Rethinking the therapeutic misconception: social justice, patient advocacy, and cancer clinical trial recruitment in the US safety net.

BackgroundApproximately 20% of adult cancer patients are eligible to participate in a clinical trial, but only 2.5-9% do so. Accrual is even less for minority and medically underserved populations. As a result, critical life-saving treatments and quality of life services developed from research studies may not address their needs. This study questions the utility of the bioethical concern with therapeutic misconception (TM), a misconception that occurs when research subjects fail to distinguish between clinical research and ordinary treatment, and therefore attribute therapeutic intent to research procedures in the safety net setting. This paper provides ethnographic insight into the ways in which research is discussed and related to standard treatment.MethodsIn the course of two years of ethnographic fieldwork in a safety net hospital, I conducted clinic observations (n=150 clinic days) and in-depth in-person qualitative interviews with patients (n=37) and providers (n=15). I used standard qualitative methods to organize and code resulting fieldnote and interview data.ResultsFindings suggest that TM is limited in relevance for the interdisciplinary context of cancer clinical trial recruitment in the safety net setting. Ethnographic data show the value of the discussions that happen prior to the informed consent, those that introduce the idea of participation in research. These preliminary discussions are elemental especially when recruiting underserved and vulnerable patients for clinical trial participation who are often unfamiliar with medical research and how it relates to medical care. Data also highlight the multiple actors involved in research discussions and the ethics of social justice and patient advocacy they mobilize, suggesting that class, inequality, and dependency influence the forms of ethical engagements in public hospital settings.ConclusionOn the ground ethics of social justice and patient advocacy are more relevant than TM as guiding ethical principles in the context of ongoing cancer disparities and efforts to diversify clinical trial participation

Using the literature to quantify the learning curve: a case study

Objective: To assess whether a literature review of a technology can allow a learning curve to be quantified. Methods: The literature for fibreoptic intubation was searched for studies reporting information relevant to the learning curve. The Cochrane Librar y, Medline, Embase and Science Citation index were searched. Studies that reported a procedure time were included. Data were abstracted on the three features of learning: initial level, rate of learning and asymptote level. Random effect meta-analysis was performed. Results: Only 21 studies gave explicit information concerning the previous experience of the operator(s). There were 32 different definitions of procedure time. From 4 studies of fibreoptic nasotracheal intubation, the mean starting level and time for the 10th procedure (95% confidence interval) was estimated to be 133s (113, 153) and 71s (62, 79) respectively. Conclusions: The review approach allowed learning to be quantified for our example technology. Poor and insufficient reporting constrained formal statistical estimation. Standardised reporting of non-drug techniques with adequate learning curve details is needed to inform trial design and costeffectiveness analysis

DO IT Trial: vitamin D Outcomes and Interventions in Toddlers - a TARGet Kids! randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundVitamin D levels are alarmingly low (<75 nmol/L) in 65-70% of North American children older than 1 year. An increased risk of viral upper respiratory tract infections (URTI), asthma-related hospitalizations and use of anti-inflammatory medication have all been linked with low vitamin D. No study has determined whether wintertime vitamin D supplementation can reduce the risk of URTI and asthma exacerbations, two of the most common and costly illnesses of early childhood. The objectives of this study are: 1) to compare the effect of 'high dose' (2000 IU/day) vs. 'standard dose' (400 IU/day) vitamin D supplementation in achieving reductions in laboratory confirmed URTI and asthma exacerbations during the winter in preschool-aged Canadian children; and 2) to assess the effect of 'high dose' vitamin D supplementation on vitamin D serum levels and specific viruses that cause URTI.Methods/designThis study is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial. Over 4 successive winters we will recruit 750 healthy children 1-5 years of age. Participating physicians are part of a primary healthcare research network called TARGet Kids!. Children will be randomized to the 'standard dose' or 'high dose' oral supplemental vitamin D for a minimum of 4 months (200 children per group). Parents will obtain a nasal swab from their child with each URTI, report the number of asthma exacerbations and complete symptom checklists. Unscheduled physician visits for URTIs and asthma exacerbations will be recorded. By May, a blood sample will be drawn to determine vitamin D serum levels. The primary analysis will be a comparison of URTI rate between study groups using a Poisson regression model. Secondary analyses will compare vitamin D serum levels, asthma exacerbations and the frequency of specific viral agents between groups.DiscussionIdentifying whether vitamin D supplementation of preschoolers can reduce wintertime viral URTIs and asthma exacerbations and what dose is optimal may reduce population wide morbidity and associated health care and societal costs. This information will assist in determining practice and health policy recommendations related to vitamin D supplementation in healthy Canadian preschoolers

Transfer of manualized CBT for social phobia into clinical practice (SOPHO-PRAX) : a study protocol for a cluster-randomized controlled trial

Background: Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is generally known to be efficacious in the treatment of social phobia when applied in RCT's, namely when the treatment manual is based on the Clark-Wells approach. However, little is known about the efficacy of manualized treatments in routine clinical practice (Phase IV of psychotherapy research). The present study (SOPHO-PRAX) is a continuation of a large multi-centre randomized clinical trial (SOPHO-NET) and analyses the extent to which additional training practitioners in manualized procedures enhances treatment effect. Methods: N = 36 private practitioners will be included in three treatment centres and randomly designated to either training in manualized CBT or no specific training. The treatment effects of the therapies conducted by both groups of therapists will be compared. A total of 162 patients (N = 116 completers; N = 58 per condition) will be enrolled. Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale (LSAS) will serve as primary outcome measure. Remission from social phobia is defined as LSAS total [less than or equal to] 30 points. Data will be collected at treatment begin, after 8, 15, and 25 sessions (50 mins. each), at treatment completion, as well at 6 and 12 months post-treatment. Discussion: The present CBT trial combines elements of randomized-controlled trials and naturalistic studies in an innovative way. It will directly inform about the incremental effects of procedures established in a controlled trial into clinical practice. Study results are relevant to health care decisions and policy. They may serve to improve quality of treatment, and shorten the timeframe between the development and widespread dissemination of effective methods, thereby reducing health cost expenditures. The results of this study will not only inform about the degree to which the new methods lead to an improvement of treatment course and outcome, but also about whether the effects of routine psychotherapeutic treatment are comparable to those of the controlled, strictly manualized treatments of the SOPHO-NET study. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01388231. This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (SOPHO-NET: BMBF 01GV0607; SOPHO-PRAX: BMBF 01GV1001)

Systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and economic evaluation, of denosumab for the treatment of bone metastases from solid tumours

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Psychological, social and welfare interventions for psychological health and well-being of torture survivors

Background: Torture is widespread, with potentially broad and long-lasting impact across physical, psychological, social and other areas of life. Its complex and diverse effects interact with ethnicity, gender, and refugee experience. Health and welfare agencies offer varied rehabilitation services, from conventional mental health treatment to eclectic or needs-based interventions. This review is needed because relatively little outcome research has been done in this field, and no previous systematic review has been conducted. Resources are scarce, and the challenges of providing services can be considerable. Objectives: To assess beneficial and adverse effects of psychological, social and welfare interventions for torture survivors, and to comp are these effects with those reported by active and inactive controls. Search methods: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were identified through a search of PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINA HL), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTR AL) and the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Specialise d Register (CCDANCTR), the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database (LILACS), the Open System for Information on Grey Literature in Europe (OpenSIGLE), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and Published International Literature On Traumatic Stress (PILOTS) all years to 11 April 2013; searches of Cochrane resources, international trial registries and the main biomedical databases were updated on 20 June 2014. We also searched the On line Library of Dignity (Danish Institute against Torture), reference lists of reviews and included studies and the most frequently cited journals, up to April 2013 but not repeated for 2014. Investigators were contacted to provide updates or details as necessary. Selection criteria: Full publications of RCTs or quasi-RCTs of psychological, social or welfare interventions for survivors of torture against any active or inactive comparison condition. Data collection and analysis: We included all major sources of grey literature in our search and used standard methodological procedures as expected by The Cochrane Collaboration for collecting data, evaluating risk of bias and using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methods to assess the quality of evidence. Main results: Nine RCTs were included in this review. All were of psychological interventions; none provided social or welfare interventions. The nine trials provided data for 507 adults; none involved children or adolescents. Eight of the nine studies described individual treatment, and one discussed group treatment. Six trials were conducted in Europe, and three in different African countries. Most people were refugees in their thirties and forties; most met the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) at the outset. Four trials used narrative exposure therapy (NET), one cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT ) and the other four used mixed methods for trauma symptoms, one of which included reconciliation methods. Five interventions were compared with active controls, such as psychoeducation; four used treatment as usual or waiting list/no treatment; we analysed all control conditions together. Duration of therapy varied from one hour to longer than 20 hours with a median of around 12 to 15 hours. All trials reported effects on distress and on PTSD, and two reported on quality of life. Five studies followed up participants for at least six months. No immediate benefits of psychological therapy were noted in comparison with controls in terms of our primary outcome of distress (usually depression), nor for PTSD symptoms, PTSD caseness, or quality of life. At six-month follow-up, three NET and one CBT study (86 participants) showed moderate effect sizes for intervention over control in reduction of distress (standardised me an difference (SMD) -0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.07 to -0.19) and of PTSD symptoms (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.07). However, the quality of evidence was very low, and risk of bias resulted from researcher/therapist allegiance to treatment methods, effects of uncertain asylum status of some people and real-time non-standardised translation of assessment measures. No measures of adverse events were described, nor of participation, social functioning, quantity of social or family relationships, proxy measures by third parties or satisfaction with treatment. Too few studies were identified for review authors to attempt sensitivity analyses. Authors’ conclusions: Very low-quality evidence suggests no differences between psychological therapies and controls in terms of immediate effects on post- traumatic symptoms, distress or quality of life; however, NET and CBT were found to confer moderate benefits in reducing dis tress and PTSD symptoms over the medium term (six months after treatment). Evidence was of very low quality, mainly because non- standardised assessment methods using interpreters were applied, and sample sizes were very small. Most eligible trials also revealed medium to high risk of bias. Further, attention to the cultural appropriateness of interventions or to their psychometric qualities was inadequate, and assessment measures used were unsuitable. As such, these findings should be interpreted with caution. No data were available on whether symptom reduction enabled improvements in quality of life, participation in community life, or in social and family relationships in the medium term. Details of adverse events and treatment satisfaction were not available immediately after treatment nor in the medium term. Future research should aim to address these gaps in the evidence and should include larger sample sizes when possible. Problems of torture survivors need to be defined far more broadly than by PTSD symptoms, and re cognition given to the contextual influences of being a torture survivor, including as an asylum seeker or refugee, on psychological and social health

Cost effectiveness analysis of Year 2 of an elementary school-located influenza vaccination program-Results from a randomized controlled trial.

BackgroundSchool-located vaccination against influenza (SLV-I) has the potential to improve current suboptimal influenza immunization coverage for U.S. school-aged children. However, little is known about SLV-I's cost-effectiveness. The objective of this study is to establish the cost-effectiveness of SLV-I based on a two-year community-based randomized controlled trial (Year 1: 2009-2010 vaccination season, an unusual H1N1 pandemic influenza season, and Year 2: 2010-2011, a more typical influenza season).MethodsWe performed a cost-effectiveness analysis on a two-year randomized controlled trial of a Western New York SLV-I program. SLV-I clinics were offered in 21 intervention elementary schools (Year 1 n = 9,027; Year 2 n = 9,145 children) with standard-of-care (no SLV-I) in control schools (Year 1 n = 4,534 (10 schools); Year 2 n = 4,796 children (11 schools)). We estimated the cost-per-vaccinated child, by dividing the incremental cost of the intervention by the incremental effectiveness (i.e., the number of additionally vaccinated students in intervention schools compared to control schools).ResultsIn Years 1 and 2, respectively, the effectiveness measure (proportion of children vaccinated) was 11.2 and 12.0 percentage points higher in intervention (40.7 % and 40.4 %) than control schools. In year 2, the cost-per-vaccinated child excluding vaccine purchase ($59.88 in 2010 US$) consisted of three component costs: (A) the school costs ($8.25); (B) the project coordination costs ($32.33); and (C) the vendor costs excluding vaccine purchase ($16.68), summed through Monte Carlo simulation. Compared to Year 1, the two component costs (A) and (C) decreased, while the component cost (B) increased in Year 2. The cost-per-vaccinated child, excluding vaccine purchase, was$59.73 (Year 1) and $59.88 (Year 2, statistically indistinguishable from Year 1), higher than the published cost of providing influenza vaccination in medical practices ($39.54). However, taking indirect costs (e.g., averted parental costs to visit medical practices) into account, vaccination was less costly in SLV-I ($23.96 in Year 1,$24.07 in Year 2) than in medical practices.ConclusionsOur two-year trial's findings reinforced the evidence to support SLV-I as a potentially favorable system to increase childhood influenza vaccination rates in a cost-efficient way. Increased efficiencies in SLV-I are needed for a sustainable and scalable SLV-I program

Effectiveness of nurse delivered endoscopy: findings from randomised multi-institution nurse endoscopy trial (MINuET)

Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of doctors and nurses in undertaking upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy. Design Pragmatic trial with Zelen's randomisation before consent to minimise distortion of existing practice. Setting 23 hospitals in the United Kingdom. In six hospitals, nurses undertook both upper and lower gastrointestinal endoscopy, yielding a total of 29 centres. Participants 67 doctors and 30 nurses. Of 4964 potentially eligible patients, we randomised 4128 (83%) and recruited 1888 (38%) from July 2002 to June 2003. Interventions Diagnostic upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and flexible sigmoidoscopy, undertaken with or without sedation, with the standard preparation, techniques, and protocols of participating hospitals. After referral for either procedure, patients were randomised between doctors and nurses. Main outcome measures Gastrointestinal symptom rating questionnaire (primary outcome), gastrointestinal endoscopy satisfaction questionnaire and state-trait anxiety inventory (all analysed by intention to treat); immediate and delayed complications; quality of examination and corresponding report; patients' preferences for operator; and new diagnoses at one year (all analysed according to who carried out the procedure). Results There was no significant difference between groups in outcome at one day, one month, or one year after endoscopy, except that patients were more satisfied with nurses after one day. Nurses were also more thorough than doctors in examining the stomach and oesophagus. While quality of life scores were slightly better in patients the doctor group, this was not statistically significant. Conclusions Diagnostic endoscopy can be undertaken safely and effectively by nurses. Trial registration International standard RCT 8276570