Search

Background: The benefit of early integration of palliative care into oncological care is suggested to be due to increased psychosocial support. In Belgium, psychosocial care is part of standard oncological care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to examine whether early and systematic integration of palliative care alongside standard psychosocial oncological care provides added benefit compared with usual care.Methods: In this randomised controlled trial, eligible patients were 18 years or older, and had advanced cancer due to a solid tumour, an European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-2, an estimated life expectancy of 12 months, and were within the first 12 weeks of a new primary tumour or had a diagnosis of progression. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1), by block design using a computer-generated sequence, either to early and systematic integration of palliative care into oncological care, or standard oncological care alone in a setting where all patients are offered multidisciplinary oncology care by medical specialists, psychologists, social workers, dieticians, and specialist nurses. The primary endpoint was change in global health status/quality of life scale assessed by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 items (EORTC QLQ C30) at 12 weeks. The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), which includes the additional existential wellbeing dimension, was also used. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is ongoing, but closed for accrual, and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865396.Findings: From April 29, 2013, to Feb 29, 2016, we screened 468 patients for eligibility, of whom 186 were enrolled and randomly assigned to the early and systematic palliative care group (92 patients) or the standard oncological care group (94). Compliance at 12 weeks was 71% (65 patients) in the intervention group versus 72% (68) in the control group. The overall quality of life score at 12 weeks, by the EORTC QLQ C30, was 54·39 (95% CI 49·23-59·56) in the standard oncological care group versus 61·98 (57·02-66·95) in the early and systematic palliative care group (difference 7·60 [95% CI 0·59-14·60]; p=0·03); and by the MQOL Single Item Scale, 5·94 (95% CI 5·50-6·39) in the standard oncological care group versus 7·05 (6·59-7·50) in the early and systematic palliative care group (difference 1·11 [95% CI 0·49-1·73]; p=0.0006).Interpretation: The findings of this study show that a model of early and systematic integration of palliative care in oncological care increases the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer. Our findings also show that early and systematic integration of palliative care is more beneficial for patients with advanced cancer than palliative care consultations offered on demand, even when psychosocial support has already been offered. Through integration of care, oncologists and specialised palliative care teams should work together to enhance the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer.Funding: Research Foundation Flanders, Flemish Cancer Society (Kom Op Tegen Kanker). [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: 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: The aim of this study was to examine the efficacy of a collaborative care intervention in reducing depression, pain, and fatigue and improve quality of life.Methods: A total of 261 patients with advanced cancer and 179 family caregivers were randomized to a web-based collaborative care intervention or enhanced usual care. The intervention included the following: 1) a web site with written and audiovisual self-management strategies, a bulletin board, and other resources; 2) visits with a care coordinator during a physician's appointment every 2 months; and 3) telephone follow-up every 2 weeks. Primary patient outcomes included measures of depression, pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes included Interleukin (IL)-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, and IL-8 levels, Natural Killer (NK) cell numbers, and caregiver stress and depression.Results: At the baseline, 51% of the patients reported 1 or more symptoms in the clinical range. For patients who presented with clinical levels of symptoms and were randomized to the intervention, reductions in depression (Cohen's d = 0.71), pain (Cohen's d = 0.62), and fatigue (Cohen's d = 0.26) and improvements in quality of life (Cohen's d = 0.99) were observed when compared to those in the enhanced usual car arm at 6 months. Reductions in IL-6 (φ = 0.18), IL-1β (φ = 0.35), IL-1α (φ = 0.19), and IL-8 (φ = 0.15) and increases in NK cell numbers (φ = 0.23) were observed in comparison with enhanced usual care arm at 6 months. Reductions in caregiver stress (Cohen's d = 0.75) and depression (Cohen's d = 0.37) were observed at 6 months for caregivers whose loved ones were randomized to the intervention arm.Conclusions: The integration of screening and symptom management into cancer care is recommended. [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]