Dataset Information

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Integrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs.

Methods and analysis

We are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients' quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are 'stepped up' and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients.

Ethics and dissemination

The study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations.

Trial registration number

NCT03337399.

SUBMITTER: Post KE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8845218 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Post Kathryn E KE Heuer Lauren B LB Kamal Arif H AH Kumar Pallavi P Elyze Madeleine M Griffith Sarah S Han Jacqueline J Friedman Fred F Jackson Ashley A Trotter Chardria C Plotke Rachel R Vyas Charu C Jackson Vicki V Rabideau Dustin J DJ Greer Joseph A JA Temel Jennifer S JS

BMJ open 20220210 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>Integrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs.<h4>M ...[more]

PMID: 35144954

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTrauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) is an evidence-based therapist-led treatment for children after trauma. Parents often experience barriers to treatment engagement, including cost. Stepped care TF-CBT (SC-TF-CBT) was developed as an alternative delivery system. Step One is a parent-led therapist-assisted treatment. Step Two provides therapist-led TF-CBT for children who did not benefit from Step One and require more intensive treatment. This study compared SC-TF-CBT to standard TF-CBT in a community-based non-inferiority trial.MethodA total of 183 children (aged 4-12 years) experiencing posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and their caregivers were randomly assigned to SC-TF-CBT or standard TF-CBT within 6 community clinics. Assessments occurred at baseline, mid- and posttreatment, and 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes included PTSS and impairment. Secondary outcomes included severity, diagnostic status, remission, and response. Treatment cost, acceptability, and satisfaction were measured. Difference and non-inferiority tests were applied.ResultsSC-TF-CBT participants changed at rates comparable to participants in TF-CBT for primary and secondary measures. SC-TF-CBT was non-inferior to TF-CBT for PTSS, impairment, and severity at all time points except for impairment at the 6-month assessment. Attrition did not differ between treatment arms (132 participants were completers). Baseline treatment acceptability was lower for SC-TF-CBT parents, although there was no difference in expected treatment improvements or treatment satisfaction at posttreatment. Based on regression estimates, total costs were 38.4% lower for SC-TF-CBT compared to TF-CBT, whereas recurring costs were 53.7% lower.ConclusionStepped Care TF-CBT provides an alternative way to deliver treatment for some children and parents, with reduced cost for providers and parents.Clinical trial registration informationStepped Care for Children after Trauma: Optimizing Treatment; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02537678.

Project description:ImportanceDespite the evidence for early palliative care improving outcomes, it has not been widely implemented in part due to palliative care workforce limitations.ObjectiveTo evaluate a stepped-care model to deliver less resource-intensive and more patient-centered palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.Design, setting, and participantsRandomized, nonblinded, noninferiority trial of stepped vs early palliative care conducted between February 12, 2018, and December 15, 2022, at 3 academic medical centers in Boston, Massachusetts, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Durham, North Carolina, among 507 patients who had been diagnosed with advanced lung cancer within the past 12 weeks.InterventionStep 1 of the intervention was an initial palliative care visit within 4 weeks of enrollment and subsequent visits only at the time of a change in cancer treatment or after a hospitalization. During step 1, patients completed a measure of quality of life (QOL; Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung [FACT-L]; range, 0-136, with higher scores indicating better QOL) every 6 weeks, and those with a 10-point or greater decrease from baseline were stepped up to meet with the palliative care clinician every 4 weeks (intervention step 2). Patients assigned to early palliative care had palliative care visits every 4 weeks after enrollment.Main outcomes and measuresNoninferiority (margin = -4.5) of the effect of stepped vs early palliative care on patient-reported QOL on the FACT-L at week 24.ResultsThe sample (n = 507) mostly included patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (78.3%; mean age, 66.5 years; 51.4% female; 84.6% White). The mean number of palliative care visits by week 24 was 2.4 for stepped palliative care and 4.7 for early palliative care (adjusted mean difference, -2.3; P < .001). FACT-L scores at week 24 for the stepped palliative care group were noninferior to scores among those receiving early palliative care (adjusted FACT-L mean score, 100.6 vs 97.8, respectively; difference, 2.9; lower 1-sided 95% confidence limit, -0.1; P < .001 for noninferiority). Although the rate of end-of-life care communication was also noninferior between groups, noninferiority was not demonstrated for days in hospice (adjusted mean, 19.5 with stepped palliative care vs 34.6 with early palliative care; P = .91).Conclusions and relevanceA stepped-care model, with palliative care visits occurring only at key points in patients' cancer trajectories and using a decrement in QOL to trigger more intensive palliative care exposure, resulted in fewer palliative care visits without diminishing the benefits for patients' QOL. While stepped palliative care was associated with fewer days in hospice, it is a more scalable way to deliver early palliative care to enhance patient-reported outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03337399.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Emergency department (ED)-initiated palliative care has been shown to improve patient-centred outcomes in older adults with serious, life-limiting illnesses. However, the optimal modality for providing such interventions is unknown. This study aims to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to specialty outpatient palliative care for older adults with serious, life-limiting illness on: (1) quality of life in patients; (2) healthcare utilisation; (3) loneliness and symptom burden and (4) caregiver strain, caregiver quality of life and bereavement. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:This is a protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel, two-arm randomised controlled trial in ED patients comparing two established models of palliative care: nurse-led telephonic case management and specialty, outpatient palliative care. We will enrol 1350 patients aged 50+ years and 675 of their caregivers across nine EDs. Eligible patients: (1) have advanced cancer (metastatic solid tumour) or end-stage organ failure (New York Heart Association class III or IV heart failure, end-stage renal disease with glomerular filtration rate <15 mL/min/m2, or global initiative for chronic obstructive lung disease stage III, IV or oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease); (2) speak English; (3) are scheduled for ED discharge or observation status; (4) reside locally; (5) have a working telephone and (6) are insured. Patients will be excluded if they: (1) have dementia; (2) have received hospice care or two or more palliative care visits in the last 6 months or (3) reside in a long-term care facility. We will use patient-level block randomisation, stratified by ED site and disease. Effectiveness will be compared by measuring the impact of each intervention on the specified outcomes. The primary outcome will measure change in patient quality of life. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Institutional Review Board approval was obtained at all study sites. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03325985; Pre-results.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Pregnant women faced with complications of pregnancy often require long-term hospital admission for maternal and/or fetal monitoring. Antenatal admissions cause a burden to patients as well as hospital resources and costs. A telemonitoring platform connected to wireless cardiotocography (CTG) and automated blood pressure (BP) devices can be used for telemonitoring in pregnancy. Home telemonitoring might improve autonomy and reduce admissions and thus costs. The aim of this study is to compare the effects on patient safety, satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of hospital care versus telemonitoring (HOTEL) as an obstetric care strategy in high-risk pregnancies requiring daily monitoring. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The HOTEL trial is an ongoing multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial with a non-inferiority design. Eligible pregnant women are >26+0 weeks of singleton gestation requiring monitoring because of pre-eclampsia (hypertension with proteinuria), fetal growth restriction, preterm rupture of membranes without contractions, recurrent reduced fetal movements or an intrauterine fetal death in a previous pregnancy.Randomisation takes place between traditional hospitalisation (planned n=208) versus telemonitoring (planned n=208) until delivery. Telemonitoring at home is facilitated with Sense4Baby CTG devices, Microlife BP monitor and daily telephone calls with an obstetric healthcare professional as well as weekly hospital visits.Primary outcome is a composite of adverse perinatal outcome, defined as perinatal mortality, 5 min Apgar <7 or arterial cord blood pH <7.05, maternal morbidity (eclampsia, HELLP (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelets) syndrome, thromboembolic event), neonatal intensive care admission and caesarean section rate. Patient satisfaction and preference of care will be assessed using validated questionnaires. We will perform an economic analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention to treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Center and the boards of all six participating centres. Trial results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR6076.

Project description:IntroductionHealthcare systems around the world are looking for solutions to the growing problem of mental disorders. RECOVER is the synonym for an evidence-based, stepped and cross-sectoral coordinated care service model for mental disorders. RECOVER implements a cross-sectoral network with managed care, comprehensive psychological, somatic and social diagnostics, crisis resolution and a general structure of four severity levels, each with assigned evidence-based therapy models (eg, assertive community treatment) and therapies (eg, psychotherapy). The study rationale is the investigation of the effectiveness and efficiency of stepped and integrated care in comparison to standard care.Methods and analysisThe trial is conducted in accordance to the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials Statement. The study aims to compare the RECOVER model with treatment as usual (TAU). The following questions are examined: Does RECOVER reduce healthcare costs compared with TAU? Does RECOVER improve patient-relevant outcomes? Is RECOVER cost-effective compared with TAU? A total sample of 890 patients with mental disorders will be assessed at baseline and individually randomised into RECOVER or TAU. Follow-up assessments are conducted after 6 and 12 months. As primary outcomes, cost reduction, improvement in symptoms, daily functioning and quality of life as well as cost-effectiveness ratios will be measured. In addition, several secondary outcomes will be assessed. Primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated according to the intention-to-treat principle. Mixed linear or logistic regression models are used with the direct maximum likelihood estimation procedure which results in unbiassed estimators under the missing-at-random assumption. Costs due to healthcare utilisation and productivity losses are evaluated using difference-in-difference regressions.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval from the ethics committee of the Hamburg Medical Association has been obtained (PV5672). The results will be disseminated to service users and their families via the media, to healthcare professionals via professional training and meetings and to researchers via conferences and publications.Trial registration number and registry nameClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03459664), RECOVER PROTOCOL VERSION: 19 March 2020 (V.3.0).

Project description:IntroductionEmergency departments (ED) care for society's most vulnerable older adults who present with exacerbations of chronic disease at the end of life, yet the clinical paradigm focuses on treatment of acute pathologies. Palliative care interventions in the ED capture high-risk patients at a time of crisis and can dramatically improve patient-centred outcomes. This study aims to implement and evaluate Primary Palliative Care for Emergency Medicine (PRIM-ER) on ED disposition, healthcare utilisation and survival in older adults with serious illness.Methods and analysisThis is the protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomised stepped wedge trial to test the effectiveness of PRIM-ER in 35 EDs across the USA. The intervention includes four core components: (1) evidence-based, multidisciplinary primary palliative care education; (2) simulation-based workshops; (3) clinical decision support; and (4) audit and feedback. The study is divided into two phases: a pilot phase, to ensure feasibility in two sites, and an implementation and evaluation phase, where we implement the intervention and test the effectiveness in 33 EDs over 2 years. Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) data, we will assess the primary outcomes in approximately 300 000 patients: ED disposition to an acute care setting, healthcare utilisation in the 6 months following the ED visit and survival following the index ED visit. Analysis will also determine the site, provider and patient-level characteristics that are associated with variation in impact of PRIM-ER.Ethics and disseminationInstitutional Review Board approval was obtained at New York University School of Medicine to evaluate the CMS data. Oversight will also be provided by the National Institutes of Health, an Independent Monitoring Committee and a Clinical Informatics Advisory Board. Trial results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Trial registration numberNCT03424109; Pre-results.

Project description:IntroductionEmerging evidence suggests improved quality of life, reduced symptom burden and lower health services costs when integrated palliative care and cancer care are implemented. Integrated palliative care aims to achieve care continuity by integrating organisational, administrative and clinical services involved in patient care networks. However, integrated palliative care for cancer is not common practice. This project, therefore, aims to understand how integrated palliative care and cancer care works in different healthcare settings (inpatient/outpatient), and for which groups of people (at what stage of the cancer journey), so we can develop guidance for optimal delivery.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a realist synthesis to develop a programme theory of how integrated palliative care in cancer works, for whom and in what contexts to achieve improved symptom management and quality of life for patients and their families.This realist synthesis will follow the five stages outlined by Pawson: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) article selection, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence and drawing conclusions. We will work closely with our expert stakeholder group, which includes health and social care professionals providing palliative care and oncology; management and policy groups and members of the public and patients. We will adhere to RAMESES quality standards for undertaking a realist synthesis.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval for this project is not required.The realist synthesis will develop a programme theory that provides clarity on the optimal delivery of palliative care for adults with cancer. We will use the programme theory to coproduce guidance and user-friendly outputs, working with stakeholders to inform delivery of best practice. Findings will inform further research in integrated palliative care and cancer. Stakeholder engagement will assist in the dissemination of our findings.Prospero registration numberCRD42023389791.

Project description:IntroductionAustralia's current healthcare system for children is neither sustainable nor equitable. As children (0-4 years) comprise the largest proportion of all primary care-type emergency department presentations, general practitioners (GPs) report feeling undervalued as an integral member of a child's care, and lacking in opportunities for support and training in paediatric conditions. This Strengthening Care for Children (SC4C) randomised trial aims to evaluate a novel, integrated GP-paediatrician model of care, that, if effective, will improve GP quality of care, reduce burden to hospital services and ensure children receive the right care, at the right time, closer to home.Methods and analysisSC4C is a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) of 22 general practice clinics in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia. General practice clinics will provide control period data before being exposed to the 12-month intervention which will be rolled out sequentially each month (one clinic per state) until all 22 clinics receive the intervention. The intervention comprises weekly GP-paediatrician co-consultation sessions; monthly case discussions; and phone and email paediatrician support, focusing on common paediatric conditions. The primary outcome of the trial is to assess the impact of the intervention as measured by the proportion of children's (0-<18 years) GP appointments that result in a hospital referral, compared with the control period. Secondary outcomes include GP quality of care; GP experience and confidence in providing paediatric care; family trust in and preference for GP care; and the sustainability of the intervention. An implementation evaluation will assess the model to inform acceptability, adaptability, scalability and sustainability, while a health economic evaluation will measure the cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Ethics and disseminationHuman research ethics committee (HREC) approval was granted by The Royal Children's Hospital Ethics Committee in August 2020 (Project ID: 65955) and site-specific HRECs. The investigators (including Primary Health Network partners) will communicate trial results to stakeholders and participating GPs and general practice clinics via presentations and publications.Trial registration numberAustralia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry 12620001299998.

Project description:BackgroundThe burden of common mental disorders in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) is growing with little known about how to allocate limited resources to reach the greatest number of people undergoing instances of significant psychological distress. We present a study protocol for a multicentre, parallel-group, superiority, randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisAdults with significant psychological distress (K10 score ≥20) will be randomised to receive a stepped care programme involving a self-guided course (Doing What Matters) followed by a more intensive group programme (Problem Management Plus) or the self-guided course alone, both of which will take place in addition to enhanced treatment as usual comprising of a follow-up referral session to available services within the community. We will include 800 participants. An intent-to-treat and completer analysis will explore the impact of the stepped model of care on anxiety and depression symptoms (as measured by the Hopkins Symptom Checklist; HSCL-25) at 24 weeks from baseline. Secondary outcomes include positive psychological well-being, agency, changes in patient-identified problems, quality of life and cost-effectiveness. Linear mixed models will be used to assess the differential impact of the conditions over time. Analyses will focus on the primary outcome (HSCL-25) and secondary outcomes (agency subscale, WHO Well-Being Index, WHO Disability Assessment Schedule V.2.0, EQ-5D, Psychological Outcomes Profiles Scale) for both conditions, with the main outcome time point being the 3-month follow-up, relative to baseline.Ethics and disseminationThis will be the first randomised controlled trial to assess the benefits of a stepped model of care to addressing psychological distress in a LMIC setting. Results will provide important insights for managing limited resources to mental healthcare in these settings and will be accordingly disseminated to service providers and organisations via professional training and meetings, and via publication in relevant journals and conference presentations. We will also present these findings to the Jordanian Ministry of Health, where this institute will guide us on the most appropriate format for communication of findings, including written reports, verbal presentations and/or brochures. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Jordan School of Nursing Research Ethics Committee (number: PF.22.10).Trial registration numberACTRN12621000189820p; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

Dataset Information

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Introduction

Methods and analysis

Ethics and dissemination

Trial registration number

Publications

Study protocol for a randomised trial evaluating the non-inferiority of stepped palliative care versus early integrated palliative care for patients with advanced lung cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets