Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

ABSTRACT: Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear.We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care.A randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control.Participants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate).The intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options.We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing.We found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group (p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group (p = < 0.0001).Mailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior.

SUBMITTER: Lewis CL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4441669 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

Lewis Carmen L CL Adams Jared J Tai-Seale Ming M Huang Qiwen Q Knowles Sarah B SB Nielsen Matthew E ME Pignone Michael P MP Walter Louise C LC Frosch Dominick L DL

Journal of general internal medicine 20150210 6

<h4>Background</h4>Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear.<h4>Objective</h4>We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision ...[more]

PMID: 25666221

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough patients who work and have related health issues are usually first seen in primary care, providers in these settings do not routinely ask questions about work. Guidelines to help manage such patients are rarely used in primary care. Electronic health record (EHR) systems with worker health clinical decision support (CDS) tools have potential for assisting these practices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify the need for, and barriers and facilitators related to, implementation of CDS tools for the clinical management of working patients in a variety of primary care settings.MethodsWe used a qualitative design that included analysis of interview transcripts and observational field notes from 10 clinics in five organizations.ResultsWe interviewed 83 providers, staff members, managers, informatics and information technology experts, and leaders and spent 35 hours observing. We identified eight themes in four categories related to CDS for worker health (operational issues, usefulness of proposed CDS, effort and time-related issues, and topic-specific issues). These categories were classified as facilitators or barriers to the use of the CDS tools. Facilitators related to operational issues include current technical feasibility and new work patterns associated with the coordinated care model. Facilitators concerning usefulness include users' need for awareness and evidence-based tools, appropriateness of the proposed CDS for their patients, and the benefits of population health data. Barriers that are effort-related include additional time this proposed CDS might take, and other pressing organizational priorities. Barriers that are topic-specific include sensitive issues related to health and work and the complexities of information about work.ConclusionWe discovered several themes not previously described that can guide future CDS development: technical feasibility of the proposed CDS within commercial EHRs, the sensitive nature of some CDS content, and the need to assist the entire health care team in managing worker health.

Project description:BackgroundDigital therapeutic care apps provide a new effective and scalable approach for people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP). Digital therapeutic care apps are also driven by personalized decision-support interventions that support the user in self-managing LBP, and may induce prolonged behavior change to reduce the frequency and intensity of pain episodes. However, these therapeutic apps are associated with high attrition rates, and the initial prescription cost is higher than that of face-to-face physiotherapy. In Germany, digital therapeutic care apps are now being reimbursed by statutory health insurance; however, price targets and cost-driving factors for the formation of the reimbursement rate remain unexplored.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a digital therapeutic care app compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in Germany. We further aimed to explore under which circumstances the reimbursement rate could be modified to consider value-based pricing.MethodsWe developed a state-transition Markov model based on a best-practice analysis of prior LBP-related decision-analytic models, and evaluated the cost utility of a digital therapeutic care app compared to TAU in Germany. Based on a 3-year time horizon, we simulated the incremental cost and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for people with nonacute LBP from the societal perspective. In the deterministic sensitivity and scenario analyses, we focused on diverging attrition rates and app cost to assess our model's robustness and conditions for changing the reimbursement rate. All costs are reported in Euro (€1=US $1.12).ResultsOur base case results indicated that the digital therapeutic care strategy led to an incremental cost of €121.59, but also generated 0.0221 additional QALYs compared to the TAU strategy, with an estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of €5486 per QALY. The sensitivity analysis revealed that the reimbursement rate and the capability of digital therapeutic care to prevent reoccurring LBP episodes have a significant impact on the ICER. At the same time, the other parameters remained unaffected and thus supported the robustness of our model. In the scenario analysis, the different model time horizons and attrition rates strongly influenced the economic outcome. Reducing the cost of the app to €99 per 3 months or decreasing the app's attrition rate resulted in digital therapeutic care being significantly less costly with more generated QALYs, and is thus considered to be the dominant strategy over TAU.ConclusionsThe current reimbursement rate for a digital therapeutic care app in the statutory health insurance can be considered a cost-effective measure compared to TAU. The app's attrition rate and effect on the patient's prolonged behavior change essentially influence the settlement of an appropriate reimbursement rate. Future value-based pricing targets should focus on additional outcome parameters besides pain intensity and functional disability by including attrition rates and the app's long-term effect on quality of life.

Project description:IntroductionEvidence that integrated diabetes care interventions can substantially improve clinical outcomes is mixed. However, previous systematic reviews have not focussed on clinical effectiveness where the endocrinologist was actively involved in guiding diabetes management.MethodsWe searched EMBASE, COCHRANE, MEDLINE, SCOPUS, CINAHL, Google Scholar databases and grey literature published in English language up to 25 January 2021. Reviewed articles included Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) and pre-post studies testing the effectiveness on clinical outcomes after ≥6 months intervention in non-pregnant adults (age ≥ 18 years) with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus. Two reviewers independently extracted data and completed a risk of bias assessment. Appropriate meta-analyses for each outcome from RCTs and pre-post studies were performed. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and Cochran's Q and publication bias assessed using Doi plots. Studies were not pooled to estimate the cost-effectiveness as the cost outcomes were not comparable across trials/studies.ResultsWe reviewed 4 RCTs and 12 pre-post studies. The integrated care model of diabetes specialists working with primary care health professionals had a positive impact on HbA1c in both RCTs and pre-post studies and on systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, total cholesterol and weight in pre-post studies. In the RCTs, interventions reduced HbA1c (-0.10% [-0.15 to -0.05]) (-1.1 mmol/mol [-1.6 to -0.5]), versus control. Pre-post studies demonstrated improvements in HbA1c (-0.77% [-1.12 to -0.42]) (-8.4 mmol/mol [-12.2 to -4.6]), systolic blood pressure (-3.30 mmHg [-5.16 to -1.44]), diastolic blood pressure (-3.61 mmHg [-4.82 to -2.39]), total cholesterol (-0.33 mmol/L [-0.52 to -0.14]) and weight (-2.53 kg [-3.86 to -1.19]). In a pre-post study with no control group only 4% patients experienced hypoglycaemia after one year of intervention compared to baseline.ConclusionsIntegrated interventions with an active endocrinologist involvement can result in modest improvements in HbA1c, blood pressure and weight management. Although the improvements per clinical outcome are modest, there is possible net improvements at a holistic level.

Dataset Information

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

Publications

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets