A technology-assisted health coaching intervention vs. enhanced usual care for Primary Care-Based Obesity Treatment: a randomized controlled trial.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Viglione C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6360675 | biostudies-literature | 2019
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of a 2-year motivational interviewing (MI) intervention versus usual primary care.MethodsA national trial was implemented in the Pediatric Research in Office Settings (PROS) network of the American Academy of Pediatrics to evaluate MI versus usual care for children (2-8 years old; baseline BMI 85th-97th percentiles). Health care use, food costs, provider fees, and training costs were assessed, and sensitivity analyses were conducted. Primary outcome was the ICER, calculated as cost per unit change in BMI percentile for intervention versus usual care.ResultsAt 2 years, 72% of enrolled parent/child dyads were retained; 312 children were included in the analysis. Mean BMI percentile point change was -4.9 and -1.8 for the intervention and control, respectively, yielding an incremental reduction of 3.1 BMI percentile points (95% CI: 1.2-5.0). The intervention cost $1051 per dyad ($658 for training DVD development). Incorporating health care and non-health care costs, the intervention ICER was $363 (range from sensitivity analyses: cost saving, $3159) per BMI percentile point decrease per participant over 2 years.ConclusionsTraining pediatricians, nurse practitioners, and registered dietitians to deliver MI-based interventions for childhood obesity in primary care is clinically effective and acceptably cost-effective. Future work should explore this approach in broader dissemination.
| S-EPMC9828545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionAmong US veterans, more than 78% have a body mass index (BMI) in the overweight (≥25 kg/m2) or obese range (≥30 kg/m2). Clinical guidelines recommend multicomponent lifestyle programmes to promote modest, clinically significant body mass (BM) loss. Primary care providers (PCPs) often lack time to counsel and refer patients to intensive programmes (≥6 sessions over 3 months). Using peer coaches to deliver obesity counselling in primary care may increase patient motivation, promote behavioural change and address the specific needs of veterans. We describe the rationale and design of a cluster-randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of the Peer-Assisted Lifestyle (PAL) intervention compared with enhanced usual care (EUC) to improve BM loss, clinical and behavioural outcomes (aim 1); identify BM-loss predictors (aim 2); and increase PCP counselling (aim 3).Methods and analysisWe are recruiting 461 veterans aged 18-69 years with obesity or overweight with an obesity-associated condition under the care of a PCP at the Brooklyn campus of the Veterans Affairs NY Harbor Healthcare System. To deliver counselling, PAL uses in-person and telephone-based peer support, a tablet-delivered goal-setting tool and PCP training. Patients in the EUC arm receive non-tailored healthy living handouts. In-person data collection occurs at baseline, month 6 and month 12 for patients in both arms. Repeated measures modelling based on mixed models will compare mean BM loss (primary outcome) between study arms.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the Institutional Review Board and the Research and Development Committee at the VA NY Harbor Health Systems (#01607). We will disseminate the results via peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and meetings with stakeholders.Trial registration numberNCT03163264; Pre-results.
| S-EPMC7919589 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8832170 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening for and treating obesity. However, there are many barriers to successfully treating obesity in primary care (PC). Technology-assisted weight loss interventions offer novel ways of improving treatment, but trials are overwhelmingly conducted outside of PC and may not translate well into this setting. We conducted a systematic review of technology-assisted weight loss interventions specifically tested in PC settings.MethodsWe searched the literature from January 2000 to March 2014.Inclusion criteria(1) Randomized controlled trial; (2) trials that utilized the Internet, personal computer, and/or mobile device; and (3) occurred in an ambulatory PC setting. We applied the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) and Delphi criteria to assess bias and the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary (PRECIS) criteria to assess pragmatism (whether trials occurred in the real world versus under ideal circumstances). Given heterogeneity, results were not pooled quantitatively.ResultsSixteen trials met inclusion criteria. Twelve (75 %) interventions achieved weight loss (range: 0.08 kg - 5.4 kg) compared to controls, while 5-45 % of patients lost at least 5 % of baseline weight. Trial duration and attrition ranged from 3-36 months and 6-80 %, respectively. Ten (63 %) studies reported results after at least 1 year of follow-up. Interventions used various forms of personnel, technology modalities, and behavior change elements; trials most frequently utilized medical doctors (MDs) (44 %), web-based applications (63 %), and self-monitoring (81 %), respectively. Interventions that included clinician-guiding software or feedback from personnel appeared to promote more weight loss than fully automated interventions. Only two (13 %) studies used publically available technologies. Many studies had fair pragmatism scores (mean: 2.8/4), despite occurring in primary care.DiscussionCompared to usual care, technology-assisted interventions in the PC setting help patients achieve weight loss, offering evidence-based options to PC providers. However, best practices remain undetermined. Despite occurring in PC, studies often fall short in utilizing pragmatic methodology and rarely provide publically available technology. Longitudinal, pragmatic, interdisciplinary, and open-source interventions are needed.
| S-EPMC4284284 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIndividuals with dementia or mild cognitive impairment frequently have multiple chronic conditions (defined as ≥2 chronic medical conditions) and take multiple medications, increasing their risk for adverse outcomes. Deprescribing (reducing or stopping medications for which potential harms outweigh potential benefits) may decrease their risk of adverse outcomes.ObjectiveTo examine the effectiveness of increasing patient and clinician awareness about the potential to deprescribe unnecessary or risky medications among patients with dementia or mild cognitive impairment.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic, patient-centered, 12-month cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted from April 1, 2019, to March 31, 2020, at 18 primary care clinics in a not-for-profit integrated health care delivery system. The study included 3012 adults aged 65 years or older with dementia or mild cognitive impairment who had 1 or more additional chronic medical conditions and were taking 5 or more long-term medications.InterventionsAn educational brochure and a questionnaire on attitudes toward deprescribing were mailed to patients prior to a primary care visit, clinicians were notified about the mailing, and deprescribing tip sheets were distributed to clinicians at monthly clinic meetings.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of prescribed long-term medications and the percentage of individuals prescribed 1 or more potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs). Analysis was performed on an intention-to-treat basis.ResultsThis study comprised 1433 individuals (806 women [56.2%]; mean [SD] age, 80.1 [7.2] years) in 9 intervention clinics and 1579 individuals (874 women [55.4%]; mean [SD] age, 79.9 [7.5] years) in 9 control clinics who met the eligibility criteria. At baseline, both groups were prescribed a similar mean (SD) number of long-term medications (7.0 [2.1] in the intervention group and 7.0 [2.2] in the control group), and a similar proportion of individuals in both groups were taking 1 or more PIMs (437 of 1433 individuals [30.5%] in the intervention group and 467 of 1579 individuals [29.6%] in the control group). At 6 months, the adjusted mean number of long-term medications was similar in the intervention and control groups (6.4 [95% CI, 6.3-6.5] vs 6.5 [95% CI, 6.4-6.6]; P = .14). The estimated percentages of patients in the intervention and control groups taking 1 or more PIMs were similar (17.8% [95% CI, 15.4%-20.5%] vs 20.9% [95% CI, 18.4%-23.6%]; P = .08). In preplanned subgroup analyses, adjusted differences between the intervention and control groups were -0.16 (95% CI, -0.34 to 0.01) for individuals prescribed 7 or more long-term medications at baseline (n = 1434) and -0.03 (95% CI, -0.20 to 0.13) for those prescribed 5 to 6 medications (n = 1578) (P = .28 for interaction; P = .19 for subgroup interaction for PIMs).Conclusions and relevanceThis large-scale educational deprescribing intervention for older adults with cognitive impairment taking 5 or more long-term medications and their primary care clinicians demonstrated small effect sizes and did not significantly reduce the number of long-term medications and PIMs. Such interventions should target older adults taking relatively more medications.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03984396.
| S-EPMC8961395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:United States pediatric guidelines recommend that childhood obesity counseling be conducted in the primary care setting. Primary care-based interventions can be effective in improving health behaviors, but also costly. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cost of a primary care-based obesity prevention intervention targeting children between the ages of two and six years who are at elevated risk for obesity, measured against usual care.High Five for Kids was a cluster-randomized controlled clinical trial that aimed to modify children's nutrition and TV viewing habits through a motivational interviewing intervention. We assessed visit-related costs from a societal perspective, including provider-incurred direct medical costs, provider-incurred equipment costs, parent time costs and parent out-of-pocket costs, in 2011 dollars for the intervention (n = 253) and usual care (n =192) groups. We conducted a net cost analysis using both societal and health plan costing perspectives and conducted one-way sensitivity and uncertainty analyses on results.The total costs for the intervention group and usual care groups in the first year of the intervention were $65,643 (95% CI [$64,522, $66,842]) and $12,192 (95% CI [$11,393, $13,174]). The mean costs for the intervention and usual care groups were $259 (95% CI [$255, $264]) and $63 (95% CI [$59, $69]) per child, respectively, for a incremental difference of $196 (95% CI [$191, $202]) per child. Children in the intervention group attended a mean of 2.4 of a possible 4 in-person visits and received 0.45 of a possible 2 counseling phone calls. Provider-incurred costs were the primary driver of cost estimates in sensitivity analyses.High Five for Kids was a resource-intensive intervention. Further studies are needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to other pediatric obesity interventions.
| S-EPMC3912346 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSurgical coaching programmes are a means of improving surgeon performance. Embedded audiovisual technology has the potential to further enhance participant benefit and scalability of coaching. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate how audiovisual technology has augmented coaching in the acute-care hospital setting and to characterize its impact on outcomes.MethodsA systematic review was conducted, searching PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo, and CINAHL databases using PRISMA. Eligible studies described a coaching programme that utilized audiovisual technology, involved at least one coach-coachee interaction, and included healthcare professionals from the acute-care hospital environment. The risk of bias 2 tool and grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) framework were used to evaluate studies. Synthesis without meta-analysis was performed, creating harvest plots of three coaching outcomes: technical skills, self-assessment/feedback, and non-technical skills.ResultsOf 10 458 abstracts screened, 135 full texts were reviewed, and 21 studies identified for inclusion. Seventeen studies were conducted within surgical specialties and six classes of audiovisual technology were utilized. An overall positive direction of effect was demonstrated for studies measuring improvement of either technical skills or non-technical skills. Direction of effect for self-assessment/feedback was weakly positive.ConclusionAudiovisual technology has been used successfully in coaching programmes within acute-care hospital settings to facilitate or assess coaching, with a positive impact on outcome measures. Future studies may address the additive benefits of video over in-person observation and enhance the certainty of evidence that coaching impacts on surgeon performance, surgeon well-being, and patient outcomes.
| S-EPMC10551776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to assess and explore perceived sustainability and challenges of the intervention among Health Care Providers (HCPs) who were involved.MethodsThe study applied mixed-method embedded design to analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative approach was used to evaluate sustainability perception from 20 intervention clinics via self-reported assessment form whereas qualitative data were obtained through in-depth interview (IDI) and focus group discussions (FGDs) 14 health care professionals participated in IDI session and were either care coordinators, liaison officers (LOs)/clinic managers, or medical officers-in-charge for the clinic's intervention. Nine FGDs conducted comprised 58 HCPs from various categories.ResultsHCPs from all the 20 clinics involved responded to each listed Enhanced Primary Healthcare (EnPHC) intervention components as being implemented but the perceived sustainability of these implementation varies between them. Quantitative feedback showed sustainable interventions included risk stratification, non-communicable disease (NCD) screening form, referral within clinics and hospitals, family health team (FHT), MTAC services and mechanisms and medical adherence status. Qualitative feedback highlighted implementation of each intervention components comes with its challenges, and most of it are related to inadequate resources and facilities in clinic. HCPs made initiatives to adapt based on clinical setting to implement the interventions at best level possible, whereby this seems to be one of the core values for sustainability.ConclusionOverall perceptions among HCPs on sustainability of EnPHC interventions are highly influenced by current experiences with existing resources. Components perceived to have inadequate resources are seen as a challenge to sustain. It's crucial for stakeholders to understand implications affecting implementation process if concerns raised are not addressed and allocation of needed resources to ensure overall successfulness and long term sustainability.
| S-EPMC8114286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Health coaching is a new intervention offering a one-on-one focused self-management support program. This study implemented a health coaching pilot in primary care clinics in Eastern Ontario, Canada to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of integrating health coaching into primary care for patients who were either at risk for or diagnosed with diabetes. METHODS: We implemented health coaching in three primary care practices. Patients with diabetes were offered six months of support from their health coach, including an initial face-to-face meeting and follow-up by email, telephone, or face-to-face according to patient preference. Feasibility was assessed through provider focus groups and qualitative data analysis methods. RESULTS: All three sites were able to implement the program. A number of themes emerged from the focus groups, including the importance of physician buy-in, wide variation in understanding and implementing of the health coach role, the significant impact of different systems of team communication, and the significant effect of organizational structure and patient readiness on Health coaches' capacity to perform their role. CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to implement health coaching as an integrated program within small primary care clinics in Canada without adding additional resources into the daily practice. Practices should review their organizational and communication processes to ensure optimal support for health coaches if considering implementing this intervention.
| S-EPMC4021256 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceMany patients with chronic heart failure experience reduced health status despite receiving conventional therapy.ObjectiveTo determine whether a symptom and psychosocial collaborative care intervention improves heart failure-specific health status, depression, and symptom burden in patients with heart failure.Design, setting, and participantsA single-blind, 2-arm, multisite randomized clinical trial was conducted at Veterans Affairs, academic, and safety-net health systems in Colorado among outpatients with symptomatic heart failure and reduced health status recruited between August 2012 and April 2015. Data from all participants were included regardless of level of participation, using an intent-to-treat approach.InterventionsPatients were randomized 1:1 to receive the Collaborative Care to Alleviate Symptoms and Adjust to Illness (CASA) intervention or usual care. The CASA intervention included collaborative symptom care provided by a nurse and psychosocial care provided by a social worker, both of whom worked with the patients' primary care clinicians and were supervised by a study primary care clinician, cardiologist, and palliative care physician.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was patient-reported heart failure-specific health status, measured by difference in change scores on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (range, 0-100) at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included depression (measured by the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (measured by the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire), overall symptom distress (measured by the General Symptom Distress Scale), specific symptoms (pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath), number of hospitalizations, and mortality.ResultsOf 314 patients randomized (157 to intervention arm and 157 to control arm), there were 67 women and 247 men, mean (SD) age was 65.5 (11.4) years, and 178 (56.7%) had reduced ejection fraction. At 6 months, the mean Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score improved 5.5 points in the intervention arm and 2.9 points in the control arm (difference, 2.6; 95% CI, -1.3 to 6.6; P = .19). Among secondary outcomes, depressive symptoms and fatigue improved at 6 months with CASA (effect size of -0.29 [95% CI, -0.53 to -0.04] for depressive symptoms and -0.30 [95% CI, -0.55 to -0.06] for fatigue; P = .02 for both). There were no significant changes in overall symptom distress, pain, shortness of breath, or number of hospitalizations. Mortality at 12 months was similar in both arms (10 patients died receiving CASA, and 13 patients died receiving usual care; P = .52).Conclusions and relevanceThis multisite randomized clinical trial of the CASA intervention did not demonstrate improved heart failure-specific health status. Secondary outcomes of depression and fatigue, both difficult symptoms to treat in heart failure, improved.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739686.
| S-EPMC5876807 | biostudies-literature