A randomised controlled trial testing a web-based, computer-tailored self-management intervention for people with or at risk for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a study protocol

Contains fulltext : 125231.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Effective self-management support interventions are needed to improve the health and functional status of people with COPD or at risk for COPD. Computer-tailored technology could be an effective way to provide this support. METHODS/DESIGN: This paper presents the protocol of a randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness of a web-based, computer-tailored self-management intervention to change health behaviours of people with or at risk for COPD. An intervention group will be compared to a usual care control group, in which the intervention group will receive a web-based, computer-tailored self-management intervention. Participants will be recruited from an online panel and through general practices. Outcomes will be measured at baseline and at 6 months. The primary outcomes will be smoking behaviour, measuring the 7-day point prevalence abstinence and physical activity, measured in minutes. Secondary outcomes will include dyspnoea score, quality of life, stages of change, intention to change behaviour and alternative smoking behaviour measures, including current smoking behaviour, 24-hour point prevalence abstinence, prolonged abstinence, continued abstinence and number of quit attempts. DISCUSSION: To the best of our knowledge, this will be the first randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a web-based, computer-tailored self-management intervention for people with or at risk for COPD. The results will be important to explore the possible benefits of computer-tailored interventions for the self-management of people with or at risk for COPD and potentially other chronic health conditions. DUTCH TRIAL REGISTER: NTR3421

A Review of 50-Years of International Literature on the Internal Environment of Building Practice-Based Research Networks (PBRNs)

This is the final version. Available from the American Board of Family Medicine via the DOI in this recordPURPOSE: Practice-based research networks (PBRNs) have developed dynamically across the world, paralleling the emergence of the primary care discipline. While this review focuses on the internal environment of PBRNs, the complete framework will be presented incrementally in future publications. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the published and gray literature. Electronic databases, including MEDLINE (PubMed), OVID, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, and SAGE Premier, were searched for publications between January 1, 1965 and December 31, 2020 for English-language articles. Rigorous inclusion/exclusion criteria were implemented to identify relevant publications, and inductive thematic analysis was applied to elucidate key elements, subthemes, and themes. Social network theory was used to synthesize findings. RESULTS: A total of 229 publications described the establishment of 93 PBRNs in 15 countries that met the inclusion criteria. The overall framework yielded 3 main themes, 12 subthemes, and 57 key elements. Key PBRN activities included relationship building between academia and practitioners and development of a learning environment through multidirectional communication. CONCLUSIONS: PBRNs across many countries contributed significantly to shaping the landscape of primary health care and became an integral part of it. Many common features within the sphere of PBRNs can be identified that seem to promote their establishment across the world

Following a natural experiment of guideline adaptation and early implementation: a mixed-methods study of facilitation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Facilitation is emerging as an important strategy in the uptake of evidence. However, it is not entirely clear from a practical perspective how facilitation occurs to help move research evidence into nursing practice. The Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, also known as the 'Partnership,' is a Pan-Canadian initiative supporting knowledge translation activity for improved care through guideline use. In this case-series study, five self-identified groups volunteered to use a systematic methodology to adapt existing clinical practice guidelines for Canadian use. With 'Partnership' support, local and external facilitators provided assistance for groups to begin the process by adapting the guidelines and planning for implementation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>To gain a more comprehensive understanding of the nature of facilitation, we conducted a mixed-methods study. Specifically, we examined the role and skills of individuals actively engaged in facilitation as well as the actual facilitation activities occurring within the 'Partnership.' The study was driven by and builds upon a focused literature review published in 2010 that examined facilitation as a role and process in achieving evidence-based practice in nursing. An audit tool outlining 46 discrete facilitation activities based on results of this review was used to examine the facilitation noted in the documents (emails, meeting minutes, field notes) of three nursing-related cases participating in the 'Partnership' case-series study. To further examine the concept, six facilitators were interviewed about their practical experiences. The case-audit data were analyzed through a simple content analysis and triangulated with participant responses from the focus group interview to understand what occurred as these cases undertook guideline adaptation.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The analysis of the three cases revealed that almost all of the 46 discrete, practical facilitation activities from the literature were evidenced. Additionally, case documents exposed five other facilitation-related activities, and a combination of external and local facilitation was apparent. Individuals who were involved in the case or group adapting the guideline(s) also performed facilitation activities, both formally and informally, in conjunction with or in addition to appointed external and local facilitators.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Facilitation of evidence-based practice is a multifaceted process and a team effort. Communication and relationship-building are key components. The practical aspects of facilitation explicated in this study validate what has been previously noted in the literature and expand what is known about facilitation process and activity.</p

Comparison of primary care models in the prevention of cardiovascular disease - a cross sectional study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Primary care providers play an important role in preventing and managing cardiovascular disease. This study compared the quality of preventive cardiovascular care delivery amongst different primary care models.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary analysis of a larger randomized control trial, known as the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) through Outreach Facilitation. Using baseline data collected through IDOCC, we conducted a cross-sectional study of 82 primary care practices from three delivery models in Eastern Ontario, Canada: 43 fee-for-service, 27 blended-capitation and 12 community health centres with salary-based physicians. Medical chart audits from 4,808 patients with or at high risk of developing cardiovascular disease were used to examine each practice's adherence to ten evidence-based processes of care for diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dyslipidemia, hypertension, weight management, and smoking cessation care. Generalized estimating equation models adjusting for age, sex, rurality, number of cardiovascular-related comorbidities, and year of data collection were used to compare guideline adherence amongst the three models.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The percentage of patients with diabetes that received two hemoglobin A1c tests during the study year was significantly higher in community health centres (69%) than in fee-for-service (45%) practices (Adjusted Odds Ratio (AOR) = 2.4 [95% CI 1.4-4.2], p = 0.001). Blended capitation practices had a significantly higher percentage of patients who had their waistlines monitored than in fee-for-service practices (19% vs. 5%, AOR = 3.7 [1.8-7.8], p = 0.0006), and who were recommended a smoking cessation drug when compared to community health centres (33% vs. 16%, AOR = 2.4 [1.3-4.6], p = 0.007). Overall, quality of diabetes care was higher in community health centres, while smoking cessation care and weight management was higher in the blended-capitation models. Fee-for-service practices had the greatest gaps in care, most noticeably in diabetes care and weight management.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This study adds to the evidence suggesting that primary care delivery model impacts quality of care. These findings support current Ontario reforms to move away from the traditional fee-for-service practice.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00574808">NCT00574808</a></p

Usability evaluation of an online, tailored self-management intervention for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients incorporating behavior change techniques

Contains fulltext : 126196.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)BACKGROUND: An eHealth intervention using computer tailored technology including several behavior change techniques was developed to support the self-management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to evaluate and improve the usability of the eHealth intervention. METHODS: We conducted a usability evaluation with 8 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients, with a mixed methods design. We improved the usability through iterative cycles of evaluation and adaptation. Participants were asked to think aloud during the evaluation sessions. Participants then completed a semi-structured interview. The sessions were observed and recorded. Descriptive statistics and content analysis were used to uncover usability issues. RESULTS: Areas for improvement were layout, navigation, and content. Most issues could be solved within 3 iterations of improvement. Overall, participants found the program easy to use. The length of the program urged us to further analyze the appreciation of behavior change techniques. Some were perceived as helpful and easy to use, while others evoked frustration. CONCLUSIONS: The usability study identified several issues for improvement, confirming the need for usability evaluation during the development of eHealth interventions. The uncovered strengths and limitations of behavior change techniques may lead to optimization of eHealth interventions, but further insight is needed