Will Mobile Diabetes Education Teams (MDETs) in primary care improve patient care processes and health outcomes? Study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is evidence to suggest that delivery of diabetes self-management support by diabetes educators in primary care may improve patient care processes and patient clinical outcomes; however, the evaluation of such a model in primary care is nonexistent in Canada. This article describes the design for the evaluation of the implementation of Mobile Diabetes Education Teams (MDETs) in primary care settings in Canada. METHODS: This study will have a non-blinded, cluster-randomized controlled trial stepped wedge design. A cluster, randomized controlled trial will be used to evaluate the Mobile Diabetes Education Teams' intervention in improving patient clinical and care process outcomes. A total of 1,200 patient charts at participating primary care sites will be reviewed for data extraction. Eligible patients will be those aged >=18, who have type 2 diabetes and a hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) of >=8 %. Clusters (that is, primary care sites) will be randomized to the intervention and control group using a block randomization procedure within practice size as the blocking factor. A stepped wedge design will be used to sequentially roll out the intervention so that all clusters eventually receive the intervention. The time at which each cluster begins the intervention is randomized to one of the four roll out periods (0, 6, 12, and 18 months). Clusters that are randomized into the intervention later will act as the control for those receiving the intervention earlier. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in the proportion of patients who achieve the recommended HbA1c target of <=7 % between intervention and control groups. Qualitative work (in-depth interviews with primary care physicians, MDET educators and patients; and MDET educators' field notes and debriefing sessions) will be undertaken to assess the implementation process and effectiveness of the MDET intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01553266.     

Public mental health: the time is ripe for translation of evidence into practice

Public mental health deals with mental health promotion, prevention of mental disorders and suicide, reducing mental health inequalities, and governance and organization of mental health service provision. The full impact of mental health is largely unrecognized within the public health sphere, despite the increasing burden of disease attributable to mental and behavioral disorders. Modern public mental health policies aim at improving psychosocial health by addressing determinants of mental health in all public policy areas. Stigmatization of mental disorders is a widespread phenomenon that constitutes a barrier for help-seeking and for the development of health care services, and is thus a core issue in public mental health actions. Lately, there has been heightened interest in the promotion of positive mental health and wellbeing. Effective programmes have been developed for promoting mental health in everyday settings such as families, schools and workplaces. New evidence indicates that many mental disorders and suicides are preventable by public mental health interventions. Available evidence favours the population approach over high-risk approaches. Public mental health emphasizes the role of primary care in the provision of mental health services to the population. The convincing evidence base for population-based mental health interventions asks for actions for putting evidence into practice.     

Intervention description is not enough: evidence from an in-depth multiple case study on the untold role and impact of context in randomised controlled trials of seven complex interventions

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: A number of single case reports have suggested that the context within which intervention studies take place may challenge the assumptions that underpin RCTs. However, the diverse ways in which context may challenge the central tenets of the RCT, and the degree to which this information is known to researchers and/or subsequently reported, has received much less attention. In this paper we explore these issues by focussing on 7 RCTs of interventions ranging in type and degree of complexity, and across diverse contexts. METHODS: This in-depth multiple case study using interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis was conducted in two phases. In phase one, a RCT of a nurse-led intervention provided a single exploratory case and informed the design, sampling and data collection within the main study. Phase two consisted of a multiple explanatory case study covering a range of trials of different types of complex intervention. A total of 84 data sources across the 7 trials were accessed. RESULTS: We present consistent empirical evidence across all trials to indicate that four key elements of context (personal, organisational, trial and problem context) are crucial to understanding how a complex intervention works and to enable both assessments of internal validity and likely generalizability to other settings. The ways in which context challenged trial operation was often complex, idiosyncratic, and subtle; often falling outside of current trial reporting formats. However, information on such issues appeared to be available via first hand "insider accounts" of each trial suggesting that improved reporting on the role of context is possible. CONCLUSIONS: Sufficient detail about context needs to be understood and reported in RCTs of complex interventions, in order for the transferability of complex interventions to be assessed. Improved reporting formats that require and encourage the clarification of both general and project-specific threats to the likely internal and external validity need to be developed. In addition a cultural change is required in which the open and honest reporting of such issues is seen as an indicator of study strength and researcher integrity, rather than a symbol of a poor quality study or investigator ability.     

Study protocol of a mixed-methods evaluation of a cluster randomized trial to improve the safety of NSAID and antiplatelet prescribing: data-driven quality improvement in primary care

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Trials of complex interventions are criticized for being 'black box', so the UK Medical Research Council recommends carrying out a process evaluation to explain the trial findings. We believe it is good practice to pre-specify and publish process evaluation protocols to set standards and minimize bias. Unlike protocols for trials, little guidance or standards exist for the reporting of process evaluations. This paper presents the mixed-method process evaluation protocol of a cluster randomized trial, drawing on a framework designed by the authors.Methods/designThis mixed-method evaluation is based on four research questions and maps data collection to a logic model of how the data-driven quality improvement in primary care (DQIP) intervention is expected to work. Data collection will be predominately by qualitative case studies in eight to ten of the trial practices, focus groups with patients affected by the intervention and quantitative analysis of routine practice data, trial outcome and questionnaire data and data from the DQIP intervention. DISCUSSION: We believe that pre-specifying the intentions of a process evaluation can help to minimize bias arising from potentially misleading post-hoc analysis. We recognize it is also important to retain flexibility to examine the unexpected and the unintended. From that perspective, a mixed-methods evaluation allows the combination of exploratory and flexible qualitative work, and more pre-specified quantitative analysis, with each method contributing to the design, implementation and interpretation of the other.As well as strengthening the study the authors hope to stimulate discussion among their academic colleagues about publishing protocols for evaluations of randomized trials of complex interventions.Data-driven quality improvement in primary care trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01425502.     

Perinatal mental health: a review of progress and challenges

Perinatal mental health has become a significant focus of interest in recent years, with investment in new specialist mental health services in some high‐income countries, and inpatient psychiatric mother and baby units in diverse settings. In this paper, we summarize and critically examine the epidemiology and impact of perinatal mental disorders, including emerging evidence of an increase of their prevalence in young pregnant women. Perinatal mental disorders are among the commonest morbidities of pregnancy, and make an important contribution to maternal mortality, as well as to adverse neonatal, infant and child outcomes. We then review the current evidence base on interventions, including individual level and public health ones, as well as service delivery models. Randomized controlled trials provide evidence on the effectiveness of psychological and psychosocial interventions at the individual level, though it is not yet clear which women with perinatal mental disorders also need additional support for parenting. The evidence base on psychotropic use in pregnancy is almost exclusively observational. There is little research on the full range of perinatal mental disorders, on how to improve access to treatment for women with psychosocial difficulties, and on the effectiveness of different service delivery models. We conclude with research and clinical implications, which, we argue, highlight the need for an extension of generic psychiatric services to include preconception care, and further investment into public health interventions, in addition to perinatal mental health services, potentially for women and men, to reduce maternal and child morbidity and mortality.     

Collaborative Interventions for Circulation and Depression (COINCIDE): study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial of collaborative care for depression in people with diabetes and/or coronary heart disease

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Depression is up to two to three times as common in people with long-term conditions. It negatively affects medical management of disease and self-care behaviors, and leads to poorer quality of life and high costs in primary care. Screening and treatment of depression is increasingly prioritized, but despite initiatives to improve access and quality of care, depression remains under-detected and under-treated, especially in people with long-term conditions. Collaborative care is known to positively affect the process and outcome of care for people with depression and long-term conditions, but its effectiveness outside the USA is still relatively unknown. Furthermore, collaborative care has yet to be tested in settings that resemble more naturalistic settings that include patient choice and the usual care providers. The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a collaborative-care intervention, for people with depression and diabetes/coronary heart disease in National Health Service (NHS) primary care, in which low-intensity psychological treatment services are delivered by the usual care provider - Increasing Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) services.s. The study also aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the intervention over 6 months of collaborative care, and to assess qualitatively the extent to which collaborative care was implemented in the intervention general practices. METHODS: This is a cluster randomized controlled trial of 30 general practices allocated to either collaborative care or usual care. Fifteen patients per practice will be recruited after a screening exercise to detect patients with recognized depression (greater than or equal to 10 on the nine-symptom Patient Health Questionnaire; PHQ-9). Patients in the collaborative-care arm with recognized depression will be offered a choice of evidence-based low-intensity psychological treatments based on cognitive and behavioral approaches. Patients will be case managed by psychological well-being practitioners employed by IAPT in partnership with a practice nurse and/or general practitioner. The primary outcome will be change in depressive symptoms at 6 months on the 90-item Symptoms Checklist (SCL-90). Secondary outcomes include change in health status, self-care behaviors, and self-efficacy. A qualitative process evaluation will be undertaken with patients and health practitioners to gauge the extent to which the collaborative-care model is implemented, and to explore sustainability beyond the clinical trial. DISCUSSION: COINCIDE will assess whether collaborative care can improve patient-centered outcomes, and evaluate access to and quality of care of co-morbid depression of varying intensity in people with diabetes/coronary heart disease. Additionally, by working with usual care providers such as IAPT, and by identifying and evaluating interventions that are effective and appropriate for routine use in the NHS, the COINCIDE trial offers opportunities to address translational gaps between research and implementation.Trial Registration NumberISRCTN80309252Trial StatusOpen.     

Community Mobilization in Mumbai Slums to Improve Perinatal Care and Outcomes: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Introduction

Improving maternal and newborn health in low-income settings requires both health service and community action. Previous community initiatives have been predominantly rural, but India is urbanizing. While working to improve health service quality, we tested an intervention in which urban slum-dweller women''s groups worked to improve local perinatal health.

Methods and Findings

A cluster randomized controlled trial in 24 intervention and 24 control settlements covered a population of 283,000. In each intervention cluster, a facilitator supported women''s groups through an action learning cycle in which they discussed perinatal experiences, improved their knowledge, and took local action. We monitored births, stillbirths, and neonatal deaths, and interviewed mothers at 6 weeks postpartum. The primary outcomes described perinatal care, maternal morbidity, and extended perinatal mortality. The analysis included 18,197 births over 3 years from 2006 to 2009. We found no differences between trial arms in uptake of antenatal care, reported work, rest, and diet in later pregnancy, institutional delivery, early and exclusive breastfeeding, or care-seeking. The stillbirth rate was non-significantly lower in the intervention arm (odds ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.60–1.22), and the neonatal mortality rate higher (1.48, 1.06–2.08). The extended perinatal mortality rate did not differ between arms (1.19, 0.90–1.57). We have no evidence that these differences could be explained by the intervention.

Conclusions

Facilitating urban community groups was feasible, and there was evidence of behaviour change, but we did not see population-level effects on health care or mortality. In cities with multiple sources of health care, but inequitable access to services, community mobilization should be integrated with attempts to deliver services for the poorest and most vulnerable, and with initiatives to improve quality of care in both public and private sectors.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN96256793 Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

The effects of clinical practice guidelines on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE: To assess the evidence for the effectiveness of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in improving patient outcomes in primary care. DATA SOURCES: A search of the MEDLINE, HEALTHPLAN, CINAHL and FAMLI databases was conducted to identify studies published between Jan. 1, 1980, and Dec. 31, 1995, concerning the use of guidelines in primary medical care. The keywords used in the search were "clinical guidelines," "primary care," "clinical care," "intervention," "randomized controlled trial" and "effectiveness." STUDY SELECTION: Studies of the use of CPGs were selected if they involved a randomized experimental or quasi-experimental method, concerned primary care, were related to clinical care and examined patient outcomes. Of 91 trials of CPGs identified through the search, 13 met the criteria for inclusion in the critical appraisal. DATA EXTRACTION: The following data were extracted, when possible, from the 13 trials: country and setting, number of physicians, number of patients (and the proportion followed to completion), length of follow-up, study method (including random assignment method), type of intervention, medical condition treated and effect on patient outcomes (including clinical and statistical significance, with confidence intervals). DATA SYNTHESIS: The most common conditions studied were hypertension (7 studies), asthma (2 studies) and cigarette smoking (2 studies). Four of the studies followed nationally developed guidelines, and 9 used locally developed guidelines. Six studies involved computerized or automated reminder systems, whereas the others relied on small-group workshops and education sessions. Only 5 of the 13 trials (38%) produced statistically significant results. CONCLUSION: There is very little evidence that the use of CPGs improves patient outcomes in primary medical care, but most studies published to date have used older guidelines and methods, which may have been insensitive to small changes in outcomes. Research is needed to determine whether the newer, evidence-based CPGs have an effect on patient outcomes.     

Reducing inappropriate, anticholinergic and psychotropic drugs among older residents in assisted living facilities: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Use of inappropriate drugs is common among institutionalized older people. Rigorous trials investigating the effect of the education of staff in institutionalized settings on the harm related to older people's drug treatment are still scarce. The aim of this trial is to investigate whether training professionals in assisted living facilities reduces the use of inappropriate drugs among residents and has an effect on residents' quality of life and use of health services. Methods and design During years 2011 and 2012, a sample of residents in assisted living facilities in Helsinki (approximately 212) will be recruited, having offered to participate in a trial aiming to reduce their harmful drugs. Their wards will be randomized into two arms: one, those in which staff will be trained in two half-day sessions, including case studies to identify inappropriate, anticholinergic and psychotropic drugs among their residents, and two, a control group with usual care procedures and delayed training. The intervention wards will have an appointed nurse who will be responsible for taking care of the medication of the residents on her ward, and taking any problems to the consulting doctor, who will be responsible for the overall care of the patient. The trial will last for twelve months, the assessment time points will be zero, six and twelve months. The primary outcomes will be the proportion of persons using inappropriate, anticholinergic, or more than two psychotropic drugs, and the change in the mean number of inappropriate, anticholinergic and psychotropic drugs among residents. Secondary endpoints will be, for example, the change in the mean number of drugs, the proportion of residents having significant drug-drug interactions, residents' health-related quality of life (HRQOL) according to the 15D instrument, cognition according to verbal fluency and clock-drawing tests and the use and cost of health services, especially hospitalizations. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first large-scale randomized trial exploring whether relatively light intervention, that is, staff training, will have an effect on reducing harmful drugs and improving QOL among institutionalized older people Trial registration ACTRN12611001078943.     

A cost-effectiveness analysis of provider and community interventions to improve the treatment of uncomplicated malaria in Nigeria: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence of poor adherence by health service personnel to clinical guidelines for malaria following a symptomatic diagnosis. In response to this, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that in all settings clinical suspicion of malaria should be confirmed by parasitological diagnosis using microscopy or Rapid Diagnostic Test (RDT). The Government of Nigeria plans to introduce RDTs in public health facilities over the coming year. In this context, we will evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of two interventions designed to support the roll-out of RDTs and improve the rational use of ACTs. It is feared that without supporting interventions, non-adherence will remain a serious impediment to implementing malaria treatment guidelines. Methods/design A three-arm stratified cluster randomized trial is used to compare the effectiveness and costeffectiveness of: (1) provider malaria training intervention versus expected standard practice in malaria diagnosis and treatment; (2) provider malaria training intervention plus schoolbased intervention versus expected standard practice; and (3) the combined provider plus school-based intervention versus provider intervention alone. RDTs will be introduced in all arms of the trial. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients attending facilities that report a fever or suspected malaria and receive treatment according to malaria guidelines. This will be measured by surveying patients (or caregivers) as they exit primary health centers, pharmacies, and patent medicine dealers. Cost-effectiveness will be presented in terms of the primary outcome and a range of secondary outcomes, including changes in provider and community knowledge. Costs will be estimated from both a societal and provider perspective using standard economic evaluation methodologies. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01350752.     

Life- and person-centred help in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, Germany (DelpHi): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: The provision of appropriate medical and nursing care for people with dementia is a major challenge for the healthcare system in Germany. New models of healthcare provision need to be developed, tested and implemented on the population level. Trials in which collaborative care for dementia in the primary care setting were studied have demonstrated its effectiveness. These studies have been conducted in different healthcare systems, however, so it is unclear whether these results extend to the specific context of the German healthcare system. The objective of this population-based intervention trial in the primary care setting is to test the efficacy and efficiency of implementing a subsidiary support system on a population level for persons with dementia who live at home. Methods and study design The study was designed to assemble a general physician-based epidemiological cohort of people above the age of 70 who live at home (DelpHi cohort). These people are screened for eligibility to participate in a trial of dementia care management (DelpHi trial). The trial is a cluster-randomised, controlled intervention trial with two arms (intervention and control) designed to test the efficacy and efficiency of implementing a subsidiary support system for persons with dementia who live at home. This subsidiary support system is initiated and coordinated by a dementia care manager: a nurse with dementia-specific qualifications who delivers the intervention according to a systematic, detailed protocol. The primary outcome is quality of life and healthcare for patients with dementia and their caregivers. This is a multidimensional outcome with a focus on four dimensions: (1) quality of life, (2) caregiver burden, (3) behavioural and psychological symptoms of dementia and (4) pharmacotherapy with an antidementia drug and prevention or suspension of potentially inappropriate medication. Secondary outcomes include the assessment of dementia syndromes, activities of daily living, social support health status, utilisation of health care resources and medication. DISCUSSION: The results will provide evidence for specific needs in ambulatory care for persons with dementia and will show effective ways to meet those needs. Qualification requirements will be evaluated, and the results will help to modify existing guidelines and treatment paths. Trial registration NCT01401582.     

The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews

Background

As a first step in developing a framework to evaluate and improve the quality of care of children in primary care there is a need to identify the evidence base underpinning interventions relevant to child health. Our objective was to identify all Cochrane systematic reviews relevant to the management of childhood conditions in primary care and to assess the extent to which Cochrane reviews reflect the burden of childhood illness presenting in primary care.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We used the Cochrane Child Health Field register of child-relevant systematic reviews to complete an overview of Cochrane reviews related to the management of children in primary care. We compared the proportion of systematic reviews with the proportion of consultations in Australia, US, Dutch and UK general practice in children. We identified 396 relevant systematic reviews; 358 included primary studies on children while 251 undertook a meta-analysis. Most reviews (n = 218, 55%) focused on chronic conditions and over half (n = 216, 57%) evaluated drug interventions. Since 2000, the percentage of pediatric primary care relevant reviews only increased by 2% (7% to 9%) compared to 18% (10% to 28%) in all child relevant reviews. Almost a quarter of reviews (n = 78, 23%) were published on asthma treatments which only account for 3–5% of consultations. Conversely, 15–23% of consultations are due to skin conditions yet they represent only 7% (n = 23) of reviews.

Conclusions/Significance

Although Cochrane systematic reviews focus on clinical trials and do not provide a comprehensive picture of the evidence base underpinning the management of children in primary care, the mismatch between the focus of the published research and the focus of clinical activity is striking. Clinical trials are an important component of the evidence base and the lack of trial evidence to demonstrate intervention effectiveness in substantial areas of primary care for children should be addressed.     

Analyzing time-to-event data in a clinical trial when an unknown proportion of subjects has experienced the event at entry

In some clinical trials, where the outcome is the time until development of a silent event, an unknown proportion of subjects who have already experienced the event will be unknowingly enrolled due to the imperfect nature of the diagnostic tests used to screen potential subjects. For example, commonly used diagnostic tests for evaluating HIV infection status in infants, such as DNA PCR and HIV Culture, have low sensitivity when given soon after infection. This can lead to the inclusion of an unknown proportion of HIV-infected infants into clinical trials aimed at the prevention of transmission from HIV-positive mothers to their infants through breastfeeding. The infection status of infants at the end of the trial, when they are more than a year of age, can be determined with certainty. For those infants found to be infected with HIV at the end of the trial, it cannot be determined whether this occurred during the study or whether they were already infected when they were enrolled. In these settings, estimates of the cumulative risk of the event by the end of the study will overestimate the true probability of event during the study period and hypothesis tests comparing two or more intervention strategies can also be biased. We present inference methods for the distribution of time until the event of interest in these settings, and investigate issues in the design of such trials when there is a choice of using both imperfect and perfect diagnostic tests.     

Integrating HIV Care into Primary Care Services: Quantifying Progress of an Intervention in South Africa

Background

Integration of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care into primary care services is one strategy proposed to achieve universal access to antiretroviral treatment (ART) for HIV-positive patients in high burden countries. There is a need for controlled studies of programmes to integrate HIV care with details of the services being integrated.

Methods

A semi-quantitative questionnaire was developed in consultation with clinic staff, tested for internal consistency using Cronbach''s alpha coefficients and checked for inter-observer reliability. It was used to conduct four assessments of the integration of HIV care into referring primary care clinics (mainstreaming HIV) and into the work of all nurses within ART clinics (internal integration) and the integration of pre-ART and ART care during the Streamlining Tasks and Roles to Expand Treatment and Care for HIV (STRETCH) trial in South Africa. Mean total integration and four component integration scores at intervention and control clinics were compared using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Repeated measures ANOVA was used to analyse changes in scores during the trial.

Results

Cronbach''s alpha coefficients for total integration, pre-ART and ART integration and mainstreaming HIV and internal integration scores showed good internal consistency. Mean total integration, mainstreaming HIV and ART integration scores increased significantly at intervention clinics by the third assessment. Mean pre-ART integration scores were almost maximal at the first assessment and showed no further change. There was no change in mean internal integration score.

Conclusion

The questionnaire developed in this study is a valid tool with potential for monitoring integration of HIV care in other settings. The STRETCH trial interventions resulted in increased integration of HIV care, particularly ART care, by providing HIV care at referring primary care clinics, but had no effect on integrating HIV care into the work of all nurses with the ART clinic.     

Clinical trials of fatty acid treatment in ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and the autistic spectrum

Considerable clinical and experimental evidence now supports the idea that deficiencies or imbalances in certain highly unsaturated fatty acids may contribute to a range of common developmental disorders including ADHD, dyslexia, dyspraxia and autistic spectrum disorders (ASD). Definitive evidence of a causal contribution, however, can only come from intervention studies in the form of randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials. Published studies of this kind are still fairly few in number, and mainly involve the diagnostic categories of ADHD and dyslexia, although other trials involving individuals with dyspraxia or ASD are in progress. The main findings to date from such studies are reviewed and evaluated here with the primary aim of guiding future research, although given that fatty acid supplementation for these conditions is already being adopted in many quarters, it is hoped that some of the information provided may also help to inform clinical practice.     

Biofeedback-Based Psychophysiological Treatment in a Primary Care Setting: An Initial Feasibility Study

We sought to determine whether an intervention labeled "biofeedback" could be implemented with patients who were diagnosed with "functional" disorders (Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Fibromyagia/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Myofascial Pain, Anxiety with somatic features, or Noncardiac Chest Pain), in a primary care setting, and whether cost savings through lowered utilization of medical services would be realized. Seventy patients were initially randomized into a treatment group or comparison group based on willingness to participate. Ultimately, 19 patients completed treatment and 30 were followed through usual treatment as a comparison. Treatment patients completed symptom diaries while working with a biofeedback therapist in the primary care facility. Both group's medical expenses were tracked for 6 months prior to and 6 months after the treatment time interval. Patients in the treatment group lowered symptom frequency and severity significantly. Medical costs were differentially reduced in this group such that all costs were $72 less in the treatment group and $9 in the comparison for the 6 months following the treatment time period. (p < .001). Unfortunately, a large group of assigned treatment patients did not start or complete treatment. These patients had high initial costs and went up even higher post. No comparable group could be found among the controls, limiting any inference regarding cost/benefit. Biofeedback based interventions for "functional" disorders can be easily integrated into primary care settings, can reduce symptoms, and may be able to reduce overall medical costs in this group of patients known as heavy utilizers.     

Evidence-informed health policy 1 – Synthesis of findings from a multi-method study of organizations that support the use of research evidence

Background

Most patients with type 2 diabetes have suboptimal control of their glucose, blood pressure (BP), and lipids – three risk factors for diabetes complications. Although the chronic care model (CCM) provides a roadmap for improving these outcomes, developing theoretically sound implementation strategies that will work across diverse primary care settings has been challenging. One explanation for this difficulty may be that most strategies do not account for the complex adaptive system (CAS) characteristics of the primary care setting. A CAS is comprised of individuals who can learn, interconnect, self-organize, and interact with their environment in a way that demonstrates non-linear dynamic behavior. One implementation strategy that may be used to leverage these properties is practice facilitation (PF). PF creates time for learning and reflection by members of the team in each clinic, improves their communication, and promotes an individualized approach to implement a strategy to improve patient outcomes.

Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this protocol are to: evaluate the effectiveness and sustainability of PF to improve risk factor control in patients with type 2 diabetes across a variety of primary care settings; assess the implementation of the CCM in response to the intervention; examine the relationship between communication within the practice team and the implementation of the CCM; and determine the cost of the intervention both from the perspective of the organization conducting the PF intervention and from the perspective of the primary care practice.

Intervention

The study will be a group randomized trial conducted in 40 primary care clinics. Data will be collected on all clinics, with 60 patients in each clinic, using a multi-method assessment process at baseline, 12, and 24 months. The intervention, PF, will consist of a series of practice improvement team meetings led by trained facilitators over 12 months. Primary hypotheses will be tested with 12-month outcome data. Sustainability of the intervention will be tested using 24 month data. Insights gained will be included in a delayed intervention conducted in control practices and evaluated in a pre-post design.

Primary and secondary outcomes

To test hypotheses, the unit of randomization will be the clinic. The unit of analysis will be the repeated measure of each risk factor for each patient, nested within the clinic. The repeated measure of glycosylated hemoglobin A1c will be the primary outcome, with BP and Low Density Lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol as secondary outcomes. To study change in risk factor level, a hierarchical or random effect model will be used to account for the nesting of repeated measurement of risk factor within patients and patients within clinics. This protocol follows the CONSORT guidelines and is registered per ICMJE guidelines:

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT00482768