Dataset Information

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing 'Age Gap Cohort Study' (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:National and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. IRAS REFERENCE:115550. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsor's Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

SUBMITTER: Collins K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5642653 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Collins Karen K Reed Malcolm M Lifford Kate K Burton Maria M Edwards Adrian A Ring Alistair A Brain Katherine K Harder Helena H Robinson Thompson T Cheung Kwok Leung KL Morgan Jenna J Audisio Riccardo R Ward Susan S Richards Paul P Martin Charlene C Chater Tim T Pemberton Kirsty K Nettleship Anthony A Murray Christopher C Walters Stephen S Bortolami Oscar O Armitage Fiona F Leonard Robert R Gath Jacqui J Revell Deirdre D Green Tracy T Wyld Lynda L

BMJ open 20170731 7

<h4>Introduction</h4>While breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty ...[more]

PMID: 28760787

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial (n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not.MethodsSixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used.ResultsEighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70-93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants' responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful.ConclusionsClinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice.Trial registrationISRCTN46099296 . Registered on 11 August 2016-retrospectively registered.

Project description:BackgroundAcute diarrhoeal disease management often requires rehydration alone without antibiotics. However, non-indicated antibiotics are frequently ordered and this is an important driver of antimicrobial resistance. The mHealth Diarrhoea Management (mHDM) trial aimed to establish whether electronic decision support improves rehydration and antibiotic guideline adherence in resource-limited settings.MethodsA cluster randomised controlled trial was done at ten district hospitals in Bangladesh. Inclusion criteria were patients aged 2 months or older with uncomplicated acute diarrhoea. Admission orders were observed without intervention in the pre-intervention period, followed by randomisation to electronic (rehydration calculator) or paper formatted WHO guidelines for the intervention period. The primary outcome was rate of intravenous fluid ordered as a binary variable. Generalised linear mixed-effect models, accounting for hospital clustering, served as the analytical framework; the analysis was intention to treat. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03154229) and is completed.FindingsFrom March 11 to Sept 10, 2018, 4975 patients (75·6%) of 6577 screened patients were enrolled. The intervention effect for the primary outcome showed no significant differences in rates of intravenous fluids ordered as a function of decision-support type. Intravenous fluid orders decreased by 0·9 percentage points for paper electronic decision support and 4·2 percentage points for electronic decision support, with a 4·2-point difference between decision-support types in the intervention period (paper 98·7% [95% CI 91·8-99·8] vs electronic 94·5% [72·2-99·1]; pinteraction=0·31). Adverse events such as complications and mortality events were uncommon and could not be statistically estimated.InterpretationAlthough intravenous fluid orders did not change, electronic decision support was associated with increases in the volume of intravenous fluid ordered and decreases in antibiotics ordered, which are consistent with WHO guidelines.FundingUS National Institutes of Health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of Computerised Clinical Decision Support (CCDS) for paramedics attending older people who fall.DesignCluster trial randomised by paramedic; modelling.Setting13 ambulance stations in two UK emergency ambulance services.Participants42 of 409 eligible paramedics, who attended 779 older patients for a reported fall.InterventionsIntervention paramedics received CCDS on Tablet computers to guide patient care. Control paramedics provided care as usual. One service had already installed electronic data capture.Main outcome measuresEffectiveness: patients referred to falls service, patient reported quality of life and satisfaction, processes of care.SafetyFurther emergency contacts or death within one month.Cost-effectivenessCosts and quality of life. We used findings from published Community Falls Prevention Trial to model cost-effectiveness.Results17 intervention paramedics used CCDS for 54 (12.4%) of 436 participants. They referred 42 (9.6%) to falls services, compared with 17 (5.0%) of 343 participants seen by 19 control paramedics [Odds ratio (OR) 2.04, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.72]. No adverse events were related to the intervention. Non-significant differences between groups included: subsequent emergency contacts (34.6% versus 29.1%; OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.72); quality of life (mean SF12 differences: MCS -0.74, 95% CI -2.83 to +1.28; PCS -0.13, 95% CI -1.65 to +1.39) and non-conveyance (42.0% versus 36.7%; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.52). However ambulance job cycle time was 8.9 minutes longer for intervention patients (95% CI 2.3 to 15.3). Average net cost of implementing CCDS was £208 per patient with existing electronic data capture, and £308 without. Modelling estimated cost per quality-adjusted life-year at £15,000 with existing electronic data capture; and £22,200 without.ConclusionsIntervention paramedics referred twice as many participants to falls services with no difference in safety. CCDS is potentially cost-effective, especially with existing electronic data capture.Trial registrationISRCTN Register ISRCTN10538608.

Project description:IntroductionThere is a significant life expectancy gap attributable to physical comorbidities for people living with severe and persistent mental illness (SPMI) compared with the general population. Medications are a major treatment for SPMI management and physical illnesses, hence pharmacists are well positioned to support mental healthcare and comorbidities. The randomised controlled trial (RCT) aim is to evaluate effectiveness of an individualised, pharmacist led, support service for people experiencing SPMI focusing on medication adherence and physical comorbidity management, compared with standard care (a medication-management service; MedsCheck). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: PharMIbridge is a cluster RCT, whereby community pharmacies in four Australian regions will be randomised (1:1 ratio), to either Intervention Group (IG) or Comparator Group (CG). All IG and CG pharmacy staff will receive Blended-Mental Health First Aid training. Additionally, IG pharmacists will receive further training on medication adherence, goal setting, motivational interviewing, managing physical health concerns and complex issues relating to psychotropic medication. CG pharmacists will not receive additional training, and will provide standard care (MedsCheck). The primary outcome will be change in participants medication adherence for psychotropic medication over 6-months. Using mixed-effects logistic regression model and a cluster size of 48 pharmacies, a total of 190 participants will need to be recruited to each arm to find a statistically significant difference in medication adherence. Secondary outcomes will be changes in factors associated with cardiometabolic risk and quality of life, emphasising physical and psychological well-being; medication-related problems; adherence to other prescribed medication; pharmacists knowledge, confidence and ability to support people experiencing SPMI; and effects on healthcare utilisation. A within RCT-based economic evaluation comparing the intervention with standard care will be undertaken.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol and pharmacist training programme received Griffith University Human Research Ethics Committee approval (HREC/2019/473 and HREC/2019/493 respectively). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and available at the Sixth Community Pharmacy Agreement website (http://6cpa.com.au/about-6cpa/).Trial registration numberANZCTR12620000577910.

Dataset Information

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Publications

Bridging the age gap in breast cancer: evaluation of decision support interventions for older women with operable breast cancer: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets