Get screened: a pragmatic randomized controlled trial to increase mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a large, safety net practice

Abstract Background Most randomized controlled trials of interventions designed to promote cancer screening, particularly those targeting poor and minority patients, enroll selected patients. Relatively little is known about the benefits of these interventions among unselected patients. Methods/Design "Get Screened" is an American Cancer Society-sponsored randomized controlled trial designed to promote mammography and colorectal cancer screening in a primary care practice serving low-income patients. Eligible patients who are past due for mammography or colorectal cancer screening are entered into a tracking registry and randomly assigned to early or delayed intervention. This 6-month intervention is multimodal, involving patient prompts, clinician prompts, and outreach. At the time of the patient visit, eligible patients receive a low-literacy patient education tool. At the same time, clinicians receive a prompt to remind them to order the test and, when appropriate, a tool designed to simplify colorectal cancer screening decision-making. Patient outreach consists of personalized letters, automated telephone reminders, assistance with scheduling, and linkage of uninsured patients to the local National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection program. Interventions are repeated for patients who fail to respond to early interventions. We will compare rates of screening between randomized groups, as well as planned secondary analyses of minority patients and uninsured patients. Data from the pilot phase show that this multimodal intervention triples rates of cancer screening (adjusted odds ratio 3.63; 95% CI 2.35 - 5.61). Discussion This study protocol is designed to assess a multimodal approach to promotion of breast and colorectal cancer screening among underserved patients. We hypothesize that a multimodal approach will significantly improve cancer screening rates. The trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT00818857http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/1/1472-6963-10-280.xmlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/78264/2/1472-6963-10-280.pdfPeer Reviewe

Acute lung injury in paediatric intensive care: course and outcome

Introduction: Acute lung injury (ALI) and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) carry a high morbidity and mortality (10-90%). ALI is characterised by non-cardiogenic pulmonary oedema and refractory hypoxaemia of multifactorial aetiology [1]. There is limited data about outcome particularly in children. Methods This retrospective cohort study of 85 randomly selected patients with respiratory failure recruited from a prospectively collected database represents 7.1% of 1187 admissions. They include those treated with High Frequency Oscillation Ventilation (HFOV). The patients were admitted between 1 November 1998 and 31 October 2000. Results: Of the 85, 49 developed acute lung injury and 47 had ARDS. There were 26 males and 23 females with a median age and weight of 7.7 months (range 1 day-12.8 years) and 8 kg (range 0.8-40 kg). There were 7 deaths giving a crude mortality of 14.3%, all of which fulfilled the Consensus I [1] criteria for ARDS. Pulmonary occlusion pressures were not routinely measured. The A-a gradient and PaO2/FiO2 ratio (median + [95% CI]) were 37.46 [31.82-43.1] kPa and 19.12 [15.26-22.98] kPa respectively. The non-survivors had a significantly lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio (13 [6.07-19.93] kPa) compared to survivors (23.85 [19.57-28.13] kPa) (P = 0.03) and had a higher A-a gradient (51.05 [35.68-66.42] kPa) compared to survivors (36.07 [30.2-41.94]) kPa though not significant (P = 0.06). Twenty-nine patients (59.2%) were oscillated (Sensormedics 3100A) including all 7 non-survivors. There was no difference in ventilation requirements for CMV prior to oscillation. Seventeen of the 49 (34.7%) were treated with Nitric Oxide including 5 out of 7 non-survivors (71.4%). The median (95% CI) number of failed organs was 3 (1.96-4.04) for non-survivors compared to 1 (0.62-1.62) for survivors (P = 0.03). There were 27 patients with isolated respiratory failure all of whom survived. Six (85.7%) of the non-survivors also required cardiovascular support.Conclusion: A crude mortality of 14.3% compares favourably to published data. The A-a gradient and PaO2/FiO2 ratio may be of help in morbidity scoring in paediatric ARDS. Use of Nitric Oxide and HFOV is associated with increased mortality, which probably relates to the severity of disease. Multiple organ failure particularly respiratory and cardiac disease is associated with increased mortality. ARDS with isolated respiratory failure carries a good prognosis in children

Botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B for cervical dystonia

Trabalho Final do Curso de Mestrado Integrado em Medicina, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Lisboa, 2016Background This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2009 (no change in conclusions). Cervical dystonia is the most common form of focal dystonia and is a disabling disorder characterized by painful involuntary head posturing. Botulinum toxin type A (BtA) is usually considered the first line therapy for this condition, although botulinum toxin type B (BtB) is an alternative option, with no compelling theoretical reason as to why it might not be as, or even more effective, than BtA. Objectives To compare the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of botulinum toxin type A versus botulinum toxin type B in cervical dystonia. Search methods We identified studies for inclusion in the review using the Cochrane Movement Disorders Group trials register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, reference lists of articles and conference proceedings, last run in October 2015. Search was unrestricted by language. Selection criteria Double-blind, parallel, randomised, placebo-controlled trials (RCTs) of BtA versus BtB in adult patients with cervical dystonia. Data collection and analysis Two independent authors assessed records, selected included studies, extracted data using a paper pro forma and evaluated the risk of bias. Disagreements were solved by consensus or by a third author. We performed one meta-analysis for the comparison BtA versus BtB. We used random-effects models in the presence of considerable heterogeneity and fixed-effect models when there was no heterogeneity. We performed no subgroup analyses. The primary efficacy outcome was overall improvement on any validated symptomatic rating scale. The primary safety outcome was the proportion of participants with any adverse event.Main results Three RCTs of low-to-moderate overall methodological quality including 270 participants with cervical dystonia were included. Two studies exclusively enrolled patients known to have a positive response to BtA treatment, therefore including an enriched population with higher probability of benefit from BtA treatment. None of the trials were independently funded. All RCTs evaluated the effect of a single Bt treatment session using doses between 100 and 250U of BtA and 5000 to 10000U of BtB. We found no difference between the two types of botulinum toxin in terms of overall efficacy and safety, as assessed by the Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) and the number of adverse events, respectively. However, when compared to BtA, treatment with BtB was associated with an improvement of 0.99 points (95% CI: 0.12 to 1.85; I2=0%) on the TWSTRS pain sub-scale at weeks 2-4 after injection, as well as with an increased risk of treatment-related dysphagia with a risk ratio (RR) of 0.49, favouring the BtA group (95% CI: 0.32 to 0.75, I2=27%) and sore throat/dry mouth, with a RR of 0.42 favouring the BtA group (95% CI: 0.31 to 0.57, I2=77%). The two types of botulinum toxin were otherwise shown to be clinically non-distinguishable in all the remaining outcomes. Authors' conclusions A single treatment session of BtA and a single treatment session of BtB are equally effective and well tolerated in the treatment of adults with certain types of cervical dystonia. Treatment with BtB causes a greater decrease disease-associated pain whilst also increasing the rate of dysphagia and sore throat/dry mouth when compared to treatment with BtA. Overall, there is no clinical evidence to support or not support the preferential use of one form of botulinum toxin over another. There is no evidence from RCTs neither regarding comparative development of secondary non-responsiveness to botulinum toxin nor regarding quality of life domains with either treatment.A distonia cervical compreende uma patologia neurológica pouco frequente com impacto negativo na qualidade de vida dos doentes. O tratamento de primeira linha é com efetuado com recuro a injecções intramusculares de toxina botulínica, que está disponível comercialmente em dois tipos: a toxina botulínica tipo A e a toxina botulínica tipo B. Esta revisão sistemática Cochrane visa comparar estes dois compostos em relação à sua eficácia e segurança no tratamento da distonia cervical. Após um processo de pesquisa sistemática para ensaios aleatorizados sobre o tema, extração de dados e combinação dos mesmos com recurso a técnicas de combinação por meta-análise, demonstrou-se que não existem diferenças nos perfis de eficácia e segurança entre ambas as formulações de toxina botulínica, com as exepções de uma subescala de doença (avaliador dor) e a proporção de doentes com efeitos adversos específicos

Proceedings of the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) 2015: advancing efficient methodologies through community partnerships and team science : Seattle, WA, USA. 24-26 September 2015.

Introduction to the 3rd Biennial Conference of the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration: advancing efficient methodologies through team science and community partnerships Cara Lewis, Doyanne Darnell, Suzanne Kerns, Maria Monroe-DeVita, Sara J. Landes, Aaron R. Lyon, Cameo Stanick, Shannon Dorsey, Jill Locke, Brigid Marriott, Ajeng Puspitasari, Caitlin Dorsey, Karin Hendricks, Andria Pierson, Phil Fizur, Katherine A. Comtois A1: A behavioral economic perspective on adoption, implementation, and sustainment of evidence-based interventions Lawrence A. Palinkas A2: Towards making scale up of evidence-based practices in child welfare systems more efficient and affordable Patricia Chamberlain A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A3: Mixed method examination of strategic leadership for evidence-based practice implementation Gregory A. Aarons, Amy E. Green, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Elise M. Trott, Cathleen E. Willging A4: Implementing practice change in Federally Qualified Health Centers: Learning from leaders’ experiences Maria E. Fernandez, Nicholas H. Woolf, Shuting (Lily) Liang, Natalia I. Heredia, Michelle Kegler, Betsy Risendal, Andrea Dwyer, Vicki Young, Dayna Campbell, Michelle Carvalho, Yvonne Kellar-Guenther A5: Efficient synthesis: Using qualitative comparative analysis and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research across diverse studies Laura J. Damschroder, Julie C. Lowery A6: Establishing a veterans engagement group to empower patients and inform Veterans Affairs (VA) health services research Sarah S. Ono, Kathleen F. Carlson, Erika K. Cottrell, Maya E. O’Neil, Travis L. Lovejoy A7: Building patient-practitioner partnerships in community oncology settings to implement behavioral interventions for anxious and depressed cancer survivors Joanna J. Arch, Jill L. Mitchell A8: Tailoring a Cognitive Behavioral Therapy implementation protocol using mixed methods, conjoint analysis, and implementation teams Cara C. Lewis, Brigid R. Marriott, Kelli Scott A9: Wraparound Structured Assessment and Review (WrapSTAR): An efficient, yet comprehensive approach to Wraparound implementation evaluation Jennifer Schurer Coldiron, Eric J. Bruns, Alyssa N. Hook A10: Improving the efficiency of standardized patient assessment of clinician fidelity: A comparison of automated actor-based and manual clinician-based ratings Benjamin C. Graham, Katelin Jordan A11: Measuring fidelity on the cheap Rochelle F. Hanson, Angela Moreland, Benjamin E. Saunders, Heidi S. Resnick A12: Leveraging routine clinical materials to assess fidelity to an evidence-based psychotherapy Shannon Wiltsey Stirman, Cassidy A. Gutner, Jennifer Gamarra, Dawne Vogt, Michael Suvak, Jennifer Schuster Wachen, Katherine Dondanville, Jeffrey S. Yarvis, Jim Mintz, Alan L. Peterson, Elisa V. Borah, Brett T. Litz, Alma Molino, Stacey Young McCaughanPatricia A. Resick A13: The video vignette survey: An efficient process for gathering diverse community opinions to inform an intervention Nancy Pandhi, Nora Jacobson, Neftali Serrano, Armando Hernandez, Elizabeth Zeidler- Schreiter, Natalie Wietfeldt, Zaher Karp A14: Using integrated administrative data to evaluate implementation of a behavioral health and trauma screening for children and youth in foster care Michael D. Pullmann, Barbara Lucenko, Bridget Pavelle, Jacqueline A. Uomoto, Andrea Negrete, Molly Cevasco, Suzanne E. U. Kerns A15: Intermediary organizations as a vehicle to promote efficiency and speed of implementation Robert P. Franks, Christopher Bory A16: Applying the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research constructs directly to qualitative data: The power of implementation science in action Edward J. Miech, Teresa M. Damush A17: Efficient and effective scaling-up, screening, brief interventions, and referrals to treatment (SBIRT) training: a snowball implementation model Jason Satterfield, Derek Satre, Maria Wamsley, Patrick Yuan, Patricia O’Sullivan A18: Matching models of implementation to system needs and capacities: addressing the human factor Helen Best, Susan Velasquez A19: Agency characteristics that facilitate efficient and successful implementation efforts Miya Barnett, Lauren Brookman-Frazee, Jennifer Regan, Nicole Stadnick, Alison Hamilton, Anna Lau A20: Rapid assessment process: Application to the Prevention and Early Intervention transformation in Los Angeles County Jennifer Regan, Alison Hamilton, Nicole Stadnick, Miya Barnett, Anna Lau, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A21: The development of the Evidence-Based Practice-Concordant Care Assessment: An assessment tool to examine treatment strategies across practices Nicole Stadnick, Anna Lau, Miya Barnett, Jennifer Regan, Scott Roesch, Lauren Brookman-Frazee A22: Refining a compilation of discrete implementation strategies and determining their importance and feasibility Byron J. Powell, Thomas J. Waltz, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica M. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A23: Structuring complex recommendations: Methods and general findings Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Monica J. Matthieu, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A24: Implementing prolonged exposure for post-traumatic stress disorder in the Department of Veterans Affairs: Expert recommendations from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) project Monica M. Matthieu, Craig S. Rosen, Thomas J. Waltz, Byron J. Powell, Matthew J. Chinman, Laura J. Damschroder, Jeffrey L. Smith, Enola K. Proctor, JoAnn E. Kirchner A25: When readiness is a luxury: Co-designing a risk assessment and quality assurance process with violence prevention frontline workers in Seattle, WA Sarah C. Walker, Asia S. Bishop, Mariko Lockhart A26: Implementation potential of structured recidivism risk assessments with justice- involved veterans: Qualitative perspectives from providers Allison L. Rodriguez, Luisa Manfredi, Andrea Nevedal, Joel Rosenthal, Daniel M. Blonigen A27: Developing empirically informed readiness measures for providers and agencies for the Family Check-Up using a mixed methods approach Anne M. Mauricio, Thomas D. Dishion, Jenna Rudo-Stern, Justin D. Smith A28: Pebbles, rocks, and boulders: The implementation of a school-based social engagement intervention for children with autism Jill Locke, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Colleen Harker, Anne Olsen, Travis Shingledecker, Frances Barg, David Mandell, Rinad S. Beidas A29: Problem Solving Teletherapy (PST.Net): A stakeholder analysis examining the feasibility and acceptability of teletherapy in community based aging services Marissa C. Hansen, Maria P. Aranda, Isabel Torres-Vigil A30: A case of collaborative intervention design eventuating in behavior therapy sustainment and diffusion Bryan Hartzler A31: Implementation of suicide risk prevention in an integrated delivery system: Mental health specialty services Bradley Steinfeld, Tory Gildred, Zandrea Harlin, Fredric Shephard A32: Implementation team, checklist, evaluation, and feedback (ICED): A step-by-step approach to Dialectical Behavior Therapy program implementation Matthew S. Ditty, Andrea Doyle, John A. Bickel III, Katharine Cristaudo A33: The challenges in implementing muliple evidence-based practices in a community mental health setting Dan Fox, Sonia Combs A34: Using electronic health record technology to promote and support evidence-based practice assessment and treatment intervention David H. Lischner A35: Are existing frameworks adequate for measuring implementation outcomes? Results from a new simulation methodology Richard A. Van Dorn, Stephen J. Tueller, Jesse M. Hinde, Georgia T. Karuntzos A36: Taking global local: Evaluating training of Washington State clinicians in a modularized cogntive behavioral therapy approach designed for low-resource settings Maria Monroe-DeVita, Roselyn Peterson, Doyanne Darnell, Lucy Berliner, Shannon Dorsey, Laura K. Murray A37: Attitudes toward evidence-based practices across therapeutic orientations Yevgeny Botanov, Beverly Kikuta, Tianying Chen, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Anthony DuBose, Kathryn E. Korslund, Marsha M. Linehan A38: Predicting the use of an evidence-based intervention for autism in birth-to-three programs Colleen M. Harker, Elizabeth A. Karp, Sarah R. Edmunds, Lisa V. Ibañez, Wendy L. Stone A39: Supervision practices and improved fidelity across evidence-based practices: A literature review Mimi Choy-Brown A40: Beyond symptom tracking: clinician perceptions of a hybrid measurement feedback system for monitoring treatment fidelity and client progress Jack H. Andrews, Benjamin D. Johnides, Estee M. Hausman, Kristin M. Hawley A41: A guideline decision support tool: From creation to implementation Beth Prusaczyk, Alex Ramsey, Ana Baumann, Graham Colditz, Enola K. Proctor A42: Dabblers, bedazzlers, or total makeovers: Clinician modification of a common elements cognitive behavioral therapy approach Rosemary D. Meza, Shannon Dorsey, Shannon Wiltsey-Stirman, Georganna Sedlar, Leah Lucid A43: Characterization of context and its role in implementation: The impact of structure, infrastructure, and metastructure Caitlin Dorsey, Brigid Marriott, Nelson Zounlome, Cara Lewis A44: Effects of consultation method on implementation of cognitive processing therapy for post-traumatic stress disorder Cassidy A. Gutner, Candice M. Monson, Norman Shields, Marta Mastlej, Meredith SH Landy, Jeanine Lane, Shannon Wiltsey Stirman A45: Cross-validation of the Implementation Leadership Scale factor structure in child welfare service organizations Natalie K. Finn, Elisa M. Torres, Mark. G. Ehrhart, Gregory A. Aarons A46: Sustainability of integrated smoking cessation care in Veterans Affairs posttraumatic stress disorder clinics: A qualitative analysis of focus group data from learning collaborative participants Carol A. Malte, Aline Lott, Andrew J. Saxon A47: Key characteristics of effective mental health trainers: The creation of the Measure of Effective Attributes of Trainers (MEAT) Meredith Boyd, Kelli Scott, Cara C. Lewis A48: Coaching to improve teacher implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) Jennifer D. Pierce A49: Factors influencing the implementation of peer-led health promotion programs targeting seniors: A literature review Agathe Lorthios-Guilledroit, Lucie Richard, Johanne Filiatrault A50: Developing treatment fidelity rating systems for psychotherapy research: Recommendations and lessons learned Kevin Hallgren, Shirley Crotwell, Rosa Muñoz, Becky Gius, Benjamin Ladd, Barbara McCrady, Elizabeth Epstein A51: Rapid translation of alcohol prevention science John D. Clapp, Danielle E. Ruderman A52: Factors implicated in successful implementation: evidence to inform improved implementation from high and low-income countries Melanie Barwick, Raluca Barac, Stanley Zlotkin, Laila Salim, Marnie Davidson A53: Tracking implementation strategies prospectively: A practical approach Alicia C. Bunger, Byron J. Powell, Hillary A. Robertson A54: Trained but not implementing: the need for effective implementation planning tools Christopher Botsko A55: Evidence, context, and facilitation variables related to implementation of Dialectical Behavior Therapy: Qualitative results from a mixed methods inquiry in the Department of Veterans Affairs Sara J. Landes, Brandy N. Smith, Allison L. Rodriguez, Lindsay R. Trent, Monica M. Matthieu A56: Learning from implementation as usual in children’s mental health Byron J. Powell, Enola K. Proctor A57: Rates and predictors of implementation after Dialectical Behavior Therapy Intensive Training Melanie S. Harned, Marivi Navarro-Haro, Kathryn E. Korslund, Tianying Chen, Anthony DuBose, André Ivanoff, Marsha M. Linehan A58: Socio-contextual determinants of research evidence use in public-youth systems of care Antonio R. Garcia, Minseop Kim, Lawrence A. Palinkas, Lonnie Snowden, John Landsverk A59: Community resource mapping to integrate evidence-based depression treatment in primary care in Brazil: A pilot project Annika C. Sweetland, Maria Jose Fernandes, Edilson Santos, Cristiane Duarte, Afrânio Kritski, Noa Krawczyk, Caitlin Nelligan, Milton L. Wainberg A60: The use of concept mapping to efficiently identify determinants of implementation in the National Institute of Health--President’s Emergent Plan for AIDS Relief Prevention of Mother to Child HIV Transmission Implementation Science Alliance Gregory A. Aarons, David H. Sommerfeld, Benjamin Chi, Echezona Ezeanolue, Rachel Sturke, Lydia Kline, Laura Guay, George Siberry A61: Longitudinal remote consultation for implementing collaborative care for depression Ian M. Bennett, Rinad Beidas, Rachel Gold, Johnny Mao, Diane Powers, Mindy Vredevoogd, Jurgen Unutzer A62: Integrating a peer coach model to support program implementation and ensure long- term sustainability of the Incredible Years in community-based settings Jennifer Schroeder, Lane Volpe, Julie Steffen A63: Efficient sustainability: Existing community based supervisors as evidence-based treatment supports Shannon Dorsey, Michael D Pullmann, Suzanne E. U. Kerns, Nathaniel Jungbluth, Lucy Berliner, Kelly Thompson, Eliza Segell A64: Establishment of a national practice-based implementation network to accelerate adoption of evidence-based and best practices Pearl McGee-Vincent, Nancy Liu, Robyn Walser, Jennifer Runnals, R. Keith Shaw, Sara J. Landes, Craig Rosen, Janet Schmidt, Patrick Calhoun A65: Facilitation as a mechanism of implementation in a practice-based implementation network: Improving care in a Department of Veterans Affairs post-traumatic stress disorder outpatient clinic Ruth L. Varkovitzky, Sara J. Landes A66: The ACT SMART Toolkit: An implementation strategy for community-based organizations providing services to children with autism spectrum disorder Amy Drahota, Jonathan I. Martinez, Brigitte Brikho, Rosemary Meza, Aubyn C. Stahmer, Gregory A. Aarons A67: Supporting Policy In Health with Research: An intervention trial (SPIRIT) - protocol and early findings Anna Williamson A68: From evidence based practice initiatives to infrastructure: Lessons learned from a public behavioral health system’s efforts to promote evidence based practices Ronnie M. Rubin, Byron J. Powell, Matthew O. Hurford, Shawna L. Weaver, Rinad S. Beidas, David S. Mandell, Arthur C. Evans A69: Applying the policy ecology model to Philadelphia’s behavioral health transformation efforts Byron J. Powell, Rinad S. Beidas, Ronnie M. Rubin, Rebecca E. Stewart, Courtney Benjamin Wolk, Samantha L. Matlin, Shawna Weaver, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans, Trevor R. Hadley, David S. Mandell A70: A model for providing methodological expertise to advance dissemination and implementation of health discoveries in Clinical and Translational Science Award institutions Donald R. Gerke, Beth Prusaczyk, Ana Baumann, Ericka M. Lewis, Enola K. Proctor A71: Establishing a research agenda for the Triple P Implementation Framework Jenna McWilliam, Jacquie Brown, Michelle Tucker A72: Cheap and fast, but what is “best?”: Examining implementation outcomes across sites in a state-wide scaled-up evidence-based walking program, Walk With Ease Kathleen P Conte A73: Measurement feedback systems in mental health: Initial review of capabilities and characteristics Aaron R. Lyon, Meredith Boyd, Abigail Melvin, Cara C. Lewis, Freda Liu, Nathaniel Jungbluth A74: A qualitative investigation of case managers’ attitudes toward implementation of a measurement feedback system in a public mental health system for youth Amelia Kotte, Kaitlin A. Hill, Albert C. Mah, Priya A. Korathu-Larson, Janelle R. Au, Sonia Izmirian, Scott Keir, Brad J. Nakamura, Charmaine K. Higa-McMillan A75: Multiple pathways to sustainability: Using Qualitative Comparative Analysis to uncover the necessary and sufficient conditions for successful community-based implementation Brittany Rhoades Cooper, Angie Funaiole, Eleanor Dizon A76: Prescribers’ perspectives on opioids and benzodiazepines and medication alerts to reduce co-prescribing of these medications Eric J. Hawkins, Carol A. Malte, Hildi J. Hagedorn, Douglas Berger, Anissa Frank, Aline Lott, Carol E. Achtmeyer, Anthony J. Mariano, Andrew J. Saxon A77: Adaptation of Coordinated Anxiety Learning and Management for comorbid anxiety and substance use disorders: Delivery of evidence-based treatment for anxiety in addictions treatment centers Kate Wolitzky-Taylor, Richard Rawson, Richard Ries, Peter Roy-Byrne, Michelle Craske A78: Opportunities and challenges of measuring program implementation with online surveys Dena Simmons, Catalina Torrente, Lori Nathanson, Grace Carroll A79: Observational assessment of fidelity to a family-centered prevention program: Effectiveness and efficiency Justin D. Smith, Kimbree Brown, Karina Ramos, Nicole Thornton, Thomas J. Dishion, Elizabeth A. Stormshak, Daniel S. Shaw, Melvin N. Wilson A80: Strategies and challenges in housing first fidelity: A multistate qualitative analysis Mimi Choy-Brown, Emmy Tiderington, Bikki Tran Smith, Deborah K. Padgett A81: Procurement and contracting as an implementation strategy: Getting To Outcomes® contracting Ronnie M. Rubin, Marilyn L. Ray, Abraham Wandersman, Andrea Lamont, Gordon Hannah, Kassandra A. Alia, Matthew O. Hurford, Arthur C. Evans A82: Web-based feedback to aid successful implementation: The interactive Stages of Implementation Completion (SIC)TM tool Lisa Saldana, Holle Schaper, Mark Campbell, Patricia Chamberlain A83: Efficient methodologies for monitoring fidelity in routine implementation: Lessons from the Allentown Social Emotional Learning Initiative Valerie B. Shapiro, B.K. Elizabeth Kim, Jennifer L. Fleming, Paul A. LeBuffe A84: The Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) implementation development workshop: Results from a new methodology for enhancing implementation science proposals Sara J. Landes, Cara C. Lewis, Allison L. Rodriguez, Brigid R. Marriott, Katherine Anne Comtois A85: An update on the Society for Implementation Research Collaboration (SIRC) Instrument Review Projec

A review of the effectiveness of lower limb orthoses used in cerebral palsy

To produce this review, a systematic literature search was conducted for relevant articles published in the period between the date of the previous ISPO consensus conference report on cerebral palsy (1994) and April 2008. The search terms were 'cerebral and pals* (palsy, palsies), 'hemiplegia', 'diplegia', 'orthos*' (orthoses, orthosis) orthot* (orthotic, orthotics), brace or AFO

Aerobic exercise and telomere length in patients with systolic heart failure : protocol study for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a syndrome that leads to fatigue and reduced functional capacity due to disease-related pathophysiological mechanisms. Aerobic exercise (AERO) plays a key role in improving HF outcomes, such as an increase in peak oxygen uptake (VO2peak). In addition, HF promotes cell senescence, which involves reducing telomere length. Several studies have shown that patients with a worse prognosis (i.e., reduced VO2 peak) also have shorter telomeres. However, the effects of AERO on telomere length in patients with HFrEF are still unknown. In an attempt to fill this gap, we designed a study to determine the effects of 16 weeks of aerobic training (32 sessions) on telomere length in HFrEF patients. Methods: In this single-center randomized controlled trial, men and women between 50 and 80 years old will be allocated into two different groups: a moderate-intensity aerobic training and a control grouTelomere length, functional capacity, echocardiographic variables, endothelial function, and walking ability will be assessed before and after the 16-week intervention period. Discussion: Understanding the role of physical exercise in biological aging in HFrEF patients is relevant. Due to cell senescence, these individuals have shown a shorter telomere length. AERO can delay biological aging according to a balance in oxidative stress through antioxidant action. Positive telomere length results are expected for the aerobic training group

A multidisciplinary program for achieving lipid goals in chronic hemodialysis patients

BACKGROUND: There is little information on how target lipid levels can be achieved in end stage renal disease (ESRD) patients in a systematic, multidisciplinary fashion. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed a pharmacist-directed hyperlipidemia management program for chronic hemodialysis (HD) patients. All 26 adult patients on chronic HD at a tertiary care medical facility were entered into the program. A clinical pharmacist was responsible for laboratory monitoring, patient counseling, and the initiation and dosage adjustment of an appropriate 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor (statin) using a dosing algorithm and monitoring guidelines. The low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol goal was ≤ 100 mg/dl. A renal dietitian provided nutrition counseling and the nephrologist was notified of potential or existing drug interactions or adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Patients received a flyer containing lipid panel results to encourage compliance. Data was collected at program initiation and for 6 months thereafter. RESULTS: At the start of the program, 58% of patients were at target LDL cholesterol. At 6 months, 88% had achieved target LDL (p = 0.015). Mean LDL cholesterol decreased from 96 ± 5 to 80 ± 3 mg/dl (p < 0.01), and mean total cholesterol decreased from 170 ± 7 to 151 ± 4 mg/dl (p < 0.01). Fifteen adjustments in drug therapy were made. Eight adverse drug reactions were identified; 2 required drug discontinuation or an alternative agent. Physicians were alerted to 8 potential drug-drug interactions, and appropriate monitoring was performed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate both feasibility and efficacy of a multidisciplinary approach in management of hyperlipidemia in HD patients