Search results

Many people have health problems that affect how well they can do normal activities, either for a short time or for their lifetime. These problems may be present from birth or result from illness, injury, or aging. Rehabilitation, or rehab, can help patients regain the ability to do normal activities. Rehab providers include doctors, nurses, psychologists, and physical, occupational, speech, or language therapists.

Rehab treatments often lack a common definition. Rehab providers often name treatments by the type of professional who delivers them or the problem they treat, rather than by the content of the treatment. Also, treatments can vary across rehab providers. Using a standard way to define rehab treatments may help researchers compare these treatments.

In this study, the research team created and tested a manual to help rehab providers use standard ways to define rehab treatments.

Patients with chronic health problems, such as diabetes, often need to change treatment plans over time to improve their health. To help with this process, doctors can monitor patients' health through follow-up clinic visits and lab tests. Doctors may also suggest changing a treatment plan in response to visits or lab test results. When a treatment plan changes in this way, it's called a dynamic treatment plan. In this study, the research team developed and tested new statistical methods to learn how dynamic treatment plans and choices about follow-up care affect patients' health. These methods use electronic health records, or EHRs. Using EHRs is helpful because they have data on

• What treatments patients have received over time
• How treatments have affected patients' health
• Follow-up information such as lab test results

But the data may differ for patients based on when and why they go to the doctor. These differences make it hard for researchers to accurately know the effect of dynamic treatment plans across many patients.

To access the methods and software, please visit the simcasual R Package.

Comparative effectiveness research compares two or more treatments to see which one works better for which patients. Electronic healthcare data are useful for this type of research. These data come from medical records and insurance claims. The data include information about how well patients respond to treatments. But many things--not just treatments--affect whether a patient's health improves.

How well a patient responds to a treatment may depend on the patient's age or what medicines the patient takes. It could also depend on what other health problems a patient has and how severe those problems are. Or a doctor may suggest one treatment instead of another because of a patient's personal situation and health. Researchers need ways to determine whether changes in a patient's health result from a certain treatment or something else.

Different statistical methods help researchers account for the various things that can affect treatment results. But researchers don't know which methods work best. This study compared several methods. The team looked at how well the methods worked to predict patients' responses to treatment, taking into account their personal situations and health. The team then created a computer program to help researchers use the methods.

To access the methods and software, please visit the Hdps GitHub and TargetedLearning GitHub.

Antibiotics are considered a feasible treatment for appendicitis, yet appendectomy remains the treatment standard in the United States. Previous randomized trials comparing these treatments excluded important subgroups and recruited small sample sizes but questions remain about the applicability of these previous findings. This study conducted the Comparison of Outcomes of antibiotic Drugs and Appendectomy (CODA) randomized clinical trial to compare antibiotics with appendectomy among adults with appendicitis, including those with appendicolith. Those recruited comprised a diverse population, compared an overall measure of health status as the primary outcome, and included several secondary clinical and patient-reported outcomes, complications, and measures of healthcare utilization.

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.

A rare disease is one that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Because few people have these diseases, clinical studies on treatments can be hard to conduct. One way to study rare disease treatments is with an small n sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (snSMART) study.

snSMART studies have two stages. In the first stage, researchers assign patients to a treatment by chance. In the second stage, patients may stay with the same treatment or switch treatments. Patients stay on the same treatment if it's working well. If the treatment isn't working, researchers assign patients by chance to a new treatment.

snSMARTs can help researchers learn more from a smaller number of patients than a standard clinical study. But most current methods for analyzing snSMARTs use data only from the first stage, which can lead to inefficient results.

In this project, the research team developed and tested new methods that use data from both stages to analyze snSMARTs. The team compared results from the new methods to actual treatment effectiveness to see:

• Bias, or whether results are too high or too low
• Efficiency, or how big the difference is between the results and actual treatment effectiveness

This study contains two supplementary documentation files. There is no data included in this release.

Patients may respond differently to the same treatment due to individual traits such as age or gender. Knowing how different traits can affect a patient's response to treatment can help doctors and patients make better treatment decisions. For example, this information can help doctors know what types of cancer medicines work better for certain patients. This project focuses on improving the methods that researchers use to compare how treatments work for different patients.

In this project, the research team developed and tested a statistical method called random forests, or RF. RF is a way to analyze data using a technique called machine learning. In machine learning, computers use data to learn how to perform different tasks with little or no human input. Many types of RF methods exist. The team compared multiple RF methods to learn how well the methods would work to find out how patients with different traits respond to the same treatment.

To access the R package, please visit the randomForestSRC CRAN webpage.