Search

Objectives: To compare a designated shared oral care intervention in a group of public nursing home residents with a standard oral care programme, focusing on levels of oral plaque and oral inflammation. Methods: A cluster randomized field trial was undertaken in 14 Danish public nursing homes. There were 145 participants included in the intervention group and 98 in the control group. We undertook a six‐month intervention based on the principle of situated interprofessional learning. The primary outcomes were plaque and inflammation levels measured with the mucosal plaque index (MPS); this was assessed at baseline, after three and six months (end of intervention), and at follow‐up (six months postintervention). The odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated with ordinal regression. Results: Socio‐demographic characteristics and oral health status at baseline were comparable between the two groups, with the exception of age: the intervention group were significantly younger than controls (median 82 vs 87 years). After three and six months, those receiving the shared oral care intervention had significantly lower plaque and inflammation than the control group. The adjusted ORs for a reduction in MPS were 11.8 (CI: 6.5‐21.3) and 11.0 (CI: 5.8‐20.9), respectively. At follow‐up, plaque levels and oral inflammation had approached the pre‐intervention level, with no remaining statistically significant group differences. Conclusions: The shared oral care intervention based on a situated learning perspective was effective in improving oral health among care home residents. However, after termination of the intervention, the effect quickly decreased. This confirms the challenges of achieving long‐term improvement in oral health in nursing home residents. An implementation strategy focusing on achieving changes at both organizational and individual levels with persistent attention to oral health care seem required for long‐term improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have shown that multicomponent interventions may improve meal frequency and eating habits in children, but evidence among young people is limited. This study evaluated the effect of the Healthy High School (HHS) intervention on daily intake of breakfast, lunch, water, fruit, and vegetables at 9-month follow-up. Methods: The study included first-year students (≈16 years) attending high school in Denmark. Participating schools were randomized into the HHS intervention (N = 15) or control group (operating as usual) (N = 15). The intervention was designed to promote well-being (primary outcome) by focusing on healthy habits including meals, stress prevention, and strong peer relations. It included a curriculum, structural and organisational initiatives, a workshop, and a smartphone application. Students completed self-administered online questionnaires at the beginning of the school year and nine months later. To account for clustering of data, we used multilevel logistic regression analyses to estimate odds ratios (OR). We applied an intention-to-treat approach with multiple imputations of missing data. Results: At baseline 4577 of 5201 students answered the questionnaire and 4512 at follow-up. In both groups the proportion of students eating breakfast decreased from approximately 50% to 40% from baseline to follow-up, and lunch frequency decreased from approximately 50% to 47%. Daily water intake, intake of fresh fruit and intake of vegetables remained unchanged from baseline to follow-up. There were no significant between group differences on any of the outcomes at first follow-up: breakfast: OR = 0.85 (95% CI: 0.65;1.10), lunch: OR = 0.96 (95% CI: 0.75;1.22), water intake: OR = 1.14 (95% CI: 0.92;1.40), intake of fresh fruit: (OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.84;1.37), vegetables: (OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.77;1.33). Conclusion: No evidence of an effect of the HHS intervention was found for any of the outcomes. Future studies are warranted to explore how health promoting interventions can be integrated in further education to support educational goals. Moreover, how to fit interventions to the lives and wishes of young people, by also including systems outside of the school setting. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN43284296. Registered 28 April 2017 - retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Hydration therapy is essential in the care of the older patient. Subcutaneous (SC) hydration is a relevant method for parenteral hydration, but clinical trials on the subject have methodological shortcomings compared to updated standards. Design Assessor-blinded, non-inferiority RCT to explore if SC is a safe alternative to intravenous (IV) hydration. Participants Eligible patients were: Admitted patients 65 years or older with a need for parenteral hydration. The targeted sample size was 67 patients in each group. Intervention Patients were randomised to parenteral hydration via an IV or SC catheter during a 24 hours observation period. The non-randomised catheter (inactive) was placed as a sham on the patient, thereby blinding the caregivers and outcome assessors. Measurement Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients reporting at least one adverse effect with a non-inferiority calculation using a 20% margin. Results We included 51 patients, with 24 randomised to SC and 27 to IV. We were unable to reach our target sample size due to challenges in recruitment, time limitation, and COVID-19. For the outcome of adverse effects, SC was non-inferior to IV (p = 0.012). Time spent on inserting the catheters was shorter with SC (p = 0.001). The groups did not differ by pain of insertion, discomfort during infusion, or the risk of developing delirium. Conclusion SC is a safe alternative to IV hydration, is faster to place and should be an available method for parenteral hydration wherever older adults are cared for. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03710408 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Health anxiety is common, disabling and costly due to patients' extensive use of health care services. Internet-delivered treatment may overcome barriers of accessibility to specialized treatment. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of internet-delivered acceptance and commitment therapy (iACT). Methods: A randomized, controlled trial of iACT versus an internet-delivered discussion forum (iFORUM), performed in a Danish university hospital setting. Patients self-referred and underwent video-diagnostic assessment. Eligible patients (≥18 years) with health anxiety were randomized to 12 weeks of intervention. The randomization was blinded for the assessor. The primary outcome was between-group unadjusted mean differences in health anxiety symptoms measured by the Whiteley-7 Index (WI-7, range 0–100) from baseline to 6-month follow-up (6-MFU) using intention to treat and a linear mixed model. The study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT02735434. Results: A total of 151 patients self-referred, and 101 patients were randomized to iACT (n = 53) or iFORUM (n = 48). A mean difference in change over time of 19.0 points [95% confidence interval (CI) 10.8–27.2, p < 0.001] was shown on the WI-7, and a large standardized effect size of d = 0.80 (95% CI 0.38–1.23) at 6-MFU. The number needed to treat was 2.8 (95% CI 1.8–6.1, p < 0.001), and twice as many patients in iACT were no longer clinical cases (35% v. 16%; risk ratio 2.17, 95% CI 1.00–4.70, p = 0.050). Adverse events were few and insignificant. Conclusions: iACT for health anxiety led to sustained effects at 6-MFU. The study contributes to the development of easily accessible treatment options and deserves wider application. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Early integration of palliative care into oncology treatment is widely recommended. Palliative rehabilitation has been suggested as a paradigm which integrates enablement, self-management, and self-care into the holistic model of palliative care. Aim: We hypothesized that early integration of palliative rehabilitation could improve quality of life. Design: The Pal-Rehab study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02332317) was a randomized controlled trial. The 12-week intervention offered by a specialized palliative care team was two mandatory consultations and the opportunity of participating in an interdisciplinary group program. Supplementary individual consultations were offered, if needed. Setting/participants: At Vejle University Hospital, Denmark, adults diagnosed with advanced cancer within the last 8 weeks were randomized 1:1 to standard oncology care or standard care plus intervention. Assessments at baseline and after six and 12 weeks were based on the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). At baseline participants were asked to choose a "primary problem" from a list of QLQ-C30 domains. The primary endpoint was the change in that "primary problem" measured as area under the curve across 12 weeks (T -scores, European mean value = 50, SD = 10). Results: In all, 288 were randomized of whom 279 were included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis (146 in the standard care group and 133 in the intervention group). The between-group difference for the primary outcome was 3.0 (95% CI [0.0–6.0]; p = 0.047) favoring the intervention. Conclusion: Early integration of palliative rehabilitation into standard oncology treatment improved quality of life for newly diagnosed advanced cancer patients. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02332317, registered on December 30, 2014. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]