Dataset Information

Computer-Based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool With Mail Support: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Physicians often find significant challenges in assessing automobile driving in persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia and deciding when to report to transportation administrators. Care must be taken to balance the safety of patients and other road users with potential negative effects of issuing such reports. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to assess whether a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool (DD-DT) increased appropriate reporting of patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators. METHODS:The study used a parallel-group cluster nonblinded randomized controlled trial design to test a multifaceted knowledge translation intervention. The intervention included a computer-based decision support system activated by the physician-user, which provides a recommendation about whether to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, based on an algorithm derived from earlier work. The intervention also included a mailed educational package and Web-based specialized reporting forms. Specialists and family physicians with expertise in dementia or care of the elderly were stratified by sex and randomized to either use the DD-DT or a control version of the tool that required identical data input as the intervention group, but instead generated a generic reminder about the reporting legislation in Ontario, Canada. The trial ran from September 9, 2014 to January 29, 2016, and the primary outcome was the number of reports made to the transportation administrators concordant with the algorithm. RESULTS:A total of 69 participating physicians were randomized, and 36 of these used the DD-DT; 20 of the 35 randomized to the intervention group used DD-DT with 114 patients, and 16 of the 34 randomized to the control group used it with 103 patients. The proportion of all assessed patients reported to the transportation administrators concordant with recommendation did not differ between the intervention and the control groups (50% vs 49%; Z=-0.19, P=.85). Two variables predicted algorithm-based reporting-caregiver concern (odds ratio [OR]=5.8, 95% CI 2.5-13.6, P<.001) and abnormal clock drawing (OR 6.1, 95% CI 3.1-11.8, P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:On the basis of this quantitative analysis, in-office abnormal clock drawing and expressions of concern about driving from caregivers substantially influenced physicians to report patients with mild dementia or mild cognitive impairment to transportation administrators, but the DD-DT tool itself did not increase such reports among these expert physicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02036099; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02036099 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zGMF1ky8).

SUBMITTER: Rapoport MJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5993977 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Computer-Based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool With Mail Support: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Rapoport Mark J MJ Zucchero Sarracini Carla C Kiss Alex A Lee Linda L Byszewski Anna A Seitz Dallas P DP Vrkljan Brenda B Molnar Frank F Herrmann Nathan N Tang-Wai David F DF Frank Christopher C Henry Blair B Pimlott Nicholas N Masellis Mario M Naglie Gary G

Journal of medical Internet research 20180525 5

<h4>Background</h4>Physicians often find significant challenges in assessing automobile driving in persons with mild cognitive impairment and mild dementia and deciding when to report to transportation administrators. Care must be taken to balance the safety of patients and other road users with potential negative effects of issuing such reports.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this study was to assess whether a computer-based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool (DD-DT) increased appropriate reporting ...[more]

PMID: 29802093

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade B recommendation that has been shown to decrease lung cancer-related mortality by approximately 20%. However, making the decision to screen, or not, for lung cancer is a complex decision because there are potential risks (eg, false positive results, overdiagnosis). Shared decision making was incorporated into the lung cancer screening guideline and, for the first time, is a requirement for reimbursement of a cancer screening test from Medicare. Awareness of lung cancer screening remains low in both the general and screening-eligible populations. When a screening-eligible person visits their clinician never having heard about lung cancer screening, engaging in shared decision making to arrive at an informed decision can be a challenge. Methods to effectively prepare patients for these clinical encounters and support both patients and clinicians to engage in these important discussions are needed.ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to estimate the effects of a computer-tailored decision support tool that meets the certification criteria of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards that will prepare individuals and support shared decision making in lung cancer screening decisions.MethodsA pilot randomized controlled trial with a community-based sample of 60 screening-eligible participants who have never been screened for lung cancer was conducted. Approximately half of the participants (n=31) were randomized to view LungTalk-a web-based tailored computer program-while the other half (n=29) viewed generic information about lung cancer screening from the American Cancer Society. The outcomes that were compared included lung cancer and screening knowledge, lung cancer screening health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, and self-efficacy), and perception of being prepared to engage in a discussion about lung cancer screening with their clinician.ResultsKnowledge scores increased significantly for both groups with greater improvement noted in the group receiving LungTalk (2.33 vs 1.14 mean change). Perceived self-efficacy and perceived benefits improved in the theoretically expected directions.ConclusionsLungTalk goes beyond other decision tools by addressing lung health broadly, in the context of performing a low-dose computed tomography of the chest that has the potential to uncover other conditions of concern beyond lung cancer, to more comprehensively educate the individual, and extends the work of nontailored decision aids in the field by introducing tailoring algorithms and message framing based upon smoking status in order to determine what components of the intervention drive behavior change when an individual is informed and makes the decision whether to be screened or not to be screened for lung cancer.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR2-10.2196/resprot.8694.

Project description:ImportanceBetter advance care planning (ACP) can help promote goal-directed care in patients with advanced dementia.ObjectivesTo test whether an ACP video (vs usual care) has an effect on documented advance directives, level of care preferences, goals-of-care discussions, and burdensome treatments among nursing home residents with advanced dementia.Design, setting, and participantsThe Educational Video to Improve Nursing home Care in End-stage dementia (EVINCE) trial was a cluster randomized clinical trial conducted between February 2013 and July 2017, at 64 Boston-area nursing homes (32 facilities per arm). A total of 402 residents with advanced dementia and their proxies (intervention arm, n = 212; control arm, n = 190) were assessed quarterly for 12 months.InterventionsA 12-minute ACP video for proxies with written communication of their preferred level of care (comfort, basic, or intensive) to the primary care team.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of residents with do-not-hospitalize (DNH) directives by 6 months. Secondary outcomes included preference for comfort care, documented directives to withhold tube-feeding and intravenous hydration, documented goals-of-care discussions, and burdensome treatments (hospital transfers, tube-feeding, or parenteral therapy) per 1000 resident-days. Exploratory analyses examined associations between trial arm and documented advance directives when comfort care was preferred.ResultsThe mean age of the 402 study residents was 86.7 years [range, 67-102 years]; 350 were white (87.1%) and 323 were female (80.3%), with DNH directives that by 6 months did not differ between arms (63% in both arms; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.69-1.69). Preferences for comfort care, directives to withhold intravenous hydration, and burdensome treatments did not differ between arms. Residents in intervention vs control facilities were more likely to have directives for no tube-feeding at 6 months (70.10% vs 61.90%; AOR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.13-2.82) and all other time periods, and documented goals-of-care discussions at 3 months (16.10% vs 7.90%; AOR, 2.58; 95% CI, 1.20-5.54). When comfort care was preferred, residents in the intervention arm were more likely to have both DNH and no tube-feeding directives (72.20% vs 52.80%; AOR, 2.68; 95% CI, 2.68-5.85).Conclusions and relevanceAn ACP video did not have an effect on preferences, DNH status, or burdensome treatments among residents with advanced dementia, but did increase directives to withhold tube-feeding. When proxies preferred comfort care, advance directives of residents in the intervention arm were more likely to align with that preference.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01774799.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of a video decision support tool on the preferences for future medical care in older people if they develop advanced dementia, and the stability of those preferences after six weeks.DesignRandomised controlled trial conducted between 1 September 2007 and 30 May 2008. Setting Four primary care clinics (two geriatric and two adult medicine) affiliated with three academic medical centres in Boston.ParticipantsConvenience sample of 200 older people (>or=65 years) living in the community with previously scheduled appointments at one of the clinics. Mean age was 75 and 58% were women.InterventionVerbal narrative alone (n=106) or with a video decision support tool (n=94).Main outcome measuresPreferred goal of care: life prolonging care (cardiopulmonary resuscitation, mechanical ventilation), limited care (admission to hospital, antibiotics, but not cardiopulmonary resuscitation), or comfort care (treatment only to relieve symptoms). Preferences after six weeks. The principal category for analysis was the difference in proportions of participants in each group who preferred comfort care.ResultsAmong participants receiving the verbal narrative alone, 68 (64%) chose comfort care, 20 (19%) chose limited care, 15 (14%) chose life prolonging care, and three (3%) were uncertain. In the video group, 81 (86%) chose comfort care, eight (9%) chose limited care, four (4%) chose life prolonging care, and one (1%) was uncertain (chi(2)=13.0, df=3, P=0.003). Among all participants the factors associated with a greater likelihood of opting for comfort care were being a college graduate or higher, good or better health status, greater health literacy, white race, and randomisation to the video arm. In multivariable analysis, participants in the video group were more likely to prefer comfort care than those in the verbal group (adjusted odds ratio 3.9, 95% confidence interval 1.8 to 8.6). Participants were re-interviewed after six weeks. Among the 94/106 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the verbal group, 27 (29%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.35). Among the 84/94 (89%) participants re-interviewed in the video group, five (6%) changed their preferences (kappa=0.79) (P<0.001 for difference).ConclusionOlder people who view a video depiction of a patient with advanced dementia after hearing a verbal description of the condition are more likely to opt for comfort as their goal of care compared with those who solely listen to a verbal description. They also have more stable preferences over time.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00704886.

Project description:Computer-based decision support systems are a promising method for incorporating research evidence into clinical practice. However, evidence is still scant on how such information technology solutions work in primary healthcare when support is provided across many health problems. In Finland, we designed a trial where a set of evidence-based, patient-specific reminders was introduced into the local Electronic Patient Record (EPR) system. The aim was to measure the effects of such reminders on patient care. The hypothesis was that the total number of triggered reminders would decrease in the intervention group compared with the control group, indicating an improvement in patient care.From July 2009 to October 2010 all the patients of one health center were randomized to an intervention or a control group. The intervention consisted of patient-specific reminders concerning 59 different health conditions triggered when the healthcare professional (HCP) opened and used the EPR. In the intervention group, the triggered reminders were shown to the HCP; in the control group, the triggered reminders were not shown. The primary outcome measure was the change in the number of reminders triggered over 12 months. We developed a unique data gathering method, the Repeated Study Virtual Health Check (RSVHC), and used Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE) for analysing the incidence rate ratio, which is a measure of the relative difference in percentage change in the numbers of reminders triggered in the intervention group and the control group.In total, 13,588 participants were randomized and included. Contrary to our expectation, the total number of reminders triggered increased in both the intervention and the control groups. The primary outcome measure did not show a significant difference between the groups. However, with the inclusion of patients followed up over only six months, the total number of reminders increased significantly less in the intervention group than in the control group when the confounding factors (age, gender, number of diagnoses and medications) were controlled for.Computerized, tailored reminders in primary care did not decrease during the 12 months of follow-up time after the introduction of a patient-specific decision support system.ClinicalTrial.gov NCT00915304.

Project description:Decisions about cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and intubation are a core part of advance care planning, particularly for seriously ill hospitalized patients. However, these discussions are often avoided.We aimed to examine the impact of a video decision tool for CPR and intubation on patients' choices, knowledge, medical orders, and discussions with providers.This was a prospective randomized trial conducted between 9 March 2011 and 1 June 2013 on the internal medicine services at two hospitals in Boston.One hundred and fifty seriously ill hospitalized patients over the age of 60 with an advanced illness and a prognosis of 1 year or less were included. Mean age was 76 and 51% were women.Three-minute video describing CPR and intubation plus verbal communication of participants' preferences to their physicians (intervention) (N?=?75) or control arm (usual care) (N?=?75).The primary outcome was participants' preferences for CPR and intubation (immediately after viewing the video in the intervention arm). Secondary outcomes included: orders to withhold CPR/intubation, documented discussions with providers during hospitalization, and participants' knowledge of CPR/ intubation (five-item test, range 0-5, higher scores indicate greater knowledge).Intervention participants (vs. controls) were more likely not to want CPR (64% vs. 32%, p <0.0001) and intubation (72% vs. 43%, p?<?0.0001). Intervention participants (vs. controls) were also more likely to have orders to withhold CPR (57% vs. 19%, p?<?0.0001) and intubation (64% vs.19%, p?<?0.0001) by hospital discharge, documented discussions about their preferences (81% vs. 43%, p?<?0.0001), and higher mean knowledge scores (4.11 vs. 2.45; p?<?0.0001).Seriously ill patients who viewed a video about CPR and intubation were more likely not to want these treatments, be better informed about their options, have orders to forgo CPR/ intubation, and discuss preferences with providers.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01325519 Registry Name: A prospective randomized trial using video images in advance care planning in seriously ill hospitalized patients.

Project description:The objective was to evaluate the effect of an assessment strategy using the computer decision support system (the GRAIDS software), on the management of familial cancer risk in British general practice in comparison with best current practice. The design included cluster randomised controlled trial, and involved forty-five general practice teams in East Anglia, UK. Randomised to GRAIDS (Genetic Risk Assessment on the Internet with Decision Support) support (intervention n=23) or comparison (n=22). Training in the new assessment strategy and access to the GRAIDS software (GRAIDS arm) was conducted, compared with an educational session and guidelines about managing familial breast and colorectal cancer risk (comparison) were mailed. Outcomes were measured at practice, practitioner and patient levels. The primary outcome measure, at practice level, was the proportion of referrals made to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial breast or colorectal cancer that were consistent with referral guidelines. Other measures included practitioner confidence in managing familial cancer (GRAIDS arm only) and, in patients: cancer worry, risk perception and knowledge about familial cancer. There were more referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic from GRAIDS than comparison practices (mean 6.2 and 3.2 referrals per 10 000 registered patients per year; mean difference 3.0 referrals; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-4.8; P=0.001); referrals from GRAIDS practices were more likely to be consistent with referral guidelines (odds ratio (OR)=5.2; 95% CI 1.7-15.8, P=0.006). Patients referred from GRAIDS practices had lower cancer worry scores at the point of referral (mean difference -1.44 95% CI -2.64 to -0.23, P=0.02). There were no differences in patient knowledge about familial cancer. The intervention increased GPs' confidence in managing familial cancer. Compared with education and mailed guidelines, assessment including computer decision support increased the number and quality of referrals to the Regional Genetics Clinic for familial cancer risk, improved practitioner confidence and had no adverse psychological effects in patients. Trials are registered under N0181144343 in the UK National Research Register.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effects of a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review in elderly people with polypharmacy.DesignPragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting359 general practices in Austria, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom.Participants3904 adults aged 75 years and older using eight or more drugs on a regular basis, recruited by their general practitioner.InterventionA newly developed electronic decision support tool comprising a comprehensive drug review to support general practitioners in deprescribing potentially inappropriate and non-evidence based drugs. Doctors were randomly allocated to either the electronic decision support tool or to provide treatment as usual.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. The key secondary outcome was reduction in the number of drugs.Results3904 adults were enrolled between January and October 2015. 181 practices and 1953 participants were assigned to electronic decision support (intervention group) and 178 practices and 1951 participants to treatment as usual (control group). The primary outcome (composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months) occurred in 871 (44.6%) participants in the intervention group and 944 (48.4%) in the control group. In an intention-to-treat analysis the odds ratio of the composite outcome was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.73 to 1.07; P=0.19, 997 of 1953 v 1055 of 1951). In an analysis restricted to participants attending practice according to protocol, a difference was found favouring the intervention (odds ratio 0.82, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 0.98; 774 of 1682 v 873 of 1712, P=0.03). By 24 months the number of prescribed drugs had decreased in the intervention group compared with control group (uncontrolled mean change -0.42 v 0.06: adjusted mean difference -0.45, 95% confidence interval -0.63 to -0.26; P<0.001).ConclusionsIn intention-to-treat analysis, a computerised decision support tool for comprehensive drug review of elderly people with polypharmacy showed no conclusive effects on the composite of unplanned hospital admission or death by 24 months. Nonetheless, a reduction in drugs was achieved without detriment to patient outcomes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN10137559.

Dataset Information

Computer-Based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool With Mail Support: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Publications

Computer-Based Driving in Dementia Decision Tool With Mail Support: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets