Dataset Information

Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Goal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.

Objective

To assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.

Design and setting

Cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.

Participants

Adults with two or more long term health conditions and at risk of unplanned hospital admission.

Interventions

General 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 measures

Health-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.

Results

Fifty-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.

Conclusions

This goal-setting intervention was feasible to deliver in general practice. A larger, definitive study is needed to test its effectiveness.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN13248305; Post-results.

SUBMITTER: Ford JA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6561432 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Ford John A JA Lenaghan Elizabeth E Salter Charlotte C Turner David D Shiner Alice A Clark Allan B AB Murdoch Jamie J Green Carole C James Sarah S Koopmans Imogen I Lipp Alistair A Moseley Annie A Wade Tom T Winterburn Sandra S Steel Nicholas N

BMJ open 20190603 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Goal-setting is recommended for patients with multimorbidity, but there is little evidence to support its use in general practice.<h4>Objective</h4>To assess the feasibility of goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity, before undertaking a definitive trial.<h4>Design and setting</h4>Cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial of goal-setting compared with control in six general practices.<h4>Participants</h4>Adults with two or more long term health conditions and at ...[more]

PMID: 31164362

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionHealth information systems represent an opportunity to improve the care provided to people with multimorbidity. There is a pressing need to assess their impact on clinical outcomes to validate this intervention. Our study will determine whether using a digital platform (Multimorbidity Management Health Information System, METHIS) to manage multimorbidity improves health-related quality of life (HR-QoL).Methods and analysisA superiority, cluster randomised trial will be conducted at primary healthcare practices (1:1 allocation ratio). All public practices in the Lisbon and Tagus Valley (LVT) Region, Portugal, not involved in a previous pilot trial, will be eligible. At the participant level, eligible patients will be people with complex multimorbidity, aged 50 years or older, with access to an internet connection and a communication technology device. Participants who cannot sign/read/write and who do not have access to an email account will not be included in the study. The intervention combines a training programme and a customised information system (METHIS). Both are designed to help clinicians adopt a goal-oriented care model approach and to encourage patients and carers to play a more active role in autonomous healthcare. The primary outcome is HR-QoL, measured at 12 months with the physical component scale of the 12-item Short Form questionnaire (SF-12). Secondary outcomes will also be measured at 12 months and include mental health (mental component Scale SF-12, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale). We will also assess serious adverse events during the trial, including hospitalisation and emergency services. Finally, at 18 months, we will ask the general practitioners for any potentially missed diagnoses.Ethics and disseminationThe Research and Ethics Committee (LVT Region) approved the trial protocol. Clinicians and patients will sign an informed consent. A data management officer will handle all data, and the publication of several scientific papers and presentations at relevant conferences/workshops is envisaged.Trial registration numberNCT05593835.

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, defined as the co-existence of two or more chronic conditions, presents significant challenges to patients, healthcare providers and health systems. Despite this, there is ongoing uncertainty about the most effective ways to manage patients with multimorbidity. This review updated and narrowed the focus of a previous Cochrane review and aimed to determine the effectiveness of interventions designed to improve outcomes in people with multimorbidity in primary care and community settings, compared to usual care.MethodsWe searched eight databases and two trials registers up to 9 September 2019. Two review authors independently screened potentially eligible titles and selected studies, extracted data, evaluated study quality and judged the certainty of the evidence (GRADE). Interventions were grouped by their predominant focus into care-coordination/self-management support, self-management support and medicines management. Main outcomes were health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and mental health. Meta-analyses were conducted, where possible, but the synthesis was predominantly narrative.ResultsWe included 16 RCTs with 4753 participants, the majority being older adults with at least three conditions. There were eight care-coordination/self-management support studies, four self-management support studies and four medicines management studies. There was little or no evidence of an effect on primary outcomes of HRQoL (MD 0.03, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.07, I2 = 39%) and mental health or on secondary outcomes with a small number of studies reporting that care coordination may improve patient experience of care and self-management support may improve patient health behaviours. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was graded as low due to significant variation in study participants and interventions.ConclusionsThere are remaining uncertainties about the effectiveness of interventions for people with multimorbidity, despite the growing number of RCTs conducted in this area. Our findings suggest that future research should consider patient experience of care, optimising medicines management and targeted patient health behaviours such as exercise.

Project description:ObjectivesDiabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) uptake is suboptimal in many countries with limited evidence available on interventions to enhance DRS uptake in primary care. We investigated the feasibility and preliminary effects of an intervention to improve uptake of Ireland's national DRS programme, Diabetic RetinaScreen, among patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.Design/settingWe conducted a cluster randomised pilot trial, embedded process evaluation and cost analysis in general practice, July 2019 to January 2020.ParticipantsEight practices participated in the trial. For the process evaluation, surveys were conducted with 25 staff at intervention practices. Interviews were conducted with nine staff at intervention practices, and 10 patients who received the intervention.InterventionsThe intervention comprised practice reimbursement, an audit of attendance, electronic prompts targeting professionals, General Practice-endorsed patient reminders and a patient information leaflet. Practices were randomly allocated to intervention (n=4) or wait-list control (n=4) (usual care).OutcomesStaff and patient interviews explored their perspectives on the intervention. Patient registration and attendance, including intention to attend, were measured at baseline and 6 months. Microcosting was used to estimate intervention delivery cost.ResultsThe process evaluation identified that enablers of feasibility included practice culture and capacity to protect time, systems to organise care, and staff skills, and workarounds to improve intervention 'fit'. At 6 months, 22/71 (31%) of baseline non-attenders in intervention practices subsequently attended screening compared with 15/87 (17%) in control practices. The total delivery cost across intervention practices (patients=363) was €2509, averaging €627 per practice and €6.91 per audited patient. Continuation criteria supported proceeding to a definitive trial.ConclusionsThe Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance intervention is feasible in primary care; however, consideration should be given to how best to facilitate local tailoring. A definitive trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness is required with preliminary results suggesting a positive effect on uptake.Trial registration numberNCT03901898.

Project description:ObjectivesRecent 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.DesignAnalysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff.SettingPrimary care in the UK.ParticipantsPatients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff.Primary and secondary outcome measuresUsing 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.ResultsParticipating 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.ConclusionThis 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 numberISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

Project description:BackgroundMany primary care patients with raised blood pressure or depression drink potentially hazardous levels of alcohol. Brief interventions (BI) to reduce alcohol consumption may improve comorbid conditions and reduce the risk of future alcohol problems. However, research has not established their effectiveness in this patient population. This study aimed to establish the feasibility of definitive trials of BI to reduce excessive drinking in primary care patients with hypertension or mild to moderate depression.MethodsThirteen general practices in North East England were randomized to the intervention or control arm of one of two parallel pilot trials. Adult patients drinking excessively and diagnosed with hypertension or mild-to-moderate depression received the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) by postal survey. Consenting respondents scoring more than 7 on AUDIT (score range 0 to 40) received brief alcohol consumption advice plus an information leaflet (intervention) or an information leaflet alone (control) with follow-up at six months. Measurements included the numbers of patients eligible, recruited, and retained, and the AUDIT score and systolic/diastolic blood pressure of each patient or the nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score. Acceptability was assessed via practitioner feedback and patient willingness to be screened, recruited, and retained at follow-up.ResultsIn the hypertension trial, 1709 of 33,813 adult patients (5.1%) were eligible and were surveyed. Among the eligible patients, 468 (27.4%) returned questionnaires; 166 (9.6% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 83 (4.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (50.0% of positive screens). Sixty-seven cases (80.7% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months. In the depression trial, 1,044 of 73,146 adult patients (1.4%) were eligible and surveyed. Among these eligible patients, 215 (20.6%) responded; 104 (10.0% of those surveyed) screened positively on AUDIT and 29 (2.8% of those surveyed) were recruited (27.9% of positive screens). Nineteen cases (65.5% of recruited patients) completed follow-up at six months.ConclusionsRecruitment and retention rates were higher in the hypertension trial than in the depression trial. A full brief intervention trial appears feasible for primary care patients with hypertension who drink excessively. High AUDIT scores in the depression trial suggest the importance of alcohol intervention in this group. However, future work may require alternative screening and measurement procedures.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN89156543; registered 21 October 2013.

Project description:BackgroundSupporting self-management behaviours is recommended guidance for people with asthma. Preliminary work suggests that a brief, intensive, patient-centred intervention may be successful in supporting people with asthma to participate in life roles and activities they value. We seek to assess the feasibility of undertaking a cluster-randomised controlled trial (cRCT) of a brief, goal-setting intervention delivered in the context of an asthma review consultation.Methods/designA two armed, single-blinded, multi-centre, cluster-randomised controlled feasibility trial will be conducted in UK primary care. Randomisation will take place at the practice level. We aim to recruit a total of 80 primary care patients with active asthma from at least eight practices across two health boards in Scotland (10 patients per practice resulting in ~40 in each arm). Patients in the intervention arm will be asked to complete a novel goal-setting tool immediately prior to an asthma review consultation. This will be used to underpin a focussed discussion about their goals during the asthma review. A tailored management plan will then be negotiated to facilitate achieving their prioritised goals. Patients in the control arm will receive a usual care guideline-based review of asthma. Data on quality of life, asthma control and patient confidence will be collected from both arms at baseline and 3 and 6 months post-intervention. Data on health services resource use will be collected from all patient records 6 months pre- and post-intervention. Semi-structured interviews will be carried out with healthcare staff and a purposive sample of patients to elicit their views and experiences of the trial. The outcomes of interest in this feasibility trial are the ability to recruit patients and healthcare staff, the optimal method of delivering the intervention within routine clinical practice, and acceptability and perceived utility of the intervention among patients and staff.Trial registrationISRCTN18912042.

Dataset Information

Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Introduction

Objective

Design and setting

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Can goal-setting for patients with multimorbidity improve outcomes in primary care? Cluster randomised feasibility trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets