Improving chronic disease prevention and screening in primary care: results of the BETTER pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundPrimary care provides most of the evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening services offered by the healthcare system. However, there remains a gap between recommended preventive services and actual practice. This trial (the BETTER Trial) aimed to improve preventive care of heart disease, diabetes, colorectal, breast and cervical cancers, and relevant lifestyle factors through a practice facilitation intervention set in primary care.MethodsPragmatic two-way factorial cluster RCT with Primary Care Physicians' practices as the unit of allocation and individual patients as the unit of analysis. The setting was urban Primary Care Team practices in two Canadian provinces. Eight Primary Care Team practices were randomly assigned to receive the practice-level intervention or wait-list control; 4 physicians in each team (32 physicians) were randomly assigned to receive the patient-level intervention or wait-list control. Patients randomly selected from physicians' rosters were stratified into two groups: 1) general and 2) moderate mental illness. The interventions involved a multifaceted, evidence-based, tailored practice-level intervention with a Practice Facilitator, and a patient-level intervention involving a one-hour visit with a Prevention Practitioner where patients received a tailored 'prevention prescription'. The primary outcome was a composite Summary Quality Index of 28 evidence-based chronic disease prevention and screening actions with pre-defined targets, expressed as the ratio of eligible actions at baseline that were met at follow-up. A cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted.Results789 of 1,260 (63%) eligible patients participated. On average, patients were eligible for 8.96 (SD 3.2) actions at baseline. In the adjusted analysis, control patients met 23.1% (95% CI: 19.2% to 27.1%) of target actions, compared to 28.5% (95% CI: 20.9% to 36.0%) receiving the practice-level intervention, 55.6% (95% CI: 49.0% to 62.1%) receiving the patient-level intervention, and 58.9% (95% CI: 54.7% to 63.1%) receiving both practice- and patient-level interventions (patient-level intervention versus control, P < 0.001). The benefit of the patient-level intervention was seen in both strata. The extra cost of the intervention was $26.43CAN (95$16 to $44) per additional action met.ConclusionsA Prevention Practitioner can improve the implementation of clinically important prevention and screening for chronic diseases in a cost-effective manner

Randomized controlled trial of a coordinated care intervention to improve risk factor control after stroke or transient ischemic attack in the safety net: Secondary stroke prevention by Uniting Community and Chronic care model teams Early to End Disparities (SUCCEED).

BackgroundRecurrent strokes are preventable through awareness and control of risk factors such as hypertension, and through lifestyle changes such as healthier diets, greater physical activity, and smoking cessation. However, vascular risk factor control is frequently poor among stroke survivors, particularly among socio-economically disadvantaged blacks, Latinos and other people of color. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) is an effective framework for multi-component interventions aimed at improving care processes and outcomes for individuals with chronic disease. In addition, community health workers (CHWs) have played an integral role in reducing health disparities; however, their effectiveness in reducing vascular risk among stroke survivors remains unknown. Our objectives are to develop, test, and assess the economic value of a CCM-based intervention using an Advanced Practice Clinician (APC)-CHW team to improve risk factor control after stroke in an under-resourced, racially/ethnically diverse population.Methods/designIn this single-blind randomized controlled trial, 516 adults (≥40 years) with an ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack or intracerebral hemorrhage within the prior 90 days are being enrolled at five sites within the Los Angeles County safety-net setting and randomized 1:1 to intervention vs usual care. Participants are excluded if they do not speak English, Spanish, Cantonese, Mandarin, or Korean or if they are unable to consent. The intervention includes a minimum of three clinic visits in the healthcare setting, three home visits, and Chronic Disease Self-Management Program group workshops in community venues. The primary outcome is blood pressure (BP) control (systolic BP <130 mmHg) at 1 year. Secondary outcomes include: (1) mean change in systolic BP; (2) control of other vascular risk factors including lipids and hemoglobin A1c, (3) inflammation (C reactive protein [CRP]), (4) medication adherence, (5) lifestyle factors (smoking, diet, and physical activity), (6) estimated relative reduction in risk for recurrent stroke or myocardial infarction (MI), and (7) cost-effectiveness of the intervention versus usual care.DiscussionIf this multi-component interdisciplinary intervention is shown to be effective in improving risk factor control after stroke, it may serve as a model that can be used internationally to reduce race/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in stroke in resource-constrained settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01763203

Effect of a Computer-Based Decision Support Intervention on Autism Spectrum Disorder Screening in Pediatric Primary Care Clinics: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance: Universal early screening for autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is recommended but not routinely performed. Objective: To determine whether computer-automated screening and clinical decision support can improve ASD screening rates in pediatric primary care practices. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted between November 16, 2010, and November 21, 2012, compared ASD screening rates among a random sample of 274 children aged 18 to 24 months in urban pediatric clinics of an inner-city county hospital system with or without an ASD screening module built into an existing decision support software system. Statistical analyses were conducted from February 6, 2017, to June 1, 2018. Interventions: Four clinics were matched in pairs based on patient volume and race/ethnicity, then randomized within pairs. Decision support with the Child Health Improvement Through Computer Automation system (CHICA) was integrated with workflow and with the electronic health record in intervention clinics. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was screening rates among children aged 18 to 24 months. Because the intervention was discontinued among children aged 18 months at the request of the participating clinics, only results for those aged 24 months were collected and analyzed. Rates of positive screening results, clinicians' response rates to screening results in the computer system, and new cases of ASD identified were also measured. Main results were controlled for race/ethnicity and intracluster correlation. Results: Two clinics were randomized to receive the intervention, and 2 served as controls. Records from 274 children (101 girls, 162 boys, and 11 missing information on sex; age range, 23-30 months) were reviewed (138 in the intervention clinics and 136 in the control clinics). Of 263 children, 242 (92.0%) were enrolled in Medicaid, 138 (52.5%) were African American, and 96 (36.5%) were Hispanic. Screening rates in the intervention clinics increased from 0% (95% CI, 0%-5.5%) at baseline to 68.4% (13 of 19) (95% CI, 43.4%-87.4%) in 6 months and to 100% (18 of 18) (95% CI, 81.5%-100%) in 24 months. Control clinics had no significant increase in screening rates (baseline, 7 of 64 children [10.9%]; 6-24 months after the intervention, 11 of 72 children [15.3%]; P = .46). Screening results were positive for 265 of 980 children (27.0%) screened by CHICA during the study period. Among the 265 patients with positive screening results, physicians indicated any response in CHICA in 151 (57.0%). Two children in the intervention group received a new diagnosis of ASD within the time frame of the study. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that computer automation, when integrated with clinical workflow and the electronic health record, increases screening of children for ASD, but follow-up by physicians is still flawed. Automation of the subsequent workup is still needed

Feedback GAP : study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Study protocol for the Anesthesiology Control Tower—Feedback Alerts to Supplement Treatments (ACTFAST-3) trial: A pilot randomized controlled trial in intraoperative telemedicine [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Background: Each year, over 300 million people undergo surgical procedures worldwide. Despite efforts to improve outcomes, postoperative morbidity and mortality are common. Many patients experience complications as a result of either medical error or failure to adhere to established clinical practice guidelines. This protocol describes a clinical trial comparing a telemedicine-based decision support system, the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT), with enhanced standard intraoperative care. Methods: This study is a pragmatic, comparative effectiveness trial that will randomize approximately 12,000 adult surgical patients on an operating room (OR) level to a control or to an intervention group. All OR clinicians will have access to decision support software within the OR as a part of enhanced standard intraoperative care. The ACT will monitor patients in both groups and will provide additional support to the clinicians assigned to intervention ORs. Primary outcomes include blood glucose management and temperature management. Secondary outcomes will include surrogate, clinical, and economic outcomes, such as incidence of intraoperative hypotension, postoperative respiratory compromise, acute kidney injury, delirium, and volatile anesthetic utilization. Ethics and dissemination: The ACTFAST-3 study has been approved by the Human Resource Protection Office (HRPO) at Washington University in St. Louis and is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02830126). Recruitment for this protocol began in April 2017 and will end in December 2018. Dissemination of the findings of this study will occur via presentations at academic conferences, journal publications, and educational materials

Mobile application intervention to promote self-management in insulin-requiring type 1 and type 2 diabetes individuals: protocol for a mixed methods study and non-blinded randomized controlled trial

Background: Mobile applications (apps) have proven to be useful in supporting diabetes self-care, but non-consideration of users’ needs and non-inclusion of educational features are reasons for low continual use. Well-designed mobile apps that meet the needs of diabetes patients and provide ongoing self-management education and support are required. It was hypothesized that apps designed with such features can improve a range of measures including clinical outcomes, knowledge of diabetes, medication adherence, perceived ability for self-management, and quality-of-life. This may eventually facilitate a more robust and cost-effective approach for improving skills and motivation for the management of diabetes. Methods: This project will be conducted in two phases. It will initially employ a mixed methods study design to investigate the self-management needs and perceptions of diabetes patients on the use of mobile apps to support diabetes self-management. Results of the mixed methods study will inform the content and design of an app which will be employed as an intervention tool in a 12-month parallel randomized controlled trial (RCT). The RCT will compare outcomes in relation to standard-of-care alone with standard-of-care plus a mobile phone diabetes app among 150 insulin-requiring types 1 and 2 diabetes patients. The primary outcome measures are clinical parameters such as hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), lipids, urine albumin-to-creatinine ratio, blood pressure, frequency in events of emergency hyperglycemia and hypoglycemia. Secondary outcomes include knowledge of diabetes, medication intake and adherence, perception of self-care, and quality-of-life. Discussion: Results from this study will provide empirical evidence on the usefulness of a mobile app developed based on self-management needs analysis of diabetic patients. The long-term goal is to harness knowledge gained from this study to provide evidenced-based data, which promote the scale-up or adoption of mobile applications that provide regular, ongoing education and self-management support to people living with diabetes

An electronic family health history tool to identify and manage patients at increased risk for colorectal cancer: protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundColorectal cancer is the fourth most commonly diagnosed cancer in the United States. Approximately 3-10% of the population has an increased risk for colorectal cancer due to family history and warrants more frequent or intensive screening. Yet, < 50% of that high-risk population receives guideline-concordant care. Systematic collection of family health history and decision support may improve guideline-concordant screening for patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer. We seek to test the effectiveness of a web-based, systematic family health history collection tool and decision support platform (MeTree) to improve risk assessment and appropriate management of colorectal cancer risk among patients in the Department of Veterans Affairs primary care practices.MethodsIn this ongoing randomized controlled trial, primary care providers at the Durham Veterans Affairs Health Care System and the Madison VA Medical Center are randomized to immediate intervention or wait-list control. Veterans are eligible if assigned to enrolled providers, have an upcoming primary care appointment, and have no conditions that would place them at increased risk for colorectal cancer (such as personal history, adenomatous polyps, or inflammatory bowel disease). Those with a recent lower endoscopy (e.g. colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy) are excluded. Immediate intervention patients put their family health history information into a web-based platform, MeTree, which provides both patient- and provider-facing decision support reports. Wait-list control patients access MeTree 12 months post-consent. The primary outcome is the risk-concordant colorectal cancer screening referral rate obtained via chart review. Secondary outcomes include patient completion of risk management recommendations (e.g. colonoscopy) and referral for genetic consultation. We will also conduct an economic analysis and an assessment of providers' experience with MeTree clinical decision support recommendations to inform future implementation efforts if the intervention is found to be effective.DiscussionThis trial will assess the feasibility and effectiveness of patient-collected family health history linked to decision support to promote risk-appropriate screening in a large healthcare system such as the Department of Veterans Affairs.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02247336 . Registered on 25 September 2014

Effectiveness and Content Analysis of Interventions to Enhance Oral Antidiabetic Drug Adherence in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes : Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

We thank Frederic Bergeron, information scientist, for assistance in search strategies. We thank American Journal Experts for editing the text. Source of financial support: This study was funded by the Laval University Chair on Adherence to Treatments. This Chair is supported by nonrestricted grants from AstraZeneca Canada, Merck Canada, Sanofi Canada, and Pfizer Canada and from the Prends soin de toi program (a Quebec provincial program for the improvement of public health).Peer reviewedPostprin

Impact of community based peer support in type 2 diabetes: a cluster randomised controlled trial of individual and/or group approaches

Background: Diabetes peer support, where one person with diabetes helps guide and support others, has been proposed as a way to improve diabetes management. We have tested whether different diabetes peer support strategies can improve metabolic and/or psychological outcomes.<p></p> Methods: People with type 2 diabetes (n=1,299) were invited to participate as either ‘peer’ or ‘peer support facilitator’ (PSF) in a 2x2 factorial pragmatic randomised cluster controlled trial across rural communities (130 clusters) in England. Peer support was delivered over 8-12 months by trained PSFs, supported by monthly meetings with a diabetes educator. Primary end point was HbA1c. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, diabetes distress, blood pressure, waist, total cholesterol and weight. Outcome assessors and investigators were masked to arm allocation. Main factors were 1:1 or group intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat adjusting for baseline.<p></p> Results: The 4 arms were well matched (Group n=330, 1:1 n=325, combined n=322, control n=322); 1035 (79·7%) completed the mid-point postal questionnaire and 1064 (81·9%) had a final HbA1c. A limitation was that although 92.6% PSFs and peers were in telephone contact, only 61.4% of intervention participants attended a face to face session.<p></p> Mean baseline HbA1c was 57 mmol/mol (7·4%), with no significant change across arms. Systolic blood pressure was reduced by -2·3mm Hg (-4·0 to -0·6) among those allocated group peer-support and -3·0mm Hg (-5·0 to -1·1) among those who attended group peer-support at least once. There was no impact on other outcomes by intention to treat or significant differences between arms in self-reported adherence or medication.<p></p> Conclusions: Group diabetes peer support over 8-12 months was associated with a small improvement in blood pressure but no other benefits. Long term benefits should be investigated