Dataset Information

How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the fidelity of general practitioners' (GPs) adherence to a long-term pragmatic trial protocol.

Design

Retrospective analyses of electronic primary care records of participants in the pragmatic cluster-randomised ADDITION (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care)-Cambridge trial, comparing intensive multifactorial treatment (IT) versus routine care (RC). Data were collected from the date of diagnosis until December 2010.

Setting

Primary care surgeries in the East of England.

Study sample/participants

A subsample (n=189, RC arm: n=99, IT arm: n=90) of patients from the ADDITION-Cambridge cohort (867 patients), consisting of patients 40-69 years old with screen-detected diabetes mellitus.

Interventions

In the RC arm treatment was delivered according to concurrent treatment guidelines. Surgeries in the IT arm received funding for additional contacts between GPs/nurses and patients, and GPs were advised to follow more intensive treatment algorithms for the management of glucose, lipids and blood pressure and aspirin therapy than in the RC arm.

Outcome measures

The number of annual contacts between patients and GPs/nurses, the proportion of patients receiving prescriptions for cardiometabolic medication in years 1-5 after diabetes diagnosis and the adherence to prescription algorithms.

Results

The difference in the number of annual GP contacts (?=0.65) and nurse contacts (?=-0.15) between the study arms was small and insignificant. Patients in the IT arm were more likely to receive glucose-lowering (OR=3.27), ACE-inhibiting (OR=2.03) and lipid-lowering drugs (OR=2.42, all p values <0.01) than patients in the RC arm. The prescription adherence varied between medication classes, but improved in both trial arms over the 5-year follow-up.

Conclusions

The adherence of GPs to different aspects of the trial protocol was mixed. Background changes in healthcare policy need to be considered as they have the potential to dilute differences in treatment intensity and hence incremental effects.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN86769081.

SUBMITTER: Laxy M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6009504 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial.

Laxy Michael M Wilson Edward C F ECF Boothby Clare E CE Griffin Simon J SJ

BMJ open 20180614 6

<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the fidelity of general practitioners' (GPs) adherence to a long-term pragmatic trial protocol.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective analyses of electronic primary care records of participants in the pragmatic cluster-randomised ADDITION (Anglo-Danish-Dutch Study of Intensive Treatment In People with Screen Detected Diabetes in Primary Care)-Cambridge trial, comparing intensive multifactorial treatment (IT) versus routine care (RC). Data were collected from the date of diagnos ...[more]

PMID: 29903781

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, uncertainty persists around the benefits of screening for type 2 diabetes. We assessed the effect of a population-based stepwise screening programme on mortality. METHODS:In a pragmatic parallel group, cluster-randomised trial, 33 general practices in eastern England were randomly assigned by the method of minimisation in an unbalanced design to: screening followed by intensive multifactorial treatment for people diagnosed with diabetes (n=15); screening plus routine care of diabetes according to national guidelines (n=13); and a no-screening control group (n=5). The study population consisted of 20,184 individuals aged 40-69 years (mean 58 years), at high risk of prevalent undiagnosed diabetes, on the basis of a previously validated risk score. In screening practices, individuals were invited to a stepwise programme including random capillary blood glucose and glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) tests, a fasting capillary blood glucose test, and a confirmatory oral glucose tolerance test. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. All participants were flagged for mortality surveillance by the England and Wales Office of National Statistics. Analysis was by intention-to-screen and compared all-cause mortality rates between screening and control groups. This study is registered, number ISRCTN86769081. FINDINGS:Of 16,047 high-risk individuals in screening practices, 15,089 (94%) were invited for screening during 2001-06, 11,737 (73%) attended, and 466 (3%) were diagnosed with diabetes. 4137 control individuals were followed up. During 184,057 person-years of follow up (median duration 9·6 years [IQR 8·9-9·9]), there were 1532 deaths in the screening practices and 377 in control practices (mortality hazard ratio [HR] 1·06, 95% CI 0·90-1·25). We noted no significant reduction in cardiovascular (HR 1·02, 95% CI 0·75-1·38), cancer (1·08, 0·90-1·30), or diabetes-related mortality (1·26, 0·75-2·10) associated with invitation to screening. INTERPRETATION:In this large UK sample, screening for type 2 diabetes in patients at increased risk was not associated with a reduction in all-cause, cardiovascular, or diabetes-related mortality within 10 years. The benefits of screening might be smaller than expected and restricted to individuals with detectable disease. FUNDING:Wellcome Trust; UK Medical Research Council; National Health Service research and development support; UK National Institute for Health Research; University of Aarhus, Denmark; Bio-Rad.

Project description:Implementation research is concerned with bridging the gap between evidence and practice through the study of methods to promote the uptake of research into routine practice. Good quality evidence has been summarised into guideline recommendations to show that peri-operative fasting times could be considerably shorter than patients currently experience. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of three strategies for the implementation of recommendations about peri-operative fasting.A pragmatic cluster randomised trial underpinned by the PARIHS framework was conducted during 2006 to 2009 with a national sample of UK hospitals using time series with mixed methods process evaluation and cost analysis. Hospitals were randomised to one of three interventions: standard dissemination (SD) of a guideline package, SD plus a web-based resource championed by an opinion leader, and SD plus plan-do-study-act (PDSA). The primary outcome was duration of fluid fast prior to induction of anaesthesia. Secondary outcomes included duration of food fast, patients' experiences, and stakeholders' experiences of implementation, including influences. ANOVA was used to test differences over time and interventions.Nineteen acute NHS hospitals participated. Across timepoints, 3,505 duration of fasting observations were recorded. No significant effect of the interventions was observed for either fluid or food fasting times. The effect size was 0.33 for the web-based intervention compared to SD alone for the change in fluid fasting and was 0.12 for PDSA compared to SD alone. The process evaluation showed different types of impact, including changes to practices, policies, and attitudes. A rich picture of the implementation challenges emerged, including inter-professional tensions and a lack of clarity for decision-making authority and responsibility.This was a large, complex study and one of the first national randomised controlled trials conducted within acute care in implementation research. The evidence base for fasting practice was accepted by those participating in this study and the messages from it simple; however, implementation and practical challenges influenced the interventions' impact. A set of conditions for implementation emerges from the findings of this study, which are presented as theoretically transferable propositions that have international relevance.ISRCTN18046709--Peri-operative Implementation Study Evaluation (POISE).

Project description:BackgroundThe increasing prevalence of type 2 diabetes poses a major public health challenge. Population-based screening and early treatment for type 2 diabetes could reduce this growing burden. However, the benefits of such a strategy remain uncertain.Methods and designThe ADDITION-Cambridge study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of (i) a stepwise screening strategy for type 2 diabetes; and (ii) intensive multifactorial treatment for people with screen-detected diabetes in primary care. 63 practices in the East Anglia region participated. Three undertook the pilot study, 33 were allocated to three groups: no screening (control), screening followed by intensive treatment (IT) and screening plus routine care (RC) in an unbalanced (1:3:3) randomisation. The remaining 27 practices were randomly allocated to IT and RC. A risk score incorporating routine practice data was used to identify people aged 40-69 years at high-risk of undiagnosed diabetes. In the screening practices, high-risk individuals were invited to take part in a stepwise screening programme. In the IT group, diabetes treatment is optimised through guidelines, target-led multifactorial treatment, audit, feedback, and academic detailing for practice teams, alongside provision of educational materials for newly diagnosed participants. Primary endpoints are modelled cardiovascular risk at one year, and cardiovascular mortality and morbidity at five years after diagnosis of diabetes. Secondary endpoints include all-cause mortality, development of renal and visual impairment, peripheral neuropathy, health service costs, self-reported quality of life, functional status and health utility. Impact of the screening programme at the population level is also assessed through measures of mortality, cardiovascular morbidity, health status and health service use among high-risk individuals.DiscussionADDITION-Cambridge is conducted in a defined high-risk group accessible through primary care. It addresses the feasibility of population-based screening for diabetes, as well as the benefits and costs of screening and intensive multifactorial treatment early in the disease trajectory. The intensive treatment algorithm is based on evidence from studies including individuals with clinically diagnosed diabetes and the education materials are informed by psychological theory. ADDITION-Cambridge will provide timely evidence concerning the benefits of early intensive treatment and will inform policy decisions concerning screening for type 2 diabetes.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled trials ISRCTN86769081.

Project description:Objective To compare the effectiveness of a novel model of care ("Stepping Up") with usual primary care in normalising insulin initiation for type 2 diabetes, leading to improved glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels.Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Primary care practices in Victoria, Australia, with a practice nurse and at least one consenting eligible patient (HbA1c ?7.5% with maximal oral treatment).Participants 266 patients with type 2 diabetes and 74 practices (mean cluster size 4 (range 1-8) patients), followed up for 12 months.Intervention The Stepping Up model of care intervention involved theory based change in practice systems and reorientation of the roles of health professionals in the primary care diabetes team. The core components were an enhanced role for the practice nurse in leading insulin initiation and mentoring by a registered nurse with diabetes educator credentials.Main outcome measures The primary endpoint was change in HbA1c. Secondary endpoints included the proportion of participants who transitioned to insulin, proportion who achieved target HbA1c, and a change in depressive symptoms (patient health questionnaire, PHQ-9), diabetes specific distress (problem areas in diabetes scale, PAID), and generic health status (assessment of quality of life instrument, AQoL-8D).Results HbA1c improved in both arms, with a clinically significant between arm difference (mean difference -0.6%, 95% confidence interval -0.9% to -0.3%), favouring the intervention. At 12 months, in intervention practices, 105/151 (70%) of participants had started insulin, compared with 25/115 (22%) in control practices (odds ratio 8.3, 95% confidence interval 4.5 to 15.4, P<0.001). Target HbA1c (?7% (53 mmol/mol)) was achieved by 54 (36%) intervention participants and 22 (19%) control participants (odds ratio 2.2, 1.2 to 4.3, P=0.02). Depressive symptoms did not worsen at 12 months (PHQ-9: -1.1 (3.5) v -0.1 (2.9), P=0.05). A statistically significant difference was found between arms in the mean change in mental health (AQoL mental component summary: 0.04 (SD 0.16) v -0.002 (0.13), mean difference 0.04 (95% confidence interval 0.002 to 0.08), P=0.04), favouring the intervention, but no significant difference in physical health (AQoL physical component summary: 0.03 (0.15) v 0.02 (0.13)) nor diabetes specific distress (5.6 (15.5) v -2.4 (15.4)). No severe hypoglycaemia events were reported.Conclusions The Stepping Up model of care was associated with increased insulin initiation rates in primary care, and improvements in glycated haemoglobin without worsening emotional wellbeing.Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001028897.

Project description:BackgroundFollowing the introduction of a computerised diabetes register in part of the northeast of England, care initially improved but then plateaued. We therefore enhanced the existing diabetes register to address these problems. The aim of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of an area wide 'extended,' computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and management system, including individualised patient management prompts to primary care clinicians based on locally-adapted, evidence-based guidelines.MethodsThe study design was a pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial, with the general practice as the unit of randomisation. Set in 58 general practices in three Primary Care Trusts in the northeast of England, the study outcomes were the clinical process and outcome variables held on the diabetes register, patient-reported outcomes, and service and patient costs. The effect of the intervention was estimated using generalised linear models with an appropriate error structure. To allow for the clustering of patients within practices, population averaged models were estimated using generalized estimating equations.ResultsPatients in intervention practices were more likely to have at least one diabetes appointment recorded (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.02, 3.91), to have a recording of a foot check (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.09, 3.21), have a recording of receiving dietary advice (OR 2.77, 95% CI 1.22, 6.29), and have a recording of blood pressure (BP) (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06, 4.36). There was no difference in mean HbA1c or BP levels, but the mean cholesterol level in patients from intervention practices was significantly lower (-0.15 mmol/l, 95% CI -0.25, -0.06). There were no differences in patient-reported outcomes or in patient-reported use of drugs, or uptake of health services. The average cost per patient was not significantly different between the intervention and control groups. Costs incurred in administering the system at the register and in general practice were in addition to these.ConclusionThis study has shown benefits from an area-wide, computerised diabetes register incorporating a full structured recall and individualised patient management system. However, these benefits were achieved at a cost. In future, these costs may fall as electronic data exchange becomes a reliable reality.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Register, ISRCTN32042030.

Project description:BackgroundSelf-reported knee pain is highly prevalent among adolescents. As much as 50% of the non-specific knee pain may be attributed to Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome (PFPS). In the short term, exercise therapy appears to have a better effect than patient education consisting of written information and general advice on exercise or compared with placebo treatment. But the long-term effect of exercise therapy compared with patient education is conflicting. The purpose of this study is to examine the short- and long-term effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at a very early stage of the condition among adolescents.Methods/designThis study is a single blind pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial. Four upper secondary schools have been invited to participate in the study (approximately 2500 students, aged 15-19 years). Students are asked to answer an online questionnaire regarding musculoskeletal pain. The students who report knee pain are contacted by telephone and offered a clinical examination by a rheumatologist. Subjects who fit the inclusion criteria and are diagnosed with PFPS are invited to participate in the study. A minimum of 102 students with PFPS are then cluster-randomised into two intervention groups based on which school they attend. Both intervention groups receive written information and education. In addition to patient education, one group receives multimodal physiotherapy consisting primarily of neuromuscular training of the muscles around the foot, knee and hip and home exercises. The students with PFPS fill out self-reported questionnaires at baseline, 3, 6, 12 and 24 months after inclusion in the study. The primary outcome measure is perception of recovery measured on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from "completely recovered" to "worse than ever" at 12 months.DiscussionThis study is designed to investigate the effectiveness of patient education compared with patient education combined with multimodal physiotherapy. If patient education and multimodal physiotherapy applied at an early stage of Patellofemoral Pain Syndrome proves effective, it may serve as a basis for optimising the clinical pathway for those suffering from the condition, where specific emphasis can be placed on early diagnosis and early treatment.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov reference: NCT01438762.

Project description:Investigate the effectiveness of a complex intervention aimed at improving the appropriateness of medication in older patients with multimorbidity in general practice.Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with general practice as unit of randomisation.72 general practices in Hesse, Germany.505 randomly sampled, cognitively intact patients (?60 years, ?3?chronic conditions under pharmacological treatment, ?5?long-term drug prescriptions with systemic effects); 465 patients and 71 practices completed the study.Intervention group (IG): The healthcare assistant conducted a checklist-based interview with patients on medication-related problems and reconciled their medications. Assisted by a computerised decision support system, the general practitioner optimised medication, discussed it with patients and adjusted it accordingly. The control group (CG) continued with usual care.The primary outcome was a modified Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI, excluding item 10 on cost-effectiveness), assessed in blinded medication reviews and calculated as the difference between baseline and after 6 months; secondary outcomes after 6 and 9?months' follow-up: quality of life, functioning, medication adherence, and so on.At baseline, a high proportion of patients had appropriate to mildly inappropriate prescriptions (MAI 0-5 points: n=350 patients). Randomisation revealed balanced groups (IG: 36 practices/252 patients; CG: 36/253). Intervention had no significant effect on primary outcome: mean MAI sum scores decreased by 0.3 points in IG and 0.8 points in CG, resulting in a non-significant adjusted mean difference of 0.7 (95% CI -0.2 to 1.6) points in favour of CG. Secondary outcomes showed non-significant changes (quality of life slightly improved in IG but continued to decline in CG) or remained stable (functioning, medication adherence).The intervention had no significant effects. Many patients already received appropriate prescriptions and enjoyed good quality of life and functional status. We can therefore conclude that in our study, there was not enough scope for improvement.ISRCTN99526053. NCT01171339; Results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Dataset Information

How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Study sample/participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

How good are GPs at adhering to a pragmatic trial protocol in primary care? Results from the ADDITION-Cambridge cluster-randomised pragmatic trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets