scholarly journals Intervention to reduce benzodiazepine prescriptions in primary care, study protocol of a hybrid type 1 cluster randomised controlled trial: the BENZORED study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e022046 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caterina Vicens ◽  
Alfonso Leiva ◽  
Ferran Bejarano ◽  
Ermengol Sempere ◽  
Raquel María Rodríguez-Rincón ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Clinical Research ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Balearic Islands ◽  
Prescription Database ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Electronic Prescription

IntroductionBenzodiazepines (BZDs) are mainly used to treat anxiety and sleep disorders, and are often prescribed for long durations, even though prescription guidelines recommend short-term use due to the risk of dependence, cognitive impairment, and falls and fractures. Education of general practitioners (GPs) regarding the prescription of BZDs may reduce the overuse and of these drugs.The aims of this study are to analyse the effectiveness of an intervention targeted to GPs to reduce BZD prescription and evaluate the implementation process.Methods and analysisThe healthcare centres in three regions of Spain (Balearic Islands, Catalonia and Community of Valencia) will be randomly allocated to receive a multifactorial intervention or usual care (control). GPs in the intervention group will receive a 2-hour workshop about best-practice regarding BZD prescription and BZD deprescribing, monthly feedback about their BZD prescribing practices and access to a support web page. Outcome measures for each GP are the defined daily dosage per 1000 inhabitants per day and the proportion of long-term BZD users at 12 months. Data will be collected from the electronic prescription database of the public health system, and will be subjected to intention-to-treat analysis. Implementation will be evaluated by mixed methods following the five domains of the Consolidated Framework For Implementation Research.Ethics and disseminationThis study was approved by the Balearic Islands Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (IB3065/15), l’IDIAP Jordi Gol Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (PI 15/0148) and Valencia Primary Care Ethical Committee of Clinical Research (P16/024). The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN28272199.

scholarly journals Triaging and Referring In Adjacent General and Emergency Departments (the TRIAGE trial): a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Morreel ◽  
Hilde Philips ◽  
Diana De Graeve ◽  
Koenraad G Monsieurs ◽  
Jarl Kampen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: To determine the effectiveness and safety of a tool diverting low urgency patients eligible for primary care from an emergency department (ED) to the adjacent general practitioner cooperative (GPC). Methods: Unblinded, randomised controlled trial with weekends serving as clusters (three intervention clusters for each control). The intervention was nurse-led triage using a new tool assigning patients to either ED or GPC. During intervention weekends, patients were encouraged to follow this assignment while it was not communicated to the patients during control weekends (they remained at the ED). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients assigned to and handled by the GPC during intervention weekends. The trial was randomised for the secondary outcome: the proportion of patients assigned to the GPC during intervention and control weekends. Additional outcomes were association of these outcomes with possible confounders (study tool parameters, nurse, and patient characteristics), proportion of patients referred back to the ED by the GPC, hospitalisations, and performance of the study tool to detect primary care eligible patients (with the opinion of the treating physician as the gold standard). Results: In the intervention group, 838/6374 patients (13.3%, 95% CI 12.5 to 14.2) were assigned to the GPC (secondary outcome), in the control group 431/1744 (24.7%, 95% CI 22.7 to 26.8). In the intervention group, 599/6374 patients (9.5%, 95% CI 8.8 to 10.3) experienced the primary outcome which was influenced by the chosen MTS presentational flowchart, patient's age, and the nurse. 24/599 patients (4.0%, 95% CI 2.7 to 5.9) patients were referred back to the ED of which three were hospitalised. Positive and negative predictive values of the studied tool during intervention weekends were 0.96 (95%CI 0.94 to 0.97) and 0.60 (95% CI 0.58 to 0.62). Out of the patients assigned to the GPC, 2.4% (95% CI 1.7 to 3.4) were hospitalised. Conclusions: ED nurses using a new tool safely diverted 9.5% of the included patients to primary care. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03793972 Funding: Research Foundation, Flanders (FWO)

scholarly journals GP-delivered medication review of polypharmacy, deprescribing, and patient priorities in older people with multimorbidity in Irish primary care (SPPiRE Study): A cluster randomised controlled trial

PLoS Medicine ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. e1003862
Author(s):  
Caroline McCarthy ◽  
Barbara Clyne ◽  
Fiona Boland ◽  
Frank Moriarty ◽  
Michelle Flood ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Medication Review ◽  
Older Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Community Dwelling ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background There is a rising prevalence of multimorbidity, particularly in older patients, and a need for evidence-based medicines management interventions for this population. The Supporting Prescribing in Older Adults with Multimorbidity in Irish Primary Care (SPPiRE) trial aimed to investigate the effect of a general practitioner (GP)-delivered, individualised medication review in reducing polypharmacy and potentially inappropriate prescriptions (PIPs) in community-dwelling older patients with multimorbidity in primary care. Methods and findings We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) set in 51 GP practices throughout the Republic of Ireland. A total of 404 patients, aged ≥65 years with complex multimorbidity, defined as being prescribed ≥15 regular medicines, were recruited from April 2017 and followed up until October 2020. Furthermore, 26 intervention GP practices received access to the SPPiRE website where they completed an educational module and used a template for an individualised patient medication review that identified PIP, opportunities for deprescribing, and patient priorities for care. A total of 25 control GP practices delivered usual care. An independent blinded pharmacist assessed primary outcome measures that were the number of medicines and the proportion of patients with any PIP (from a predefined list of 34 indicators based predominantly on the STOPP/START version 2 criteria). We performed an intention-to-treat analysis using multilevel modelling. Recruited participants had substantial disease and treatment burden at baseline with a mean of 17.37 (standard deviation [SD] 3.50) medicines. At 6-month follow-up, both intervention and control groups had reductions in the numbers of medicines with a small but significantly greater reduction in the intervention group (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.95, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.899 to 0.999, p = 0.045). There was no significant effect on the odds of having at least 1 PIP in the intervention versus control group (odds ratio [OR] 0.39, 95% CI: 0.140 to 1.064, p = 0.066). Adverse events recorded included mortality, emergency department (ED) presentations, and adverse drug withdrawal events (ADWEs), and there was no evidence of harm. Less than 2% of drug withdrawals in the intervention group led to a reported ADWE. Due to the inability to electronically extract data, primary outcomes were measured at just 2 time points, and this is the main limitation of this work. Conclusions The SPPiRE intervention resulted in a small but significant reduction in the number of medicines but no evidence of a clear effect on PIP. This reduction in significant polypharmacy may have more of an impact at a population rather than individual patient level. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN12752680.

scholarly journals Study protocol for the road to hierarchical diabetes management at primary care (ROADMAP) study in China: a cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. e032734 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weiping Jia ◽  
Puhong Zhang ◽  
Nadila Duolikun ◽  
Dalong Zhu ◽  
Hong Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Diabetes Management ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionDiabetes management in primary care remains suboptimal in China, despite its inclusion in the essential public health service (EPHS). We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a mobile health (mHealth) based and three-tiered diabetes management system in diverse Chinese contexts.Methods and analysisThis is a cluster randomised controlled trial, named road to hierarchical diabetes management at primary care (ROADMAP). 19 008 patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) were recruited from primary care clinics in 864 communities across 144 counties/districts of 24 provinces. Eligible participants were adult patients diagnosed with T2D and registered for diabetes management in communities. Patients within the same communities (clusters) were randomly allocated into the intervention or control arm for 1 year in a 2:1 ratio. The control arm patients received usual care as EPHS packaged: at least four blood glucose (BG) and blood pressure (BP) tests, and lifestyle and medication instruction, yearly, from primary care providers. The intervention arm patients received at least two BG and one BP tests, monthly, and lifestyle and treatment instruction from a three-tiered contracted team. A mHealth platform,Graded ROADMAP,enabled test results uploading and sharing, and patient referral within the team. The intervention participants will be further divided into basic or intensive intervention group according to whether they were actively using theYour DoctorApp. The primary outcome is the BG control rate with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c)<7.0%. Secondary outcomes include control rates and changes of ABC (HbA1c, BP and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol) and fasting BG, hypoglycaemia episodes and health-related quality of life (EuroQol (EQ-5D)).Ethics and disseminationThe trial has been approved by the Institutional Review Board at Shanghai Sixth People's Hospital. Findings on the intervention effectiveness will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and other relevant mechanisms.Trial registration numberChiCTR-IOC-17011325.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial to reduce highest priority critically important antimicrobial prescription in companion animals

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Singleton ◽  
Angela Rayner ◽  
Bethaney Brant ◽  
Steven Smyth ◽  
Peter-John Noble ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Companion Animals ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Prescription Data ◽  
Prescribing Practices ◽  
Post Intervention ◽  
Electronic Prescription ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Robust evidence supporting antimicrobial stewardship schemes in companion animals is limited, despite frequent highest priority critically important antimicrobial (HPCIA) prescription. In this randomised controlled trial, electronic prescription data were utilised (August 2018–January 2019) to evenly assign 60 above average HPCIA-prescribing practices into a control group (CG) and two intervention groups. In March 2019, the light intervention group (LIG) and heavy intervention group (HIG) were notified of their above average status, and were provided with educational material (LIG, HIG), in-depth benchmarking (HIG), and follow-up meetings (HIG). Post-intervention, in the HIG a 30% and 42% significant reduction in canine (0.5% of consultations, 95% confidence interval, 0.4–0.6) and feline (4.4%, 3.4–5.5) HPCIA-prescribing consultations was observed, and maintained for three and six months, respectively, compared to the CG (dogs: 0.7% (0.5–0.8); cats: 7.6% (6.1-9.0)). The LIG was not associated with significant variation. This evidence is now informing development of a national stewardship scheme.

scholarly journals Implementation of C-reactive protein point of care testing to improve antibiotic targeting in respiratory illness in Vietnamese primary care (ICAT): a study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e040977
Author(s):  
Nga Thi Thuy Do ◽  
Rachel Claire Greer ◽  
Yoel Lubell ◽  
Sabine Dittrich ◽  
Maida Vandendorpe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Antibiotic Prescription ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
C Reactive Protein ◽  
Reactive Protein ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionC-reactive protein (CRP), a biomarker of infection, has been used widely in high-income settings to guide antibiotic treatment in patients presenting with respiratory illnesses in primary care. Recent trials in low- and middle-income countries showed that CRP testing could safely reduce antibiotic use in patients with non-severe acute respiratory infections (ARIs) and fever in primary care. The studies, however, were conducted in a research-oriented context, with research staff closely monitoring healthcare behaviour thus potentially influencing healthcare workers’ prescribing practices. For policy-makers to consider wide-scale roll-out, a pragmatic implementation study of the impact of CRP point of care (POC) testing in routine care is needed.Methods and analysisA pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial, with two study arms, consisting of 24 commune health centres (CHC) in the intervention arm (provision of CRP tests with additional healthcare worker guidance) and 24 facilities acting as controls (routine care). Comparison between the treatment arms will be through logistic regression, with the treatment assignment as a fixed effect, and the CHC as a random effect. With 48 clusters, an average of 10 consultations per facility per week will result in approximately 520 over 1 year, and 24 960 in total (12 480 per arm). We will be able to detect a reduction of 12% to 23% or more in immediate antibiotic prescription as a result of the CRP POC intervention. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patient consultations for ARI resulting in immediate antibiotic prescription. Secondary endpoints include the proportion of all patients receiving an antibiotic prescription regardless of ARI diagnosis, frequency of re-consultation, subsequent antibiotic use when antibiotics are not prescribed, referral and hospitalisation.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Oxford University Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC, Reference: 53–18), and the ethical committee of the National Hospital for Tropical Diseases in Vietnam (Reference:07/HDDD-NDTW/2019). Results from this study will be disseminated via meetings with stakeholders, conferences and publications in peer-reviewed journals. Authorship and reporting of this work will follow international guidelines.Trial registration detailsNCT03855215; Pre-results.

scholarly journals An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.

scholarly journals Effect of faecal calprotectin testing on referrals for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms in primary care: study protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e045444
Author(s):  
Sophie Ansems ◽  
Marjolein Berger ◽  
Patrick van Rheenen ◽  
Karin Vermeulen ◽  
Gina Beugel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Gastrointestinal Symptoms ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Referral Rate ◽  
Faecal Calprotectin ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionChildren with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms are frequently seen in primary care, yet general practitioners (GPs) often experience challenges distinguishing functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) from organic disorders. We, therefore, aim to evaluate whether a test strategy that includes point-of-care testing (POCT) for faecal calprotectin (FCal) can reduce the referral rate to paediatric specialist care among children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms. The study findings will contribute to improving the recommendations on FCal use among children in primary care.Methods and analysisIn this pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial, we will randomise general practices into intervention and control groups. The intervention group will use FCal-POCT when indicated, after completing online training about its indication, interpretation and follow-up as well as communicating an FGID diagnosis. The control group will test and treat according to Dutch GP guidelines, which advise against FCal testing in children. GPs will include children aged 4–18 years presenting to primary care with chronic diarrhoea and/or recurrent abdominal pain. The primary outcome will be the referral rate for children with chronic gastrointestinal symptoms within 6 months after the initial assessment. Secondary outcomes will be evaluated by questionnaires completed at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up. These outcomes will include parental satisfaction and concerns, gastrointestinal symptoms, impact of symptoms on daily function, quality of life, proportion of children with paediatrician-diagnosed FGID referred to secondary care, health service use and healthcare costs. A sample size calculation indicates that we need to recruit 158 GP practices to recruit 406 children.Ethics and disseminationThe Medical Research Ethics Committee (MREC) of the University Medical Center Groningen (The Netherlands) approved this study (MREC number: 201900309). The study results will be made available to patients, GPs, paediatricians and laboratories via peer-reviewed publications and in presentations at (inter)national conferences.Trial registration numberThe Netherlands Trial Register: NL7690 (Pre-results)

scholarly journals Increasing the uptake of long-acting reversible contraception in general practice: the Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRoject (ACCORd) cluster randomised controlled trial longitudinal follow-up protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (9) ◽  
pp. e035895
Author(s):  
Danielle Mazza ◽  
Natalie Amos ◽  
Cathy J Watson ◽  
Kevin McGeechan ◽  
Marion Haas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Accord Study ◽  
Contraceptive Choice ◽  
Long Acting ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThrough addressing main barriers to the uptake of long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs) among Australian women, the Australian Contraceptive ChOice pRoject (ACCORd) trialled an educational intervention targeting general practitioners (GPs) and provided those in the intervention group with a rapid referral service for quick insertion. The cluster randomised controlled trial resulted in greater uptake of LARC in the intervention group. This protocol paper describes a longitudinal follow-up to the ACCORd Study to assess the long-term efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the intervention.Methods and analysisWomen participants (patients of ACCORd GPs) completed a baseline, 6-month and 12-month survey. These participants will be invited to complete an additional follow-up survey 3 years post completion of their baseline interview. Based on the original ACCORd Study tools, the online survey will address long-term outcomes including contraceptive continuation rates and reproductive history, any unintended pregnancies, satisfaction and concerns with their current contraceptive method, and an assessment of quality of life. We will analyse data using binary regression models with generalised estimating equations and robust standard errors to account for clustering.DiscussionDemonstration of sustained use, effectiveness at reducing unwanted pregnancies and cost-effectiveness of this strategy among this cohort of Australian primary care patients, will strengthen the policy and programme urgency of addressing wider dissemination of these strategies and replicating the study elsewhere.Ethics and disseminationThe ACCORd Study received approval from the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee: CF16/188-201000080. Additionally, an amendment to conduct this 3-year longitudinal follow-up survey has been approved. The trial follow-up outcomes will be disseminated through formal academic pathways, including journal articles, national and international conferences and reports as well as using more ‘mainstream’ strategies such as seminars, workshops and media engagement. Additionally, outcomes will be communicated through policy briefs to Australian state and federal governments.Trail registration numberThis trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Trials Registry ACTRN12615001346561. Recruitment and data collection have been completed for the baseline, 6-month and 12-month surveys. Data collection for the 3-year survey commenced in August 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document