Search results

For people with serious chronic conditions, healthcare that defaults to all available treatments without considering patient preferences risks harms that may exceed benefits. Advance care planning (ACP) has the potential to align healthcare with what is important to patients and maximize quality of life. While primary care is where most people receive most of their care, engaging patients in ACP is not routine in primary care given competing demands and limited resources. Primary care clinicians, patients, and families agree that it is preferred to make plans before there is a medical crisis. The research team's goal was to make ACP routine in primary care and to "move it upstream" so that it included improving the quality of the last years of life as well as respecting wishes for end of life care.

This study included a comparative effectiveness trial of team-based versus individual clinician-focused ACP in primary care practices. The research team adapted Ariadne Labs' Serious Illness Care Program (SICP) and aimed to determine if a team approach produces better patient outcomes and explore factors influencing implementation of ACP across practices.

Seven practice-based research networks (PBRNs) in the United States and Canada randomized their primary care practices to team-based or individual clinician-focused versions of SICP. Team members and clinicians completed training, and implementation was supported through practice facilitation. Consented patient participants completed a baseline survey after initial conversations and follow-up surveys at 6 and 12 months later. Forty practices (21 team, 19 clinician) completed training and referred patients to the study. Half of the practices were rural, 80 percent were family medicine, and 33 percent were medical residency training sites. 535 healthcare staff completed training. Both arms trained primary care providers; the team arm also trained nurses, medical assistants, and other roles. 1,321 patients and care partners were referred; and 917 consented and were enrolled (455 from team practices, 462 from clinician). Data from 802 patients were included in the primary analyses. Qualitative implementation data was collected during practice facilitation and from practice interviews.

This collection includes quantitative data collected from primary care practices (DS1) and team members and clinicians (DS2) from study sites located in the United States.

Community-engaged research is an umbrella term for forms of research that have community and stakeholder engagement as a core principle, for example, patient-centered outcomes research (PCOR), participatory action research, and community-based participatory research. However, the implementation and category of community engagement can vary across a spectrum from minimal engagement to fully collaborative engagement. A major methodological gap is the assessment of stakeholder engagement from a stakeholder perspective. Evaluation of the impact of stakeholder engagement on research development, implementation, and outcomes requires the development and validation of tools that assess engagement. This study's objective was to develop and validate comprehensive and condensed versions of a survey instrument that will be completed by stakeholders and used to assess engagement in research studies from a stakeholder perspective.

According to the World Health Organization, palliative care is "an approach that improves the quality of life of patients and their families facing the problems associated with life-threatening illness, through the prevention and relief of suffering by means of early identification and impeccable assessment and treatment of pain and other problems, physical, psycho-social and spiritual." The goal of the study was to generate comparative effectiveness research evidence to support the delivery of coordinated, community-based palliative care that effectively implements care plans consistent with the goals and preferences of older adults with advanced illness and their caregivers.

This study included a pragmatic, two-arm, multi-site randomized controlled trial of older adults (50+ years) with either poor prognosis cancer or end-stage organ failure who were recruited during an emergency department (ED) visit, along with their informal caregivers, to compare nurse-led telephonic case management to facilitated, outpatient specialty palliative care on: 1) quality of life in patients, 2) loneliness, 3) healthcare use in the 12 months following enrollment, 4) symptom burden, 5) caregiver strain, 6) caregiver quality of life, and 7) bereavement.

Amplification is an evidence-based front-line treatment for those with impaired communication secondary to Age Related Hearing Loss (ARHL). ARHL is the most prevalent cause of communication impairment among older adults and multiple existing evidence-based care models exist to address it. This study compared the two most common models of care (defined below) for ARHL provided to adults in assisted living/personal care communities.

• The Consult Model (i.e., usual care) was an acute care strategy, relying on a monthly Audiologist visit to the facility.
• The Engage Model was a chronic care approach to supportive hearing loss self-management of ARHL. Engage includes (a) hearing screening for all residents, (b) an individualized communication plan for those with an identified hearing loss (e.g., one-to-one, group, telephone, television plans, hearing aid trouble shooting, communication strategies, etc.), (c) provision of simple, non-custom amplifiers, (d) referral to audiology if needed, and (e) ongoing support provided by trained personnel (Communication Facilitator) under the supervision of the audiologist.

This study included three separate sample populations at 10 medical facilities. The staff at the medical facilities were selected to measure job satisfaction (DS1). Residents of the medical facilities were sampled to collect measures related to the impact of hearing on an individual's life and general demographics (DS2 and DS3). And the family of the residents were sampled to measure caregiver burden (DS4).

The BRITE study (Brain Injury Rehabilitation: Improving the Transition Experience) was a six-center, 1:1 randomized controlled pragmatic trial with masked outcome assessment that compared the effectiveness of two established approaches to managing transition from inpatient rehabilitation facility discharge to the next phase of care for individuals with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI). The two established transition methods were (1) a standardized version of existing discharge procedures used at all six sites and (2) a standardized remotely-delivered case management approach that extended beyond the point of discharge, based on the protocol used within the Veteran's Health Administration and enhanced with input from patient and family stakeholders. The sample was stratified by site and discharge location (skilled nursing facility vs. discharge to home/community) based on the relatively lower frequency of discharge to facility (22 percent across all six study sites in 2015) and the expectation of high impact of discharge destination on outcomes. When a caregiver was available for an enrolled patient, they were also approached for consent to be surveyed, with some patients having up to two caregivers enrolled to account for changes in primary caregiver.

The following key outcome domains were assessed: (1) ability of patients to participate in the home and community as independently as possible, (2) health-related quality of life, (3) access to appropriate healthcare and reduced emergent or urgent healthcare, and (4) caregiver outcomes. These outcomes were assessed at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months after discharge from inpatient care. Participants were also given the standard TBI Model Systems follow-up assessment one-year post-injury. Types of medical insurance coverage and satisfaction with healthcare were examined at 6 and 12 months post-discharge.

Using a pragmatic trial design to limit exclusions, the investigators conducted a 36-month multi-center randomized effectiveness trial to compare the impact of an enhanced usual care (control) intervention, with exercise coaching (exercise), on fragility fractures and serious fall-related injuries (FF/SFRI) in patients with a previous fragility fracture. Specifically, the investigators examined the impact of the intervention on social loneliness, physical function, and bone strength. 1,139 individuals over 65 with a history of fragility fractures and/or osteoporosis were recruited over two years across three regions of Pennsylvania and randomized into either the enhanced usual care control group or exercise with coaching treatment group, where in-person exercise activities were led by trained volunteers.

Dataset (DS) 1 contains the following data used for analysis: participant characteristics at baseline by study group (referred to as Table 5 in the documentation), intervention participant characteristics at baseline based on exercise session type (referred to as Table 6), cumulative incidences of first serious fall-related injury compared by study group (referred to as Figure 3), cumulative incidence for first serious fall-related injury by age, gender, race, and osteoporosis medication (referred to as Table 8 and Figure 4), and cumulative incidence for first series fall-related injury by tertile of average intervention sessions per month (referred to as Figure 5). Other datasets used for analysis are fall injury data (DS2), monthly workout sessions data (DS3), secondary outcomes data (DS4, referred to as Table 7), and adverse events data (DS5, referred to as Table 9). DS6 includes markers designating before and after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020), allowing for analyses of participants who experienced fall-related injuries relative to COVID-19.

Datasets labeled "Miscellaneous" were not used in any analysis. These datasets contain extra measures from screening (DS7), baseline assessments (DS8), 4-month check-in visits (DS9), participant's distance to study site (DS10), coaching check-ins for weeks 1-12 (DS11), exercise sessions by month (DS12), adverse events (DS13), and end of study information (DS14).

The primary aim of this randomized clinical trial is to compare the effectiveness of the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) and the Mediterranean style diet (MSD) in inducing symptomatic and clinical remission in patients with Crohn's disease. Secondary objectives are to compare the effectiveness of the SCD and MSD in reducing mucosal and systemic inflammation, assessed by measuring the concentration of fecal calprotectin (FCP) and C-reactive protein (CRP) respectively; to compare the diets' effectiveness in improving fatigue, pain, and joint symptoms; and to determine the proportion of patients who continue study diets when prepared food is no longer provided without cost and their reasons for discontinuing the diets. The research aims were guided by crowdsourcing patient-generated research priorities; those that received the most support from Patient-Powered Research Network (PPRN) members were related to diet.

Based on the book Breaking the Vicious Cycle (Gottschall 1987), the Specific Carbohydrate Diet (SCD) restricts all but simple carbohydrates. Fresh fruits, vegetables, unprocessed meats, lactose-free cheeses, and certain legumes are permitted; grains, processed foods, canned foods, and milk are not permitted. The Mediterranean style diet (MSD) involves a high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables, and cereals; moderate intake of legumes, fish, seafood, and poultry; and low dairy intake. Red and processed meats, soda drinks, bakery foods, and sweets are not permitted. The MSD was selected as the alternative diet in this trial due to its easier implementation, consistency with U.S. Department of Agriculture and World Health Organization recommendations, and evidence of its role in overall health and specific benefits for Crohn's patients.

A total of 194 adult patients with mild to moderate Crohn's disease were enrolled and randomized into either the SCD (intervention) or MSD (control) diet groups at 33 different sites across the United States. Patients received meal delivery for their assigned diet for six weeks, then were provided instructions and recipes to adhere to the diet on their own for weeks seven through twelve. Outcome measures were taken at baseline, six weeks, and twelve weeks.

This study consists of a two-group, randomized, controlled comparative effectiveness trial with 300 individuals from Appalachian Kentucky who do not have a primary care provider (and thus are not able to receive the standard of care without intercession) and who are at risk for CVD (cardiovascular disease) by virtue of having two or more modifiable CVD risk factors. The researchers compared (1) the standard of care alone, referral to a primary care provider for management of CVD risk factors, with (2) standard of care supplemented by patient-centered, culturally appropriate, self-care CVD risk reduction intervention (HeartHealth) designed to improve multiple CVD risk factors while overcoming barriers to success.

The researchers compared the 4 month (short-term) and 1 year (long-term) impact of the interventions on: 1) CVD risk factors selected by patients (i.e., tobacco use, blood pressure, lipid profile, HgA1c for diabetics, body mass index, waist circumference, depressive symptoms, or physical activity level); 2) all CVD risk factors for each patient; 3) quality of life; 4) patient and healthcare provider satisfaction; 5) desirability and adoptability by assessing adherence to recommended CVD risk reduction protocols, and retention of recruited individuals.

Demographic variables include gender, age, ethnicity, marital status, employment status, and level of education.