Early mobilisation and rehabilitation in Swiss intensive care units: a cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND: Patients in intensive care units (ICUs) are at high risk of developing physical, functional, cognitive, and mental impairments. Early mobilisation aims to improve patient outcomes and is increasingly considered the standard of care. This survey aimed to investigate the characteristics, current use and variations of early mobilisation and rehabilitation in Swiss ICUs. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey among all ICU lead physicians, who provided data on their institutional characteristics, early mobilisation and rehabilitation practices, and their perceptions of the use and variation of early rehabilitation practices in Switzerland. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 44% (37/84). Among ICUs caring for adults (34/37), 26 were in the German-speaking region, five in the French-speaking region, and three in the Italian-speaking region. All ICUs regularly involved physiotherapy in the rehabilitation process and 50% reported having a specialised physiotherapy team. All ICUs reported performing early mobilisation, starting within the first 7 days after ICU admission. About half reported the use of a rehabilitation (45%) or early mobilisation protocol (50%). Regular, structured, interdisciplinary rounds or meetings of the ICU care team to discuss rehabilitation measures and goals for patients were stated to be held by 53%. The respondents stated that 82% of their patients received early mobilisation measures during their ICU stay. Most frequently provided mobilisation measures included passive range of motion (97%), passive chair position in bed (97%), active range of motion muscle activation and training (88%), active side to side turning (91%), sitting on the edge of the bed (94%), transfer from bed to a chair (97%), and ambulation (94%). The proportion of ICUs providing a specific early mobilisation measure, the proportion of patients receiving it, and the time dedicated to it varied across language regions, hospital types, ICU types, and ICU sizes. Almost one third of the ICU lead physicians considered early rehabilitation to be underused in their own ICU and about half considered it to be underused in Switzerland more generally. ICU lead physicians stressed lack of personnel, financial resources, and time as key causes for underuse. Moreover, they highlighted the importance of early and systematic or protocol-based rehabilitation and interprofessional approaches that are adaptive to the patients' rehabilitation needs and potential. CONCLUSION: This survey suggests that almost all ICUs in Switzerland practice some form of early mobilisation with the aim of early rehabilitation. However, the described approaches, as well as the reported use of early mobilisation measures were heterogenous across Swiss ICUs

Health workers' experiences, barriers, preferences and motivating factors in using mHealth forms in Ethiopia

Published version. Also available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-13-2Background: Mobile health (mHealth) applications, such as innovative electronic forms on smartphones, could potentially improve the performance of health care workers and health systems in developing countries. However, contextual evidence on health workers’ barriers and motivating factors that may influence large-scale implementation of such interfaces for health care delivery is scarce. Methods: A pretested semistructured questionnaire was used to assess health workers’ experiences, barriers, preferences, and motivating factors in using mobile health forms on smartphones in the context of maternal health care in Ethiopia. Twenty-five health extension workers (HEWs) and midwives, working in 13 primary health care facilities in Tigray region, Ethiopia, participated in this study. Results: Over a 6-month period, a total of 2,893 electronic health records of 1,122 women were submitted to a central computer through the Internet. Sixteen (69.6%) workers believed the forms were good reminders on what to do and what questions needed to be asked. Twelve (52.2%) workers said electronic forms were comprehensive and 9 (39.1%) workers saw electronic forms as learning tools. All workers preferred unrestricted use of the smartphones and believed it helped them adapt to the smartphones and electronic forms for work purposes. With regards to language preference, 18 (78.3%) preferred using the local language (Tigrinya) version of the forms to English. Indentified barriers for not using electronic forms consistently include challenges related to electronic forms (for example, problem with username and password setting as reported by 5 (21.7%), smartphones (for example, smartphone froze or locked up as reported by 9 (39.1%) and health system (for example, frequent movement of health workers as reported by 19 (82.6%)). Conclusions: Both HEWs and midwives found the electronic forms on smartphones useful for their day-to-day maternal health care services delivery. However, sustainable use and implementation of such work tools at scale would be daunting without providing technical support to health workers, securing mobile network airtime and improving key functions of the larger health system

Survival modelling and cost-effectiveness analysis of treatments for newly diagnosed metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer

Background In metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) treatment, survival benefits have been shown by adding docetaxel or recent androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies (ARATs) abiraterone, apalutamide, or enzalutamide to androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). However, the optimal treatment strategy in terms of costs and effects is unclear, not least due to high ARAT costs. Methods To assess treatment cost-effectiveness, we developed a Markov cohort model with health states of progression-free disease, progressive disease and death for men with newly diagnosed mHSPC, with a 30-year time horizon. Survival data, adverse events and utilities were informed by randomized controlled trial results, our meta-analysis of re-created individual patient survival data, and publicly available sources of unit costs. We applied a Swiss healthcare payer perspective and discounted costs and effects by 3%. Results We found a significant overall survival benefit for ADT+abiraterone versus ADT+docetaxel. The corresponding incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was predicted to be EUR 39,814 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide incurred higher costs and lower QALYs compared to ADT+abiraterone. For all ARATs, drug costs constituted the most substantial cost component. Results were stable except for a large univariable reduction in the pre-progression utility under ADT+abiraterone and very large variations in drug prices. Conclusions Our model projected ADT+abiraterone to be cost-effective compared to ADT+docetaxel at a willingness-to-pay threshold of EUR 70,400/QALY (CHF 100,000 applying purchasing power parities). Given lower estimated QALYs for ADT+apalutamide and ADT+enzalutamide compared to ADT+abiraterone, the former only became cost-effective (the preferred) treatment option(s) at substantial 75–80% (80–90%) price reductions

Treatments for Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Systematic Review, Network Meta-analysis, and Benefit-harm assessment

Context: Multiple treatments for metastatic, hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (mHSPC) are available, but their effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and benefit-harm balance remain unclear. Objective: To assess clinical effectiveness regarding survival and HRQoL, safety, and benefit-harm balance of mHSPC treatments. Evidence acquisition: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and ClinicalTrials.gov until March 1, 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing docetaxel, abiraterone, enzalutamide, apalutamide, darolutamide, and radiotherapy combined with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) mutually or with ADT alone were eligible. Three reviewers independently performed screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment in duplicate. Evidence synthesis: Across ten RCTs, we found relevant survival benefits for ADT + docetaxel (high certainty according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation [GRADE]), ADT + abiraterone (moderate certainty), ADT + enzalutamide (low certainty), ADT + apalutamide (high certainty), and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide (high certainty) compared with ADT alone. ADT + radiotherapy appeared effective only in low-volume de novo mHSPC. We found a short-term HRQoL decrease lasting 3-6 mo for ADT + docetaxel (moderate certainty) and a potential HRQoL benefit for ADT + abiraterone up to 24 mo of follow-up (moderate certainty) compared with ADT alone. There was no difference in HRQoL for ADT + enzalutamide, ADT + apalutamide, or ADT + radiotherapy over ADT alone (low-high certainty). Grade 3-5 adverse effect rates were increased with all systemic combination treatments. A benefit-harm assessment showed high probabilities (>60%) for a net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + enzalutamide, and ADT + apalutamide, while ADT + docetaxel and ADT + docetaxel + darolutamide appeared unlikely (<40%) to be beneficial. Conclusions: Despite substantial survival benefits, no systemic combination treatment showed a clear HRQoL improvement compared with ADT alone. We found evidence for a short-term HRQoL decline with ADT + docetaxel and a higher net clinical benefit with ADT + abiraterone, ADT + apalutamide and ADT + enzalutamide. While individualized decision-making remains important and economic factors need to be considered, the evidence may support a general preference for the combination of ADT with androgen receptor axis-targeted therapies over docetaxel-containing strategies. Patient summary: We assessed different combination treatments for metastatic hormone-sensitive prostate cancer. While survival was better with all systemic combination treatments, there was no clear improvement in health-related quality of life compared with androgen deprivation therapy alone. Novel hormonal combination treatments had a more favorable benefit-harm balance than combination treatments that include chemotherapy. Keywords: Adverse effects; Benefit-harm assessment; Benefit-harm balance; Health-related quality of life; Network meta-analysis; Overall survival; Prostate cancer; Systematic revie

Older adult preferences regarding benefits and harms of statin and aspirin therapy for cardiovascular primary prevention

OBJECTIVE Personalizing preventive therapies for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) is particularly important for older adults, as they tend to have multiple chronic conditions, increased risk for medication adverse effects, and may have heterogenous preferences when weighing health outcomes. However, little is known about outcome preferences related to ASCVD preventive therapies in older adults. METHODS In May 2021, using an established online panel, KnowledgePanel, we surveyed older US adults aged 65-84 years without history of ASCVD on outcome preferences related to statin therapy (benefit outcomes to be reduced by the therapy: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: diabetes, abnormal liver test, muscle pain) or aspirin therapy (benefit outcomes: heart attack, stroke; adverse effects: brain bleed, bowel bleed, stomach ulcer). We used standardized best-worst scores (range of -1 for "least worrisome" to +1 for "most worrisome") and conditional logistic regression to examine the relative importance of the outcomes. RESULTS In this study, 607 ASCVD-free participants (median age 74, 46% male, 81% White) were included; 304 and 303 completed the statin and aspirin versions of the survey, respectively. For statin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were most worrisome (score 0.55; 95% CI 0.51, 0.60) and (0.53; 0.48, 0.58), followed by potential harms of diabetes (-0.07; -0.10, -0.03), abnormal liver test (-0.25; -0.29, -0.20), and muscle pain (-0.77; -0.82, -0.73). For aspirin-related outcomes, stroke and heart attack were similarly most worrisome (0.48; 0.43, 0.52) and (0.43; 0.38, 0.48), followed by brain bleed (0.30; 0.25, 0.34), bowel bleed (-0.31; -0.33, -0.28), and stomach ulcer (-0.90; -0.92, -0.87). Conditional logistic regression and subgroup analyses by age, sex, and race yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS Older adults generally consider outcomes related to benefits of ASCVD primary preventive therapies-stroke and heart attack-more important than their adverse effects. Integrating patient preferences with risk assessment is an important next step for personalizing ASCVD preventive therapies for older adults

Benefit-Harm Analysis for Informed Decision Making on Participating in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons. METHODS The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle. RESULTS CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation

Benefit-harm analysis for informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer screening: A Modeling Study

OBJECTIVES: To facilitate informed decision making on participating in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, we assessed the benefit-harm balance of CRC screening for a wide range of subgroups over different time horizons. METHODS: The study combined incidence proportions of benefits and harms of (not) participating in CRC screening estimated by the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to CAncer microsimulation model, a preference eliciting survey, and benefit-harm balance modeling combining all outcomes to determine the net health benefit of CRC screening over 10, 20, and 30 years. Probability of net health benefit was estimated for 210 different subgroups based on age, sex, previous participation in CRC screening, and lifestyle. RESULTS: CRC screening was net beneficial in 183 of 210 subgroups over 30 years (median probability [MP] of 0.79, interquartile range [IQR] of 0.69-0.85) across subgroups. Net health benefit was greater for men (MP 0.82; IQR 0.69-0.89) than women (MP 0.76; IQR 0.67-0.83) and for those without history of participation in previous screenings (MP 0.84; IQR 0.80-0.89) compared with those with (MP 0.69; IQR 0.59-0.75). Net health benefit decreased with increasing age, from MP of 0.84 (IQR 0.80-0.86) at age 55 to 0.61 (IQR 0.56-0.71) at age 75. Shorter time horizons led to lower benefit, with MP of 0.70 (IQR 0.62-0.80) over 20 years and 0.54 (IQR 0.48-0.67) over 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: Our benefit-harm analysis provides information about net health benefit of screening participation, based on important characteristics and preferences of individuals, which could assist screening invitees in making informed decisions on screening participation