Search

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: 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: 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: Reduction in door-to-needle (DTN) times in patients with acute ischemic stroke treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator is associated with improved outcomes. We hypothesized that a learning collaborative would rapidly reduce DTN times at Chicago's primary stroke centers.Methods and Results: We analyzed data from all adult patients with out-of-hospital ischemic stroke hospitalized between January 1, 2010 and March 31, 2015 and who received tissue-type plasminogen activator in the emergency department at 15 primary stroke centers in Chicago and 15 primary stroke centers in St. Louis. We implemented a structured learning collaborative in Chicago in quarter 1 of 2013 that included (1) a quality improvement leader, (2) stroke content expert, (3) multidisciplinary teams from each site, (4) a targeted goal for the program (DTN time <60 minutes in >50% of patients treated with tissue-type plasminogen activator), and (5) face-to-face meetings with on-site visits. We used interrupted time-series analysis to compare the impact of the learning collaborative on DTN times in Chicago pre- and post implementation and also concurrently versus St. Louis. We prespecified adjustment for mode of arrival, emergency medical services prenotification, and onset-to-arrival times. P values less than 0.05 were considered significant. In adjusted analysis, the reduction in DTN time within 1 quarter of implementation was 15.5 minutes (P=0.046) at Chicago sites versus 1.17 minutes at St. Louis sites (P=0.601).Conclusions: Using a learning collaborative model at Chicago's 15 primary stroke centers, we observed major reductions in DTN times within 1 quarter of implementation. Regional collaboration and best practices sharing should be a model for rapid and sustainable system-wide quality improvement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Challenges exist in recruitment to trials involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties. Collaboration is required between clinical specialty and research teams. The aim of this study was to explore how teamwork influences recruitment to a multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT) involving interventions delivered by different clinical specialties.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in three centres with a purposeful sample of members of the surgical, oncology and research teams recruiting to a feasibility RCT comparing definitive chemoradiotherapy with chemoradiotherapy and surgery for oesophageal squamous cell carcinoma. Interviews explored factors known to influence healthcare team effectiveness and were audio-recorded and thematically analysed. Sampling, data collection and analysis were undertaken iteratively and concurrently.Results: Twenty-one interviews were conducted. Factors that influenced how team working impacted upon trial recruitment were centred on: (1) the multidisciplinary team (MDT) meeting, (2) leadership of the trial, and (3) the recruitment process. The weekly MDT meeting was reported as central to successful recruitment and formed the focus for creating a 'study team', bringing together clinical and research teams. Shared study leadership positively influenced healthcare professionals' willingness to participate. Interviewees perceived their clinical colleagues to have strong treatment preferences which led to scepticism regarding whether the treatments were being described to patients in a balanced manner.Conclusions: This study has highlighted a number of aspects of team functioning that are important for recruitment to RCTs that span different clinical specialties. Understanding these issues will aid the production of guidance on team-relevant issues that should be considered in trial management and the development of interventions that will facilitate teamwork and improve recruitment to these challenging RCTs.Trial Registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN): ISRCTN89052791 . [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: Osteoporotic hip fractures are common injuries typically occurring in patients who are older and medically frail. Studies have suggested that creation of a multidisciplinary team including orthopaedic surgeons, internal medicine physicians, social workers, and specialized physical therapists, to comanage these patients can decrease complication rates, improve time to surgery, and reduce hospital length of stay; however, they have yet to achieve widespread implementation, partly owing to concerns regarding resource requirements necessary for a comanagement program.Questions/purposes: We performed an economic analysis to determine whether implementation of a comanagement model of care for geriatric patients with osteoporotic hip fractures would be a cost-effective intervention at hospitals with moderate volume. We also calculated what annual volume of cases would be needed for a comanagement program to "break even", and finally we evaluated whether universal or risk-stratified comanagement was more cost effective.Methods: Decision analysis techniques were used to model the effect of implementing a systems-based strategy to improve inpatient perioperative care. Costs were obtained from best-available literature and included salary to support personnel and resources to expedite time to the operating room. The major economic benefit was decreased initial hospital length of stay, which was determined via literature review and meta-analysis, and a health benefit was improvement in perioperative mortality owing to expedited preoperative evaluation based on previously conducted meta-analyses. A break-even analysis was conducted to determine the annual case volume necessary for comanagement to be either (1) cost effective (improve health-related quality of life enough to be worth additional expenses) or (2) result in cost savings (actually result in decreased total expenses). This calculation assumed the scenario in which a hospital could hire only one hospitalist (and therapist and social worker) on a full-time basis. Additionally, we evaluated the scenario where the necessary staff was already employed at the hospital and could be dedicated to a comanagement service on a part-time basis, and explored the effect of triaging only patients considered high risk to a comanagement service versus comanaging all geriatric patients. Finally, probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted on all critical variables, with broad ranges used for values around which there was higher uncertainty.Results: For the base case, universal comanagement was more cost effective than traditional care and risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness ratios of USD 41,100 per quality-adjusted life-year and USD 81,900 per quality-adjusted life-year, respectively). Comanagement was more cost effective than traditional management as long as the case volume was more than 54 patients annually (range, 41-68 patients based on sensitivity analysis) and resulted in cost savings when there were more than 318 patients annually (range, 238-397 patients). In a scenario where staff could be partially dedicated to a comanagement service, universal comanagement was more cost effective than risk-stratified comanagement (incremental cost effectiveness of USD 2300 per quality-adjusted life-year), and both comanagement programs had lower costs and better outcomes compared with traditional management. Sensitivity analysis was conducted and showed that the level of uncertainty in key variables was not high enough to change the core conclusions of the model.Conclusions: Implementation of a systems-based comanagement strategy using a dedicated team to improve perioperative medical care and expedite preoperative evaluation is cost effective in hospitals with moderate volume and can result in cost savings at higher-volume centers. The optimum patient population for a comanagement strategy is still being defined.Level Of Evidence: Level 1, Economic and Decision Analysis. [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]

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]