99 research outputs found

    Economic evaluation of the NET intervention versus guideline dissemination for management of mild head injury in hospital emergency departments

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Evidence-based guidelines for the management of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) in the emergency department (ED) are now widely available, and yet, clinical practice remains inconsistent with the guidelines. The Neurotrauma Evidence Translation (NET) intervention was developed to increase the uptake of guideline recommendations and improve the management of minor head injury in Australian emergency departments (EDs). However, the adoption of this type of intervention typically entails an upfront investment that may or may not be fully offset by improvements in clinical practice, health outcomes and/or reductions in health service utilisation. The present study estimates the cost and cost-effectiveness of the NET intervention, as compared to the passive dissemination of the guideline, to evaluate whether any improvements in clinical practice or health outcomes due to the NET intervention can be obtained at an acceptable cost. Methods and findings Study setting: The NET cluster randomised controlled trial [ACTRN12612001286831]. Study sample: Seventeen EDs were randomised to the control condition and 14 to the intervention. One thousand nine hundred forty-three patients were included in the analysis of clinical practice outcomes (NET sample). A total of 343 patients from 14 control and 10 intervention EDs participated in follow-up interviews and were included in the analysis of patient-reported health outcomes (NET-Plus sample). Outcome measures: Appropriate post-traumatic amnesia (PTA) screening in the ED (primary outcome). Secondary clinical practice outcomes: provision of written information on discharge (INFO) and safe discharge (defined as CT scan appropriately provided plus PTA plus INFO). Secondary patient-reported, post-discharge health outcomes: anxiety (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), post-concussive symptoms (Rivermead), and preference-based health-related quality of life (SF6D). Methods: Trial-based economic evaluations from a health sector perspective, with time horizons set to coincide with the final follow-up for the NET sample (2 months post-intervention) and to 1-month post-discharge for the NET-Plus sample. Results: Intervention and control groups were not significantly different in health service utilisation received in the ED/inpatient ward following the initial mTBI presentation (adjusted mean difference 23.86perpatient;9523.86 per patient; 95%CI − 106, 153;p=0.719)oroverthelongerfollowupintheNETplussample(adjustedmeandifference153; p = 0.719) or over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference 341.78 per patient; 95%CI − 58,58, 742; p = 0.094). Savings from lower health service utilisation are therefore unlikely to offset the significantly higher upfront cost of the intervention (mean difference 138.20perpatient;95138.20 per patient; 95%CI 135, 141;p<0.000).Estimatesoftheneteffectoftheinterventionontotalcost(interventioncostnetofhealthserviceutilisation)suggestthattheinterventionentailssignificantlyhighercoststhanthecontrolcondition(adjustedmeandifference141; p < 0.000). Estimates of the net effect of the intervention on total cost (intervention cost net of health service utilisation) suggest that the intervention entails significantly higher costs than the control condition (adjusted mean difference 169.89 per patient; 95%CI 43,43, 297, p = 0.009). This effect is larger in absolute magnitude over the longer follow-up in the NET-plus sample (adjusted mean difference 505.06;95505.06; 95%CI 96, 915;p=0.016),mostlyduetoadditionalhealthserviceutilisation.Fortheprimaryoutcome,theNETinterventionismorecostlyandmoreeffectivethanpassivedissemination;entailinganadditionalcostof915; p = 0.016), mostly due to additional health service utilisation. For the primary outcome, the NET intervention is more costly and more effective than passive dissemination; entailing an additional cost of 1246 per additional patient appropriately screened for PTA (169.89/0.1363;Fiellers95169.89/0.1363; Fieller’s 95%CI 525, $2055). For NET to be considered cost-effective with 95% confidence, decision-makers would need to be willing to trade one quality-adjusted life year (QALY) for 25 additional patients appropriately screened for PTA. While these results reflect our best estimate of cost-effectiveness given the data, it is possible that a NET intervention that has been scaled and streamlined ready for wider roll-out may be more or less cost-effective than the NET intervention as delivered in the trial. Conclusions While the NET intervention does improve the management of mTBI in the ED, it also entails a significant increase in cost and—as delivered in the trial—is unlikely to be cost-effective at currently accepted funding thresholds. There may be a scope for a scaled-up and streamlined NET intervention to achieve a better balance between costs and outcomes. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001286831, date registered 12 December 2012

    IMPLEmenting a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain evidence-based manageMENT in general practice (IMPLEMENT) : cluster randomised controlled trial study protocol

    Get PDF
    Background: Evidence generated from reliable research is not frequently implemented into clinical practice. Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines are a potential vehicle to achieve this. A recent systematic review of implementation strategies of guideline dissemination concluded that there was a lack of evidence regarding effective strategies to promote the uptake of guidelines. Recommendations from this review, and other studies, have suggested the use of interventions that are theoretically based because these may be more effective than those that are not. An evidencebased clinical practice guideline for the management of acute low back pain was recently developed in Australia. This provides an opportunity to develop and test a theory-based implementation intervention for a condition which is common, has a high burden, and for which there is an evidence-practice gap in the primary care setting. Aim: This study aims to test the effectiveness of a theory-based intervention for implementing a clinical practice guideline for acute low back pain in general practice in Victoria, Australia. Specifically, our primary objectives are to establish if the intervention is effective in reducing the percentage of patients who are referred for a plain x-ray, and improving mean level of disability for patients three months post-consultation. Methods/Design: This study protocol describes the details of a cluster randomised controlled trial. Ninety-two general practices (clusters), which include at least one consenting general practitioner, will be randomised to an intervention or control arm using restricted randomisation. Patients aged 18 years or older who visit a participating practitioner for acute non-specific low back pain of less than three months duration will be eligible for inclusion. An average of twenty-five patients per general practice will be recruited, providing a total of 2,300 patient participants. General practitioners in the control arm will receive access to the guideline using the existing dissemination strategy. Practitioners in the intervention arm will be invited to participate in facilitated face-to-face workshops that have been underpinned by behavioural theory. Investigators (not involved in the delivery of the intervention), patients, outcome assessors and the study statistician will be blinded to group allocation. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN012606000098538 (date registered 14/03/2006).The trial is funded by the NHMRC by way of a Primary Health Care Project Grant (334060). JF has 50% of her time funded by the Chief Scientist Office3/2006). of the Scottish Government Health Directorate and 50% by the University of Aberdeen. PK is supported by a NHMRC Health Professional Fellowship (384366) and RB by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (334010). JG holds a Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. All other authors are funded by their own institutions

    Evaluation of Somatic Mutations in Solid Metastatic Pan-Cancer Patients

    Get PDF
    Metastasis continues to be the primary cause of all cancer-related deaths despite the recent advancements in cancer treatments. To evaluate the role of mutations in overall survival (OS) and treatment outcomes, we analyzed 957 metastatic patients with seven major cancer types who had available molecular testing results with a FoundationOne CDx® panel. The most prevalent genes with somatic mutations were TP53, KRAS, APC, and LRP1B. In this analysis, these genes had mutation frequencies higher than in publicly available datasets. We identified that the somatic mutations were seven mutually exclusive gene pairs and an additional fifty-two co-occurring gene pairs. Mutations in the mutually exclusive gene pair APC and CDKN2A showed an opposite effect on the overall survival. However, patients with CDKN2A mutations showed significantly shorter OS (HR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.34–2.21, p \u3c 0.001) after adjusting for cancer type, age at diagnosis, and sex. Five-year post metastatic diagnosis survival analysis showed a significant improvement in OS (median survival 28 and 43 months in pre-2015 and post-2015 metastatic diagnosis, respectively, p = 0.00021) based on the year of metastatic diagnosis. Although the use of targeted therapies after metastatic diagnosis prolonged OS, the benefit was not statistically significant. However, longer five-year progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly associated with targeted therapy use (median 10.9 months (CI: 9.7–11.9 months) compared to 9.1 months (CI: 8.1–10.1 months) for non-targeted therapy, respectively, p = 0.0029). Our results provide a clinically relevant overview of the complex molecular landscape and survival mechanisms in metastatic solid cancers

    A Mechanism for the Polarity Formation of Chemoreceptors at the Growth Cone Membrane for Gradient Amplification during Directional Sensing

    Get PDF
    Accurate response to external directional signals is essential for many physiological functions such as chemotaxis or axonal guidance. It relies on the detection and amplification of gradients of chemical cues, which, in eukaryotic cells, involves the asymmetric relocalization of signaling molecules. How molecular events coordinate to induce a polarity at the cell level remains however poorly understood, particularly for nerve chemotaxis. Here, we propose a model, inspired by single-molecule experiments, for the membrane dynamics of GABA chemoreceptors in nerve growth cones (GCs) during directional sensing. In our model, transient interactions between the receptors and the microtubules, coupled to GABA-induced signaling, provide a positive-feedback loop that leads to redistribution of the receptors towards the gradient source. Using numerical simulations with parameters derived from experiments, we find that the kinetics of polarization and the steady-state polarized distribution of GABA receptors are in remarkable agreement with experimental observations. Furthermore, we make predictions on the properties of the GC seen as a sensing, amplification and filtering module. In particular, the growth cone acts as a low-pass filter with a time constant ∼10 minutes determined by the Brownian diffusion of chemoreceptors in the membrane. This filtering makes the gradient amplification resistent to rapid fluctuations of the external signals, a beneficial feature to enhance the accuracy of neuronal wiring. Since the model is based on minimal assumptions on the receptor/cytoskeleton interactions, its validity extends to polarity formation beyond the case of GABA gradient sensing. Altogether, it constitutes an original positive-feedback mechanism by which cells can dynamically adapt their internal organization to external signals

    Evaluation of a Theory-Informed Implementation Intervention for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain in General Medical Practice: The IMPLEMENT Cluster Randomised Trial

    Get PDF
    Introduction: This cluster randomised trial evaluated an intervention to decrease x-ray referrals and increase giving advice to stay active for people with acute low back pain (LBP) in general practice. Methods: General practices were randomised to either access to a guideline for acute LBP (control) or facilitated interactive workshops (intervention). We measured behavioural predictors (e.g. knowledge, attitudes and intentions) and fear avoidance beliefs. We were unable to recruit sufficient patients to measure our original primary outcomes so we introduced other outcomes measured at the general practitioner (GP) level: behavioural simulation (clinical decision about vignettes) and rates of x-ray and CT-scan (medical administrative data). All those not involved in the delivery of the intervention were blinded to allocation. Results: 47 practices (53 GPs) were randomised to the control and 45 practices (59 GPs) to the intervention. The number of GPs available for analysis at 12 months varied by outcome due to missing confounder information; a minimum of 38 GPs were available from the intervention group, and a minimum of 40 GPs from the control group. For the behavioural constructs, although effect estimates were small, the intervention group GPs had greater intention of practising consistent with the guideline for the clinical behaviour of x-ray referral. For behavioural simulation, intervention group GPs were more likely to adhere to guideline recommendations about x-ray (OR 1.76, 95%CI 1.01, 3.05) and more likely to give advice to stay active (OR 4.49, 95%CI 1.90 to 10.60). Imaging referral was not statistically significantly different between groups and the potential importance of effects was unclear; rate ratio 0.87 (95%CI 0.68, 1.10) for x-ray or CT-scan. Conclusions: The intervention led to small changes in GP intention to practice in a manner that is consistent with an evidence-based guideline, but it did not result in statistically significant changes in actual behaviour. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN01260600009853
    corecore