Patient perspectives of using a web based intervention program for patients with type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome

Introduction Research highlights patients with dual diagnoses of type 2 diabetes and acute coronary syndrome (ACS) have higher readmission rates and poorer health outcomes than patients with singular chronic conditions. Despite this, there is a lack of education programs targeted for this dual diagnosis population to improve self-management and decrease negative health outcomes. There is evidence to suggest that internet based interventions may improve health outcomes for patients with singular chronic conditions, however there is a need to develop an evidence base for ACS patients with comorbid diabetes. There is a growing awareness of the importance of a participatory model in developing effective online interventions. That is, internet interventions are more effective if end users’ perceptions of the intervention are incorporated in their final development prior to testing in large scale trials. Objectives This study investigated patients’ perspectives of the web-based intervention designed to promote self-management of the dual conditions in order to refine the intervention prior to clinical trial evaluation. Methods An interpretive approach with thematic analysis was used to obtain deeper understanding regarding participants’ experience when using web-application interventions for patients with ACS and type 2 diabetes. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken on a purposive sample of 30 patients meeting strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to obtain their perspectives on the program. Results Preliminary results indicate patients with dual diagnoses express more complex needs than those with a singular condition. Participants express a positive experience with the proposed internet intervention and emerging themes include that the web page is seen as easy to use and comforting as a support, in that patients know they are not alone. Further results will be reported as they become available. Conclusion The results indicate potential for patient acceptability of the newly developed internet intervention for patients with ACS and comorbid diabetes. Incorporation of patient perspectives into the final development of the intervention is likely to maximise successful outcomes of any future trials that utilise this intervention. Future quantitative evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention is being planned.

Nutrition intervention approaches to reduce malnutrition in oncology patients: A systematic review

Purpose Malnutrition is a very common problem in oncology patients and is associated with many negative consequences including poorer prognosis, quality of life and survival. However, malnutrition in oncology patients is often overlooked although there is growing evidence showing that it can be prevented or reduced through nutrition intervention. This paper aims to provide an updated review on the effectiveness of different nutrition intervention approaches on nutrition status outcomes in oncology patients. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1994 and 2014 which examined the effects of nutrition intervention approaches—in particular, nutrition counselling (NC), oral nutrition supplements (ONS) and tube feeding (TF)—on nutrition status outcomes of oncology patients were identified and reviewed. Results Thirteen papers from 11 RCTs with a total of 1077 participants were included. The intervention approaches included NC (four studies), NC + ONS (five studies), ONS (three studies) and TF (three studies). The various results suggest that NC with or without ONS was associated with consistent improvements in several nutrition status outcomes. On the other hand, ONS and TF were associated with inconsistent improvements in few aspects of nutrition status outcomes. Conclusions The referral of oncology patients for NC is recommended given the strong evidence of its beneficial effects on the prevention and reduction of malnutrition. Other forms of nutrition support including ONS and TF may then be included if deemed suitable and necessary for the individual.

The cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention to increase physical activity among mothers with young children: A Markov model informed by a randomised controlled trial

Objectives: To determine the cost-effectiveness of the MobileMums intervention. MobileMums is a 12-week programme which assists mothers with young children to be more physically active, primarily through the use of personalised SMS text-messages. Design: A cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model to estimate and compare the costs and consequences of MobileMums and usual care. Setting: This study considers the cost-effectiveness of MobileMums in Queensland, Australia. Participants: A hypothetical cohort of over 36 000 women with a child under 1 year old is considered. These women are expected to be eligible and willing to participate in the intervention in Queensland, Australia. Data sources: The model was informed by the effectiveness results from a 9-month two-arm community-based randomised controlled trial undertaken in 2011 and registered retrospectively with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12611000481976). Baseline characteristics for the model cohort, treatment effects and resource utilisation were all informed by this trial. Main outcome measures: The incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) of MobileMums compared with usual care. Results: The intervention is estimated to lead to an increase of 131 QALYs for an additional cost to the health system of 1.1 million Australian dollars (AUD). The expected incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for MobileMums is 8608 AUD per QALY gained. MobileMums has a 98% probability of being cost-effective at a cost-effectiveness threshold of 64 000 AUD. Varying modelling assumptions has little effect on this result. Conclusions: At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 64 000 AUD, MobileMums would likely be a cost-effective use of healthcare resources in Queensland, Australia. Trial registration number: Australian Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12611000481976.

Comparison of treatment effect sizes associated with surrogate and final patient relevant outcomes in randomised controlled trials: meta-epidemiological study

Objective To quantify and compare the treatment effect and risk of bias of trials reporting biomarkers or intermediate outcomes (surrogate outcomes) versus trials using final patient relevant primary outcomes. Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data sources All randomised clinical trials published in 2005 and 2006 in six high impact medical journals: Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, and PLoS Medicine. Study selection Two independent reviewers selected trials. Data extraction Trial characteristics, risk of bias, and outcomes were recorded according to a predefined form. Two reviewers independently checked data extraction. The ratio of odds ratios was used to quantify the degree of difference in treatment effects between the trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes, also adjusted for trial characteristics. A ratio of odds ratios >1.0 implies that trials with surrogate outcomes report larger intervention effects than trials with patient relevant outcomes. Results 84 trials using surrogate outcomes and 101 using patient relevant outcomes were considered for analyses. Study characteristics of trials using surrogate outcomes and those using patient relevant outcomes were well balanced, except for median sample size (371 v 741) and single centre status (23% v 9%). Their risk of bias did not differ. Primary analysis showed trials reporting surrogate endpoints to have larger treatment effects (odds ratio 0.51, 95% confidence interval 0.42 to 0.60) than trials reporting patient relevant outcomes (0.76, 0.70 to 0.82), with an unadjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.47 (1.07 to 2.01) and adjusted ratio of odds ratios of 1.46 (1.05 to 2.04). This result was consistent across sensitivity and secondary analyses. Conclusions Trials reporting surrogate primary outcomes are more likely to report larger treatment effects than trials reporting final patient relevant primary outcomes. This finding was not explained by differences in the risk of bias or characteristics of the two groups of trials.

A randomized controlled trial protocol testing a decision support intervention for older patients with advanced kidney disease

Aim To assess the effectiveness of a decision support intervention using a pragmatic single blind Randomized Controlled Trial. Background Worldwide the proportion of older people (aged 65 years and over) is rising. This population is known to have a higher prevalence of chronic diseases including chronic kidney disease. The resultant effect of the changing health landscape is seen in the increase in older patients (aged ≥65 years) commencing on dialysis. Emerging evidence suggests that for some older patients dialysis may provide minimal benefit. In a majority of renal units non-dialysis management is offered as an alternative to undertaking dialysis. Research regarding decision-making support that is required to assist this population in choosing between dialysis or non-dialysis management is limited. Design. A multisite single blinded pragmatic randomized controlled trial is proposed. Methods Patients will be recruited from four Queensland public hospitals and randomizd into either the control or intervention group. The decision support intervention is multimodal and includes counselling provided by a trained nurse. The comparator is standard decision-making support. The primary outcomes are decisional regret and decisional conflict. Secondary outcomes are improved knowledge and quality of life. Ethics approval obtained November 2014. Conclusion This is one of the first randomized controlled trials assessing a decision support intervention in older people with advance chronic kidney disease. The results may provide guidance for clinicians in future approaches to assist this population in decision-making to ensure reduced decisional regret and decisional conflict.

Pharmacotherapy optimization in older patients by a structured clinical pharmacist assessment and intervention

Introduction: Older individuals are particularly vulnerable to potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP), drug related problems (DRPs) and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). A number of different interventions have been proposed to address these issues. However to-date there is a paucity of well-designed trials examining the impact of such interventions. Therefore the aims of this work were to: (i) establish a baseline PIP prevalence both nationally and internationally using the STOPP, Beers and PRISCUS criteria, (ii) identify the most comprehensive method of assessing PIP in older individuals, (iii) develop a structured pharmacist intervention supported by a computer decisions support system (CDSS) and (iv) examine the impact of this intervention on prescribing and incidence of ADRs. Results: This work identified high rates of PIP across all three healthcare settings in Ireland, 84.7% in the long term care, 70.7% in secondary care and 43.3% in primary care being reported. This work identified that for a comprehensive assessment of prescribing to be undertaken, an amalgamation of all three criteria should be deployed simultaneously. High prevalences of DRPs and PIP in older hospitalised individuals were identified. With 82.0% and 76.3% of patients reported to have at least one DRP or PIP instance respectively. The structured pharmacist intervention demonstrated a positive impact on prescribing, with a significant reduction MAI scores being reported. It also resulted in the intervention patients’ having a reduced risk of experiencing an ADR when compared to the control patients (absolute risk reduction of 6.8 (95% CI 1.5% - 12.3%)) and the number needed to treat = 15 (95% CI 8 - 68). However the intervention was found to have no significant effect on length of stay or mortality rate. Conclusion: This work shows that PIP is highly prevalent in older individuals across three healthcare settings in Ireland. This work also demonstrates that a structured pharmacist intervention support by a dedicated CDSS can significantly improve the appropriateness of prescribing and reduce the incidence of ADRs in older acutely ill hospitalised individuals.

Weight loss intervention for young adults using mobile technology: design and rationale of a randomized controlled trial - Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY).

BACKGROUND: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, leading to significant public health implications later in adulthood. Intervention in early adulthood may be an effective public health strategy for reducing the long-term health impact of the epidemic. Few weight loss trials have been conducted in young adults. It is unclear what weight loss strategies are beneficial in this population. PURPOSE: To describe the design and rationale of the NHLBI-sponsored Cell Phone Intervention for You (CITY) study, which is a single center, randomized three-arm trial that compares the impact on weight loss of 1) a behavioral intervention that is delivered almost entirely via cell phone technology (Cell Phone group); and 2) a behavioral intervention delivered mainly through monthly personal coaching calls enhanced by self-monitoring via cell phone (Personal Coaching group), each compared to 3) a usual care, advice-only control condition. METHODS: A total of 365 community-dwelling overweight/obese adults aged 18-35 years were randomized to receive one of these three interventions for 24 months in parallel group design. Study personnel assessing outcomes were blinded to group assignment. The primary outcome is weight change at 24 [corrected] months. We hypothesize that each active intervention will cause more weight loss than the usual care condition. Study completion is anticipated in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: If effective, implementation of the CITY interventions could mitigate the alarming rates of obesity in young adults through promotion of weight loss. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT01092364.

Adaptive intervention design in mobile health: Intervention design and development in the Cell Phone Intervention for You trial.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The obesity epidemic has spread to young adults, and obesity is a significant risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The prominence and increasing functionality of mobile phones may provide an opportunity to deliver longitudinal and scalable weight management interventions in young adults. The aim of this article is to describe the design and development of the intervention tested in the Cell Phone Intervention for You study and to highlight the importance of adaptive intervention design that made it possible. The Cell Phone Intervention for You study was a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-sponsored, controlled, 24-month randomized clinical trial comparing two active interventions to a usual-care control group. Participants were 365 overweight or obese (body mass index≥25 kg/m2) young adults. METHODS: Both active interventions were designed based on social cognitive theory and incorporated techniques for behavioral self-management and motivational enhancement. Initial intervention development occurred during a 1-year formative phase utilizing focus groups and iterative, participatory design. During the intervention testing, adaptive intervention design, where an intervention is updated or extended throughout a trial while assuring the delivery of exactly the same intervention to each cohort, was employed. The adaptive intervention design strategy distributed technical work and allowed introduction of novel components in phases intended to help promote and sustain participant engagement. Adaptive intervention design was made possible by exploiting the mobile phone's remote data capabilities so that adoption of particular application components could be continuously monitored and components subsequently added or updated remotely. RESULTS: The cell phone intervention was delivered almost entirely via cell phone and was always-present, proactive, and interactive-providing passive and active reminders, frequent opportunities for knowledge dissemination, and multiple tools for self-tracking and receiving tailored feedback. The intervention changed over 2 years to promote and sustain engagement. The personal coaching intervention, alternatively, was primarily personal coaching with trained coaches based on a proven intervention, enhanced with a mobile application, but where all interactions with the technology were participant-initiated. CONCLUSION: The complexity and length of the technology-based randomized clinical trial created challenges in engagement and technology adaptation, which were generally discovered using novel remote monitoring technology and addressed using the adaptive intervention design. Investigators should plan to develop tools and procedures that explicitly support continuous remote monitoring of interventions to support adaptive intervention design in long-term, technology-based studies, as well as developing the interventions themselves.

Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Trials.

Conflicts of interests have long been recognized as potential sources of influence in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. This controversy was again rekindled after the publication of the latest statin guidelines and a series of studies regarding competing interests in leading medical journals. We investigate the association between declared author conflicts and the outcomes of large cardiovascular trials. We searched the Medline (PubMed) database to identify "phase 2" and "phase 3" clinical trials using the search term "cardiovascular" over the past decade using "10 years" as the filter. We perceived the competing interest as present regardless of the nature such as consulting fees, honoraria, travel imbursements, stock holding, and employment. Of the 699 titles retrieved, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly 80% of studies had at least a single author with competing interests. The 114 studies had a total of 1,433 investigators, of which 725 had declared conflicts of interests (50.6%). A total of 66 studies (58%) had half or >50 percent of investigators who had some conflicts of interests. Of these studies, 54 studies had favorable outcomes and only 12 had unfavorable outcomes (p <0.001). Among the type of competing interests, consulting or personal fees was the most common present in 58 investigators (51%). This was followed by research grants present in 55 the researchers (48%). Among 25 (22%) studies, at least one investigator reported stakes in the industry, of which only 2 studies had unfavorable outcomes for the intervention being investigated. Just 1 of the 25 clinical trials with a sample size of >1,000 had no investigators with competing interests. In conclusion, authors conflicts are associated with favorable outcomes in cardiovascular outcome trials.

The contribution of qualitative research in designing a complex intervention for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in two different healthcare systems

Background: Developing complex interventions for testing in randomised controlled trials is of increasing importance in healthcare planning. There is a need for careful design of interventions for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease (CHD). It has been suggested that integrating qualitative research in the development of a complex intervention may contribute to optimising its design but there is limited evidence of this in practice. This study aims to examine the contribution of qualitative research in developing a complex intervention to improve the provision and uptake of secondary prevention of CHD within primary care in two different healthcare systems.

Methods: In four general practices, one rural and one urban, in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, patients with CHD were purposively selected. Four focus groups with patients (N = 23) and four with staff (N = 29) informed the development of the intervention by exploring how it could be tailored and integrated with current secondary prevention activities for CHD in the two healthcare settings. Following an exploratory trial the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention were discussed in four focus groups (17 patients) and 10 interviews (staff). The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results: Integrating qualitative research into the development of the intervention provided depth of information about the varying impact, between the two healthcare systems, of different funding and administrative arrangements, on their provision of secondary prevention and identified similar barriers of time constraints, training needs and poor patient motivation. The findings also highlighted the importance to patients of stress management, the need for which had been underestimated by the researchers. The qualitative evaluation provided depth of detail not found in evaluation questionnaires. It highlighted how the intervention needed to be more practical by minimising administration, integrating role plays into behaviour change training, providing more practical information about stress management and removing self-monitoring of lifestyle change.

Conclusion: Qualitative research is integral to developing the design detail of a complex intervention and tailoring its components to address individuals' needs in different healthcare systems. The findings highlight how qualitative research may be a valuable component of the preparation for complex interventions and their evaluation.

Development of a Complex Intervention for Secondary Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease in Primary Care Using the UK Medical Research Council Framework

Objective: To apply the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) framework for development and evaluation of trials of complex interventions to a primary healthcare intervention to promote secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. Study Design: Case report of intervention development. Methods: First, literature relating to secondary prevention and lifestyle change was reviewed. Second, a preliminary intervention was modeled, based on literature findings and focus group interviews with patients (n = 23) and staff (n = 29) from 4 general practices. Participants’ experiences of and attitudes toward key intervention components were explored. Third, the preliminary intervention was pilot-tested in 4 general practices. After delivery of the pilot intervention, practitioners evaluated the training sessions, and qualitative data relating to experiences of the intervention were collected using semistructured interviews with staff (n = 10) and patient focus groups (n = 17). Results: Literature review identified 3 intervention components: a structured recall system, practitioner training, and patient information. Initial qualitative data identified variations in recall system design, training requirements (medication prescribing, facilitating behavior change), and information appropriate to the prospective study participants. Identifying detailed structures within intervention components clarified how the intervention could be tailored to individual practice, practitioner, and patient needs while preserving the theoretical functions of the components. Findings from the pilot phase informed further modeling of the intervention, reducing administrative time, increasing practical content of training, and omitting unhelpful patient information. Conclusion: Application of the MRC framework helped to determine the feasibility and development of a complex intervention for primary care research.

Monitoring treatment fidelity in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention.

Aim. This paper is a report of a study to describe how treatment fidelity is being enhanced and monitored, using a model from the National Institutes of Health Behavior Change Consortium. Background. The objective of treatment fidelity is to minimize errors in interpreting research trial outcomes, and to ascribe those outcomes directly to the intervention at hand. Treatment fidelity procedures are included in trials of complex interventions to account for inferences made from study outcomes. Monitoring treatment fidelity can help improve study design, maximize reliability of results, increase statistical power, determine whether theory-based interventions are responsible for observed changes, and inform the research dissemination process. Methods. Treatment fidelity recommendations from the Behavior Change Consortium were applied to the SPHERE study (Secondary Prevention of Heart DiseasE in GeneRal PracticE), a randomized controlled trial of a complex intervention. Procedures to enhance and monitor intervention implementation included standardizing training sessions, observing intervention consultations, structuring patient recall systems, and using written practice and patient care plans. The research nurse plays an important role in monitoring intervention implementation. Findings. Several methods of applying treatment fidelity procedures to monitoring interventions are possible. The procedure used may be determined by availability of appropriate personnel, fiscal constraints, or time limits. Complex interventions are not straightforward and necessitate a monitoring process at trial stage. Conclusion. The Behavior Change Consortium’s model of treatment fidelity is useful for structuring a system to monitor the implementation of a complex intervention, and helps to increase the reliability and validity of evaluation findings.

Identifying strategies to maximise recruitment and retention of practices and patients in a multicentre randomised controlled trial of an intervention to optimise secondary prevention for coronary heart disease in primary care.

Background Recruitment and retention of patients and healthcare providers in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is important in order to determine the effectiveness of interventions. However, failure to achieve recruitment targets is common and reasons why a particular recruitment strategy works for one study and not another remain unclear. We sought to describe a strategy used in a multicentre RCT in primary care, to report researchers’ and participants’ experiences of its implementation and to inform future strategies to maximise recruitment and retention. Methods In total 48 general practices and 903 patients were recruited from three different areas of Ireland to a RCT of an intervention designed to optimise secondary prevention of coronary heart disease. The recruitment process involved telephoning practices, posting information, visiting practices, identifying potential participants, posting invitations and obtaining consent. Retention involved patients attending reviews and responding to questionnaires and practices facilitating data collection. Results We achieved high retention rates for practices (100%) and for patients (85%) over an 18-month intervention period. Pilot work, knowledge of the setting, awareness of change in staff and organisation amongst participant sites, rapid responses to queries and acknowledgement of practitioners’ contributions were identified as being important. Minor variations in protocol and research support helped to meet varied, complex and changing individual needs of practitioners and patients and encouraged retention in the trial. A collaborative relationship between researcher and practice staff which required time to develop was perceived as vital for both recruitment and retention. Conclusions Recruiting and retaining the numbers of practices and patients estimated as required to provide findings with adequate power contributes to increased confidence in the validity and generalisability of RCT results. A continuous dynamic process of monitoring progress within trials and tailoring strategies to particular circumstances, whilst not compromising trial protocols, should allow maximal recruitment and retention.