Dataset Information

Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice-a Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Symptoms account for more than 400 million clinic visits annually in the USA. The SPADE symptoms (sleep, pain, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue) are particularly prevalent and undertreated. OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of providing PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System) symptom scores to clinicians on symptom outcomes. DESIGN:Randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2015 through May 2016 in general internal medicine and family practice clinics in an academic healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS:Primary care patients who screened positive for at least one SPADE symptom. INTERVENTIONS:After completing the PROMIS symptom measures electronically immediately prior to their visit, the 300 study participants were randomized to a feedback group in which their clinician received a visual display of symptom scores or a control group in which scores were not provided to clinicians. MAIN MEASURES:The primary outcome was the 3-month change in composite SPADE score. Secondary outcomes were individual symptom scores, symptom documentation in the clinic note, symptom-specific clinician actions, and patient satisfaction. KEY RESULTS:Most patients (84%) had multiple clinically significant (T-score???55) SPADE symptoms. Both groups demonstrated moderate symptom improvement with a non-significant trend favoring the feedback compared to control group (between-group difference in composite T-score improvement, 1.1; P?=?0.17). Symptoms present at baseline resolved at 3-month follow-up only one third of the time, and patients frequently still desired treatment. Except for pain, clinically significant symptoms were documented less than half the time. Neither symptom documentation, symptom-specific clinician actions, nor patient satisfaction differed between treatment arms. Predictors of greater symptom improvement included female sex, black race, fewer medical conditions, and receiving care in a family medicine clinic. CONCLUSIONS:Simple feedback of symptom scores to primary care clinicians in the absence of additional systems support or incentives is not superior to usual care in improving symptom outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02383862.

SUBMITTER: Kroenke K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6082211 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice-a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Kroenke Kurt K Talib Tasneem L TL Stump Timothy E TE Kean Jacob J Haggstrom David A DA DeChant Paige P Lake Kittie R KR Stout Madison M Monahan Patrick O PO

Journal of general internal medicine 20180405 8

<h4>Background</h4>Symptoms account for more than 400 million clinic visits annually in the USA. The SPADE symptoms (sleep, pain, anxiety, depression, and low energy/fatigue) are particularly prevalent and undertreated.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the effectiveness of providing PROMIS (Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Information System) symptom scores to clinicians on symptom outcomes.<h4>Design</h4>Randomized clinical trial conducted from March 2015 through May 2016 in general internal medicine ...[more]

PMID: 29623512

Similar Datasets

Project description:Calls for primary care providers (PCPs) to offer obese patients behavioral weight-loss counseling have not been accompanied by adequate guidance on how such care could be delivered. This randomized trial compared weight loss during a 2-year period in response to three lifestyle interventions, all delivered by PCPs in collaboration with auxiliary health professionals (lifestyle coaches) in their practices.We randomly assigned 390 obese adults in six primary care practices to one of three types of intervention: usual care, consisting of quarterly PCP visits that included education about weight management; brief lifestyle counseling, consisting of quarterly PCP visits combined with brief monthly sessions with lifestyle coaches who instructed participants about behavioral weight control; or enhanced brief lifestyle counseling, which provided the same care as described for the previous intervention but included meal replacements or weight-loss medication (orlistat or sibutramine), chosen by the participants in consultation with the PCPs, to potentially increase weight loss.Of the 390 participants, 86% completed the 2-year trial, at which time, the mean (±SE) weight loss with usual care, brief lifestyle counseling, and enhanced brief lifestyle counseling was 1.7±0.7, 2.9±0.7, and 4.6±0.7 kg, respectively. Initial weight decreased at least 5% in 21.5%, 26.0%, and 34.9% of the participants in the three groups, respectively. Enhanced lifestyle counseling was superior to usual care on both these measures of success (P=0.003 and P=0.02, respectively), with no other significant differences among the groups. The benefits of enhanced lifestyle counseling remained even after participants given sibutramine were excluded from the analyses. There were no significant differences between the intervention groups in the occurrence of serious adverse events.Enhanced weight-loss counseling helps about one third of obese patients achieve long-term, clinically meaningful weight loss. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; POWER-UP ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00826774.).

Project description:Importance:Experts recommend that alcohol use disorders (AUDs) be managed in primary care, but effective approaches are unclear. Objective:To test whether 12 months of alcohol care management, compared with usual care, improved drinking outcomes among patients with or at high risk for AUDs. Design, Setting, and Participants:This randomized clinical trial was conducted at 3 Veterans Affairs (VA) primary care clinics. Between October 11, 2011, and September 30, 2014, the study enrolled 304 outpatients who reported heavy drinking (?4 drinks per day for women and ?5 drinks per day for men). Interventions:Nurse care managers offered outreach and engagement, repeated brief counseling using motivational interviewing and shared decision making about treatment options, and nurse practitioner-prescribed AUD medications (if desired), supported by an interdisciplinary team (CHOICE intervention). The comparison was usual primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures:Primary outcomes, assessed by blinded telephone interviewers at 12 months, were percentage of heavy drinking days in the prior 28 days measured by timeline follow-back interviews and a binary good drinking outcome, defined as abstinence or drinking below recommended limits in the prior 28 days (according to timeline follow-back interviews) and no alcohol-related symptoms in the past 3 months as measured by the Short Inventory of Problems. Results:Of 304 participants, 275 (90%) were male, 206 (68%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 51.4 (13.8) years. At baseline, both the CHOICE intervention (n?=?150) and usual care (n?=?154) groups reported heavy drinking on 61% of days (95% CI, 56%-66%). During the 12-month intervention, 137 of 150 patients in the intervention group (91%) had at least 1 nurse visit, and 77 of 150 (51%) had at least 6 nurse visits. A greater proportion of patients in the intervention group than in the usual care group received alcohol-related care: 42% (95% CI, 35%-49%; 63 of 150 patients) vs 26% (95% CI, 19%-35%; 40 of 154 patients). Alcohol-related care included more AUD medication use: 32% (95% CI, 26%-39%; 48 of 150 patients in the intervention group) vs 8% (95% CI, 5%-13%; 13 of 154 patients in the usual care group). No significant differences in primary outcomes were observed at 12 months between patients in both groups. The percentages of heavy drinking days were 39% (95% CI, 32%-47%) and 35% (95% CI, 28%-42%), and the percentages of patients with a good drinking outcome were 15% (95% CI, 9%-22%; 18 of 124 patients) and 20% (95 % CI, 14%-28%; 27 of 134 patients), in the intervention and usual care groups, respectively (P?=?.32-.44). Findings at 3 months were similar. Conclusions and Relevance:The CHOICE intervention did not decrease heavy drinking or related problems despite increased engagement in alcohol-related care. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01400581.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Anxiety is a common mental health problem seen in primary care. However, its management in clinical practice varies greatly. Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have the potential to reduce variations and improve the care received by patients by promoting interventions of proven benefit. However, uptake and adherence to their recommendations can be low. METHOD/DESIGN: This study involves a community based on cluster randomized trial in primary healthcare centres in the Madrid Region (Spain). The project aims to determine whether the use of implementation strategy (including training session, information, opinion leader, reminders, audit, and feed-back) of CPG for patients with anxiety disorders in primary care is more effective than usual diffusion. The number of patients required is 296 (148 in each arm), all older than 18 years and diagnosed with generalized anxiety disorder, panic disorder, and panic attacks by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV (DSM-IV). They are chosen by consecutive sampling. The main outcome variable is the change in two or more points into Goldberg anxiety scale at six and twelve months. Secondary outcome variables include quality of life (EuroQol 5D), and degree of compliance with the CPG recommendations on treatment, information, and referrals to mental health services. Main effectiveness will be analyzed by comparing the patients percentage improvement on the Goldberg scale between the intervention group and the control group. Logistic regression with random effects will be used to adjust for prognostic factors. Confounding factors or factors that might alter the effect recorded will be taken into account in this analysis. DISCUSSION: There is a need to identify effective implementation strategies for CPG for the management of anxiety disorders present in primary care. Ensuring the appropriate uptake of guideline recommendations can reduce clinical variation and improve the care patients receive. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN: ISRCTN83365316.

Project description:ImportanceUp to 20% of adolescents experience an episode of major depression by age 18 years yet few receive evidence-based treatments for their depression.ObjectiveTo determine whether a collaborative care intervention for adolescents with depression improves depressive outcomes compared with usual care.DesignRandomized trial with blinded outcome assessment conducted between April 2010 and April 2013.SettingNine primary care clinics in the Group Health system in Washington State.ParticipantsAdolescents (aged 13-17 years) who screened positive for depression (Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item [PHQ-9] score ≥10) on 2 occasions or who screened positive and met criteria for major depression, spoke English, and had telephone access were recruited. Exclusions included alcohol/drug misuse, suicidal plan or recent attempt, bipolar disorder, developmental delay, and seeing a psychiatrist.InterventionsTwelve-month collaborative care intervention including an initial in-person engagement session and regular follow-up by master's-level clinicians. Usual care control youth received depression screening results and could access mental health services through Group Health.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was change in depressive symptoms on a modified version of the Child Depression Rating Scale-Revised (CDRS-R; score range, 14-94) from baseline to 12 months. Secondary outcomes included change in Columbia Impairment Scale score (CIS), depression response (≥50% decrease on the CDRS-R), and remission (PHQ-9 score <5).ResultsIntervention youth (n = 50), compared with those randomized to receive usual care (n = 51), had greater decreases in CDRS-R scores such that by 12 months intervention youth had a mean score of 27.5 (95% CI, 23.8-31.1) compared with 34.6 (95% CI, 30.6-38.6) in control youth (overall intervention effect: F2,747.3 = 7.24, P < .001). Both intervention and control youth experienced improvement on the CIS with no significant differences between groups. At 12 months, intervention youth were more likely than control youth to achieve depression response (67.6% vs 38.6%, OR = 3.3, 95% CI, 1.4-8.2; P = .009) and remission (50.4% vs 20.7%, OR = 3.9, 95% CI, 1.5-10.6; P = .007).Conclusions and relevanceAmong adolescents with depression seen in primary care, a collaborative care intervention resulted in greater improvement in depressive symptoms at 12 months than usual care. These findings suggest that mental health services for adolescents with depression can be integrated into primary care.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01140464.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve primary care diabetes management have assessed strategies across heterogeneous groups of patients and practices. However, there is substantial variability in how well practices implement interventions and achieve desired outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine practice contextual features that moderate intervention effectiveness.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a cluster randomized trial of three approaches for implementing the Chronic Care Model to improve diabetes care.ParticipantsForty small to mid-sized primary care practices participated, with 522 clinician and staff member surveys. Outcomes were assessed for 822 established patients with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes who had at least one visit to the practice in the 18 months following enrollment.Main measuresThe primary outcome was a composite measure of diabetes process of care, ascertained by chart audit, regarding nine quality measures from the American Diabetes Association Physician Recognition Program: HgA1c, foot exam, blood pressure, dilated eye exam, cholesterol, nephropathy screen, flu shot, nutrition counseling, and self-management support. Data from practices included structural and demographic characteristics and Practice Culture Assessment survey subscales (Change Culture, Work Culture, Chaos).Key resultsAcross the three implementation approaches, demographic/structural characteristics (rural vs. urban + .70(p = .006), +2.44(p < .001), -.75(p = .004)); Medicaid: < 20 % vs. ≥ 20 % (-.20(p = .48), +.75 (p = .08), +.60(p = .02)); practice size: < 4 clinicians vs. ≥ 4 clinicians (+.56(p = .02), +1.96(p < .001), +.02(p = .91)); practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.86(p = .048), +1.71(p = .005), +.34(p = .22)), Work Culture (high vs. low: -.67(p = .18), +2.41(p < .001), +.67(p = .005)) and variability in practice Change Culture (high vs. low: -.24(p = .006), -.20(p = .0771), -.44(p = .0019) and Work Culture (high vs. low: +.56(p = .3160), -1.0(p = .008), -.25 (p = .0216) were associated with trajectories of change in diabetes process of care, either directly or differentially by study arm.ConclusionsThis study supports the need for broader use of methodological approaches to better examine contextual effects on implementation and effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in primary care settings.

Project description:Importance:Nonadherence to antidepressant medication is common and leads to poor outcomes. Early nonadherence is especially problematic. Objective:To test the effectiveness of a psychosocial intervention to improve early adherence among older patients whose primary care physician newly initiated an antidepressant for depression. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Treatment Initiation and Participation Program (TIP) was offered in a 2-site randomized clinical effectiveness study between January 2011 and December 2014 at primary care practices in New York, New York, and Ann Arbor, Michigan. Analyses began in February 2016. All participants were middle-aged and older adults (aged ?55 years) who received newly initiated depression treatment by their primary care physician and recruited within 10 days of their prescription. Analyses were intention-to-treat. Interventions:Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention (TIP) or treatment as usual. Participants in the TIP group identified and addressed barriers to adherence, including stigma, misconceptions, and fears about treatment, before developing a personalized adherence strategy. The Treatment Initiation and Participation Program was delivered in three 30-minute contacts scheduled during a 6-week period just after the antidepressant was prescribed. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was self-reported adherence on the Brief Medication Questionnaire, with adequate early adherence defined as taking 80% or more of the prescribed doses at 6 and 12 weeks. The secondary outcome was depression severity. Results:In total, 231 middle-aged and older adults (167 women [72.3%] and 64 men [27.7%]) without significant cognitive impairment were randomly assigned to the TIP intervention (n?=?115) or treatment as usual (n?=?116). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 67.3 (8.4) years. Participants in the TIP group were 5 times more likely to be adherent at 6 weeks (odds ratio,?5.54; 95% CI, 2.57 to 11.96; ?21?=?19.05; P?<?.001) and 3 times more likely to be adherent at both 6 and 12 weeks (odds ratio,?3.27; 95% CI, 1.73 to 6.17; ?21?=?13.34; P?<?.001). Participants in the TIP group showed a significant earlier reduction (24.9%) in depressive symptoms (95% CI, 13.9 to 35.9; t337?=?4.46; adjusted P?<?.001). In both groups, participants who were 80% adherent at weeks 6 and 12 had a 15% greater improvement in depressive symptoms from baseline over the course of treatment (95% CI, -0.2 to -30; t369?=?1.93; P?=?.051). Conclusions and Relevance:The Treatment Initiation and Participation Program is an effective intervention to improve early adherence to pharmacotherapy. Improved adherence can promote improvement in depression. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01301859.

Dataset Information

Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice-a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Publications

Incorporating PROMIS Symptom Measures into Primary Care Practice-a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure