Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Targeted Interventions on Treatment of Infants With Bronchiolitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

In developed countries, bronchiolitis is the most common reason for infants to be admitted to the hospital, and all international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care; however, significant variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence-based therapies. Deimplementation research aims to reduce the use of low-value care, and advancing science in this area is critical to delivering evidence-based care.

Objective

To determine the effectiveness of targeted interventions vs passive dissemination of an evidence-based bronchiolitis guideline in improving treatment of infants with bronchiolitis.

Design, setting, and participants

This international, multicenter cluster randomized clinical trial included 26 hospitals (clusters) in Australia and New Zealand providing tertiary or secondary pediatric care (13 randomized to intervention, 13 to control) during the 2017 bronchiolitis season. Data were collected on 8003 infants for the 3 bronchiolitis seasons (2014-2016) before the implementation period and 3727 infants for the implementation period (2017 bronchiolitis season, May 1-November 30). Data were analyzed from November 16, 2018, to December 9, 2020.

Interventions

Interventions were developed using theories of behavior change to target key factors that influence bronchiolitis management. These interventions included site-based clinical leads, stakeholder meetings, a train-the-trainer workshop, targeted educational delivery, other educational and promotional materials, and audit and feedback.

Main outcomes and measures

The primary outcome was compliance during the first 24 hours of care with no use of chest radiography, albuterol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and epinephrine, measured retrospectively from medical records of randomly selected infants with bronchiolitis who presented to the hospital. There were no patient-level exclusions.

Results

A total of 26 hospitals were randomized without dropouts. Analysis was by intention to treat. Baseline data collected on 8003 infants for 3 bronchiolitis seasons (2014-2016) before the implementation period were similar between intervention and control hospitals. Implementation period data were collected on 3727 infants, including 2328 boys (62%) and 1399 girls (38%), with a mean (SD) age of 6.0 (3.2) months. A total of 459 (12%) were Māori (New Zealand), and 295 (8%) were Aboriginal/Torres Strait Islander (Australia). Compliance with recommendations was 85.1% (95% CI, 82.6%-89.7%) in intervention hospitals vs 73.0% (95% CI, 65.3%-78.8%) in control hospitals (adjusted risk difference, 14.1%; 95% CI, 6.5%-21.7%; P < .001).

Conclusions and relevance

Targeted interventions led to improved treatment of infants with bronchiolitis. This study has important implications for bronchiolitis management and the development of effective interventions to deimplement low-value care.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415.

SUBMITTER: Haskell L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8042564 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Acute bronchiolitis treatment in children and infants is largely supportive, but chest physiotherapy is routinely performed in some countries. In France, national guidelines recommend a specific type of physiotherapy combining the increased exhalation technique (IET) and assisted cough (AC). Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of chest physiotherapy (IET + AC) in previously healthy infants hospitalized for a first episode of acute bronchiolitis.We conducted a multicenter, randomized, outcome assessor-blind and parent-blind trial in seven French pediatric departments. We recruited 496 infants hospitalized for first-episode acute bronchiolitis between October 2004 and January 2008. Patients were randomly allocated to receive from physiotherapists three times a day, either IET + AC (intervention group, n=246) or nasal suction (NS, control group, n=250). Only physiotherapists were aware of the allocation group of the infant. The primary outcome was time to recovery, defined as 8 hours without oxygen supplementation associated with minimal or no chest recession, and ingesting more than two-thirds of daily food requirements. Secondary outcomes were intensive care unit admissions, artificial ventilation, antibiotic treatment, description of side effects during procedures, and parental perception of comfort. Statistical analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis. Median time to recovery was 2.31 days, (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.97-2.73) for the control group and 2.02 days (95% CI 1.96-2.34) for the intervention group, indicating no significant effect of physiotherapy (hazard ratio [HR]=1.09, 95% CI 0.91-1.31, p=0.33). No treatment by age interaction was found (p=0.97). Frequency of vomiting and transient respiratory destabilization was higher in the IET + AC group during the procedure (relative risk [RR]=10.2, 95% CI 1.3-78.8, p=0.005 and RR=5.4, 95% CI 1.6-18.4, p=0.002, respectively). No difference between groups in bradycardia with or without desaturation (RR=1.0, 95% CI 0.2-5.0, p=1.00 and RR=3.6, 95% CI 0.7-16.9, p=0.10, respectively) was found during the procedure. Parents reported that the procedure was more arduous in the group treated with IET (mean difference=0.88, 95% CI 0.33-1.44, p=0.002), whereas there was no difference regarding the assessment of the child's comfort between both groups (mean difference=-0.07, 95% CI -0.53 to 0.38, p=0.40). No evidence of differences between groups in intensive care admission (RR=0.7, 95% CI 0.3-1.8, p=0.62), ventilatory support (RR=2.5, 95% CI 0.5-13.0, p=0.29), and antibiotic treatment (RR=1.0, 95% CI 0.7-1.3, p=1.00) was observed.IET + AC had no significant effect on time to recovery in this group of hospitalized infants with bronchiolitis. Additional studies are required to explore the effect of chest physiotherapy on ambulatory populations and for infants without a history of atopy.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00125450.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Bronchiolitis is a major health burden in infants globally, particularly among Indigenous populations. It is unknown if 3?weeks of azithromycin improve clinical outcomes beyond the hospitalization period. In an international, double-blind randomized controlled trial, we determined if 3?weeks of azithromycin improved clinical outcomes in Indigenous infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. METHODS: Infants aged ?24?months were enrolled from three centers and randomized to receive three once-weekly doses of either azithromycin (30?mg/kg) or placebo. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected at baseline and 48?h later. Primary endpoints were hospital length of stay (LOS) and duration of oxygen supplementation monitored every 12?h until judged ready for discharge. Secondary outcomes were: day-21 symptom/signs, respiratory rehospitalizations within 6?months post-discharge and impact upon nasopharyngeal bacteria and virus shedding at 48?h. RESULTS: Two hundred nineteen infants were randomized (n?=?106 azithromycin, n?=?113 placebo). No significant between-group differences were found for LOS (median 54?h for each group, difference?=?0?h, 95% CI: -6, 8; p?=?0.8), time receiving oxygen (azithromycin?=?40?h, placebo?=?35?h, group difference?=?5?h, 95% CI: -8, 11; p?=?0.7), day-21 symptom/signs, or rehospitalization within 6?months (azithromycin n?=?31, placebo n?=?25 infants, p?=?0.2). Azithromycin reduced nasopharyngeal bacterial carriage (between-group difference 0.4 bacteria/child, 95% CI: 0.2, 0.6; p?<?0.001), but had no significant effect upon virus detection rates. CONCLUSION: Despite reducing nasopharyngeal bacterial carriage, three large once-weekly doses of azithromycin did not confer any benefit over placebo during the bronchiolitis illness or 6?months post hospitalization. Azithromycin should not be used routinely to treat infants hospitalized with bronchiolitis. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register: Clinical trials number: ACTRN1261000036099.

Project description:ImportancePatient adherence to antidiabetic medications, especially insulin, remains poor, leading to adverse outcomes and increased costs. Most adherence interventions have only been modestly effective, partly because they are not targeted to patients who could benefit most.ObjectiveTo evaluate whether delivering more intensive insulin-adherence interventions only to individuals with type 2 diabetes predicted to benefit most was more effective than delivering a lower-intensity intervention to a larger group of unselected individuals.Design, setting, and participantsThis 3-arm pragmatic randomized clinical trial used data from Horizon, the largest health insurer in New Jersey, on 6000 participants 18 years or older with type 2 diabetes who were receiving basal insulin. Patients were excluded if they were insured by Medicaid or Medicare or had fewer than 3 months of continuous enrollment. The study was conducted from July 7, 2016, through October 5, 2017. Analyses were conducted from February 5 to September 24, 2018.InterventionsEligible patients were randomized to 3 arms in a 1:1:1 ratio. Randomization was stratified based on baseline availability of 1 or more glycated hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) test values. All arms were designed to cost the same, and each cohort received a tailored pharmacist telephone consultation varying based on (1) proportion receiving the intervention and (2) intensity, including follow-up frequency and cointerventions. Arm 1 offered a low-intensity intervention to all patients. Arm 2 offered a moderate-intensity intervention to 60% of patients based on their predicted risk of insulin nonadherence. Arm 3 offered a high-intensity intervention to 40% of patients based on glycemic control and predicted risk of insulin nonadherence.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was insulin persistence. Secondary outcomes were changes in HbA1c level and health care utilization. Outcomes were evaluated in arms 2 and 3 vs arm 1 using claims data, intention-to-treat principles, and multiple imputation for missing values in the 12-month follow-up.ResultsAmong 6000 participants, mean (SD) age was 55.9 (11.0) years and 3344 (59.8%) were male. Compared with arm 1, insulin nonpersistence did not differ in arm 2 (relative risk, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.75-1.03) or arm 3 (relative risk, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.06). Glycemic control was similar in arm 2 and arm 1 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.15%; 95% CI, -0.34% to 0.05%) but was better in arm 3 (absolute HbA1c level difference, -0.25%; 95% CI, -0.43% to -0.06%). Total spending and office visits did not differ, but arm 2 (moderate intensity intervention) had more hospitalizations (odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.06-1.41) and emergency department visits (odds ratio, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.24-1.53) than did arm 1 (low intensity intervention).Conclusions and relevanceCompared with an untargeted low-intensity intervention, delivering a highly targeted high-intensity intervention did not improve insulin persistence but modestly improved mean glycemic control. A partially targeted moderate-intensity intervention did not change insulin persistence or HbA1c level but was associated with a small increase in hospitalizations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02846779.

Project description:BackgroundDespite international guidelines providing evidence-based recommendations on appropriate management of infants with bronchiolitis, wide variation in practice occurs. This results in infants receiving care of no benefit, with associated cost and is potentially harmful. Theoretical frameworks are increasingly used to develop interventions, utilising behaviour change techniques specifically chosen to target factors contributing to practice variation, with de-implementation often viewed as harder than implementing. This paper describes the stepped process using the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to develop targeted, theory-informed interventions which subsequently successfully improved management of infants with bronchiolitis by de-implementing ineffective therapies. Explicit description of the process and rationale used in developing de-implementation interventions is critical to dissemination of these practices into real world clinical practice.MethodsA stepped approach was used: (1) Identify evidence-based recommendations and practice variation as targets for change, (2) Identify factors influencing practice change (barriers and enablers) to be addressed, and (3) Identification and development of interventions (behaviour change techniques and methods of delivery) addressing influencing factors, considering evidence of effectiveness, feasibility, local relevance and acceptability. The mode of delivery for the intervention components was informed by evidence from implementation science systematic reviews, and setting specific feasibility and practicality.ResultsFive robust evidence-based management recommendations, targeting the main variation in bronchiolitis management were identified: namely, no use of chest x-ray, salbutamol, glucocorticoids, antibiotics, and adrenaline. Interventions developed to target recommendations addressed seven TDF domains (identified following qualitative clinician interviews (n = 20)) with 23 behaviour change techniques chosen to address these domains. Final interventions included: (1) Local stakeholder meetings, (2) Identification of medical and nursing clinical leads, (3) Train-the-trainer workshop for all clinical leads, (4) Local educational materials for delivery by clinical leads, (5) Provision of tools and materials targeting influencing factors, and prompting recommended behaviours, and (6) Audit and feedback.ConclusionA stepped approach based on theory, evidence and issues of feasibility, local relevance and acceptability, was successfully used to develop interventions to improve management of infants with bronchiolitis. The rationale and content of interventions has been explicitly described allowing others to de-implement unnecessary bronchiolitis management, thereby improving care.

Project description:Bruxism is a parafunctional habit characterized by grinding and/or clenching of the teeth. It may happen while awake (awake bruxism) or while sleeping (sleep bruxism). In adults, the prevalence is 20% for the awake bruxism and 8% for the sleep bruxism. Peripheral, central, and psychosocial factors influence the disorder, which may predispose to pain in the masticatory muscles and neck, headache, decreased pain thresholds in the masticatory and cervical muscles, limitation mandibular range of motion, sleep disorders, stress, anxiety, depression, and overall impairment of oral health. The aim of this study is to compare two distinct physical therapy interventions with dental treatment in pain, mandibular range of motion, sleep quality, anxiety, stress, depression, and oral health in individuals with bruxism.Participants will be randomized into one of three groups: Group 1 (n=24) intervention will consist of massage and stretching exercises; Group 2 (n=24) will consist of relaxation and imagination therapies; and Group 3 (n=24) will receive dental treatment. The evaluations will be performed at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 2-month follow-up. Pain intensity will be assessed using the visual analogical scale, while pain thresholds will be determined using dolorimetry. Mandibular range of motion will be assessed using digital pachymeter. Sleep quality will be assessed by the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, anxiety by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, stress by the Perceived Stress Scale-10, depression by the Beck Depression Inventory, and oral health will be assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile--14. Significance level will be determined at the 5% level.This project describes the randomization method that will be used to compare two physical therapy interventions with dental treatment in the management of pain, mandibular range of motion, sleep quality, anxiety, stress, depression, and oral health in individuals with bruxism. The study will support the practice of evidence-based physical therapy for individuals with bruxism. Data will be published after study is completed.ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01778881.

Project description:BackgroundLateral epicondylitis (LE) is a challenging condition for clinicians, and research has yet not proven the superiority of one specific treatment approach. However, manual therapy (elbow mobilization) in addition to eccentric exercise has been found to be superior to exercise alone. As well, acupuncture is effective in short-term pain relief when compared with sham treatment, but there is little knowledge on the comparative effectiveness of manual therapy and acupuncture treatment of LE in terms of pain relief. The primary objective of this pilot trial was to assess the feasibility (retention and adherence rates) of performing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) to explore the clinical effectiveness of acupuncture and manual therapy treatment of LE.MethodsThis pilot trial took place in an outpatient interdisciplinary institute of sports medicine and rehabilitation in Oslo, Norway. Thirty-six adults with clinically diagnosed LE were randomly allocated into one of three groups: eccentric exercise alone, eccentric exercise plus acupuncture, or eccentric exercise plus manual therapy for a 12-week treatment period. Primary outcomes were patient retention and adherence rates. Secondary outcomes included patient-reported pain (NRS), level of disability (Quick-DASH), and participant's satisfaction with treatment and global perceived effect.ResultsNine (69%) patients in the acupuncture group completed the 1-year follow-up, compared to eight (67%) in the manual therapy group and five (45%) in exercise alone. Our goal was to demonstrate a retention rate above 80% to avoid serious threats to validity, but the result was lower than expected. The majority of participants (64%) in both treatment groups received only three-treatment sessions; the reasons included non-attendance or recovery from pain. Secondary outcomes support the rationale for conduction of an RCT. There were no adverse advents related to study participation.ConclusionsBased on differences in pain relief between groups, patient retention, and adherence rates, an RCT seems to be feasible to assess treatment effectiveness more precisely. In a future definitive trial, greater dropout may be reduced by maintaining contact with the participants in the exercise alone group throughout the intervention, and objective assessments might be considered.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02321696.