Dataset Information

Encouraging physician appropriate prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies: protocol of a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN43532635].

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a widely used class of therapy in the treatment of chronic pain and inflammation. The drugs are effective and can be relatively inexpensive thanks to available generic versions. Unfortunately the traditional NSAIDs are associated with gastrointestinal complications in a small proportion of patients, requiring costly co-therapy with gastro-protective agents. Recently, a new class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents known as coxibs has become available, fashioned to be safer than the traditional NSAIDs but priced considerably higher than the traditional generics. To help physicians choose appropriately and cost-effectively from the expanded number of anti-inflammatory therapies, scientific bodies have issued clinical practice guidelines and third party payers have published restricted reimbursement policies. The objective of this study is to determine whether an educational intervention can prompt physicians to adjust their prescribing in accordance with these expert recommendations. METHODS: This is an ongoing, randomized controlled trial. All primary care physicians in Manitoba, Canada have been randomly assigned to a control group or an intervention study group. The educational intervention being evaluated consists of an audit and feedback mechanism combined with optional participation in a Continuing Medical Education interactive workshop. The primary outcome of the study is the change, from pre-to post-intervention, in physicians' appropriate prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies for patients requiring chronic treatment. Three classes of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies have been identified: coxib therapy, traditional NSAID monotherapy, and traditional NSAID therapy combined with gastro-protective agents. Appropriate prescribing is defined based on international clinical practice guidelines and the provincial drug reimbursement policy in Manitoba.

SUBMITTER: Doupe M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC516782 | biostudies-other | 2004 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Encouraging physician appropriate prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies: protocol of a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN43532635].

Doupe Malcolm M Katz Alan A Kvern Brent B Manness Lori-Jean LJ Metge Colleen C Thomson Glen T D GT Morrison Laura L Rother Kat K

BMC health services research 20040824 1

<h4>Background</h4>Traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are a widely used class of therapy in the treatment of chronic pain and inflammation. The drugs are effective and can be relatively inexpensive thanks to available generic versions. Unfortunately the traditional NSAIDs are associated with gastrointestinal complications in a small proportion of patients, requiring costly co-therapy with gastro-protective agents. Recently, a new class of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory a ...[more]

PMID: 15327694

Similar Datasets

Project description:Trial designExcessive gestational weight gain (GWG) can increase pregnancy morbidity and is particularly problematic for women with pregestational obesity. A lifestyle modification intervention was introduced to gravida with obesity to decrease excessive GWG as compared to usual care (UC).MethodsA randomized controlled trial was conducted to improve healthy lifestyle behaviors to manage appropriate GWG. Consenting participants with prepregnancy obesity and singletons ≤17 weeks were randomized to (1) Usual Care (UC): usual written educational materials and counseling by obstetric provider or (2) Enhanced Care (EC): UC plus (a) personalized letter from physician detailing appropriate GWG; (b) access to individualized GWG chart; (c) ongoing counseling with registered dietitian/nutritionist (RDN). The primary outcome was proportion with GWG ≤9.1 kg, as this is upper limit recommended by Institute of Medicine (IOM). Total GWG and GWG as less than/within/greater than IOM recommendations (in aggregate and stratified by obesity class), and pregnancy/neonatal outcomes were evaluated as secondary outcomes.ResultsAnalyses included 105 participants in EC and 109 in UC arms. The groups had similar demographics: 46% with class I obesity, 26% class II, and 28% class III. There were no group differences for any GWG, pregnancy, or neonatal outcomes when analyzed in aggregate. As compared to those randomized to the EC arm, participants in UC arm with class I obesity gained 1.4 kg less and those with class II obesity were significantly more likely to gain within IOM guidelines (14.8% vs. 40.0%, adjusted p = 0.04). Participants with class III obesity randomized to EC arm were more likely to gain within IOM guidelines as compared to participants randomized to UC arm (29.0% vs. 6.7%, adjusted p = 0.02).ConclusionThere were no differences in GWG observed between groups when analyzing participants in aggregate. However, a physician's letter detailing appropriate GWG, patient portal access to a personalized GWG chart, and RDN consultation were helpful for encouraging GWG within IOM guidelines for women with prepregnancy class III obesity. Women with class I or II obesity had better GWG outcomes without these additional interventions.

Project description:Antipsychotic medications are routinely prescribed in nursing homes to address the behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia. Unfortunately, inappropriate prescribing of antipsychotic medications is common and associated with increased morbidity, adverse drug events, and hospitalizations. Multifaceted interventions can achieve a 12-20 % reduction in antipsychotic prescribing levels in nursing homes. Effective interventions have featured educational outreach and ongoing performance feedback.This pragmatic, cluster-randomized control trial and embedded process evaluation seeks to determine the effect of adding academic detailing to audit and feedback on prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes, compared with audit and feedback alone. Nursing homes within pre-determined regions of Ontario, Canada, are eligible if they express an interest in the intervention. The academic detailing intervention will be delivered by registered health professionals following an intensive training program including relevant clinical issues and techniques to support health professional behavior change. Physicians in both groups will have the opportunity to access confidential reports summarizing their prescribing patterns for antipsychotics in comparison to the local and provincial average. Participating homes will be allocated to one of the two arms of the study (active/full intervention versus standard audit and feedback) in two waves, with a 2:1 allocation ratio. Homes will be randomized after stratifying for geography, baseline antipsychotic prescription rates, and size, to ensure a balance of characteristics. The primary outcome is antipsychotic dispensing in nursing homes, measured 6 months after allocation; secondary outcomes include clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization.Policy-makers and the public have taken note that antipsychotics are used in nursing homes in Ontario far more than other jurisdictions. Academic detailing can be an effective technique to address challenges in appropriate prescribing in nursing homes, but effect sizes vary widely. This opportunistic, policy-driven evaluation, embedded within a government-initiated demonstration project, was designed to ensure policy-makers receive the best evidence possible regarding whether and how to scale up the intervention.ClinicalTrials.gov NLM Identifier: NCT02604056 .

Project description:BackgroundAlthough the current Clinical Practice Guideline recommend Motivational Interviewing for use with smokers not ready to quit, the strength of evidence for its use is rated as not optimal. The purpose of the present study is to address key methodological limitations of previous studies by ensuring fidelity in the delivery of the Motivational Interviewing intervention, using an attention-matched control condition, and focusing on unmotivated smokers whom meta-analyses have indicated may benefit most from Motivational Interviewing. It is hypothesized that MI will be more effective at inducing quit attempts and smoking cessation at 6-month follow-up than brief advice to quit and an intensity-matched health education condition.Methods/designA sample of adult community resident smokers (N = 255) who report low motivation and readiness to quit are being randomized using a 2:2:1 treatment allocation to Motivational Interviewing, Health Education, or Brief Advice. Over 6 months, participants in Motivational Interviewing and Health Education receive 4 individual counseling sessions and participants in Brief Advice receive one brief in-person individual session at baseline. Rigorous monitoring and independent verification of fidelity will assure the counseling approaches are distinct and delivered as planned. Participants complete surveys at baseline, week 12 and 6-month follow-up to assess demographics, smoking characteristics, and smoking outcomes. Participants who decide to quit are provided with a self-help guide to quitting, help with a quit plan, and free pharmacotherapy. The primary outcome is self-report of one or more quit attempts lasting at least 24 hours between randomization and 6-month follow-up. The secondary outcome is biochemically confirmed 7-day point prevalence cessation at 6-month follow-up. Hypothesized mediators of the presumed treatment effect on quit attempts are greater perceived autonomy support and autonomous motivation. Use of pharmacotherapy is a hypothesized mediator of Motivational Interviewing's effect on cessation.DiscussionThis trial will provide the most rigorous evaluation to date of Motivational Interviewing's efficacy for encouraging unmotivated smokers to make a quit attempt. It will also provide effect-size estimates of MI's impact on smoking cessation to inform future clinical trials and inform the Clinical Practice Guideline.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01188018.

Project description:Importance:Strategies to reduce the inappropriate prescription of antipsychotics have been the focus of recent attention but have shown considerable variation in their effectiveness. Objective:To evaluate the effectiveness of academic detailing in nursing homes targeting appropriate prescribing of antipsychotics. Design, Setting, and Participants:We conducted a pragmatic, cluster randomized clinical trial comparing the effect of academic detailing vs usual care on prescribing antipsychotics in 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents in Ontario, Canada. Data were collected from October 2015 to March 2016 and analyzed from April to August 2018. Primary analyses were conducted using intention to treat. Intervention:Academic detailing delivered by health professionals (eg, nurses or pharmacists) who arranged meetings (with administrators, physicians, pharmacists, nurses, and support workers), presentations, group visits (with 2-6 clinicians), and 1-on-1 visits (traditional academic detailing visits). Academic detailers had direct and ongoing contact with the nursing homes from the time of launch. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome, defined at the level of the resident, was whether continuous antipsychotics were dispensed in the past week. Secondary outcomes included prescribing of other psychotropic medications and clinical outcomes and scores. Prescribing outcomes were assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, and 12 months, and clinical outcomes and scores were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months. Results:A total of 40 nursing homes with 5363 residents were randomized, with 18 intervention homes (45.0%; 2303 [42.9%] residents) and 22 control homes (55.0%; 3060 [57.1%] residents). Participants in the intervention and control groups had similar median (interquartile range) age (86 [79-91] years vs 85 [78-90] years) and sex (674 [29.3%] men vs 970 [31.7%] men). At 12 months, there was no statistically significant difference in the frequency of daily antipsychotic use (intervention: 569 patients [25.2%]; control: 769 [25.6%]; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.93-1.20; P = .49). There were no significant differences in the rates of health care utilization, but the intervention group did experience a statistically significant reduction in pain compared with the control group (mean [SD] pain score, 0.30 [0.59] vs 0.38 [0.66]; P < .001) and depression (mean [SD] Depression Rating Scale score, 2.18 [2.37] vs 2.81 [2.65]; P < .001) at 6 months. Conclusions and Relevance:The intervention did not further reduce antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes beyond system-level secular trends occurring alongside usual care. Our findings highlight the need for a more targeted approach to quality improvement strategies, including academic detailing, that account for the timing and topic of interventions. Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02604056.

Project description:BackgroundPotentially inappropriate prescribing is common among older adults with multimorbidity due to various reasons, from concurrent application of multiple single-disease clinical guidelines to fragmentation of care. Interventions such as medication review have been implemented worldwide to reduce inappropriate prescribing for older adults. However, the implementability of such interventions are underexplored in the outpatient clinics in Singapore's public hospitals. Hence, the Pro-M study aims to assess the feasibility of implementing a physician-pharmacist collaborative care intervention in geriatric medicine outpatient clinics to facilitate appropriate prescribing for older adults in Singapore.MethodsThis is a single-arm, non-randomised feasibility study using a pre-post evaluation design. This study consists of two parts: (1) implementation phase of the intervention (6 months) and an (2) evaluation phase (3 months). Eligible patients will be recruited from geriatric medicine outpatient clinics at two public hospitals in Singapore through convenience sampling. The main components of the Pro-M intervention are: (1) pharmacist-facilitated medication reviews with feedback on any medication issues and potential recommendations to physicians, and (2) physicians communicating changes to other relevant prescribers. The evaluation phase will involve surveying and interviewing physicians and pharmacists involved in the implementation of the intervention. A mixed-method approach will be employed for data collection and analysis. The quantitative and qualitative findings will be triangulated and reported using Proctor's implementation outcomes: appropriateness, penetration, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, and sustainability. A basic cost analysis will be conducted alongside the study.DiscussionThis is a phase 2 study to test the feasibility of implementing an intervention that was co-created with stakeholders during phase 1 development of an intervention to optimise prescribing for older adults with multimorbidity. The implementation will be assessed using Proctor's implementation outcomes to provide insights on the process and the feasibility of implementing medication reviews for older adults with multimorbidity as a routine practice in outpatient clinics. Data collected from this study will inform a subsequent scale-up study.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05756478. Registered on 06 March 2023.

Project description:BackgroundWatchful waiting management for acute otitis media (AOM), where an antibiotic is used only if the child's symptoms worsen or do not improve over the subsequent 2-3 days, is an effective approach to reduce antibiotic exposure for children with AOM. However, studies to compare the effectiveness of interventions to promote watchful waiting are lacking. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness and implementation outcomes of two pragmatic, patient-centered interventions designed to facilitate use of watchful waiting in clinical practice.MethodsThis will be a cluster-randomized trial utilizing a hybrid implementation-effectiveness design. Thirty-three primary care or urgent care clinics will be randomized to one of two interventions: a health systems-level intervention alone or a health systems-level intervention combined with use of a shared decision-making aid. The health systems-level intervention will include engagement of a clinician champion at each clinic, changes to electronic health record antibiotic orders to facilitate delayed antibiotic prescriptions as part of a watchful waiting strategy, quarterly feedback reports detailing clinicians' use of watchful waiting individually and compared with peers, and virtual learning sessions for clinicians. The hybrid intervention will include the health systems-level intervention plus a shared decision-making aid designed to inform decision-making between parents and clinicians with best available evidence. The primary outcomes will be whether an antibiotic was ultimately taken by the child and parent satisfaction with their child's care. We will explore the differences in implementation effectiveness by patient population served, clinic type, clinical setting, and organization. The fidelity, acceptability, and perceived appropriateness of the interventions among different clinician types, patient populations, and clinical settings will be compared. We will also conduct formative qualitative interviews and surveys with clinicians and administrators, focus groups and surveys of parents of patients with AOM, and engagement of two stakeholder advisory councils to further inform the interventions.DiscussionThis study will compare the effectiveness of two pragmatic interventions to promote use of watchful waiting for children with AOM to reduce antibiotic exposure and increase parent satisfaction, thus informing national antibiotic stewardship policy development.Clinical trial registrationNCT06034080.

Project description:BackgroundLung cancer screening (LCS) is recommended for individuals at high risk due to age and smoking history after a shared decision-making conversation. However, little is known about best strategies for incorporating shared decision-making, especially in a busy primary care setting.ObjectiveTo develop a novel tool, Lung Cancer Assessment of Risk and Education (LungCARE) to guide LCS decisions among eligible primary care patients.DesignPilot cluster randomized controlled trial of LungCARE versus usual care.ParticipantsPatients of providers in a university primary care clinic, who met criteria for LCS.InterventionProviders were randomized to LungCARE intervention or control. LungCARE participants completed a computer tablet-based video assessment of lung cancer educational needs in the waiting room prior to a primary care visit. Patient and provider both received a summary handout of patient concerns and responses.Main measuresAll eligible patients completed baseline interviews by telephone. One week after the index visit, participants completed a follow-up telephone survey that assessed patient-physician discussion of LCS, referral to and scheduling of LCS, as well as LCS knowledge and acceptability of LungCARE. Two months after index visit, we reviewed patients' electronic health records (EHRs) for evidence of a shared decision-making conversation and referral to and receipt of LCS.Key resultsA total of 66 participants completed baseline and follow-up visits (34: LungCARE; 32: usual care). Mean age was 65.9 (± 6.0). Based on EHR review, compared to usual care, LungCARE participants were more likely to have discussed LCS with their physicians (56% vs 25%; p = 0.04) and to be referred to LCS (44% vs 13%; p < 0.02). Intervention participants were also more likely to complete LCS (32% vs 13%; p < 0.01) and had higher knowledge scores (mean score 6.5 (± 1.7) vs 5.5 (± 1.4; p < 0.01).ConclusionsLungCARE increased discussion, referral, and completion of LCS and improved LCS knowledge.Clinical trial registrationNCT03862001.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence from observational studies suggests that a greater intake of ultra-processed foods during pregnancy is associated with a higher chance of obesity, increased gestational weight gain, and neonatal adiposity. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a nutritional intervention based on encouraging the consumption of unprocessed and minimally processed foods and the practice of physical activities for appropriate weight gain in overweight, adult, pregnant women. Additionally, the effect of the intervention on pregnancy outcomes, neonatal adiposity, and the child's weight and height will be investigated. METHODS:This is a two-armed parallel randomized controlled trial that will be conducted at primary health units in Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. Adult pregnant women who are overweight and receiving prenatal care in the public health system will be included. The women will be randomly allocated into control (standard care) or intervention groups. Those enrolled in the intervention group will participate in three individualized nutritional counselling sessions based on encouraging the consumption of unprocessed and minimally processed foods and the practice of physical activities. The recruitment of the participants will be carried out at seven health facilities over 12 months, with a sample of 300 women expected. Maternal anthropometric, sociodemographic, blood pressure, biochemical, and lifestyle data will be obtained at baseline (up to the 16th week of gestation), and during a second assessment (34th to 36th gestational week). The neonate body composition will be estimated after birth, and data on pregnancy outcomes, weight and height of children at 6, 12 and 24?months of age will be further obtained from medical records. DISCUSSION:This will be the first randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of a nutritional intervention based on encouraging the consumption of unprocessed and minimally processed foods and the practice of physical activities for appropriate weight gain in adult, overweight, pregnant women. Furthermore, the effect of the intervention on pregnancy outcomes, neonatal adiposity and the child's weight and height will be evaluated. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Registro Brasileiro de Ensaios Clínicos (Rebec) RBR-2w9bhc July 30th 2018 (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/?q=RBR-2w9bhc+), and RBR-7yx36h June 4th 2019 (http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/?q=RBR-7yx36h+0.

Dataset Information

Encouraging physician appropriate prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies: protocol of a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN43532635].

Publications

Encouraging physician appropriate prescribing of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory therapies: protocol of a randomized controlled trial [ISRCTN43532635].

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets