods/design: The trial is a cluster-randomised, clinical superiority trial investigating the effect of treatment according to the Collabri model for CC, compared to treatment as usual for 480 participants diagnosed with depression in general practice in the Capital Region of Denmark. The primary outcome is depression symptoms (Beck's Depression Inventory (BDI-II)) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include depression symptoms (BDI-II) after 15 months, anxiety symptoms (Beck's Anxiety Inventory (BAI)), level of functioning (Global Assessment of Function (GAF)) and psychological stress (Symptom Checklist-90-Revised (SCL-90-R)). In addition, case finding (with the recommended screening tool Major Depression Inventory (MDI)) and standard detection of depression is examined in a cluster-randomized controlled design. Here, the primary outcome is the positive predictive value of referral diagnosis.Discussion: If the Collabri model is shown to be superior to treatment as usual, the study will contribute with important knowledge on how to improve treatment of depression in general practice, with major benefit to patients and society. If case finding is shown to be superior to standard detection, it will be recommended as the detection method in future treatment according to the Collabri model.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02678845 . Retrospectively registered on 7 February 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Polypharmacy and inappropriate drug use is associated with negative health outcomes among older people. Various interventions for improving drug treatment have been evaluated, but the majority of studies are limited by the use of surrogate outcomes or suboptimal design. Thus, the potential for clinically significant improvements from different interventions is still unclear. The main objective of this study is therefore to evaluate the effect upon patient-relevant endpoints of a cooperation between geriatricians and general practitioners on complex drug regimens in home-dwelling elderly people.Methods: This is a cluster randomised, single-blind, controlled trial where general practitioners are invited to participate with patients from their lists. The patients must be 70 years or older, use at least seven different medications and have their medications administered by the home nursing service. We plan to recruit 200 patients, with randomisation at physician level. The intervention consists of three main parts: (1) clinical geriatric assessment of the patient, combined with a thorough review of their medications; (2) a meeting between the geriatrician and general practitioner, where the two physicians combine their competence and knowledge and discuss the drug list systematically; (3) clinical follow-up, depending on the medication changes that have been done. The study period is 24 weeks, and the patients are assessed at baseline, 16 and 24 weeks. The primary outcome measure is health-related quality of life according to the 15D instrument. Secondary outcome measures include physical and cognitive functioning, medication appropriateness, falls, carer burden, use of health services (hospital or nursing home admissions, use of home nursing services) and mortality.Discussion: Our choice of patient-relevant outcome measures will hopefully provide new knowledge on the potential for clinical improvements after performing comprehensive medication reviews in home-dwelling elderly people receiving polypharmacy.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02379455 . Registered on 27 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Older inpatients are at risk of hospital-associated geriatric syndromes including delirium, functional decline, incontinence, falls and pressure injuries. These contribute to longer hospital stays, loss of independence, and death. Effective interventions to reduce geriatric syndromes remain poorly implemented due to their complexity, and require an organised approach to change care practices and systems. Eat Walk Engage is a complex multi-component intervention with structured implementation, which has shown reduced geriatric syndromes and length of stay in pilot studies at one hospital. This study will test effectiveness of implementing Eat Walk Engage using a multi-site cluster randomised trial to inform transferability of this intervention.Methods: A hybrid study design will evaluate the effectiveness and implementation strategy of Eat Walk Engage in a real-world setting. A multisite cluster randomised study will be conducted in 8 medical and surgical wards in 4 hospitals, with one ward in each site randomised to implement Eat Walk Engage (intervention) and one to continue usual care (control). Intervention wards will be supported to develop and implement locally tailored strategies to enhance early mobility, nutrition, and meaningful activities. Resources will include a trained, mentored facilitator, audit support, a trained healthcare assistant, and support by an expert facilitator team using the i-PARIHS implementation framework. Patient outcomes and process measures before and after intervention will be compared between intervention and control wards. Primary outcomes are any hospital-associated geriatric syndrome (delirium, functional decline, falls, pressure injuries, new incontinence) and length of stay. Secondary outcomes include discharge destination; 30-day mortality, function and quality of life; 6 month readmissions; and cost-effectiveness. Process measures including patient interviews, activity mapping and mealtime audits will inform interventions in each site and measure improvement progress. Factors influencing the trajectory of implementation success will be monitored on implementation wards.Discussion: Using a hybrid design and guided by an explicit implementation framework, the CHERISH study will establish the effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and transferability of a successful pilot program for improving care of older inpatients, and identify features that support successful implementation.Trial Registration: ACTRN12615000879561 registered prospectively 21/8/2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The effectiveness of collaborative care of mental health problems is clear for depression and growing but mixed for anxiety disorders, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). We know little about whether collaborative care can be effective in settings that serve low-income patients such as Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs).Objective: We compared the effectiveness of minimally enhanced usual care (MEU) versus collaborative care for PTSD with a care manager (PCM).Design: This was a multi-site patient randomized controlled trial of PTSD care improvement over 1 year.Participants: We recruited and enrolled 404 patients in six FQHCs from June 2010 to October 2012. Patients were eligible if they had a primary care appointment, no obvious physical or cognitive obstacles to participation, were age 18-65 years, planned to continue care at the study location for 1 year, and met criteria for a past month diagnosis of PTSD.Main Measures: The main outcomes were PTSD diagnosis and symptom severity (range, 0-136) based on the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale (CAPS). Secondary outcomes were medication and counseling for mental health problems, and health-related quality of life assessed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.Key Results: Patients in both conditions improved similarly over the 1-year evaluation period. At 12 months, PTSD diagnoses had an absolute decrease of 56.7% for PCM patients and 60.6% for MEU patients. PTSD symptoms decreased by 26.8 and 24.2 points, respectively. MEU and PCM patients also did not differ in process of care outcomes or health-related quality of life. Patients who actually engaged in care management had mental health care visits that were 14% higher (p < 0.01) and mental health medication prescription rates that were 15.2% higher (p < 0.01) than patients with no engagement.Conclusions: A minimally enhanced usual care intervention was similarly effective as collaborative care for patients in FQHCs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Each year in the USA, 1.5-2.5 million Americans are so severely injured that they require inpatient hospitalization. Multiple conditions including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), alcohol and drug use problems, depression, and chronic medical conditions are endemic among physical trauma survivors with and without traumatic brain injuries.Methods/design: The trauma survivors outcomes and support (TSOS) effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial is designed to test the delivery of high-quality screening and intervention for PTSD and comorbidities across 24 US level I trauma center sites. The pragmatic trial aims to recruit 960 patients. The TSOS investigation employs a stepped wedge cluster randomized design in which sites are randomized sequentially to initiate the intervention. Patients identified by a 10-domain electronic health record screen as high risk for PTSD are formally assessed with the PTSD Checklist for study entry. Patients randomized to the intervention condition will receive stepped collaborative care, while patients randomized to the control condition will receive enhanced usual care. The intervention training begins with a 1-day on-site workshop in the collaborative care intervention core elements that include care management, medication, cognitive behavioral therapy, and motivational-interviewing elements targeting PTSD and comorbidity. The training is followed by site supervision from the study team. The investigation aims to determine if intervention patients demonstrate significant reductions in PTSD and depressive symptoms, suicidal ideation, alcohol consumption, and improvements in physical function when compared to control patients. The study uses implementation science conceptual frameworks to evaluate the uptake of the intervention model. At the completion of the pragmatic trial, results will be presented at an American College of Surgeons' policy summit. Twenty-four representative US level I trauma centers have been selected for the study, and the protocol is being rolled out nationally.Discussion: The TSOS pragmatic trial simultaneously aims to establish the effectiveness of the collaborative care intervention targeting PTSD and comorbidity while also addressing sustainable implementation through American College of Surgeons' regulatory policy. The TSOS effectiveness-implementation hybrid design highlights the importance of partnerships with professional societies that can provide regulatory mandates targeting enhanced health care system sustainability of pragmatic trial results.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02655354 . Registered 27 July 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ageing has become a worldwide reality and presents new challenges for the health-care system. Research has shown that potentially inappropriate prescribing, both potentially inappropriate medications and potentially prescribing omissions, is highly prevalent in older people, especially in the nursing home setting. The presence of potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions is associated with adverse drug events, hospitalisations, mortality and health-care costs. The Collaborative approach to Optimise MEdication use for Older people in Nursing homes (COME-ON) study aims to evaluate the effect of a complex, multifaceted intervention, including interdisciplinary case conferences, on the appropriateness of prescribing of medicines for older people in Belgian nursing homes.Methods/design: A multicentre cluster-controlled trial is set up in 63 Belgian nursing homes (30 intervention; 33 control). In each of these nursing homes, 35 residents (≥65 years) are selected for participation. The complex, multifaceted intervention comprises (i) health-care professional education and training, (ii) local concertation (discussion on the appropriate use of at least one medication class at the level of the nursing home) and (iii) repeated interdisciplinary case conferences between general practitioner, nurse and pharmacist to perform medication review for each included nursing home resident. The control group works as usual. The study period lasts 15 months. The primary outcome measures relate to the appropriateness of prescribing and are defined as (1) among residents who had at least one potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission at baseline, the proportion of them for whom there is a decrease of at least one of these potentially inappropriate medications/potentially prescribing omissions at the end of study, and (2) among all residents, the proportion of them for whom at least one new potentially inappropriate medication/potentially prescribing omission is present at the end of the study, compared to baseline. The secondary outcome measures include individual components of appropriateness of prescribing, medication use, outcomes of the case conferences, clinical outcomes and costs. A process evaluation (focusing on implementation, causal mechanisms and contextual factors) will be conducted alongside the study.Discussion: The COME-ON study will contribute to a growing body of knowledge concerning the effect of complex interventions on the use of medicines in the nursing home setting, and on factors influencing their effect. The results will inform policymakers on strategies to implement in the near future.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66138978. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To use data from a randomized trial to determine the cost-effectiveness of a collaborative care (CC) depression and anxiety treatment program and to assess effects of the CC program on health care utilization.Methods: The CC intervention's impact on health-related quality of life, depression-free days (DFDs), and anxiety-free days (AFDs) over the 24-week postdischarge period was calculated and compared with the enhanced usual care (EUC) condition using independent samples t tests and random-effects regression models. Costs for both the CC and EUC conditions were calculated on the basis of staff time, overhead expenses, and treatment materials. Using this information, incremental cost-effectiveness ratios were calculated. A cost-effectiveness acceptability plot was created using nonparametric bootstrapping with 10,000 replications, and the likelihood of the CC intervention's cost-effectiveness was assessed using standard cutoffs. As a secondary analysis, we determined whether the CC intervention led to reductions in postdischarge health care utilization and costs.Results: The CC intervention was more costly than the EUC intervention ($209.86 vs. $34.59; z = -11.71; P < 0.001), but was associated with significantly greater increases in quality-adjusted life-years (t = -2.49; P = 0.01) and DFDs (t = -2.13; P = 0.03), but not AFDs (t = -1.92; P = 0.057). This translated into an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $3337.06 per quality-adjusted life-year saved, $13.36 per DFD, and $13.74 per AFD. Compared with the EUC intervention, the CC intervention was also associated with fewer emergency department visits but no differences in overall costs.Conclusions: This CC intervention was associated with clinically relevant improvements, was cost-effective, and was associated with fewer emergency department visits in the 24 weeks after discharge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tobacco consumption is a preventable risk factor for chronic disease and complicates the treatment of medical conditions. Therefore, the German health insurance company AOK NORDWEST has developed a collaborative smoking cessation intervention for individuals with cardiovascular disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and heavy smokers, with the aim of reducing tobacco consumption. The objective of the study ENTER is to evaluate the effectiveness of the collaborative smoking cessation intervention and determine its cost-effectiveness.Methods/design: This study is a cluster-randomized controlled trial conducted with 40 medical practices that are being selected from different geographic regions in Germany. Participating medical practices will be randomly allocated to either the intervention or control group. Within the medical practices, a total of 800 patients will be recruited for participation in the study and blinded to group assignment. Patients are included in the study if they are 18 years or older, insured by AOK, heavy smokers (smoke at least 20 cigarettes per day) and/or suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or cardiovascular disease. Exclusion criteria are patients who are nonsmokers, who have cognitive impairments or who are illiterate. Physicians from medical practices in the intervention group will motivate patients to participate in a smoking cessation program offered by the health insurance, refer them to the program and ask about their program participation. Physicians from medical practices in the control group will provide usual care. Data collection will take place on the date of study inclusion and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the amount of cigarettes consumed during the past 30 days, 12 months after the initial medical consultation. Secondary outcomes are abstinence from smoking, health-related quality of life and respiratory complaints. Moreover, a process evaluation and health economic analysis will be performed.Discussion: The results of this study will help to determine whether the collaborative smoking cessation intervention is an effective and feasible way to promote smoking cessation in the primary care setting and provide evidence regarding its cost-effectiveness.Trial Registration: German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00006079 . Registered 4 June 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Scale-up and spread of evidence-based practices is one of the most important challenges facing health care. We tested whether a statewide initiative, Depression Improvement Across Minnesota-Offering a New Direction (DIAMOND), to implement the collaborative care model for depression in 75 primary care clinics resulted in patient outcome improvements corresponding to those reported in randomized controlled trials.Methods: Health plans provided a new monthly payment to participating clinics after a 6-month intensive training program with ongoing data submission, networking, and consultation. Implementation was staggered, with 5 sequences of 10 to 40 clinics every 6 months. Payers provided weekly contact information for members from participating clinics who were filling antidepressant prescriptions, and we conducted baseline and 6-month surveys of 1,578 patients about their care and outcomes.Results: There were 466 patients in DIAMOND clinics who received usual care before implementation (UCB), 559 who received usual care in DIAMOND clinics after implementation (UCA), 245 who received DIAMOND care after implementation (DCA), and 308 who received usual care in comparison clinics (UC). Patients who received DIAMOND care after implementation reported more collaborative care depression services than the 3 comparison groups (10.9 vs 6.4-6.7, on a scale of 0 of 14, where higher numbers indicate more services; P <.001) and more satisfaction with their care (4.0 vs 3.4 on a scale 1 to 5, in which higher scores indicate higher satisfaction; P ≤.001). Depression remission rates, however, were not significantly different among the 4 groups (36.4% DCA vs 35.8% UCB, 35.0% UCA, 33.9% UC; P = .94).Conclusions: Despite the incentive of a supporting payment change and intensive training and support for clinics volunteering to participate, no difference in depression outcomes was documented. Specific unmeasured actions present in trials but not present in these clinics may be critical for successful outcome improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health services research is expected to involve service users as active partners in the research process, but few examples report how this has been achieved in practice in trials. We implemented a model to involve service users in a multi-centre randomised controlled trial in pre-hospital emergency care. We used the generic Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) from our Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) as the basis for creating a model to fit the context and population of the SAFER 2 trial.Methods: In our model, we planned to involve service users at all stages in the trial through decision-making forums at 3 levels: 1) strategic; 2) site (e.g. Wales; London; East Midlands); 3) local. We linked with charities and community groups to recruit people with experience of our study population. We collected notes of meetings alongside other documentary evidence such as attendance records and study documentation to track how we implemented our model.Results: We involved service users at strategic, site and local level. We also added additional strategic level forums (Task and Finish Groups and Writing Days) where we included service users. Service user involvement varied in frequency and type across meetings, research stages and locations but stabilised and increased as the trial progressed.Conclusion: Involving service users in the SAFER 2 trial showed how it is feasible and achievable for patients, carers and potential patients sharing the demographic characteristics of our study population to collaborate in a multi-centre trial at the level which suited their health, location, skills and expertise. A standard model of involvement can be tailored by adopting a flexible approach to take account of the context and complexities of a multi-site trial.Trial Registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60481756. Registered: 13 March 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Competing health concerns present real obstacles to people living with diabetes and other chronic diseases as well as to their primary care providers. Guideline implementation interventions rarely acknowledge this, leaving both patients and providers feeling overwhelmed by the volume of recommended actions. Interprofessional (IP) shared decision-making (SDM) with the use of decision aids may help to set treatment priorities. We developed an evidence-based SDM intervention for patients with diabetes and other conditions that was framed by the IP-SDM model and followed a user-centered approach. Our objective in the present study is to pilot an IP-SDM and goal-setting toolkit following the Knowledge-to-Action Framework to assess (1) intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger trial and (2) impact on decisional conflict, diabetes distress, health-related quality of life and patient assessment of chronic illness care.Methods/design: A two-step, parallel-group, clustered randomized controlled trial (RCT) will be conducted, with the primary goal being to assess intervention fidelity and the feasibility of conducting a larger RCT. The first step is a provider-directed implementation only; the second (after a 6-month delay) involves both provider- and patient-directed implementation. Half of the clusters will be assigned to receive the IP-SDM toolkit, and the other will be assigned to be mailed a diabetes guidelines summary. Individual interviews with patients, their family members and health care providers will be conducted upon trial completion to explore toolkit use. A secondary purpose of this trial is to gather estimates of the toolkit's impact on decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes include diabetes distress, quality of life and chronic illness care, which will be assessed on the basis of patient-completed questionnaires of validated scales at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Multilevel hierarchical regression models will be used to account for the clustered nature of the data.Discussion: An individualized approach to patients with multiple chronic conditions using SDM and goal setting is a desirable strategy for achieving guideline-concordant treatment in a patient-centered fashion. Our pilot trial will provide insights regarding strategies for the routine implementation of such interventions in clinical practice, and it will offer an assessment of the impact of this approach.Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02379078. Date of Registration: 11 February 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: We aimed to make individual patient data from the International Stroke Trial (IST), one of the largest randomised trials ever conducted in acute stroke, available for public use, to facilitate the planning of future trials and to permit additional secondary analyses.Methods: For each randomised patient, we have extracted data on the variables assessed at randomisation, at the early outcome point (14-days after randomisation or prior discharge) and at 6-months and provide them as an analysable database.Results: The IST dataset includes data on 19 435 patients with acute stroke, with 99% complete follow-up. Over 26.4% patients were aged over 80 years at study entry. Background stroke care was limited and none of the patients received thrombolytic therapy.Conclusions: The IST dataset provides a source of primary data which could be used for planning further trials, for sample size calculations and for novel secondary analyses. Given the age distribution and nature of the background treatment given, the data may be of value in planning trials in older patients and in resource-poor settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Depression is common in patients with diabetes, but it is often inadequately treated within primary care. Competing clinical demands and treatment resistance may make it especially difficult to improve depressive symptoms in patients with diabetes who have multiple complications.Objective: To determine whether a collaborative care intervention for depression would be as effective in patients with diabetes who had 2 or more complications as in patients with diabetes who had fewer complications.Design: The Pathways Study was a randomized control trial comparing collaborative care case management for depression and usual primary care. This secondary analysis compared outcomes in patients with 2 or more complications to patients with fewer complications.Patients: Three hundred and twenty-nine patients with diabetes and comorbid depression were recruited through primary care clinics of a large prepaid health plan.Measurements: Depression was assessed at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months with the 20-item depression scale from the Hopkins Symptom Checklist. Diabetes complications were determined from automated patient records.Results: The Pathways collaborative care intervention was significantly more successful at reducing depressive symptoms than usual primary care in patients with diabetes who had 2 or more complications. Patients with fewer than 2 complications experienced similar reductions in depressive symptoms in both intervention and usual care.Conclusion: Patients with depression and diabetes who have multiple complications may benefit most from collaborative care for depression. These findings suggest that with appropriate intervention depression can be successfully treated in patients with diabetes who have the highest severity of medical problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Service delivery innovation is at the heart of efforts to combat the growing burden of chronic disease and escalating healthcare expenditure. Small-scale, locally-led service delivery innovation is a valuable source of learning about the complexities of change and the actions of local change agents. This exploratory qualitative study captures the perspectives of clinicians and managers involved in a general practitioner-led integrated diabetes care innovation.Methods: Data on these change agents' perspectives on the local innovation and how it works in the local context were collected through focus groups and semi-structured interviews at two primary health care sites. Transcribed data were analysed thematically. Normalization Process Theory provided a framework to explore perspectives on the individual and collective work involved in putting the innovation into practice in local service delivery contexts.Results: Twelve primary health care clinicians, hospital-based medical specialists and practice managers participated in the study, which represented the majority involved in the innovation at the two sites. The thematic analysis highlighted three main themes of local innovation work: 1) trusting and embedding new professional relationships; 2) synchronizing services and resources; and 3) reconciling realities of innovation work. As a whole, the findings show that while locally-led service delivery innovation is designed to respond to local problems, convincing others to trust change and managing the boundary tensions is core to local work, particularly when it challenges taken-for-granted practices and relationships. Despite this, the findings also show that local innovators can and do act in both discretionary and creative ways to progress the innovation.Conclusions: The use of Normalization Process Theory uncovered some critical professional, organizational and structural factors early in the progression of the innovation. The key to local service delivery innovation lies in building coalitions of trust at the point of service delivery and persuading organizational and institutional mindsets to consider the opportunities of locally-led innovation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The objective of Heart Health NOW (HHN) is to determine if primary care practice support-a comprehensive evidence-based quality improvement strategy involving practice facilitation, academic detailing, technology support, and regional learning collaboratives-accelerates widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based guidelines for cardiovascular disease (CVD) prevention in small- to medium-sized primary care practices and, additionally, increases practices' capacity to incorporate other evidence-based clinical guidelines in the future.Methods/design: HHN is a stepped wedge, stratified, cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effect of primary care practice support on evidence-based CVD prevention, organizational change process measures, and patient outcomes. Each practice will start the trial as a control, receive the intervention at a randomized time point, and then enter a maintenance period 12 months after the start of the intervention. The intervention will be randomized to practices in one of four strata defined by region of the state (east or west) and degree of practice readiness for change. Seventy-five practices in each region with a high degree of readiness will be randomized 1:1:1 in blocks of 3 sometime prior to month 8 to receive the intervention at month 9, 11, or 12. An additional 75 practices within each region that have a low degree of readiness or are recruited later will be randomized 1:1 in blocks of 2 prior to month 13 to receive the intervention at month 14 or 16. The sites will be ordered within each strata based on time of enrollment with the blocking based on this ordering. Evaluation will examine the effect of primary care practice support on (1) practice-level delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, (2) patient-level health outcomes, (3) practice-level implementation of clinical and organizational changes that support delivery of evidence-based CVD prevention, and (4) practice-level capacity to implement future evidence-based clinical guidelines.Discussion: Results will indicate whether primary care practice support is an effective strategy for widespread dissemination and implementation of evidence-based clinical guidelines in primary care practices. Discernible reductions in cardiovascular risk in 300 practices covering over an estimated 900,000 adult patients would likely lead to prevention of thousands of cardiovascular events within 10 years.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02585557. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]