The PRO-AGE study: an international randomised controlled study of health risk appraisal for older persons based in general practice

BACKGROUND: This paper describes the study protocol, the recruitment, and base-line data for evaluating the success of randomisation of the PRO-AGE (PRevention in Older people – Assessment in GEneralists' practices) project. METHODS/DESIGN: A group of general practitioners (GPs) in London (U.K.), Hamburg (Germany) and Solothurn (Switzerland) were trained in risk identification, health promotion, and prevention in older people. Their non-disabled older patients were invited to participate in a randomised controlled study. Participants allocated to the intervention group were offered the Health Risk Appraisal for Older Persons (HRA-O) instrument with a site-specific method for reinforcement (London: physician reminders in electronic medical record; Hamburg: one group session or two preventive home visits; Solothurn: six-monthly preventive home visits over a two-year period). Participants allocated to the control group received usual care. At each site, an additional group of GPs did not receive the training, and their eligible patients were invited to participate in a concurrent comparison group. Primary outcomes are self-reported health behaviour and preventative care use at one-year follow-up. In Solothurn, an additional follow-up was conducted at two years. The number of older persons agreeing to participate (% of eligible persons) in the randomised controlled study was 2503 (66.0%) in London, 2580 (53.6%) in Hamburg, and 2284 (67.5%) in Solothurn. Base-line findings confirm that randomisation of participants was successful, with comparable characteristics between intervention and control groups. The number of persons (% of eligible) enrolled in the concurrent comparison group was 636 (48.8%) in London, 746 (35.7%) in Hamburg, and 1171 (63.0%) in Solothurn. DISCUSSION: PRO-AGE is the first large-scale randomised controlled trial of health risk appraisal for older people in Europe. Its results will inform about the effects of implementing HRA-O with different methods of reinforcement

Geriatric patients' expectations of their physicians: findings from a tertiary care hospital in Pakistan

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Geriatric health is a neglected and under-explored area internationally and in Pakistan. We aimed to ascertain the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians and the factors associated with patient satisfaction in this particular age bracket.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A cross-sectional survey was carried out at a tertiary care teaching hospital in Karachi, Pakistan. Data collection was carried out via face-to-face interviews based on structured, pre-tested questionnaires. All consenting individuals aged 65 years or above were recruited into the study. Convenience sampling was used to draw the sample. The data was analyzed using SPSS version 16. Geriatric patient's expectations from physicians were elicited using a set of 11 questions that were graded on a scale of 1-3 where 1 = not important, 2 = important, 3 = very important.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Three hundred and eighty geriatric patients were interviewed. The response rate of this study was 89.8%. The mean age of the respondents was 73.4 ± 6.8 years. Two hundred and forty eight respondents (65.3%) were female. Diabetes mellitus (53.7%), hypertension (59.5%), arthritis (40.5%) and renal disease (32.1%) were common ailments among geriatric patients. More than 50% of the patients were visiting their physicians once every two to three months. Discussing treatment options and letting patients make the final decision (79.2%), prescribing minimum possible medications (84.5%), physician's holistic knowledge about the spectrum of care issues for geriatric patients (79.2%), being given a realistic but optimistic picture of future health by physicians (85.5%) were ranked as very important expectations by patients from their physicians. Cumulative household income (p = 0.005), most important health complaint (p = 0.01) and frequency of experiencing health complaint (p < 0.001) emerged as independent predictors of the satisfaction of geriatric patients from care provided by physicians.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We have documented the expectations of the geriatric patients from their physicians in a developing country. Physicians belonging to all disciplines should keep these expectations in mind during clinical encounters with geriatric patients.</p

Effects of Blended (Yellow) vs Forced Coagulation (Blue) Currents on Adverse Events, Complete Resection, or Polyp Recurrence After Polypectomy in a Large Randomized Trial

Background & aims: There is debate over the type of electrosurgical setting that should be used for polyp resection. Some endoscopists use a type of blended current (yellow), whereas others prefer coagulation (blue). We performed a single-blinded, randomized trial to determine whether type of electrosurgical setting affects risk of adverse events or recurrence. Methods: Patients undergoing endoscopic mucosal resection of nonpedunculated colorectal polyps 20 mm or larger (n = 928) were randomly assigned, in a 2 × 2 design, to groups that received clip closure or no clip closure of the resection defect (primary intervention) and then to either a blended current (Endocut Q) or coagulation current (forced coagulation) (Erbe Inc) (secondary intervention and focus of the study). The study was performed at multiple centers, from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were evaluated 30 days after the procedure (n = 919), and 675 patients underwent a surveillance colonoscopy at a median of 6 months after the procedure. The primary outcome was any severe adverse event in a per patient analysis. Secondary outcomes were complete resection and recurrence at first surveillance colonoscopy in a per polyp analysis. Results: Serious adverse events occurred in 7.2% of patients in the Endocut group and 7.9% of patients in the forced coagulation group, with no significant differences in the occurrence of types of events. There were no significant differences between groups in proportions of polyps that were completely removed (96% in the Endocut group vs 95% in the forced coagulation group) or the proportion of polyps found to have recurred at surveillance colonoscopy (17% and 17%, respectively). Procedural characteristics were comparable, except that 17% of patients in the Endocut group had immediate bleeding that required an intervention, compared with 11% in the forced coagulation group (P = .006). Conclusions: In a randomized trial to compare 2 commonly used electrosurgical settings for the resection of large colorectal polyps (Endocut vs forced coagulation), we found no difference in risk of serious adverse events, complete resection rate, or polyp recurrence. Electrosurgical settings can therefore be selected based on endoscopist expertise and preference

Clip Closure Prevents Bleeding After Endoscopic Resection of Large Colon Polyps in a Randomized Trial

Background & aims: Bleeding is the most common severe complication after endoscopic mucosal resection of large colon polyps and is associated with significant morbidity and cost. We examined whether prophylactic closure of the mucosal defect with hemoclips after polyp resection reduces the risk of bleeding. Methods: We performed a multicenter, randomized trial of patients with a large nonpedunculated colon polyp (≥20 mm) at 18 medical centers in North America and Spain from April 2013 through October 2017. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that underwent endoscopic closure with a clip (clip group) or no closure (control group) and followed. The primary outcome, postprocedure bleeding, was defined as a severe bleeding event that required hospitalization, a blood transfusion, colonoscopy, surgery, or another invasive intervention within 30 days after completion of the colonoscopy. Subgroup analyses included postprocedure bleeding with polyp location, polyp size, or use of periprocedural antithrombotic medications. We also examined the risk of any serious adverse event. Results: A total of 919 patients were randomly assigned to groups and completed follow-up. Postprocedure bleeding occurred in 3.5% of patients in the clip group and 7.1% in the control group (absolute risk difference [ARD] 3.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7%-6.5%). Among 615 patients (66.9%) with a proximal large polyp, the risk of bleeding in the clip group was 3.3% and in the control group was 9.6% (ARD 6.3%; 95% CI 2.5%-10.1%); among patients with a distal large polyp, the risks were 4.0% in the clip group and 1.4% in the control group (ARD -2.6%; 95% CI -6.3% to -1.1%). The effect of clip closure was independent of antithrombotic medications or polyp size. Serious adverse events occurred in 4.8% of patients in the clip group and 9.5% of patients in the control group (ARD 4.6%; 95% CI 1.3%-8.0%). Conclusions: In a randomized trial, we found that endoscopic clip closure of the mucosal defect following resection of large colon polyps reduces risk of postprocedure bleeding. The protective effect appeared to be restricted to large polyps located in the proximal colon

A randomized trial of effects of health risk appraisal combined with group sessions or home visits on preventive behaviors in older adults

Background. To explore effects of a health risk appraisal for older people (HRA-O) program with reinforcement, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in 21 general practices in Hamburg, Germany. Methods. Overall, 2,580 older patients of 14 general practitioners trained in reinforcing recommendations related to HRA-O-identified risk factors were randomized into intervention (n = 878) and control (n = 1,702) groups. Patients (n = 746) of seven additional matched general practitioners who did not receive this training served as a comparison group. Patients allocated to the intervention group, and their general practitioners, received computer-tailored written recommendations, and patients were offered the choice between interdisciplinary group sessions (geriatrician, physiotherapist, social worker, and nutritionist) and home visits (nurse). Results. Among the intervention group, 580 (66%) persons made use of personal reinforcement (group sessions: 503 [87%], home visits: 77 [13%]). At 1-year follow-up, persons in the intervention group had higher use of preventive services (eg, influenza vaccinations, adjusted odds ratio 1.7; 95% confidence interval 1.4-2.1) and more favorable health behavior (eg, high fruit/fiber intake, odds ratio 2.0; 95% confidence interval 1.6-2.6), as compared with controls. Comparisons between intervention and comparison group data revealed similar effects, suggesting that physician training alone had no effect. Subgroup analyses indicated favorable effects for HRA-O with personal reinforcement, but not for HRA-O without reinforcement. Conclusions. HRA-O combined with physician training and personal reinforcement had favorable effects on preventive care use and health behavio