Search

Objective: The study aims to evaluate the ability of self-management programmes to change the healthcare-seeking behaviours of people with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and any associations between programme design and outcomes.Methods: A systematic search of the literature returned randomised controlled trials of SMPs for COPD. Change in healthcare utilisation was the primary outcome measure. Programme design was analysed using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).Results: A total of 26 papers described 19 SMPs. The most common utilisation outcome was hospitalisation (n = 22). Of these, 5 showed a significant decrease. Two theoretical domains were evidenced in all programmes: skills and behavioural regulation. All programmes evidenced at least 5 domains. However, there was no clear association between TDF domains and utilisation. Overall, study quality was moderate to poor.Conclusion: This review highlights the need for more alignment in the goals, design, and evaluation of SMPs. Specifically, the TDF could be used to guide programme design and evaluation in future.Practice Implications: Practices have a reasonable expectation that interventions they adopt will provide patient benefit and value for money. Better design and reporting of SMP trials would address their ability to do so. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Drugs treating serious or life-threatening conditions can receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval based on showing an effect in surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Confirmatory trials are then required to determine whether these effects translate to clinical improvements.Objective: To characterize preapproval and confirmatory clinical trials of drugs granted accelerated approval.Design and Setting: Publicly available FDA documents were reviewed to identify the preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval between 2009 and 2013. Information on the status and findings of required confirmatory studies was extracted from the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments, ClinicalTrials.gov, and matched peer-reviewed publications. Follow-up ended on April 7, 2017.Exposures: Granting of accelerated approval.Main Outcomes and Measures: Characteristics of preapproval and confirmatory studies were compared in terms of study design features (randomization, blinding, comparator, primary end point). Subsequent regulatory decisions and estimated time between accelerated approval and fulfillment of regulatory requirements were summarized.Results: The FDA granted accelerated approval to 22 drugs for 24 indications (19 for indications involving cancer treatment) between 2009 and 2013. A total of 30 preapproval studies supported the 24 indications. The median number of participants enrolled in the preapproval studies was 132 (interquartile range, 89-224). Eight studies (27%) included fewer than 100 participants and 20 (67%) included fewer than 200. At a minimum 3 years of follow-up, 19 of 38 (50%) required confirmatory studies were completed, including 18 published reports. Twenty-five of the 38 (66%) examined clinical efficacy, 7 (18%) evaluated longer follow-up, and 6 (16%) focused on safety The proportion of studies with randomized designs did not differ before and after accelerated approval (12/30 [40%] vs 10/18 [56%]; difference, 16%; 95% CI, -15% to 46%; P = .31). Postapproval requirements were completed and demonstrated efficacy in 10 of 24 indications (42%) on the basis of trials that evaluated surrogate measures. Among the 14 of 24 indications (58%) that had not yet completed all requirements, at least 1 of the confirmatory studies failed to demonstrate clinical benefit in 2 (8%), were terminated in 2 (8%), and were delayed by more than 1 year in 3 (13%). Studies were progressing according to target timelines for the remaining 7 indications (29%). Clinical benefit had not yet been confirmed for 8 indications that had been initially approved 5 or more years prior.Conclusions and Relevance: Among 22 drugs with 24 indications granted accelerated approval by the FDA in 2009-2013, efficacy was often confirmed in postapproval trials a minimum of 3 years after approval, although confirmatory trials and preapproval trials had similar design elements, including reliance on surrogate measures as outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Autistic people in England face worse health outcomes than non-autistic people. Autism-specific annual health checks have been proposed as one solution to this issue. This study identified strategies to incentivise primary care providers to offer autism-specific annual health checks, using a behavioural science approach. In phase 1, we conducted interviews and focus groups with autistic people (n = 10) and primary care providers (n = 11). In phase 2, we conducted a national survey of primary care providers (n = 196). Qualitative data were analysed using a framework method and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Quantitative data were analysed descriptively, and comparisons between sub-groups of survey respondents were made using Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis tests. The most salient theoretical domain was environmental context and resources. Participants identified lack of time and staff as key barriers to implementation. Delegating tasks to non-physician practitioners and automating processes were seen as key facilitators. Autism-specific knowledge was another relevant domain; education produced and delivered by autistic people was posited to increase health check uptake and quality. Overall, participants were enthusiastic about autism-specific annual health checks but were concerned about the practical aspects of implementation. We identified specific barriers and facilitators that can be addressed prior to policy adoption to maximise chances of success. Autistic people are more likely to have mental and physical health problems than non-autistic people. Annual health checks could reduce these problems by finding and treating them early. Annual health checks are yearly medical appointments where a primary healthcare provider (such as a doctor or nurse) can check things like a patient's weight and heart rate and ask if they have any worries about their health. In this study, we wanted to understand what might encourage primary healthcare providers to use annual health checks with their autistic patients. First, we spoke to 10 autistic people and 11 primary healthcare providers. Using the findings from these conversations, we created an online survey for primary healthcare providers in England. We used the findings from the interviews and survey to help us understand what would encourage primary healthcare providers to offer annual health checks for autistic people. Our participants said that a lack of time and staff would make it hard to provide health checks. To help, they said other members of staff (such as nurses and healthcare assistants) could do the health checks, rather than doctors. They also said parts of the process could be made automatic to save time (e.g. sending automatic reminders). Knowledge about autism was important too (e.g. knowing about the common conditions autistic people have, and how to best support autistic patients). Participants said training on these topics, produced and delivered with autistic people, could encourage them to use annual health checks with their autistic patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: It is increasingly recognized that patient safety requires heterogeneous insights from a range of stakeholders, yet incident reporting systems in health care still primarily rely on staff perspectives. This paper examines the potential of combining insights from patient complaints and staff incident reports for a more comprehensive understanding of the causes and severity of harm. Methods: Using five years of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data at a large multi-site hospital in London (in the United Kingdom), this study conducted retrospective patient-level data linkage to identify overlapping reports. Using a combination of quantitative coding and in-depth qualitative analysis, we then compared level of harm reported, identified descriptions of adjacent events missed by the other party and examined combined narratives of mutually identified events. Results: Incidents where complaints and incident reports overlapped (n = 446, reported in 7.6%' of all complaints and 0.6% of all incident reports) represented a small but critical area of investigation, with significantly higher rates of Serious Incidents and severe harm. Linked complaints described greater harm from safety incidents in 60% of cases, reported many surrounding safety events missed by staff (n = 582), and provided contesting stories of why problems occurred in 46% cases, and complementary accounts in 26% cases. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the value of using patient complaints to supplement, test, and challenge staff reports, including to provide greater insight on the many potential factors that may give rise to unsafe care. Accordingly, we propose that a more holistic analysis of critical safety incidents can be achieved through combining heterogeneous data from different viewpoints, such as through the integration of patient complaints and staff incident reporting data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]