Dataset Information

Online Care Versus In-Person Care for Improving Quality of Life in Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Equivalency Trial.

ABSTRACT: This 12-month, pragmatic, randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated whether an online, collaborative connected-health model results in equivalent improvements in quality of life compared with in-person care for psoriasis. Overall, 296 adults with physician-diagnosed psoriasis from ambulatory clinics were randomly assigned to either online or in-person care; all were analyzed for outcomes. In the online group, patients and primary care providers sought dermatologists' care directly and asynchronously online. The in-person group sought care face to face. Interventions did not allow blinding of participants; investigators were blinded during analysis. Across 12 months, for the online group, the mean ± standard deviation decline in Skindex-16 from baseline across follow-up visits was 9.02 ± 20.67 compared with 10.55 ± 23.50 for the in-person group. The difference in Skindex-16 between the two groups was -0.83 (95% confidence interval = -5.18 to 3.51), and this was within the equivalence margin (±7.0). For the online group, the mean ± standard deviation decline in Dermatology Life Quality Index was 1.64 ± 4.34 compared with 1.18 ± 4.77 for the in-person group. The difference in Dermatology Life Quality Index between the two groups was -0.45 (95% confidence interval = -1.29 to 0.38) and was within the equivalence margin (±2.5). In conclusion, the online model was as effective as in-person care in improving quality of life among psoriasis patients. This study was funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute and is registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02358135).

SUBMITTER: Armstrong AW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6599714 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Online Care Versus In-Person Care for Improving Quality of Life in Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Equivalency Trial.

Armstrong April W AW Ford Adam R AR Chambers Cindy J CJ Maverakis Emanual E Dunnick Cory A CA Chren Mary-Margaret MM Gelfand Joel M JM Gibbons Caitlin M CM Gibbons Brittany M BM Lane Christianne J CJ

The Journal of investigative dermatology 20181124 5

This 12-month, pragmatic, randomized controlled equivalency trial evaluated whether an online, collaborative connected-health model results in equivalent improvements in quality of life compared with in-person care for psoriasis. Overall, 296 adults with physician-diagnosed psoriasis from ambulatory clinics were randomly assigned to either online or in-person care; all were analyzed for outcomes. In the online group, patients and primary care providers sought dermatologists' care directly and as ...[more]

PMID: 30481495

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceInnovative, online models of specialty-care delivery are critical to improving patient access and outcomes.ObjectiveTo determine whether an online, collaborative connected-health model results in equivalent clinical improvements in psoriasis compared with in-person care.Design, setting, and participantsThe Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute Psoriasis Teledermatology Trial is a 12-month, pragmatic, randomized clinical equivalency trial to evaluate the effect of an online model for psoriasis compared with in-person care. Participant recruitment and study visits took place at multicenter ambulatory clinics from February 2, 2015, to August 18, 2017. Participants were adults with psoriasis in Northern California, Southern California, and Colorado. The eligibility criteria were an age of 18 years or older, having physician-diagnosed psoriasis, access to the internet and a digital camera or mobile phone with a camera, and having a primary care physician. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis.InterventionsParticipants were randomized 1:1 to receive online or in-person care (148 randomized to online care and 148 randomized to in-person care). The online model enabled patients and primary care physicians to access dermatologists online asynchronously. The dermatologists provided assessments, recommendations, education, and prescriptions online. The in-person group sought care in person. The frequency of online or in-person visits was determined by medical necessity. All participants were exposed to their respective interventions for 12 months.Main outcomes and measuresThe prespecified primary outcome was the difference in improvement in the self-administered Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) score between the online and in-person groups. Prespecified secondary outcomes included body surface area (BSA) affected by psoriasis and the patient global assessment score.ResultsOf the 296 randomized participants, 147 were women, 149 were men, 187 were white, and the mean (SD) age was 49 (14) years. The adjusted difference between the online and in-person groups in the mean change in the self-administered PASI score during the 12-month study period was -0.27 (95% CI, -0.85 to 0.31). The difference in the mean change in BSA affected by psoriasis between the 2 groups was -0.05% (95% CI, -1.58% to 1.48%). Between-group differences in the PASI score and BSA were within prespecified equivalence margins, which demonstrated equivalence between the 2 interventions. The difference in the mean change in the patient global assessment score between the 2 groups was -0.11 (95% CI, -0.32 to 0.10), which exceeded the equivalence margin, with the online group displaying greater improvement.Conclusions and relevanceThe online, collaborative connected-health model was as effective as in-person management in improving clinical outcomes among patients with psoriasis. Innovative telehealth delivery models that emphasize collaboration, quality, and efficiency can be transformative to improving patient-centered outcomes in chronic diseases.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02358135.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of an online health behaviour change intervention-Prevent 2nd Stroke (P2S)-at improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL) amongst stroke survivors at 6 months of follow-up.Methods and findingsA prospective, blinded-endpoint randomised controlled trial, with stroke survivors as the unit of randomisation, was conducted between March 2018 and November 2019. Adult stroke survivors between 6 and 36 months post-stroke with capacity to use the intervention (determined by a score of ≥4 on the Modified Rankin Scale) and who had access and willingness to use the internet were recruited via mail-out invitations from 1 national and 1 regional stroke registry. Participants completed baseline (n = 399) and 6-month follow-up (n = 356; 89%) outcome assessments via computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI). At baseline the sample had an average age of 66 years (SD 12), and 65% were male. Randomisation occurred at the end of the baseline survey; CATI assessors and independent statisticians were blind to group allocation. The intervention group received remote access for a 12-week period to the online-only P2S program (n = 199; n = 28 lost at follow-up). The control group were emailed and posted a list of internet addresses of generic health websites (n = 200; n = 15 lost at follow-up). The primary outcome was HRQoL as measured by the EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale (EQ-VAS; self-rated global health); the outcome was assessed for differences between treatment groups at follow-up, adjusting for baseline measures. Secondary outcomes were HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D (descriptive health state), diet quality, physical activity, alcohol consumption, smoking status, mood, physical functioning, and independent living. All outcomes included the variable 'stroke event (stroke/transient ischaemic attack/other)' as a covariate, and analysis was intention-to-treat. At 6 months, median EQ-VAS HRQoL score was significantly higher in the intervention group than the control group (85 vs 80, difference 5, 95% CI 0.79-9.21, p = 0.020). The results were robust to the assumption the data were missing at random; however, the results were not robust to the assumption that the difference in HRQoL between those with complete versus missing data was at least 3 points. Significantly higher proportions of people in the intervention group reported no problems with personal care (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.05-4.48, p = 0.0359) and usual activities (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.06-2.60, p = 0.0256) than in the control group. There were no significant differences between groups on all other secondary outcomes. The main limitation of the study is that the sample comprises mostly 'well' stroke survivors with limited to no disability.ConclusionsThe P2S online healthy lifestyle program improved stroke survivors' self-reported global ratings of HRQoL (as measured by EQ-VAS) at 6-month follow-up. Online platforms represent a promising tool to engage and support some stroke survivors.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12617001205325.

Project description:The Swiss health ministry launched a national quality program 'QualiCCare' in 2011 to improve health care for patients with COPD.The aim of this study is to determine whether participation in the COPD quality initiative ('QualiCCare') improves adherence to recommended clinical processes and shows impact on patients' COPD care and on the impact of COPD on a person's life.CAROL is a cluster-randomized controlled trial with randomization on the general practioner (GP) level. Thirty GPs will be randomly assigned to equally sized intervention group or control group.Each GP will approach consecutively and regardless of the reason for the current consultation, patients aged 45 years or older, with a smoking history of ? ten pack-years (PY). Patients with confirmed (by spirometric evaluation) COPD will be included in the study. GPs in the intervention group will receive 'QualiCCare' education, which addresses knowledge, decision-making and behavioural aspects as well as delivery of care according to COPD quality indicators and evidence-based key elements. In the control group, no educational intervention will be applied and COPD patients will be treated as usual. The study period is one year.The primary outcome measure is an aggregated score of relevant clinical processes defining elements in the care of patients with COPD: smoking cessation counseling, influenza vaccination, motivation for physical activity, appropriate pharmacotherapy, patient education and collaborative care. Given a power of 90% and a significance level alpha of 5%, 15 GPs recruiting eight patients each will be necessary in both study arms. With an assumed dropout rate of 20%, 288 patients will need to be included.It is important to develop and implement interventions that add value to COPD care considering quality and efficiency. Care pathways modifying the knowledge and behavior of physicians have the potential for improving care by transferring knowledge to clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01921556.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The incidence of head and neck cancer is increasing slightly. Head and neck cancer but also it's necessary and often successful treatment may affect general domains of health-related quality of life and provoke a variety of adverse symptoms and side effects, both during and after treatment. The objective of this study was to compare a person-centred care intervention in terms of health-related quality of life, disease-specific symptoms or problems, with traditional care as a control group for patients with head and neck cancer. METHODS:In this randomized controlled trial, person-centred-care intervention and traditional care (control) groups comprised 54 and 42 patients, respectively. Outcome measures used were: the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-C35. Both groups answered the questionnaires at baseline and after 4, 10, 18 and 52 weeks from start of treatment. The questionnaires' scores were compared between groups by using independent samples test and non-parametric test for continuous variables. For categorical data, Fisher's exact test was used. Longitudinal data were analysed using generalized linear models for normally distributed repeated measures data. RESULTS:At baseline, the intervention and control groups were comparable in terms of medical and sociodemographic variables, clinical characteristics, health-related quality of life and disease-specific symptoms or problems. At all the follow-up points, even during the worst period for the patients, the person-centred-care group consistently reported better scores than the control group. The differences were numerically but not always statistically significant. When testing longitudinal data, statistically significant results were found for head and neck cancer-specific problems, swallowing (p?=?0.014), social eating (p?=?0.048) and feeling ill (p?=?0.021). CONCLUSIONS:The results from this study suggest that adopting the person-centred-care concept practiced here could be a way to improve function and wellbeing in patients with head and neck cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION:The study was retrospectively registered in 2016-12-05 in Clinical Trials gov. "Can a Person-centred-care Intervention Improve Health-related Quality of Life in Patients With Head and Neck Cancer" registration number: NCT02982746.

Dataset Information

Online Care Versus In-Person Care for Improving Quality of Life in Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Equivalency Trial.

Publications

Online Care Versus In-Person Care for Improving Quality of Life in Psoriasis: A Randomized Controlled Equivalency Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets