A virtual learning collaborative to implement health promotion in routine mental health settings: Protocol for a cluster randomized trial

2019 ◽  
Vol 84 ◽  
pp. 105816
Author(s):  
Kelly A. Aschbrenner ◽  
Sarah I. Pratt ◽  
Gary R. Bond ◽  
Lisa Zubkoff ◽  
John A. Naslund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Promotion ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Virtual Learning ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Learning Collaborative ◽  
Mental Health Settings ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Strategies for Improving Vaccine Delivery: A Cluster-Randomized Trial

2018 ◽  
pp. 101-109
Author(s):  
Linda Y. Fu ◽  
Kathleen Zook ◽  
Janet A. Gingold ◽  
Catherine W. Gillespie ◽  
Christine Briccetti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Confidence Interval ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Immunization Coverage ◽  
Virtual Learning ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Learning Collaborative ◽  
Cluster Randomized

OBJECTIVE New emphasis on and requirements for demonstrating health care quality have increased the need for evidence-based methods to disseminate practice guidelines. With regard to impact on pediatric immunization coverage, we aimed to compare a financial incentive program (pay-for-performance [P4P]) and a virtual quality improvement technical support (QITS) learning collaborative. METHODS This single-blinded (to outcomes assessor), cluster-randomized trial was conducted among unaffiliated pediatric practices across the United States from June 2013 to June 2014. Practices received either the P4P or QITS intervention. All practices received a Vaccinator Toolkit. P4P practices participated in a tiered financial incentives program for immunization coverage improvement. QITS practices participated in a virtual learning collaborative. Primary outcome was percentage of all needed vaccines received (PANVR). We also assessed immunization up-to-date (UTD) status. RESULTS Data were analyzed from 3, 147 patient records from 32 practices. Practices in the study arms reported similar QI activities (∼6 to 7 activities). We found no difference in PANVR between P4P and QITS (mean ± SE, 90.7% ± 1.1% vs 86.1% ± 1.3%, P = 0.46). Likewise, there was no difference in odds of being UTD between study arms (adjusted odds ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.68 to 1.52, P = .93). In within-group analysis, patients in both arms experienced nonsignificant increases in PANVR. Similarly, the change in adjusted odds of UTD over time was modest and nonsignificant for P4P but reached significance in the QITS arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 1.60, P = .03). CONCLUSIONS Participation in either a financial incentives program or a virtual learning collaborative led to self-reported improvements in immunization practices but minimal change in objectively measured immunization coverage.

scholarly journals School-based mental health intervention for children in war-affected Burundi: a cluster randomized trial

BMC Medicine ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wietse A Tol ◽  
Ivan H Komproe ◽  
Mark JD Jordans ◽  
Aline Ndayisaba ◽  
Prudence Ntamutumba ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Health Intervention ◽  
Mental Health Intervention ◽  
School Based ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Improving mental health among ultra-poor children: Two-year outcomes of a cluster-randomized trial in Burkina Faso

2018 ◽  
Vol 208 ◽  
pp. 180-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leyla Ismayilova ◽  
Leyla Karimli ◽  
Jo Sanson ◽  
Eleni Gaveras ◽  
Rachel Nanema ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Burkina Faso ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomized ◽  
Poor Children

scholarly journals School Mental Health Curriculum Effects on Peer Violence Victimization and Perpetration: A Cluster‐Randomized Trial

2020 ◽  
Vol 91 (1) ◽  
pp. 59-69
Author(s):  
Melissa J. DuPont‐Reyes ◽  
Alice P. Villatoro ◽  
Jo C. Phelan ◽  
Kris Painter ◽  
Kay Barkin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
School Mental Health ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Health Curriculum ◽  
Violence Victimization ◽  
Peer Violence ◽  
Cluster Randomized

scholarly journals A cluster-randomized trial of workplace ergonomics and neck-specific exercise versus ergonomics and health promotion for office workers to manage neck pain—a secondary outcome analysis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Venerina Johnston ◽  
Xiaoqi Chen ◽  
Alyssa Welch ◽  
Gisela Sjøgaard ◽  
Tracy A Comans ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Promotion ◽  
Exercise Training ◽  
Neck Pain ◽  
Randomized Trial ◽  
Pain Intensity ◽  
Cluster Randomized Trial ◽  
Office Workers ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Specific Exercise ◽  
Cluster Randomized

Abstract Background: Neck pain is prevalent among office workers. This study evaluated the impact of an ergonomic and exercise training (EET) intervention and an ergonomic and health promotion (EHP) intervention on neck pain intensity among the general office workers and a subgroup of office workers with neck pain at baseline. Methods: A prospective 12-month cluster-randomized trial was conducted in 14 public and private organisations. Participants were office workers, aged ≥18 years working ≥30 hours per week (n=740). All participants received an individualised workstation ergonomic intervention, followed by 1:1 allocation to the EET group (neck-specific exercise training), or the EHP group (health promotion) for 12 weeks. Neck pain intensity (scale: 0-9) was recorded at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months. Participants with data at these three time points were included for analysis (n=367). Intervention group differences were analysed using generalized estimating equation models on an intention-to-treat basis and adjusted for potential confounders (demographic, health or work-related). Subgroup analysis was performed on participants symptomatic at baseline (neck cases) (n=96).Results: The EET group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in neck pain intensity at 12 weeks compared to the EHP group for both the general office workers (EET: b=-0.53 points 95%CI: -0.84– -0.22 [36%] and EHP: b=-0.17 points 95%CI: -0.47–0.13 [10.5%], p-value=0.02) and neck cases subgroup (EET: b=-2.32 points 95%CI: -3.09– -1.56 [53%] and EHP: b=-1.75 points 95%CI: -2.35– -1.16 [36%], p=0.04). Reductions in pain intensity were not maintained at 12 months with no between-group differences observed in either the general office workers (EET: b=-0.18, 95%CI: -0.53–0.16 and EHP: b=-0.14 points 95%CI: -0.49–0.21, p=0.53) or neck cases subgroup, although in both groups an overall reduction was found (EET: b= -1.61 points 95%CI: -2.36– -0.89 and EHP: b=-1.9 points 95%CI: -2.59– -1.20, p=0.26). Conclusion: EET was more effective and clinically meaningful than EHP in reducing neck pain intensity in both general office workers and those with neck pain immediately following the intervention period (12 weeks) but not at 12 months follow-up. Findings suggest the need for continuation of exercise to maintain benefits in the longer term.Clinical trial registration: ACTRN12612001154897 Date of Registration: 31/10/2012

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document