Dataset Information

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Transmural Trauma Care Model investigated in a multicenter trial with a controlled before-and-after design: A study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The rehabilitation of trauma patients in primary care is challenging, and there are no guidelines for optimal treatment. Also, the organization of care is not well-structured. The Transmural Trauma Care Model (TTCM) has been developed in the Netherlands, aiming to improve patient outcomes by optimizing the organization and the quality of the rehabilitation process in primary care. A recent feasibility study showed that implementation of the TTCM at a Dutch Level 1 trauma center was feasible, patient outcomes were improved, and costs were reduced. This study aims to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM compared to the usual care in a multicenter trial.

Methods

A multicenter trial with a controlled before-and-after design will be performed at 10 hospitals in the Netherlands. First, participating hospitals will include 322 patients in the control group, receiving usual care as provided in these specific hospitals. Subsequently, the TTCM will be implemented in all participating hospitals, and hospitals will include an additional 322 patients in the intervention group. The TTCM consists of a multidisciplinary team at the outpatient clinic (trauma surgeon and hospital-based physical therapist), an educated and trained network of primary care trauma physical therapists, and structural communication between them. Co-primary outcomes will investigate generic and disease-specific, health-related quality of life. Secondary outcomes will include pain, patient satisfaction, perceived recovery, and patient-reported physical functioning. For the economic evaluation, societal and healthcare costs will be measured. Measurements will take place at baseline and after 6 weeks, 3, 6, and 9 months. Analyses will be based on the intention-to-treat principle. Missing data will be handled using longitudinal data analyses in the effect analyses and by multivariate imputation in the economic evaluation.

Conclusion

This trial with a controlled before-and-after design will give insight into the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the TTCM in a multicenter trial.

SUBMITTER: Ratter J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8047890 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Patients with a first episode psychosis (FEP) who are admitted for the first time to a psychiatric hospital frequently have experienced prior psychological trauma. Additionally, 40-80% develop posttraumatic stress symptoms, which are summarized as a post-psychotic post-traumatic syndrome (PPS). Eye Movement Desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR) therapy could be an effective psychotherapy to treat a PPS and prior psychological traumas in this population. Objectives:To assess if EMDR therapy leads to: 1) a reduction of relapses after intervention, 2) an improvement of trauma-related, psychotic and affective symptoms, 3) an improvement of overall functioning, and 4) an improvement in quality of life. Methods:This is a multicenter phase II rater-blinded randomized controlled trial in which 80 FEP patients with a history of psychological trauma will be randomly assigned to EMDR (n = 40) or to TAU (n = 40). Traumatic events will be measured by the Global Assessment of Posttraumatic Stress Questionnaire, the Cumulative Trauma Screening, the Impact of Event Scale-Revised, the Dissociative Experiences Scale, the Childhood Trauma Scale, the Holmes-Rahe Life Stress Inventory, and the Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire. Clinical symptomatology will be evaluated using the Suicide and Drug Consumption module of the International Neuropsychiatric Interview, Structured Clinical Interview for Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale, Young's Scale for Mania Evaluation, and Beck Depression II Questionnaire. Functionality will be assessed with the Global Assessment of Functioning and the Quality of Life with the Standardized Instrument developed by the EuroQol Group. The cognitive insight and adherence to the treatment will be assessed with the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale and the Drug Attitude Inventory. All variables will be measured at baseline, post-treatment and at 12-month follow-up. Conclusion:This study will provide evidence of whether EMDR therapy is effective in reducing trauma and clinical symptoms, reducing relapses and in improving functionality and quality of life in patients with FEP and a history of trauma. Clinical Trial Registration:www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03991377.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The present study protocol describes the evaluation of a comprehensive integrated care model implemented at two hospital sites at the University Hospital of North Norway (UNN). The PAtient Centred Team (PACT) model includes proactive, patient-centred interdisciplinary teams that aim to improve the continuum and quality of care of frail elderly patients and reduce health care costs. The main objectives of the evaluation are to analyse the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using patient-centred teams as part of routine service provision for this patient group. The evaluation will analyse the effect on patient health and functional status, patient experiences and hospital utilisation, and it will conduct an economic evaluation. This paper describes the PACT model and the rationale for and design of the planned effectiveness and cost-effectiveness study. METHODS/DESIGN:This is a prospective, non-randomised matched control before-and-after intervention study. Patients in the intervention group will be recruited from the hospital sites that have implemented the PACT model. The controls will be recruited from two hospitals without the model. The control patients and the index patients will be matched according to sex, age and number of long-term conditions. The study aims to include 600 patients in each group, which will provide sufficient power to detect a clinical change in the primary outcome. The primary outcome is the physical dimension of the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Secondary outcomes are the Patient Generated Index (PGI), the Patient Activation Measure (PAM), the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC), hospitalisation and length of stay. The cost-effectiveness study takes a health provider perspective and calculates the cost per quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. The data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. The data will be analysed using techniques and models that recognise the lack of randomisation and the correlation of cost and effect data. DISCUSSION:The study results will provide knowledge about whether the integrated care model implemented at UNN improves the quality of care for the frail elderly with multiple conditions. The study will establish whether the PAC. T model improves health and functional status and is cost effective compared to the usual care for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02541474.

Project description:BackgroundEating disorders (EDs), such as (atypical) Anorexia (AN) and Bulimia Nervosa (BN), are difficult to treat, causing socioeconomic impediments. Although enhanced cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT-E) is widely considered clinically effective, it may not be the most beneficial treatment for (atypical) AN and BN patients who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks (8 sessions) of a CBT-E treatment. Alternatively, group schema therapy (GST) may be a valuable treatment for this ED population. Even though GST for EDs has yielded promising preliminary findings, the current body of evidence requires expansion. On top of that, data on cost-effectiveness is lacking. In light of these gaps, we aim to describe a protocol to examine whether GST is more (1) clinically effective and (2) cost-effective than CBT-E for (atypical) AN and BN patients, who do not show a rapid response after the first 4 weeks of treatment. Additionally, we will conduct (3) process evaluations for both treatments.MethodsUsing a multicenter RCT design, 232 Dutch (atypical) AN and BN patients with a CBT-E referral will be recruited from five treatment centers. Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness will be measured before treatment, directly after treatment, at 6 and at 12 months follow-up. In order to rate process evaluation, patient experiences and the degree to which treatments are implemented according to protocol will be measured. In order to assess the quality of life and the achievement of personalized goals, interviews will be conducted at the end of treatment. Data will be analyzed, using a regression-based approach to mixed modelling, multivariate sensitivity analyses and coding trees for qualitative data. We hypothesize GST to be superior to CBT-E in terms of clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness for patients who do not show a rapid response to the first 4 weeks of a CBT-E treatment.DiscussionTo our knowledge, this is the first study protocol describing a multicenter RCT to explore the three aforementioned objectives. Related risks in performing the study protocol have been outlined. The expected findings may serve as a guide for healthcare stakeholders to optimize ED care trajectories.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov (NCT05812950).

Project description:Background/objectivesAlthough several approaches have been developed to provide comprehensive care for persons living with dementia (PWD) and their family or friend caregivers, the relative effectiveness and cost effectiveness of community-based dementia care (CBDC) versus health system-based dementia care (CBDC) and the effectiveness of both approaches compared with usual care (UC) are unknown.DesignPragmatic randomized three-arm superiority trial. The unit of randomization is the PWD/caregiver dyad.SettingFour clinical trial sites (CTSs) based in academic and clinical health systems.ParticipantsA total of 2,150 English- or Spanish-speaking PWD who are not receiving hospice or residing in a nursing home and their caregivers.InterventionsEighteen months of (1) HSDC provided by a nurse practitioner or physician's assistant dementia care specialist who works within the health system, or (2) CBDC provided by a social worker or nurse care consultant who works at a community-based organization, or (3) UC with as needed referral to the Alzheimer's Association Helpline.MeasurementsPrimary outcomes: PWD behavioral symptoms and caregiver distress as measured by the Neuropsychiatric Inventory Questionnaire (NPI-Q) Severity and Modified Caregiver Strain Index scales.Secondary outcomesNPI-Q Distress, caregiver unmet needs and confidence, and caregiver depressive symptoms. Tertiary outcomes: PWD long-term nursing home placement rates, caregiver-reported PWD functional status, cognition, goal attainment, "time spent at home," Dementia Burden Scale-Caregiver, a composite measure of clinical benefit, Quality of Life of persons with dementia, Positive Aspects of Caregiving, and cost effectiveness using intervention costs and Medicare claims.ResultsThe results will be reported in the spring of 2024.ConclusionD-CARE will address whether emphasis on clinical support and tighter integration with other medical services has greater benefit than emphasis on social support that is tied more closely to community resources. It will also assess the effectiveness of both interventions compared with UC and will evaluate the cost effectiveness of each intervention.

Project description:Study objectiveTo improve the efficiency and appropriateness of computed tomography (CT) use in children with minor head trauma, clinical prediction rules were derived and validated by the Pediatric Emergency Care Applied Research Network (PECARN). The objective of this study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness analysis comparing the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules to usual care for selective CT use.MethodsWe used decision analytic modeling to project the outcomes, costs, and cost-effectiveness of applying the PECARN rules compared with usual care in a hypothetical cohort of 1,000 children with minor blunt head trauma. Clinical management was directed by level of risk as specified by the presence or absence of variables in the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules. Immediate costs of care (diagnostic testing, treatment [not including clinician time], and hospital stay) were derived on single-center data. Quality-adjusted life-year losses related to the sequelae of clinically important traumatic brain injuries and to radiation-induced cancers, number of CT scans, number of radiation-induced cancers, number of missed clinically important traumatic brain injury, and total costs were evaluated.ResultsCompared with the usual care strategy, the PECARN strategy was projected to miss slightly more children with clinically important traumatic brain injuries (0.26 versus 0.02 per 1,000 children) but used fewer cranial CT scans (274 versus 353), resulted in fewer radiation-induced cancers (0.34 versus 0.45), cost less ($904,940 versus $954,420), and had lower net quality-adjusted life-year loss (-4.64 versus -5.79). Because the PECARN strategy was more effective (less quality-adjusted life-year loss) and less costly, it dominated the usual care strategy. Results were robust under sensitivity analyses.ConclusionApplication of the PECARN traumatic brain injury prediction rules for children with minor head trauma would lead to beneficial outcomes and more cost-effective care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS:We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION:This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018107083.