Apoyo social a drogodependientes en programa de mantenimiento con metadona en una prisión

Goal: To learn more about the social support available to patients participating in a prison methadone maintenance program (PMM). Methodology: Descriptive, with controls. Setting: A penitentiary in Albolote (Granada) Population Sample: The total prison population was 1,579; 364 patients were included in the PMM; 35 were female and 329 were male. 60 patients, 7 women and 53 men, were used as cases. 30 non-drug dependent prisoners, 3 women and 27 men, were the control group. They had no antecedents of problems with drug addiction. Interventions: Interviews with cases and controls to learn about their addictive antecedents, family structure, socio-economic level, and a hetero-applied MOS questionnaire was completed. Percentages of each social support variable were obtained and compared using the chi-squared technique. Results: The overall support received is low in 38 cases (74.5%) and in 9 controls (30%): p = 0.0001. OR 0.1466, confidence interval at 95% (0.0538-0.3989). Support received is normal in 13 cases (25%) and 21 controls (70%): p = 0.0007. OR 0.69, confidence interval at 95% (0.44-0.93). All of the variables were statistically significant for non-drug addicts, except for emotional support, which was the same for both groups. Conclusion: The perception of inmates participating in the methadone maintenance program was that they received less social support than the non-drug dependent inmates.

Efficacy of two educational interventions about inhalation techniques in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). TECEPOC: study protocol for a partially randomized controlled trial (preference trial).

BACKGROUND Drugs for inhalation are the cornerstone of therapy in obstructive lung disease. We have observed that up to 75 % of patients do not perform a correct inhalation technique. The inability of patients to correctly use their inhaler device may be a direct consequence of insufficient or poor inhaler technique instruction. The objective of this study is to test the efficacy of two educational interventions to improve the inhalation techniques in patients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD). METHODS This study uses both a multicenter patients´ preference trial and a comprehensive cohort design with 495 COPD-diagnosed patients selected by a non-probabilistic method of sampling from seven Primary Care Centers. The participants will be divided into two groups and five arms. The two groups are: 1) the patients´ preference group with two arms and 2) the randomized group with three arms. In the preference group, the two arms correspond to the two educational interventions (Intervention A and Intervention B) designed for this study. In the randomized group the three arms comprise: intervention A, intervention B and a control arm. Intervention A is written information (a leaflet describing the correct inhalation techniques). Intervention B is written information about inhalation techniques plus training by an instructor. Every patient in each group will be visited six times during the year of the study at health care center. DISCUSSION Our hypothesis is that the application of two educational interventions in patients with COPD who are treated with inhaled therapy will increase the number of patients who perform a correct inhalation technique by at least 25 %. We will evaluate the effectiveness of these interventions on patient inhalation technique improvement, considering that it will be adequate and feasible within the context of clinical practice.

Effectiveness of two interventions based on improving patient-practitioner communication on diabetes self-management in patients with low educational level: study protocol of a clustered randomized trial in primary care.

BACKGROUND In the last decades the presence of social inequalities in diabetes care has been observed in multiple countries, including Spain. These inequalities have been at least partially attributed to differences in diabetes self-management behaviours. Communication problems during medical consultations occur more frequently to patients with a lower educational level. The purpose of this cluster randomized trial is to determine whether an intervention implemented in a General Surgery, based in improving patient-provider communication, results in a better diabetes self-management in patients with lower educational level. A secondary objective is to assess whether telephone reinforcement enhances the effect of such intervention. We report the design and implementation of this on-going study. METHODS/DESIGN The study is being conducted in a General Practice located in a deprived neighbourhood of Granada, Spain. Diabetic patients 18 years old or older with a low educational level and inadequate glycaemic control (HbA1c > 7%) were recruited. General Practitioners (GPs) were randomised to three groups: intervention A, intervention B and control group. GPs allocated to intervention groups A and B received training in communication skills and are providing graphic feedback about glycosylated haemoglobin levels. Patients whose GPs were allocated to group B are additionally receiving telephone reinforcement whereas patients from the control group are receiving usual care. The described interventions are being conducted during 7 consecutive medical visits which are scheduled every three months. The main outcome measure will be HbA1c; blood pressure, lipidemia, body mass index and waist circumference will be considered as secondary outcome measures. Statistical analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions will include multilevel regression analysis with three hierarchical levels: medical visit level, patient level and GP level. DISCUSSION The results of this study will provide new knowledge about possible strategies to promote a better diabetes self-management in a particularly vulnerable group. If effective, this low cost intervention will have the potential to be easily incorporated into routine clinical practice, contributing to decrease health inequalities in diabetic patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinical Trials U.S. National Institutes of Health, NCT01849731.