A Single-blinded, Randomized Clinical Trial of How to Implement an Evidence-based Treatment for Generalized Anxiety Disorder [IMPLEMENT] — Effects of Three Different Strategies of Implementation

BACKGROUND: Despite long-standing calls to disseminate evidence-based treatments for generalized anxiety (GAD), modest progress has been made in the study of how such treatments should be implemented. The primary objective of this study was to test three competing strategies on how to implement a cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) for out-patients with GAD (i.e., comparison of one compensation vs. two capitalization models). METHODS: For our three-arm, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial (implementation of CBT for GAD [IMPLEMENT]), we recruited adults with GAD using advertisements in high-circulation newspapers to participate in a 14-session cognitive behavioral treatment (Mastery of your Anxiety and Worry, MAW-packet). We randomly assigned eligible patients using a full randomization procedure (1:1:1) to three different conditions of implementation: adherence priming (compensation model), which had a systematized focus on patients' individual GAD symptoms and how to compensate for these symptoms within the MAW-packet, and resource priming and supportive resource priming (capitalization model), which had systematized focuses on patients' strengths and abilities and how these strengths can be capitalized within the same packet. In the intention-to-treat population an outcome composite of primary and secondary symptoms-related self-report questionnaires was analyzed based on a hierarchical linear growth model from intake to 6-month follow-up assessment. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT02039193) and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: From June 2012 to Nov. 2014, from 411 participants that were screened, 57 eligible participants were recruited and randomly assigned to three conditions. Forty-nine patients (86%) provided outcome data at post-assessment (14% dropout rate). All three conditions showed a highly significant reduction of symptoms over time. However, compared with the adherence priming condition, both resource priming conditions indicated faster symptom reduction. The observer ratings of a sub-sample of recorded videos (n = 100) showed that the therapists in the resource priming conditions conducted more strength-oriented interventions in comparison with the adherence priming condition. No patients died or attempted suicide. INTERPRETATION: To our knowledge, this is the first trial that focuses on capitalization and compensation models during the implementation of one prescriptive treatment packet for GAD. We have shown that GAD related symptoms were significantly faster reduced by the resource priming conditions, although the limitations of our study included a well-educated population. If replicated, our results suggest that therapists who implement a mental health treatment for GAD might profit from a systematized focus on capitalization models. FUNDING: Swiss Science National Foundation (SNSF-Nr. PZ00P1_136937/1) awarded to CF. KEYWORDS: Cognitive behavioral therapy; Evidence-based treatment; Implementation strategies; Randomized controlled trial

Can decision making in general surgery be based on evidence? An empirical study of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND: This empirical study analyzes the current status of Cochrane Reviews (CRs) and their strength of recommendation for evidence-based decision making in the field of general surgery. METHODS: Systematic literature search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Cochrane Collaboration's homepage to identify available CRs on surgical topics. Quantitative and qualitative characteristics, utilization, and formulated treatment recommendations were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers. Association of review characteristics with treatment recommendation was analyzed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression models. RESULTS: Ninety-three CRs, including 1,403 primary studies and 246,473 patients, were identified. Mean number of included primary studies per CR was 15.1 (standard deviation [SD] 14.5) including 2,650 (SD 3,340) study patients. Two and a half (SD 8.3) nonrandomized trials were included per analyzed CR. Seventy-two (77%) CRs were published or updated in 2005 or later. Explicit treatment recommendations were given in 45 (48%). Presence of a treatment recommendation was associated with the number of included primary studies and the proportion of randomized studies. Utilization of surgical CRs remained low and showed large inter-country differences. The most surgical CRs were accessed in UK, USA, and Australia, followed by several Western and Eastern European countries. CONCLUSION: Only a minority of available CRs address surgical questions and their current usage is low. Instead of unsystematically increasing the number of surgical CRs it would be far more efficient to focus the review process on relevant surgical questions. Prioritization of CRs needs valid methods which should be developed by the scientific surgical community.

Ranibizumab (Lucentis) in neovascular age-related macular degeneration: evidence from clinical trials

BACKGROUND: Neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD) has a poor prognosis if left untreated, frequently resulting in legal blindness. Ranibizumab is approved for treating neovascular AMD. However, further guidance is needed to assist ophthalmologists in clinical practice to optimise treatment outcomes. METHODS: An international retina expert panel assessed evidence available from prospective, multicentre studies evaluating different ranibizumab treatment schedules (ANCHOR, MARINA, PIER, SAILOR, SUSTAIN and EXCITE) and a literature search to generate evidence-based and consensus recommendations for treatment indication and assessment, retreatment and monitoring. RESULTS: Ranibizumab is indicated for choroidal neovascular lesions with active disease, the clinical parameters of which are outlined. Treatment initiation with three consecutive monthly injections, followed by continued monthly injections, has provided the best visual-acuity outcomes in pivotal clinical trials. If continued monthly injections are not feasible after initiation, a flexible strategy appears viable, with monthly monitoring of lesion activity recommended. Initiation regimens of fewer than three injections have not been assessed. Continuous careful monitoring with flexible retreatment may help avoid vision loss recurring. Standardised biomarkers need to be determined. CONCLUSION: Evidence-based guidelines will help to optimise treatment outcomes with ranibizumab in neovascular AMD.

Population based screening - the difficulty of how to do more good than harm and how to achieve it

Screening people without symptoms of disease is an attractive idea. Screening allows early detection of disease or elevated risk of disease, and has the potential for improved treatment and reduction of mortality. The list of future screening opportunities is set to grow because of the refinement of screening techniques, the increasing frequency of degenerative and chronic diseases, and the steadily growing body of evidence on genetic predispositions for various diseases. But how should we decide on the diseases for which screening should be done and on recommendations for how it should be implemented? We use the examples of prostate cancer and genetic screening to show the importance of considering screening as an ongoing population-based intervention with beneficial and harmful effects, and not simply the use of a test. Assessing whether screening should be recommended and implemented for any named disease is therefore a multi-dimensional task in health technology assessment. There are several countries that already use established processes and criteria to assess the appropriateness of screening. We argue that the Swiss healthcare system needs a nationwide screening commission mandated to conduct appropriate evidence-based evaluation of the impact of proposed screening interventions, to issue evidence-based recommendations, and to monitor the performance of screening programmes introduced. Without explicit processes there is a danger that beneficial screening programmes could be neglected and that ineffective, and potentially harmful, screening procedures could be introduced.

Ordering CT pulmonary angiography to exclude pulmonary embolism: defense versus evidence in the emergency room

To identify reasons for ordering computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA), to identify the frequency of reasons for CTPA reflecting defensive behavior and evidence-based behavior, and to identify the impact of defensive medicine and of training about diagnosing pulmonary embolism (PE) on positive results of CTPA.

The precipitous decline of the ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana: time to build on scientific evidence to inform conservation management

In recent decades there has been a marked decline in most ortolan bunting Emberiza hortulana populations in temperate Europe, with many regional populations now extinct or on the brink of extinction. In contrast, Mediterranean and, as far as we know, eastern European popula-tions seem to have remained relatively stable. The causes of decline remain unclear but include: habitat loss and degradation, and related reduction in prey availability; climate change on the breeding grounds; altered population dynamics; illegal captures during migration; and environmental change in wintering areas. We review the current knowledge of the biology of the ortolan bunting and discuss the proposed causes of decline in relation to the different population trends in temperate and Mediterranean Europe. We suggest new avenues of research to identify the factors limiting ortolan bunting populations. The main evidence-based conservation measure that is likely to enhance habitat quality is the creation of patches of bare ground to produce sparsely vegetated foraging grounds in invertebrate-rich grassy habitats close to breeding areas.

Desertification mitigation and water harvesting based on sustainable land management

Traditionally, desertification research has focused on degradation assessments, whereas prevention and mitigation strategies have not sufficiently been emphasised, although the concept of sustainable land management (SLM) is increasingly being acknowledged. SLM strategies are interventions at the local to regional scale aiming at increasing productivity, protecting the natural resource base, and improving livelihoods. The global WOCAT initiative and its partners have developed harmonized frameworks to compile, evaluate and analyse the impact of SLM practices around the globe. Recent studies within the EU research project DESIRE developed a methodological framework that combines a collective learning and decision-making approach with use of best practices from the WOCAT database. In-depth assessment of 30 technologies and 8 approaches from 17 desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats such as water scarcity, soil and vegetation degradation, low production, climate change, resource use conflicts and migration. Among the impacts attributed to the documented technologies, those mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Water harvesting offers under-exploited opportunities for the drylands and the predominantly rainfed farming systems of the developing world. Recently compiled guidelines introduce the concepts behind water harvesting and propose a harmonised classification system, followed by an assessment of suitability, adoption and up-scaling of practices. Case studies go from large-scale floodwater spreading that make alluvial plains cultivable, to systems that boost cereal production in small farms, as well as practices that collect and store water from household compounds. Once contextualized and set in appropriate institutional frameworks, they can form part of an overall adaptation strategy for land users. More field research is needed to reinforce expert assessments of SLM impacts and provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the new EU CASCADE project.

Excision of fascia in melanoma thicker than 2 mm: no evidence for improved clinical outcome.

BACKGROUND Lack of evidence-based data causes significant variation among surgeons concerning the depth of wide excision for primary cutaneous melanomas. OBJECTIVES To evaluate the clinical effect of excision of the deep fascia in melanomas thicker than 2 mm on patient outcome. METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort review (1996-2012) of patients with melanomas thicker than 2 mm. Included patients underwent excision with a 1-cm margin. Data collected included the patients' sex, age, tumour location, tumour type, Breslow depth and presence of ulceration. Local recurrences, locoregional and distant metastases, and disease-free and overall survival were compared between the fascia-excised and the fascia-preserved groups. RESULTS Out of 2182 patients with malignant melanomas, 213 melanomas thicker than 2 mm, with a median follow-up of 1547 days, were included. The mean age of the patients was 62·6 years and the mean Breslow depth was 4·2 mm. Analysis of data for death attributable to melanoma (P = 0·72), local recurrence (P = 0·71), and locoregional (P = 0·87) and distant metastases (P = 0·34) were not significantly different between the study groups. Furthermore, Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analysis of both groups showed no evidence of significant difference regarding disease-free [P = 0·35; hazard ratio (HR) 1·25; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0·79-1·97] and overall survival (P = 0·63; HR 1·18; 95% CI 0·61-2·27). CONCLUSIONS We believe that excision of the deep fascia does not improve the outcome of melanomas thicker than 2 mm.

Tracing the Evidence: The Use of Evaluation Results in Direct-Democratic Campaigns

Although research on direct-democratic campaigns in Switzerland has intensified in the last decade, detailed information on the use of evidence in campaigns is still lacking. Our research aims to contribute both to research on direct democracy and to research on evidence-based policy making, by analyzing how evaluation results are used in directdemocratic campaigns. In this conceptual paper, the formulation of our hypothesis is based on a model of evaluation influence that traces the different uses of evaluation results in the process of a direct-democratic campaign. We assume that the policy analytical capacity of individual members in parliament, government and administration in the (pre)-parliamentary process fosters the use of evidence in campaigns. In the course of the campaign, symbolic use of evaluation in the form of justification, persuasion or mobilization prevails. We assume that the media is an important player in making transparent how political actors use evidence to support their positions. Evidence itself often remains ambiguous and uncertain, and evaluations are influenced by the values of the evaluator. To be able to make the right decisions, therefore, citizens should learn about possible interpretations in argumentative processes. For us, the context of direct democracy in Switzerland provides the setting for such a discourse that, besides evidence, brings up different opinions, values and beliefs.

Sharing evidence of sustainable land management impacts

Ensuring sustainable use of natural resources is crucial for maintaining the basis for our livelihoods. With threats from climate change, disputes over water, biodiversity loss, competing claims on land, and migration increasing worldwide, the demands for sustainable land management (SLM) practices will only increase in the future. For years already, various national and international organizations (GOs, NGOs, donors, research institutes, etc.) have been working on alternative forms of land management. And numerous land users worldwide – especially small farmers – have been testing, adapting, and refining new and better ways of managing land. All too often, however, the resulting SLM knowledge has not been sufficiently evaluated, documented and shared. Among other things, this has often prevented valuable SLM knowledge from being channelled into evidence-based decision-making processes. Indeed, proper knowledge management is crucial for SLM to reach its full potential. Since more than 20 years, the international WOCAT network documents and promotes SLM through its global platform. As a whole, the WOCAT methodology comprises tools for documenting, evaluating, and assessing the impact of SLM practices, as well as for knowledge sharing, analysis and use for decision support in the field, at the planning level, and in scaling up identified good practices. In early 2014, WOCAT’s growth and ongoing improvement culminated in its being officially recognized by the UNCCD as the primary recommended database for SLM best practices. Over the years, the WOCAT network confirmed that SLM helps to prevent desertification, to increase biodiversity, enhance food security and to make people less vulnerable to the effects of climate variability and change. In addi- tion, it plays an important role in mitigating climate change through improving soil organic matter and increasing vegetation cover. In-depth assessments of SLM practices from desertification sites enabled an evaluation of how SLM addresses prevalent dryland threats. The impacts mentioned most were diversified and enhanced production and better management of water and soil degradation, whether through water harvesting, improving soil moisture, or reducing runoff. Among others, favourable local-scale cost-benefit relationships of SLM practices play a crucial role in their adoption. An economic analysis from the WOCAT database showed that land users perceive a large majority of the technologies as having benefits that outweigh costs in the long term. The high investment costs associated with some practices may constitute a barrier to adoption, however, where appropriate, short-term support for land users can help to promote these practices. The increased global concerns on climate change, disaster risks and food security redirect attention to, and trigger more funds for SLM. To provide the necessary evidence-based rationale for investing in SLM and to reinforce expert and land users assessments of SLM impacts, more field research using inter- and transdisciplinary approaches is needed. This includes developing methods to quantify and value ecosystem services, both on-site and off-site, and assess the resilience of SLM practices, as currently aimed at within the EU FP7 projects CASCADE and RECARE.