Search results

The Comprehensive Post-Acute Stroke Services (COMPASS) Study is a pragmatic cluster-randomized clinical trial that evaluated the real-world effectiveness of the COMPASS transitional care (COMPASS-TC) model compared to usual care among adult stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients discharged home between 2016 and 2018. In Phase 1, 40 North Carolina hospital units were randomized 1:1 to the COMPASS-TC intervention or usual care, stratified by stroke patient volume and stroke center certification. In Phase 2, hospitals randomized to usual care crossed over to implement COMPASS-TC, and hospitals randomized to the intervention sustained COMPASS-TC. The intervention was patient-centered and assessed social and functional determinates of health to inform individualized care plans for secondary prevention, recovery, and referrals to services and community-based resources. COMPASS-TC was consistent with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) TC management reimbursement requirements.

The primary outcome was functional status (Stroke Impact Scale-16; SIS-16) at 90 days; secondary outcomes were mortality, disability, medication adherence, depression, cognition, self-rated health, fatigue, care satisfaction, home blood pressure monitoring, falls, and caregiver strain. Telephone interviewers, blinded to treatment assignment, assessed these outcomes at 90 days.

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).

Some research studies, called clinical trials, test treatments to see if they are safe and effective for patients. Before patients enroll in a trial, researchers ask patients for informed consent. In informed consent, a doctor or researcher explains what the trial is about and the benefits and risks of taking part. Patients then choose whether to enroll in the trial. If a patient is too sick to decide, a surrogate, such as a family member or friend, can decide on the patient's behalf.

Trials that test treatments in health emergencies, such as heart attack or stroke, may need a different informed consent process. Emergency situations can be stressful, and patients may have little time to learn about the trial.

In this study, the research team worked with patients and surrogates who had experience with informed consent for trials in health emergencies. They created a new informed consent process to use for trials about stroke and heart attack.

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.

Organizations that fund research often seek input on which topics are important to study. Patients can take part in setting priorities for research to help make sure that future studies focus on the topics that matter most to them. Researchers can collect patients' views on which research topics are most important in different ways.

In this study, the research team compared three methods of research priority setting:

• Online crowd voting, where patients submit, discuss, and vote on ideas online
• Focus groups with nominal group technique, where patients come up with ideas on their own and then discuss those ideas in a group with a moderator
• Modified Delphi method, where patients give input through a series of mailed surveys

The research team looked at research topic rankings and experiences with each method among patients with low back pain.