A cross-site, comparative effectiveness study of an integrated HIV and substance use treatment program.

Co-occurrence of HIV and substance abuse is associated with poor outcomes for HIV-related health and substance use. Integration of substance use and medical care holds promise for HIV patients, yet few integrated treatment models have been reported. Most of the reported models lack data on treatment outcomes in diverse settings. This study examined the substance use outcomes of an integrated treatment model for patients with both HIV and substance use at three different clinics. Sites differed by type and degree of integration, with one integrated academic medical center, one co-located academic medical center, and one co-located community health center. Participants (n=286) received integrated substance use and HIV treatment for 12 months and were interviewed at 6-month intervals. We used linear generalized estimating equation regression analysis to examine changes in Addiction Severity Index (ASI) alcohol and drug severity scores. To test whether our treatment was differentially effective across sites, we compared a full model including site by time point interaction terms to a reduced model including only site fixed effects. Alcohol severity scores decreased significantly at 6 and 12 months. Drug severity scores decreased significantly at 12 months. Once baseline severity variation was incorporated into the model, there was no evidence of variation in alcohol or drug score changes by site. Substance use outcomes did not differ by age, gender, income, or race. This integrated treatment model offers an option for treating diverse patients with HIV and substance use in a variety of clinic settings. Studies with control groups are needed to confirm these findings.

Setting an agenda for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews in CKD care.

Systematic reviews comparing the effectiveness of strategies to prevent, detect, and treat chronic kidney disease are needed to inform patient care. We engaged stakeholders in the chronic kidney disease community to prioritize topics for future comparative effectiveness research systematic reviews. We developed a preliminary list of suggested topics and stakeholders refined and ranked topics based on their importance. Among 46 topics identified, stakeholders nominated 18 as 'high' priority. Most pertained to strategies to slow disease progression, including: (a) treat proteinuria, (b) improve access to care, (c) treat hypertension, (d) use health information technology, and (e) implement dietary strategies. Most (15 of 18) topics had been previously studied with two or more randomized controlled trials, indicating feasibility of rigorous systematic reviews. Chronic kidney disease topics rated by stakeholders as 'high priority' are varied in scope and may lead to quality systematic reviews impacting practice and policy.

Comparative effectiveness studies to improve clinical outcomes in end stage renal disease: the DEcIDE patient outcomes in end stage renal disease study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence is lacking to inform providers' and patients' decisions about many common treatment strategies for patients with end stage renal disease (ESRD). METHODS/DESIGN: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study is funded by the United States (US) Agency for Health Care Research and Quality to study the comparative effectiveness of: 1) antihypertensive therapies, 2) early versus later initiation of dialysis, and 3) intravenous iron therapies on clinical outcomes in patients with ESRD. Ongoing studies utilize four existing, nationally representative cohorts of patients with ESRD, including (1) the Choices for Healthy Outcomes in Caring for ESRD study (1041 incident dialysis patients recruited from October 1995 to June 1999 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2009), (2) the Dialysis Clinic Inc (45,124 incident dialysis patients initiating and receiving their care from 2003-2010 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), (3) the United States Renal Data System (333,308 incident dialysis patients from 2006-2009 with complete outcome ascertainment through 2010), and (4) the Cleveland Clinic Foundation Chronic Kidney Disease Registry (53,399 patients with chronic kidney disease with outcome ascertainment from 2005 through 2009). We ascertain patient reported outcomes (i.e., health-related quality of life), morbidity, and mortality using clinical and administrative data, and data obtained from national death indices. We use advanced statistical methods (e.g., propensity scoring and marginal structural modeling) to account for potential biases of our study designs. All data are de-identified for analyses. The conduct of studies and dissemination of findings are guided by input from Stakeholders in the ESRD community. DISCUSSION: The DEcIDE Patient Outcomes in ESRD Study will provide needed evidence regarding the effectiveness of common treatments employed for dialysis patients. Carefully planned dissemination strategies to the ESRD community will enhance studies' impact on clinical care and patients' outcomes.

Patterns in blood pressure medication use in US incident dialysis patients over the first 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Several observational studies have evaluated the effect of a single exposure window with blood pressure (BP) medications on outcomes in incident dialysis patients, but whether BP medication prescription patterns remain stable or a single exposure window design is adequate to evaluate effect on outcomes is unclear. METHODS: We described patterns of BP medication prescription over 6 months after dialysis initiation in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients, stratified by cardiovascular comorbidity, diabetes, and other patient characteristics. The cohort included 13,072 adult patients (12,159 hemodialysis, 913 peritoneal dialysis) who initiated dialysis in Dialysis Clinic, Inc., facilities January 1, 2003-June 30, 2008, and remained on the original modality for at least 6 months. We evaluated monthly patterns in BP medication prescription over 6 months and at 12 and 24 months after initiation. RESULTS: Prescription patterns varied by dialysis modality over the first 6 months; substantial proportions of patients with prescriptions for beta-blockers, renin angiotensin system agents, and dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers in month 6 no longer had prescriptions for these medications by month 24. Prescription of specific medication classes varied by comorbidity, race/ethnicity, and age, but little by sex. The mean number of medications was 2.5 at month 6 in hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: This study evaluates BP medication patterns in both hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis patients over the first 6 months of dialysis. Our findings highlight the challenges of assessing comparative effectiveness of a single BP medication class in dialysis patients. Longitudinal designs should be used to account for changes in BP medication management over time, and designs that incorporate common combinations should be considered.

Restorative Justice and Political Forgiveness: A Comparative Study of Truth and Reconciliation Commissions

This research project involves a comparative, cross-national study of truth and reconciliation commissions (TRCs) in countries around the world that have used these extra-judicial institutions to pursue justice and promote national reconciliation during periods of democratic transition or following a civil conflict marked by intense violence and severe human rights abuses. An important objective of truth and reconciliation commissions involves instituting measures to address serious human rights abuses that have occurred as a result of discrimination, ethnocentrism and racism. In recent years, rather than solely utilizing traditional methods of conflict resolution and criminal prosecution, transitional governments have established truth and reconciliation commissions as part of efforts to foster psychological, social and political healing.

The primary objective of this research project is to determine why there has been a proliferation of truth and reconciliation commissions around the world in recent decades, and assess whether the perceived effectiveness of these commissions is real and substantial. In this work, using a multi-method approach that involves quantitative and qualitative analysis, I consider the institutional design and structural composition of truth and reconciliation commissions, as well as the roles that these commissions play in the democratic transformation of nations with a history of civil conflict and human rights violations.

In addition to a focus on institutional design of truth and reconciliation commissions, I use a group identity framework that is grounded in social identity theory to examine the historical background and sociopolitical context in which truth commissions have been adopted in countries around the world. This group identity framework serves as an invaluable lens through which questions related to truth and reconciliation commissions and other transitional justice mechanisms can be explored. I also present a unique theoretical framework, the reconciliatory democratization paradigm, that is especially useful for examining the complex interactions between the various political elements that directly affect the processes of democratic consolidation and reconciliation in countries in which truth and reconciliation commissions have been established. Finally, I tackle the question of whether successor regimes that institute truth and reconciliation commissions can effectively address the human rights violations that occurred in the past, and prevent the recurrence of these abuses.