10 research outputs found

    Incentive payments to general practitioners aimed at increasing opportunistic testing of young women for chlamydia: a pilot cluster randomised controlled trial

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Financial incentives have been used for many years internationally to improve quality of care in general practice. The aim of this pilot study was to determine if offering general practitioners (GP) a small incentive payment per test would increase chlamydia testing in women aged 16 to 24 years, attending general practice.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>General practice clinics (n = 12) across Victoria, Australia, were cluster randomized to receive either a $AUD5 payment per chlamydia test or no payment for testing 16 to 24 year old women for chlamydia. Data were collected on the number of chlamydia tests and patient consultations undertaken by each GP over two time periods: 12 month pre-trial and 6 month trial period. The impact of the intervention was assessed using a mixed effects logistic regression model, accommodating for clustering at GP level.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Testing increased from 6.2% (95% CI: 4.2, 8.4) to 8.8% (95% CI: 4.8, 13.0) (p = 0.1) in the control group and from 11.5% (95% CI: 4.6, 18.5) to 13.4% (95% CI: 9.5, 17.5) (p = 0.4) in the intervention group. Overall, the intervention did not result in a significant increase in chlamydia testing in general practice. The odds ratio for an increase in testing in the intervention group compared to the control group was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.6, 1.2). Major barriers to increased chlamydia testing reported by GPs included a lack of time, difficulty in remembering to offer testing and a lack of patient awareness around testing.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>A small financial incentive alone did not increase chlamydia testing among young women attending general practice. It is possible small incentive payments in conjunction with reminder and feedback systems may be effective, as may higher financial incentive payments. Further research is required to determine if financial incentives can increase testing in Australian general practice, the type and level of financial scheme required and whether incentives needs to be part of a multi-faceted package.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12608000499381.</p

    Circulating tumor cell number and endocrine therapy index in ER positive metastatic breast cancer patients

    No full text
    Abstract Circulating tumor cells (CTC) are prognostic in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The CTC-endocrine therapy index (CTC-ETI), consisting of CTC-ER (estrogen receptor), BCL2, human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2), and Ki67 expression, might predict resistance to endocrine therapy (ET) in patients with ER-positive MBC. One hundred twenty-one patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative MBC initiating a new ET after ≥1 lines of ET were enrolled in a prospective, multi-institutional clinical trial. CTC-ETI and clinical/imaging follow-up were performed at baseline and serial time points. Progression-free survival (PFS) and rapid progression (RP; determined at the 3-month time point) were primary endpoints. Associations with clinical outcomes used logrank and Fisher’s exact tests. At baseline, 36% (38/107) of patients had ≥5 CTC/7.5 ml whole blood (WB). Patients with ≥5 vs. <5 CTC/7.5 ml WB had significantly worse PFS (median 3.3 vs. 5.9 months, P = 0.03). Elevated CTC at 1 month was associated with even worse PFS (1.9 vs. 5.0 months from the 1-month sample, P < 0.001). Low, intermediate, and high CTC-ETI were observed in 71 (66%), 8 (8%), and 28 (26%) patients, with median PFS of 6.9, 8.5, and 2.8 months, respectively (P = 0.008). Patients with high vs. low CTC and CTC-ETI more frequently experienced RP (CTC: 66% vs. 41%; P = 0.03; CTC-ETI: 79% vs. 40%; P = 0.002). In conclusion, CTC enumeration and the CTC-ETI assay are prognostic at baseline and follow-up in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative MBC starting new ET. CTC at first follow-up might identify a group of patients with ER-positive MBC that could forego ET, but CTC-ETI did not contribute further

    A grant-based experiment to train clinical investigators: the AACR/ASCO methods in clinical cancer research workshop

    No full text
    To address the need for clinical investigators in oncology, AACR and ASCO established the Methods in Clinical Cancer Research Workshop (MCCRW). The workshop's objectives were to: (1) provide training in the methods, design, and conduct of clinical trials; (2) ensure that clinical trials met federal and international ethical guidelines; (3) evaluate the effectiveness of the workshop; and (4) create networking opportunities for young investigators with mentoring senior faculty. Educational methods included: (1) didactic lectures; (2) Small Group Discussion Sessions; (3) Protocol Development Groups; (4) one-on-one mentoring. Learning focused on the development of an IRB-ready protocol, which was submitted on the last day of the workshop. Evaluation methods included: (1) pre- and post-workshop tests; (2) students' workshop evaluations; (3) faculty's ratings of protocol development; (4) students' productivity in clinical research after the workshop; (5) an independent assessment of the workshop. From 1996-2014, 1932 students from diverse backgrounds attended the workshop. There was a significant improvement in the students' level of knowledge from the pre- to the post-workshop exams (p < 0.001). Across the classes, student evaluations were very favorable. At the end of the workshop, faculty rated 92-100% of the students' protocols as ready for IRB submission. Intermediate and long-term follow-ups indicated that more than 92% of students were actively involved in patientrelated research, and 66% had implemented five or more protocols. This NCI-sponsored MCCRW has had a major impact on the training of clinicians in their ability to design and implement clinical trials in cancer research

    Books, Articles, Chapters

    No full text

    Subretinal Hyperreflective Material in the Comparison of Age-Related Macular Degeneration Treatments Trials

    No full text
    corecore