Dataset Information

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

ABSTRACT: The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.

SUBMITTER: Biesecker BB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7882019 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDepression and anxiety frequently coexist with chronic musculoskeletal pain and can negatively impact patients' responses to standard orthopedic treatments. Nevertheless, mental health is not routinely addressed in the orthopedic care setting. If effective, a digital mental health intervention may be a feasible and scalable method of addressing mental health in an orthopedic setting.ObjectiveWe aimed to compare 2-month changes in mental and physical health between orthopedic patients who received a digital mental health intervention in addition to usual orthopedic care, those who received usual orthopedic care only (without a specific mental health intervention), and those who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan.MethodsIn this single-center retrospective cohort study involving ancillary analysis of a pilot feasibility study, 2-month self-reported health changes were compared between a cohort of orthopedic patients who received access to a digital mental health intervention (Wysa) and 2 convenience sample comparison cohorts (patients who received usual orthopedic care without a specific mental health intervention and patients who received in-person care with a psychologist as part of their orthopedic treatment plan). All patients were 18 years or older and reported elevated symptoms of depression or anxiety at an orthopedic clinic visit (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Depression or Anxiety score ≥55). The digital intervention was a multi-component mobile app that used chatbot technology and text-based access to human counselors to provide cognitive behavioral therapy, mindfulness training, and sleep tools, among other features, with an emphasis on behavioral activation and pain acceptance. Outcomes of interest were between-cohort differences in the 2-month longitudinal changes in PROMIS Depression and Anxiety scores (primary outcomes) and PROMIS Pain Interference and Physical Function scores (secondary outcomes).ResultsAmong 153 patients (mean age 55, SD 15 years; 128 [83.7%] female; 51 patients per cohort), patients who received the digital mental health intervention showed clinically meaningful improvements at the 2-month follow-up for all PROMIS measures (mean longitudinal improvement 2.8-3.7 points; P≤.02). After controlling for age and BMI, the improvements in PROMIS Depression, Pain Interference, and Physical Function were meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received usual orthopedic care (mean between-group difference 2.6-4.8 points; P≤.04). Improvements in PROMIS Physical Function were also meaningfully greater than longitudinal changes shown by patients who received in-person psychological counseling (mean between-group difference 2.4 points; P=.04).ConclusionsPatients who received a digital mental health intervention as part of orthopedic care reported greater 2-month mean improvements in depression, pain interference, and physical function than patients who received usual orthopedic care. They also reported a greater mean improvement in physical function and comparable improvements in depression, anxiety, and pain interference compared with orthopedic patients who received in-person psychological counseling.

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic trials evaluating complex health interventions often compare them to usual care. This comparator should resemble care as provided in everyday practice. However, usual care can differ for the same condition, between patients and practitioners, across clinical sites and over time. Heterogeneity within a usual care arm can raise methodological and ethical issues. To address these it may be necessary to standardise what usual care entails, although doing so may compromise a trial's external validity. Currently, there is no guidance detailing how researchers should decide the content of their usual care comparators. We conducted a methodology review to summarise current thinking about what should inform this decision.MethodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2022. Articles and book chapters that discussed how to identify or develop usual care comparators were included. Experts in the field were also contacted. Reference lists and forward citation searches of included articles were screened. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.ResultsOne thousand nine hundred thirty records were identified, 1611 titles and abstracts screened, 112 full texts screened, and 16 articles included in the review. Results indicated that the content of a usual care comparator should be informed by the aims of the trial, existing care practices, clinical guidelines, and characteristics of the target population. Its content should also be driven by the trial's requirements to protect participants, inform practice, and be methodologically robust, efficient, feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. When deciding the content of usual care, researchers will need to gather information about these drivers, balance tensions that might occur when responding to different trial objectives, and decide how usual care will be described and monitored in the trial.DiscussionWhen deciding the content of a usual care arm, researchers need to understand the context in which a trial will be implemented and what the trial needs to achieve to address its aim and remain ethical. This is a complex decision-making process and trade-offs might need to be made. It also requires research and engagement with stakeholders, and therefore time and funding during the trial's design phase.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42022307324.

Project description:ImportanceAnnual preventive health visits provide an opportunity to screen youths for unhealthy substance use and intervene before serious harm results.ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility and acceptability and estimate the efficacy of a primary care computer-facilitated screening and practitioner-delivered brief intervention (CSBI) system compared with usual care (UC) for youth substance use and associated risk of riding with an impaired driver.Design, setting, and participantsAn intent-to-treat pilot randomized clinical trial compared CSBI with UC among 965 youths aged 12 to 18 years at 5 pediatric primary care offices and 54 practitioners. Patients were randomized to CSBI (n = 628) or usual care (n = 243) groups within practitioner with 12 months of follow-up. Data were collected from February 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017. Data analysis was performed January 1, 2018, to March 30, 2019.InterventionsPatients self-administered a computer-facilitated substance use screening questionnaire before their annual preventive health visits. Immediately after completing the screening, they received their score and level of risk and viewed 10 pages of scientific information and true-life vignettes illustrating health risks associated with substance use. Trained practitioners received the screening results, patients' risk levels, talking points designed to prompt brief counseling, and recommended follow-up plans.Main outcomes and measuresFeasibility and acceptability were assessed using adolescents' postvisit ratings. Days of alcohol use, cannabis use, and heavy episodic drinking were assessed at baseline and 3-, 6-, 9-, and 12-month follow-ups using Timeline Followback, and riding in the past 3 months with a driver who was impaired by use of alcohol or other drugs was assessed using 2 self-report items. The primary outcome was the intervention effect among at-risk youths who reported using alcohol or other drugs in the past 12 months or riding with an impaired driver in the past 3 months at baseline. The secondary outcome was the prevention effect among those with no prior use or risk.ResultsAmong 871 youths screened, 869 completed the baseline assessment; 211 of the 869 reported alcohol or cannabis use in the past 12 months at baseline (mean [SD] age, 16.4 [1.3] years; 114 [54.1%] female; 105 [49.8%] non-Hispanic white). Of the 211 youths, 148 (70.1%) were assigned to the CSBI group and 63 (29.9%) were assigned to the UC group. Among youths in the CSBI group, 105 (70.9%) reported receiving counseling about alcohol, 122 (82.4%) reported receiving counseling about cannabis, and 129 (87.2%) reported receiving counseling about not riding with an impaired driver. Adjusted hazard ratios for time to first postvisit use of alcohol or other drugs for CSBI vs UC were as follows: alcohol use, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.47-1.02); heavy episodic drinking, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.40-1.10); and cannabis use, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.41-0.94). At 12-month follow-ups among 99 youths who reported having ridden in the past 3 months at baseline with an impaired driver (64 in the CSBI group; 35 in the UC group), adjusted relative risk ratio of riding in the past 3 months with an impaired driver for CSBI vs UC groups was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.37-0.91). No intervention effect was observed among youths who reported no prior use of alcohol or other drugs (n = 658) or not having ridden with an impaired driver (n = 769) at baseline.Conclusions and relevanceThe CSBI system is a feasible and acceptable option for screening youths in primary care practice for use of alcohol and other drugs and for risk of riding with an impaired driver, and the estimated efficacy in this sample warrants further testing in larger samples.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00227877.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of peri-abortion contraceptive counseling interventions.MethodsWe performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the effect of different types of peri-abortion contraceptive counseling interventions and were published as original papers in scientific journals. The literature search was performed in June 2021 in PubMed, Central Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), Scopus, and Google Scholar; without restrictions in language or publication date. Two independent authors identified studies that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria and extracted the data. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and evidence certainty was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Whenever possible, meta-analyses were performed. The protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020187354).ResultsEleven RCTs were eligible for inclusion (published from 2004 to 2017), from which nine compared enhanced versus standard counseling. Pooled estimates showed that, compared to standard counseling, enhanced counseling was associated with a higher incidence of effective contraceptive use (>3 months) (relative risk [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.16), although no significant difference was found in the incidence of long-acting reversible contraceptive use (RR, 1.25; 95% CI, 0.68-2.29), contraceptive uptake (RR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.98-1.15), and obstetric event occurrence (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.57-1.47). Certainty of evidence was very low for all outcomes. In addition, two studies compared contraceptive counseling provided by physicians versus that provided by non-physicians, which did not show significant differences.ConclusionsEnhanced contraceptive counseling may favor effective contraceptive use but may not affect the rate of obstetric event occurrence. Also, the studies did not find a difference in the effects of counseling interventions given by different providers. Since evidence certainty was very low, future well-designed RCTs are needed to make informed decisions.RegistrationThe study protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020187354).

Project description:BackgroundGoogle Trends is a novel, freely accessible tool that allows users to interact with Internet search data, which may provide deep insights into population behavior and health-related phenomena. However, there is limited knowledge about its potential uses and limitations. We therefore systematically reviewed health care literature using Google Trends to classify articles by topic and study aim; evaluate the methodology and validation of the tool; and address limitations for its use in research.Methods and findingsPRISMA guidelines were followed. Two independent reviewers systematically identified studies utilizing Google Trends for health care research from MEDLINE and PubMed. Seventy studies met our inclusion criteria. Google Trends publications increased seven-fold from 2009 to 2013. Studies were classified into four topic domains: infectious disease (27% of articles), mental health and substance use (24%), other non-communicable diseases (16%), and general population behavior (33%). By use, 27% of articles utilized Google Trends for casual inference, 39% for description, and 34% for surveillance. Among surveillance studies, 92% were validated against a reference standard data source, and 80% of studies using correlation had a correlation statistic ≥0.70. Overall, 67% of articles provided a rationale for their search input. However, only 7% of articles were reproducible based on complete documentation of search strategy. We present a checklist to facilitate appropriate methodological documentation for future studies. A limitation of the study is the challenge of classifying heterogeneous studies utilizing a novel data source.ConclusionGoogle Trends is being used to study health phenomena in a variety of topic domains in myriad ways. However, poor documentation of methods precludes the reproducibility of the findings. Such documentation would enable other researchers to determine the consistency of results provided by Google Trends for a well-specified query over time. Furthermore, greater transparency can improve its reliability as a research tool.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) enable health data exchange across interconnected systems from varied settings. Epic is among the 5 leading EHR providers and is the most adopted EHR system across the globe. Despite its global reach, there is a gap in the literature detailing how EHR systems such as Epic have been used for health care research.ObjectiveThe objective of this scoping review is to synthesize the available literature on use cases of the Epic EHR for research in various areas of clinical and health sciences.MethodsWe used established scoping review methods and searched 9 major information repositories, including databases and gray literature sources. To categorize the research data, we developed detailed criteria for 5 major research domains to present the results.ResultsWe present a comprehensive picture of the method types in 5 research domains. A total of 4669 articles were screened by 2 independent reviewers at each stage, while 206 articles were abstracted. Most studies were from the United States, with a sharp increase in volume from the year 2015 onwards. Most articles focused on clinical care, health services research and clinical decision support. Among research designs, most studies used longitudinal designs, followed by interventional studies implemented at single sites in adult populations. Important facilitators and barriers to the use of Epic and EHRs in general were identified. Important lessons to the use of Epic and other EHRs for research purposes were also synthesized.ConclusionsThe Epic EHR provides a wide variety of functions that are helpful toward research in several domains, including clinical and population health, quality improvement, and the development of clinical decision support tools. As Epic is reported to be the most globally adopted EHR, researchers can take advantage of its various system features, including pooled data, integration of modules and developing decision support tools. Such research opportunities afforded by the system can contribute to improving quality of care, building health system efficiencies, and conducting population-level studies. Although this review is limited to the Epic EHR system, the larger lessons are generalizable to other EHRs.

Dataset Information

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets