Dataset Information

Understanding usual care for patients with multimorbidity: baseline data from a cluster-randomised trial of the 3D intervention in primary care.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Recent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current 'usual primary care' for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested. DESIGN:Analysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff. SETTING:Primary care in the UK. PARTICIPANTS:Patients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Using surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients.Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma. RESULTS:Participating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care. CONCLUSION:This trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

SUBMITTER: Chaplin K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6119425 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionGoal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.ObjectiveTo assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.Design and settingCluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.ParticipantsAdults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission.InterventionsGeneral practitioners (GPs) underwent training and patients were asked to consider goals before an initial goal-setting consultation and a follow-up consultation 6 months later. The control group received usual care planning.Outcome measuresHealth-related quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), capability (ICEpop CAPability measure for Older people), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care and healthcare use. All consultations were video-recorded or audio-recorded, and focus groups were held with participating GPs and patients.ResultsFifty-two participants were recruited with a response rate of 12%. Full follow-up data were available for 41. In the goal-setting group, mean age was 80.4 years, 54% were female and the median number of prescribed medications was 13, compared with 77.2 years, 39% female and 11.5 medications in the control group. The mean initial consultation time was 23.0 min in the goal-setting group and 19.2 in the control group. Overall 28% of patient participants had no cognitive impairment. Participants set between one and three goals on a wide range of subjects, such as chronic disease management, walking, maintaining social and leisure interests, and weight management. Patient participants found goal-setting acceptable and would have liked more frequent follow-up. GPs unanimously liked goal-setting and felt it delivered more patient-centred care, and they highlighted the importance of training.ConclusionsThis goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN13248305; Post-results.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention.MethodsWe did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958.FindingsBetween May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the health-economic costs and benefits of a guided eHealth intervention (E-health module embedded in Collaborative Occupational healthcare (ECO)) encouraging sick-listed employees to a faster return to work. DESIGN:A two-armed cluster randomised trial with occupational physicians (OPs) (n=62), clustered and randomised by region into an experimental and a control group, to conduct a health-economic investment appraisal. Online self-reported data were collected from employees at baseline, after 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. SETTING:Occupational health care in the Netherlands. PARTICIPANTS:Employees from small-sized and medium-sized companies (?18 years), sick-listed between 4 and 26 weeks with (symptoms of) common mental disorders visiting their OP. INTERVENTIONS:In the intervention group, employees (N=131) received an eHealth module aimed at changing cognitions regarding return to work, while OPs were supported by a decision aid for treatment and referral options. Employees in the control condition (N=89) received usual sickness guidance. OUTCOMES MEASURES:Net benefits and return on investment based on absenteeism, presenteeism, health care use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained. RESULTS:From the employer's perspective, the incremental net benefits were €3187 per employee over a single year, representing a return of investment of €11 per invested Euro, with a break-even point at 6 months. The economic case was also favourable from the employee's perspective, partly because of QALY health gains. The intervention was costing €234 per employee from a health service financier's perspective. The incremental net benefits from a social perspective were €4210. This amount dropped to €3559 in the sensitivity analysis trimming the 5% highest costs. CONCLUSIONS:The data suggest that the ECO intervention offers good value for money for virtually all stakeholders involved, because initial investments were more than recouped within a single year. The sometimes wide 95% CIs suggest that the costs and benefits are not always very precise estimates and real benefits could vary considerably. TRIAL REGISTRATION:NTR2108; Results.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To ascertain whether an ultrabrief intervention (UBI) improves mental health outcomes for patients in general practice with mild-to-moderate mental health concerns. TRIAL DESIGN:Two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. METHODS:Participants: general practitioners (GPs) were invited based on working in a participating general practice. Patients were eligible to participate if aged 18-65 years, scored ?35 on the Kessler-10 (K10) and if meeting local mental health access criteria (based on age, low income or ethnic group). INTERVENTIONS:intervention arm GPs were trained on the UBI approach, with participating patients receiving three structured appointments over 5 weeks. GPs randomised to practice as usual (PAU) did not receive training, and delivered support following their existing practice approaches. OUTCOME MEASURES:primary outcome was patient-level K10 score at 6 months postrecruitment.Randomisation: GP practices were randomised to UBI training or PAU at the start of the study.Blinding: GPs were not blinded to group assignment. RESULTS:Numbers randomised: 62 GPs (recruiting 85 patients) were randomised to UBI, and 50 to PAU (recruiting 75 patients).Numbers analysed: 31 GPs recruited at least one patient in the UBI arm (70 patients analysed), and 21 GPs recruited at least one patient in the PAU arm (69 patients analysed). OUTCOME:K10 scores from an intention-to-treat analysis were similar in UBI and PAU arms, with a wide CI (mean adjusted K10 difference=1.68 points higher in UBI arm, 95% CI -1.18 to 4.55; p=0.255). Secondary outcomes were also similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:the UBI intervention did not lead to better outcomes than practice as usual, although the study had lower than planned power due to poor recruitment. The study results can still contribute to the continuing debate about brief psychological therapy options for primary care and their development. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ACTRN12613000041752; Pre-results.

Project description:An increasing number of people are living with multimorbidity. The evidence base for how best to manage these patients is weak. Current clinical guidelines generally focus on single conditions, which may not reflect the needs of patients with multimorbidity. The aim of the 3D study is to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.This is a pragmatic two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. 32 general practices around Bristol, Greater Manchester and Glasgow will be randomised to receive either the '3D intervention' or usual care. 3D is a complex intervention including components affecting practice organisation, the conduct of patient reviews, integration with secondary care and measures to promote change in practice organisation. Changes include improving continuity of care and replacing reviews of each disease with patient-centred reviews with a focus on patients' quality of life, mental health and polypharmacy. We aim to recruit 1383 patients who have 3 or more chronic conditions. This provides 90% power at 5% significance level to detect an effect size of 0.27 SDs in the primary outcome, which is health-related quality of life at 15 months using the EQ-5D-5L. Secondary outcome measures assess patient centredness, illness burden and treatment burden. The primary analysis will be a multilevel regression model adjusted for baseline, stratification/minimisation, clustering and important co-variables. Nested process evaluation will assess implementation, mechanisms of effectiveness and interaction of the intervention with local context. Economic analysis of cost-consequences and cost-effectiveness will be based on quality-adjusted life years.This study has approval from South-West (Frenchay) National Health Service (NHS) Research Ethics Committee (14/SW/0011). Findings will be disseminated via final report, peer-reviewed publications and guidance to healthcare professionals, commissioners and policymakers.ISRCTN06180958; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Understanding usual care for patients with multimorbidity: baseline data from a cluster-randomised trial of the 3D intervention in primary care.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets