Embedding weight management into safety-net pediatric primary care: randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wylie-Rosett J
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5778780 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Embedding weight management into safety-net pediatric primary care: randomized controlled trial.
Wylie-Rosett Judith J Groisman-Perelstein Adriana E AE Diamantis Pamela M PM Jimenez Camille C CC Shankar Viswanathan V Conlon Beth A BA Mossavar-Rahmani Yasmin Y Isasi Carmen R CR Martin Sarah N SN Ginsberg Mindy M Matthan Nirupa R NR Lichtenstein Alice H AH
The international journal of behavioral nutrition and physical activity 20180122 1
<h4>Background</h4>Implementing evidence-based recommendations for treating pediatric overweight and obesity is challenging in low-resource settings. We conducted a randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effects of implementing the American Academy of Pediatrics overweight/obesity recommendations using a Standard Care approach alone or with the addition of an enhanced program in a safety-net pediatric primary care setting (located in Bronx, New York, United States).<h4>Methods</h4>In a 12-m ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesMindfulness is effective for reducing anxiety and depression and increasing chronic disease self-management. An accessible, insurance-reimbursable model for implementation in patient-centered medical homes within US healthcare systems has promise for patients with multi-morbid conditions. Clarifying both the dose needed to impact anxiety, depression and self-management, and the design requirements for accessible primary care implementation, is essential.MethodsWe tested feasibility, acceptability, and effectiveness of Mindfulness Training for Primary Care (MTPC), an 8-week, referral-based, insurance-reimbursable mindfulness program integrated within primary care, compared with a Low-Dose Comparator (LDC), consisting of a 60-minute mindfulness introduction plus referral to community and digital resources. Outcome measures were assessed at baseline and 8 weeks. MTPC is trauma-informed, incorporates mindfulness-oriented behavior change skills, and is designed to target anxiety, depression, stress, and chronic illness selfmanagement. Participants schedule a PCP visit to co-create a self-management action plan during week 6.ResultsPrimary care providers (PCP) referred 344 patients over 14 months. Eighty-one participants with DSM-V anxiety disorders, depressive disorders, trauma- and stress-related disorders participated in this pilot randomized-controlled comparative effectiveness trial [MTPC (n=54); LDC (n=27)]. These data suggest that MTPC was more effective than LDC for reducing anxiety (p=0.01), enhancing mindfulness (p=0.02) and self-compassion (p=0.001), and for catalyzing selfmanagement behavior change through action plan initiation (OR=4.34, p=0.03).ConclusionsMTPC was successfully integrated into a health system, was billed to insurance, and was acceptable to a diverse primary care population. Replication with a larger study and further accessibility adaptations are needed to confirm and expand these pilot results.
| S-EPMC7009938 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundObesity affects 25% of the UK adult population but modest weight loss can reduce the incidence of obesity-related chronic disease. Some effective weight loss treatments exist but there is no nationally available National Health Service (NHS) treatment service, and general practitioners (GPs) rarely discuss weight management with patients or support behavior change. Evidence shows that commercial weight management services, that most primary care trusts have 'on prescription', are more effective than primary care treatment.Methods/designWe propose a controlled trial where patients will be randomized to receive either the offer of help by referral to a weight management service and follow-up to assess progress, or advice to lose weight on medical grounds. The primary outcome will be weight change at 12-months. Other questions are: what actions do people take to manage their weight in response to the two GP intervention types? How do obese patients feel about GPs opportunistically discussing weight management and how does this vary by intervention type? How do GPs feel about raising the issue opportunistically and giving the two types of brief intervention? What is the cost per kg/m2 lost for each intervention? Research assistants visiting GP practices in England (n?=?60) would objectively measure weight and height prior to GP consultations and randomize willing patients (body mass index 30+, excess body fat, 18+ years) using sealed envelopes. Full recruitment (n?=?1824) is feasible in 46 weeks, requiring six sessions of advice-giving per GP. Participants will be contacted at 3 months (postintervention) via telephone to identify actions they have taken to manage their weight. We will book appointments for participants to be seen at their GP practice for a 12-month follow-up.DiscussionTrial results could make the case for brief interventions for obese people consulting their GP and introduce widespread simple treatments akin to the NHS Stop Smoking Service. Likewise, the intervention could be introduced in the Quality and Outcomes Framework and influence practice worldwide.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN26563137.
| S-EPMC3842709 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer screening rates are suboptimal for low-income patients.To assess an intervention to increase cancer screening among patients in a safety-net primary care practice.Patients at an inner-city family practice who were overdue for cancer screening were randomized to intervention or usual care. Screening rates at 1 year were compared using the chi-square test, and multivariable analysis was performed to adjust for patient factors.All average-risk patients at an inner-city family practice overdue for mammography or colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Patients' ages were 40 to 74 years (mean 53.9, SD 8.7) including 40.8 % African Americans, 4.2 % Latinos, 23.2 % with Medicaid and 10.9 % without any form of insurance.The 6-month intervention to promote cancer screening included letters, automated phone calls, prompts and a mailed Fecal Immunochemical Testing (FIT) Kit.Rates of cancer screening at 1 year.Three hundred sixty-six patients overdue for screening were randomly assigned to intervention (n?=?185) or usual care (n?=?181). Primary analysis revealed significantly higher rates of cancer screening in intervention subjects: 29.7 % vs. 16.7 % for mammography (p?=?0.034) and 37.7 % vs. 16.7 % for CRC screening (p?=?0.0002). In the intervention group, 20 % of mammography screenings and 9.3 % of CRC screenings occurred at the early assessment, while the remainder occurred after repeated interventions. Within the CRC intervention group 44 % of screened patients used the mailed FIT kit. On multivariable analysis the CRC screening rates remained significantly higher in the intervention group, while the breast cancer screening rates were not statistically different.A multimodal intervention significantly increased CRC screening rates among patients in a safety-net primary care practice. These results suggest that relatively inexpensive letters and automated calls can be combined for a larger effect. Results also suggest that mailed screening kits may be a promising way to increase average-risk CRC screening.
| S-EPMC3889982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.
| S-EPMC6222992 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic increased use of telehealth for the management of opioid use disorder and chronic non-cancer pain in primary care safety net clinical systems. Significant barriers to telehealth exist, little is known about how these barriers impact urban safety net, primary care providers and their patients. The objective of this study was to qualitatively assess the benefits and challenges of telehealth for management of chronic non-cancer pain, opioid use disorder, and multi-morbidity in primary care, safety net clinical systems.MethodsWe interviewed patients with chronic non-cancer pain and history of substance use (n = 22) and their primary care clinicians (n = 7) in the San Francisco Bay Area, March-July 2020. We recorded, transcribed, coded, and content analyzed interviews.ResultsCOVID-19 shelter-in-place orders contributed to increases in substance use and uncontrolled pain, and posed challenges for monitoring opioid safety and misuse through telehealth. None of the clinics used video visits due to low digital literacy/access. Benefits of telehealth included decreased patient burden and missed appointments and increased convenience and control of some chronic conditions (e.g., diabetes, hypertension). Telehealth challenges included loss of contact, greater miscommunication, and less comprehensive care interactions.ConclusionsThis study is one of the first to examine telehealth use in urban safety net primary care patients with co-occurring chronic non-cancer pain and substance use. Decisions to continue or expand telehealth should consider patient burden, communication and technology challenges, pain control, opioid misuse, and medical complexity.
| S-EPMC10067010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Importance:Dementia care management (DCM) can increase the quality of care for people with dementia. Methodologically rigorous clinical trials on DCM are lacking. Objective:To test the effectiveness and safety of DCM in the treatment and care of people with dementia living at home and caregiver burden (when available). Design, Setting, and Participants:This pragmatic, general practitioner-based, cluster-randomized intervention trial compared the intervention with care as usual at baseline and at 12-month follow-up. Simple 1:1 randomization of general practices in Germany was used. Analyses were intent to treat and per protocol. In total, 6838 patients were screened for dementia (eligibility: 70 years and older and living at home) from January 1, 2012, to March 31, 2016. Overall, 1167 (17.1%) were diagnosed as having dementia, and 634 (9.3%) provided written informed consent to participate. Interventions:Dementia care management was provided for 6 months at the homes of patients with dementia. Dementia care management is a model of collaborative care, defined as a complex intervention aiming to provide optimal treatment and care for patients with dementia and support caregivers using a computer-assisted assessment determining a personalized array of intervention modules and subsequent success monitoring. Dementia care management was targeted at the individual patient level and was conducted by 6 study nurses with dementia care-specific qualifications. Main Outcomes and Measures:Quality of life, caregiver burden, behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, pharmacotherapy with antidementia drugs, and use of potentially inappropriate medication. Results:The mean age of 634 patients was 80 years. A total of 407 patients received the intended treatment and were available for primary outcome measurement. Of these patients, 248 (60.9%) were women, and 204 (50.1%) lived alone. Dementia care management significantly decreased behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (b?=?-7.45; 95% CI, -11.08 to -3.81; P?<?.001) and caregiver burden (b?=?-0.50; 95% CI, -1.09 to 0.08; P?=?.045) compared with care as usual. Patients with dementia receiving DCM had an increased chance of receiving antidementia drug treatment (DCM, 114 of 291 [39.2%] vs care as usual, 31 of 116 [26.7%]) after 12 months (odds ratio, 1.97; 95% CI, 0.99 to 3.94; P?=?.03). Dementia care management significantly increased quality of life (b?=?0.08; 95% CI, 0 to 0.17; P?=?.03) for patients not living alone but did not increase quality of life overall. There was no effect on potentially inappropriate medication (odds ratio, 1.86; 95% CI, 0.62 to 3.62; P?=?.97). Conclusions and Relevance:Dementia care management provided by specifically trained nurses is an effective collaborative care model that improves relevant patient- and caregiver-related outcomes in dementia. Implementing DCM in different health care systems should become an active area of research. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01401582.
| S-EPMC5710469 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceAlthough brief intervention is effective for reducing problem alcohol use, few data exist on its effectiveness for reducing problem drug use, a common issue in disadvantaged populations seeking care in safety-net medical settings (hospitals and community health clinics serving low-income patients with limited or no insurance).ObjectiveTo determine whether brief intervention improves drug use outcomes compared with enhanced care as usual.Design, setting, and participantsA randomized clinical trial with blinded assessments at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months conducted in 7 safety-net primary care clinics in Washington State. Of 1621 eligible patients reporting any problem drug use in the past 90 days, 868 consented and were randomized between April 2009 and September 2012. Follow-up participation was more than 87% at all points.InterventionsParticipants received a single brief intervention using motivational interviewing, a handout and list of substance abuse resources, and an attempted 10-minute telephone booster within 2 weeks (n = 435) or enhanced care as usual, which included a handout and list of substance abuse resources (n = 433).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were self-reported days of problem drug use in the past 30 days and Addiction Severity Index-Lite (ASI) Drug Use composite score. Secondary outcomes were admission to substance abuse treatment; ASI composite scores for medical, psychiatric, social, and legal domains; emergency department and inpatient hospital admissions, arrests, mortality, and human immunodeficiency virus risk behavior.ResultsMean days used of the most common problem drug at baseline were 14.40 (SD, 11.29) (brief intervention) and 13.25 (SD, 10.69) (enhanced care as usual); at 3 months postintervention, means were 11.87 (SD, 12.13) (brief intervention) and 9.84 (SD, 10.64) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.89 [95% CI, -0.49 to 2.26]). Mean ASI Drug Use composite score at baseline was 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (brief intervention) and 0.11 (SD, 0.10) (enhanced care as usual) and at 3 months was 0.10 (SD, 0.09) (brief intervention) and 0.09 (SD, 0.09) (enhanced care as usual) and not significantly different (difference in differences, β = 0.008 [95% CI, -0.006 to 0.021]). During the 12 months following intervention, no significant treatment differences were found for either variable. No significant differences were found for secondary outcomes.Conclusions and relevanceA one-time brief intervention with attempted telephone booster had no effect on drug use in patients seen in safety-net primary care settings. This finding suggests a need for caution in promoting widespread adoption of this intervention for drug use in primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00877331.
| S-EPMC4599980 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Diabetes-Depression Care-Management Adoption Trial is a translational study of safety-net primary care predominantly Hispanic/Latino patients with type 2 diabetes in collaboration with the Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of an information and communication technology (ICT)-facilitated depression care management program. METHODS:Cost-effectiveness of the ICT-facilitated care (TC) delivery model was evaluated relative to a usual care (UC) and a supported care (SC) model. TC added automated low-intensity periodic depression assessment calls to patients. Patient-reported outcomes included the 12-Item Short Form Health Survey converted into quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and the 9-Item Patient Health Questionnaire-calculated depression-free days (DFDs). Costs and outcomes data were collected over a 24-month period (-6 to 0 months baseline, 0 to 18 months study intervention). RESULTS:A sample of 1406 patients (484 in UC, 480 in SC, and 442 in TC) was enrolled in the nonrandomized trial. TC had a significant improvement in DFDs (17.3; P = 0.011) and significantly greater 12-Item Short Form Health Survey utility improvement (2.1%; P = 0.031) compared with UC. Medical costs were statistically significantly lower for TC (-$2328; P = 0.001) relative to UC but not significantly lower than for SC. TC had more than a 50% probability of being cost-effective relative to SC at willingness-to-pay thresholds of more than $50,000/QALY. CONCLUSIONS:An ICT-facilitated depression care (TC) delivery model improved QALYs, DFDs, and medical costs. It was cost-effective compared with SC and dominant compared with UC.
| S-EPMC5953558 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch examining the connections between individual adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and how groupings of interrelated adversities are linked with subsequent health is scarce, limiting our understanding of risk during a period of rapid expansion of ACE screening in clinical practice. The study objective was to conduct a psychometric analysis to derive latent domains of ACEs and related life events and assess the association between each domain and health outcome.MethodsParticipants (3 months-11 years) were recruited from the University of California San Francisco Benioff's Children Hospital Oakland Primary Care Clinic. Children were screened with the Pediatric ACEs and Related Life Events Screener (PEARLS) (n = 340), which assessed 17 total ACEs and related life events, including forms of abuse, household challenges, and social risks. Domains were constructed using confirmatory factor analysis and associations between the three identified domains and 14 health outcomes were assessed using multivariable linear and logistic regression models.ResultsThree PEARLS domains were identified: Maltreatment (ω = 0.73, ɑ=0.87), Household Challenges (ω = 0.70, ɑ=0.82), and Social Context (ω = 0.55, ɑ=0.70). Measurement invariance was supported across both gender and screening format. All domains were associated with poorer general and behavioral health and stomachaches. Maltreatment and Social Context were additionally associated with eczema while only Social Context was associated with increased odds of reporting headaches and somatic symptoms.ConclusionIn an underserved, urban west-coast pediatric population, the PEARLS found three adversity domains of Maltreatment, Household Challenges, and Social Context that all had an independent statistically significant association with poorer child health. The results provide a timely and more nuanced representation of risk that can inform clinical practice and policy using more targeted resources and interventions.
| S-EPMC10351141 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMany individuals with chronic kidney disease (CKD) do not receive guideline-concordant care. We examined the impact of a team-based primary care CKD registry on clinical measures and processes of care among patients with CKD cared for in a public safety-net health care delivery system.Study designPragmatic trial of a CKD registry versus a usual-care registry for 1 year.Setting & participantsPrimary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with CKD in a safety-net primary care setting in San Francisco.InterventionThe CKD registry identified at point of care all patients with CKD, those with blood pressure (BP)>140/90mmHg, those without angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor/angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) prescription, and those without albuminuria quantification in the past year. It also provided quarterly feedback pertinent to these metrics to promote "outreach" to patients with CKD. The usual-care registry provided point-of-care cancer screening and immunization data.OutcomesChanges in systolic BP at 12 months (primary outcome), proportion of patients with BP control, prescription of ACE inhibitors/ARBs, quantification of albuminuria, severity of albuminuria, and estimated glomerular filtration rate.ResultsThe patient population (n=746) had a mean age of 56.7±12.1 (standard deviation) years, was 53% women, and was diverse (8% non-Hispanic white, 35.7% black, 24.5% Hispanic, and 24.4% Asian). Randomization to the CKD registry (30 PCPs, 285 patients) versus the usual-care registry (49 PCPs, 461 patients) was associated with 2-fold greater odds of ACE inhibitor/ARB prescription (adjusted OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.45-3.49) and albuminuria quantification (adjusted OR, 2.44; 95% CI, 1.38-4.29) during the 1-year study period. Randomization to the CKD registry was not associated with changes in systolic BP, proportion of patients with uncontrolled BP, or degree of albuminuria or estimated glomerular filtration rate.LimitationsPotential misclassification of CKD; missing baseline medication data; limited to study of a public safety-net health care system.ConclusionsA team-based safety-net primary care CKD registry did not improve BP parameters, but led to greater albuminuria quantification and more ACE inhibitor/ARB prescriptions after 1 year. Adoption of team-based CKD registries may represent an important step in translating evidence into practice for CKD management.
| S-EPMC6057801 | biostudies-literature