Dataset Information

A technology-assisted health coaching intervention vs. enhanced usual care for Primary Care-Based Obesity Treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: Background:Goals for Eating and Moving (GEM) is a technology-assisted health coaching intervention to improve weight management in primary care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that we designed through prior rigorous formative studies. GEM is integrated within the patient-centered medical home and utilizes student health coach volunteers to counsel patients and encourage participation in VHA's intensive weight management program, MOVE!. The primary aim of this study was to determine the feasibility and acceptability of GEM when compared to Enhanced Usual Care (EUC). Our secondary aim was to test the impact of GEM on weight, diet and physical activity when compared to EUC. Methods:Veterans with a Body Mass Index ?30?kg/m2 or 25-29.9?kg/m2 with comorbidities (n?=?45) were recruited in two phases and randomized to GEM (n?=?22) or EUC (n?=?23). We collected process measures (e.g. number of coaching calls completed, number and types of lifestyle goals, counseling documentation) and qualitative feedback on quality of counseling and acceptability of call duration. We also measured weight and behavioral outcomes. Results:GEM participants reported receiving high quality counseling from health coaches and that call duration and frequency were acceptable. They received 5.9 (SD?=?3.7) of 12 coaching calls on average, and number of coaching calls completed was associated with greater weight loss at 6-months in GEM participants (Spearman Coefficient?=?0.71, p?

SUBMITTER: Viglione C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6360675 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A technology-assisted health coaching intervention vs. enhanced usual care for Primary Care-Based Obesity Treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Viglione Clare C Bouwman Dylaney D Rahman Nadera N Fang Yixin Y Beasley Jeannette M JM Sherman Scott S Pi-Sunyer Xavier X Wylie-Rosett Judith J Tenner Craig C Jay Melanie M

BMC obesity 20190204

<h4>Background</h4>Goals for Eating and Moving (GEM) is a technology-assisted health coaching intervention to improve weight management in primary care at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) that we designed through prior rigorous formative studies. GEM is integrated within the patient-centered medical home and utilizes student health coach volunteers to counsel patients and encourage participation in VHA's intensive weight management program, MOVE!. The primary aim of this study was to det ...[more]

PMID: 30766686

Similar Datasets

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.

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.

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.

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.

Dataset Information

A technology-assisted health coaching intervention vs. enhanced usual care for Primary Care-Based Obesity Treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Publications

A technology-assisted health coaching intervention vs. enhanced usual care for Primary Care-Based Obesity Treatment: a randomized controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets