Dataset Information

Intervention to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care, study protocol of a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial: the BENZORED study.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are mainly used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, and are often prescribed for long durations, even though prescription guidelines recommend short-term use due to the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. Education of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prescription of BZDs may reduce the overuse and of these drugs.The aims of this study are to analyse the effectiveness of an intervention targeted to GPs to reduce BZD prescription and evaluate the implementation process. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The healthcare centres in three regions of Spain (Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Community of Valencia) will be randomly allocated to receive a multifactorial intervention or usual care (control). GPs in the intervention group will receive a 2-hour workshop about best-practice regarding BZD prescription and BZD deprescribing, monthly feedback about their BZD prescribing practices and access to a support web page. Outcome measures for each GP are the defined daily dosage per 1000 inhabitants per day and the proportion of long-term BZD users at 12 months. Data will be collected from the electronic prescription database of the public health system, and will be subjected to intention-to-treat analysis. Implementation will be evaluated by mixed methods following the five domains of the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study was approved by the Balearic Islands Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (IB3065/15), l'IDIAP Jordi Gol Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (PI 15/0148) and Valencia Primary Care Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (P16/024). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN28272199.

SUBMITTER: Vicens C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6359733 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Intervention to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care, study protocol of a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial: the BENZORED study.

Vicens Caterina C Leiva Alfonso A Bejarano Ferran F Sempere Ermengol E Rodríguez-Rincón Raquel María RM Fiol Francisca F Mengual Marta M Ajenjo Asunción A Do Pazo Fernando F Mateu Catalina C Folch Silvia S Alegret Santiago S Coll Jose Maria JM Martín-Rabadán María M Socias Isabel I

BMJ open 20190130 1

<h4>Introduction</h4>Benzodiazepines (BZDs) are mainly used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, and are often prescribed for long durations, even though prescription guidelines recommend short-term use due to the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. Education of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prescription of BZDs may reduce the overuse and of these drugs.The aims of this study are to analyse the effectiveness of an intervention targeted to GPs to reduce ...[more]

PMID: 30705235

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCurrent benzodiazepine (BZD) prescription guidelines recommend short-term use to minimize the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. However, many clinicians overprescribe BZDs and chronic use by patients is common. There is limited evidence on the effectiveness of interventions delivered by general practitioners (GPs) on reducing prescriptions and long-term use of BZDs. We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a multicomponent intervention for GPs that seeks to reduce BZD prescriptions and the prevalence of long-term users.Methods and findingsWe conducted a multicenter two-arm, cluster randomized controlled trial in 3 health districts in Spain (primary health centers [PHCs] in Balearic Islands, Catalonia, and Valencian Community) from September 2016 to May 2018. The 81 PHCs were randomly allocated to the intervention group (n = 41; 372 GPs) or the control group (n = 40; 377 GPs). GPs were not blinded to the allocation; however, pharmacists, researchers, and trial statisticians were blinded to the allocation arm. The intervention consisted of a workshop about the appropriate prescribing of BZDs and tapering-off long-term BZD use using a tailored stepped dose reduction with monthly BZD prescription feedback and access to a support web page. The primary outcome, based on 700 GPs (351 in the control group and 349 in the intervention group), compared changes in BZD prescriptions in defined daily doses (DDDs) per 1,000 inhabitants per day after 12 months. The 2 secondary outcomes were the proportion of long-term users (≥6 months) and the proportion of long-term users over age 65 years. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was used to assess all clinical outcomes. Forty-nine GPs (21 intervention group and 28 control group) were lost to follow-up. However, all GPs were included in the ITT analysis. After 12 months, there were a statistically significant decline in total BZD prescription in the intervention group compared to the control group (mean difference: -3.24 DDDs per 1,000 inhabitants per day, 95% confidence interval (CI): -4.96, -1.53, p < 0.001). The intervention group also had a smaller number of long-term users. The adjusted absolute difference overall was -0.36 (95% CI: -0.55, -0.16, p > 0.001), and the adjusted absolute difference in long-term users over age 65 years was -0.87 (95% CI: -1.44, -0.30, p = 0.003). A key limitation of this clustered design clinical trial is the imbalance of some baseline characteristics. The control groups have a higher rate of baseline BZD prescription, and more GPs in the intervention group were women, GPs with a doctorate degree, and trainers of GP residents.ConclusionsA multicomponent intervention that targeted GPs and included educational meeting, feedback about BZD prescriptions, and a support web page led to a statistically significant reduction of BZD prescriptions and fewer long-term users. Although the effect size was small, the high prevalence of BZD use in the general population suggests that large-scale implementation of this intervention could have positive effects on the health of many patients.Trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN28272199.

Project description:IntroductionUp to 80% of patients with respiratory tract infections (RTI) attending healthcare facilities in rural areas of China are prescribed antibiotics, many of which are unnecessary. Since 2009, China has implemented several policies to try to reduce inappropriate antibiotic use; however, antibiotic prescribing remains high in rural health facilities.Methods and analysisA cluster randomised controlled trial will be carried out to estimate the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a complex intervention in reducing antibiotic prescribing at township health centres in Anhui Province, China. 40 Township health centres will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio to the intervention or usual care arms. In the intervention group, practitioners will receive an intervention comprising: (1) training to support appropriate antibiotic prescribing for RTI, (2) a computer-based treatment decision support system, (3) virtual peer support, (4) a leaflet for patients and (5) a letter of commitment to optimise antibiotic use to display in their clinic. The primary outcome is the percentage of antibiotics (intravenous and oral) prescribed for RTI patients. Secondary outcomes include patient symptom severity and duration, recovery status, satisfaction, antibiotic consumption. A full economic evaluation will be conducted within the trial period. Costs and savings for both clinics and patients will be considered and quality of life will be measured by EuroQoL (EQ-5D-5L). A qualitative process evaluation will explore practitioner and patient views and experiences of trial processes, intervention fidelity and acceptability, and barriers and facilitators to implementation.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from the Biomedical Research Ethics Committee of Anhui Medical University (Ref: 20180259); the study has undergone due diligence checks and is registered at the University of Bristol (Ref: 2020-3137). Research findings will be disseminated to stakeholders through conferences and peer-reviewed journals in China, the UK and internationally.Trial registration numberISRCTN30652037.

Project description:IntroductionSalt intake in China (≈12 g/day) is more than twice the upper limit recommended by the WHO (5 g/day). To reduce salt intake, Action on Salt China (ASC) was launched in 2017. As one of four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the ASC programme, a comprehensive intervention study was designed to test whether all the components of the interventions adopted by other RCTs are acceptable, scalable and effective when provided to a region in the real world.Methods and analysisUsing a cluster RCT design, 2688 participants were selected from 48 towns (clusters) in 12 counties in 6 provinces and assigned to the intervention group or the control group. Randomisation was performed after the baseline survey was completed. Information on salt-related knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP), blood pressure and 24-hour urinary sodium were collected. The intervention includes government engagement, health education and other intervention components targeting restaurants, home cooks and primary school students and their families that have been used in other RCTs. The control group will not receive the intervention. The project will be followed up for 2 years, with the intervention being carried out for the first year only. The primary outcome is salt intake measured by 24-hour urinary sodium excretion after 1 year. The secondary outcomes are the long-lasting effectiveness on salt intake and blood pressure measured by the same method, as well as salt-related KAP and blood pressure at the 1-year and 2-year follow-ups. Process evaluation and health economics analysis will be conducted as well.Ethics and disseminationThe study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board of the National Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and Queen Mary Research Ethics Committee. Results will be disseminated through presentations, publications and social media.Trial registration numberChiCTR1800018119.

Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of mental health problems in childhood and adolescence has increased significantly, not least due to the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany and other countries worldwide. Although holistic school interventions to promote mental health and prevent mental health problems are considered promising, there is currently uncertainty about their effectiveness due to evaluation studies with heterogeneous methodological quality. This paper presents the study protocol for the evaluation of the primary school module of MindMatters.MethodsAs part of a universal mental health intervention, the MindMatters primary school module 'Learning Together with Emotions' aims to promote social-emotional learning (SEL) in the classroom across five skill areas. In addition to classroom activities, the intervention includes a school development module to help primary schools create structures and processes to maintain and promote mental health. To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted, including schools implementing MindMatters over a 12-month period and a control group with no access to the intervention. Data will be collected before and 18 months after initiation of the intervention. Controlled for baseline conditions, multilevel regression analysis will be used to examine primary intervention outcomes at the pupil level (i.e. reductions in mental and behavioural problems). Further mediation and moderation analyses will examine whether proximal outcomes predict changes in mental health outcomes and whether school-level factors influence the effectiveness of the intervention.DiscussionThis study will contribute to strengthen the evidence base for holistic school (mental) health promotion interventions using a study design with high internal validity. Based on an intervention model, the results will not only provide insights into the relationship between proximal and distal outcomes, but will also allow conclusions to be drawn about how the implementation of the intervention affects its effectiveness. Finally, the findings also address the question of whether improved mental health has a positive effect on primary school pupils' academic performance.Trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00023762. Registered on 5 January 2021.

Project description:General practitioners (GPs) in developed countries widely prescribe benzodiazepines (BZDs) for their anxiolytic, hypnotic, and muscle-relaxant effects. Treatment duration, however, is rarely limited, and this results in a significant number of chronic users. Long-term BZD use is associated with cognitive impairment, falls with hip fractures, traffic accidents, and increased mortality. The BENZORED IV trial was a hybrid type-1 trial conducted to evaluate the effectiveness and implementation of an intervention to reduce BZD prescription in primary care. The purpose of this qualitative study was to analyze the facilitators and barriers regarding the implementation of the intervention in primary care settings. A qualitative interview study with 40 GPs from three Spanish health districts. Focus group meetings with GPs from the intervention arm of the BENZORED IV trial were held at primary healthcare centers in the three districts. For sampling purposes, the GPs were classified as high or low implementers according to the success of the intervention measured at 12 months. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to conduct the meetings and to code, rate, and analyze the data. Three of the 41 CFIR constructs strongly distinguished between high and low implementers: the complexity of the intervention, the individual Stage of Change, and the key stakeholder's engagement. Seven constructs weakly discriminated between the two groups: adaptability in the intervention, external policy and incentives, implementation climate, relative priority, self-efficacy, compatibility, and engaging a formally appointed implementation leader. Fourteen constructs did not discriminate between the two groups, six had insufficient data for evaluation, and eleven had no data for evaluation. We identified constructs that could explain differences in the efficacy in implementation of the intervention. This information is relevant for the design of successful strategies for implementation of the intervention.

Project description:Introduction Excessive alcohol consumption is responsible for considerable harm from chronic disease and injury. Within most developed countries, members of sporting clubs consume alcohol at levels above that of communities generally. Despite the potential benefits of interventions to address alcohol consumption in sporting clubs, there have been no randomised controlled trials to test the effectiveness of these interventions. The aim of this study is to examine the effectiveness of a comprehensive accreditation intervention with community football clubs (Rugby League, Rugby Union, soccer/association football and Australian Rules football) in reducing excessive alcohol consumption by club members. Methods and analysis The study will be conducted in New South Wales, Australia, and employ a cluster randomised controlled trial design. Half of the football clubs recruited to the trial will be randomised to receive an intervention implemented over two and a half winter sporting seasons. The intervention is based on social ecology theory and is comprehensive in nature, containing multiple elements designed to decrease the supply of alcohol to intoxicated members, cease the provision of cheap and free alcohol, increase the availability and cost-attractiveness of non-alcoholic and low-alcoholic beverages, remove high alcohol drinks and cease drinking games. The intervention utilises a three-tiered accreditation framework designed to motivate intervention implementation. Football clubs in the control group will receive printed materials on topics unrelated to alcohol. Outcome data will be collected pre- and postintervention through cross-sectional telephone surveys of club members. The primary outcome measure will be alcohol consumption by club members at the club, assessed using a graduated frequency index and a seven day diary. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by The University of Newcastle Human Research Ethics Committee (reference: H-2008-0432). Study findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12609000224224.

Project description:Chronic headache (headache ? 15 days/month for at least 3 months) affects 2-5% of the general population. Medication overuse contributes to the problem. Medication-overuse headache (MOH) can be identified by using the Severity of Dependence Scale (SDS). A "brief intervention" scheme (BI) has previously been used for detoxification from drug and alcohol overuse in other settings. Short, unstructured, individualised simple information may also be enough to detoxify a large portion of those with MOH. We have adapted the structured (BI) scheme to be used for MOH in primary care.A double-blinded cluster randomised parallel controlled trial (RCT) of BI vs. business as usual. Intervention will be performed in primary care by GPs trained in BI. Patients with MOH will be identified through a simple screening questionnaire sent to patients on the GPs lists. The BI method involves an approach for identifying patients with high likelihood of MOH using simple questions about headache frequency and the SDS score. Feedback is given to the individual patient on his/her score and consequences this might have regarding the individual risk of medication overuse contributing to their headache. Finally, advice is given regarding measures to be taken, how the patient should proceed and the possible gains for the patient. The participating patients complete a headache diary and receive a clinical interview and neurological examination by a GP experienced in headache diagnostics three months after the intervention. Primary outcomes are number of headache days and number of medication days per month at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include proportions with 25 and 50% improvement at 3 months and maintenance of improvement and quality of life after 12 months.There is a need for evidence-based and cost-effective strategies for treatment of MOH but so far no consensus has been reached regarding an optimal medication withdrawal method. To our knowledge this is the first RCT of structured non-pharmacological MOH treatment in primary care. Results may hold the potential of offering an instrument for treating MOH patients in the general population by GPs.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:As opioid analgesic consumption has grown, so have opioid use disorder and opioid-related overdoses. Reducing the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed for acute non-cancer pain can potentially reduce risks to the individual receiving the prescription and to others who might unintentionally or intentionally consume any leftover tablets. Reducing the default dispense quantity for new opioid analgesic prescriptions in the electronic health record (EHR) is a promising intervention to reduce prescribing. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This study is a prospective cluster randomised controlled trial with two parallel arms. Primary care sites (n=32) and emergency departments (n=4) will be randomised in matched pairs to either a modification of the EHR so that new opioid analgesic prescriptions default to a dispense quantity of 10 tablets (intervention) or to no EHR change (control). The dispense quantity will remain fully modifiable by providers in both arms. From 6 months preintervention to 18 months postintervention, patient-level data will be analysed (ie, the patient is the unit of inference). Patient eligibility criteria are: (A) received a new opioid analgesic prescription, defined as no other opioid analgesic prescription in the prior 6 months; (B) age ?18 years; and (C) no cancer diagnosis within 1?year prior to the new opioid analgesic prescription. The primary outcome will be the quantity of opioid analgesics prescribed in the initial prescription. Secondary outcomes will include opioid analgesic reorders and health service utilisation within 30 days after the initial prescription. Outcomes will be compared between study arms using a difference-in-differences analysis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This study has been approved by the Montefiore Medical Center/Albert Einstein College of Medicine Institutional Review Board with a waiver of informed consent (2016-6036) and is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03003832, 6 December 2016). Findings will be disseminated through publication, conferences and meetings with health system leaders. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03003832; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

Intervention to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care, study protocol of a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial: the BENZORED study.

Publications

Intervention to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care, study protocol of a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial: the BENZORED study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets