Pilot study for a cluster randomized trial of community engagement interventions to increase immunization coverage among children 12-23 months of age in India

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mira Johri
2018 ◽  
pp. 101-109
Author(s):  
Linda Y. Fu ◽  
Kathleen Zook ◽  
Janet A. Gingold ◽  
Catherine W. Gillespie ◽  
Christine Briccetti ◽  
...  

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (5) ◽  
pp. 475-482 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip S. Wells ◽  
Martha L. Louzada ◽  
Monica Taljaard ◽  
David R. Anderson ◽  
Susan R. Kahn ◽  
...  

2008 ◽  
Vol 51 (5) ◽  
pp. 777-788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Cortés-Sanabria ◽  
Carlos E. Cabrera-Pivaral ◽  
Alfonso M. Cueto-Manzano ◽  
Enrique Rojas-Campos ◽  
Graciela Barragán ◽  
...  

Vaccine ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 535-541 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey C. Kwong ◽  
Jennifer A. Pereira ◽  
Susan Quach ◽  
Rosana Pellizzari ◽  
Edwina Dusome ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Mark E Thomas ◽  
Tarek S Abdelaziz ◽  
Gavin D Perkins ◽  
Alice J Sitch ◽  
Jyoti Baharani ◽  
...  

Abstract Background and Objectives The Acute Kidney Outreach to Reduce Deterioration and Death trial was a large pilot study for a cluster-randomized trial of acute kidney injury (AKI) outreach. Methods An observational control (before) phase was conducted in two teaching hospitals (9 miles apart) and their respective catchment areas. In the intervention (after) phase, a working-hours AKI outreach service operated for the intervention hospital/area for 20 weeks, with the other site acting as a control. All AKI alerts in both hospital and community patients were screened for inclusion. Major exclusion criteria were patients who were at the end of life, unlikely to benefit from outreach, lacking mental capacity or already referred to the renal team. The intervention arm included a model of escalation of renal care to AKI patients, depending on AKI stage. The 30-day primary outcome was a combination of death, or deterioration, as shown by any need for dialysis or progression in AKI stage. A total of 1762 adult patients were recruited; 744 at the intervention site during the after phase. Results A median of 3.0 non-medication recommendations and 0.5 medication-related recommendations per patient were made by the outreach team a median of 15.7 h after the AKI alert. Relatively low rates of the primary outcomes of death within 30 days (11–15%) or requirement for dialysis (0.4–3.7%) were seen across all four groups. In an exploratory analysis, at the intervention hospital during the after phase, there was an odds ratio for the combined primary outcome of 0.73 (95% confidence interval 0.42–1.26; P = 0.26). Conclusions An AKI outreach service can provide standardized specialist care to those with AKI across a healthcare economy. Trials assessing AKI outreach may benefit from focusing on those patients with ‘mid-range’ prognosis, where nephrological intervention could have the most impact.


Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 142 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Okello ◽  
Caroline Jones ◽  
Maureen Bonareri ◽  
Sarah N Ndegwa ◽  
Carlos Mcharo ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 230-239
Author(s):  
Shaikh I. Ahmad ◽  
Bennett L. Leventhal ◽  
Brittany N. Nielsen ◽  
Stephen P. Hinshaw

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document