26 Clinical Trials for Various Conditions
In the current constantly changing healthcare landscape quality measurement has a central role. As the practice of medicine is shifting from authority to accountability, the quality of surgical interventions is under continuous scrutiny by patients, peers, payers, and policy makers. If done appropriately quality measurement can empower all members of the healthcare debate. There is increasing focus on patient satisfaction outcomes as quality indicators. An important part of surgical outcomes is a patient's perception of the result of the intervention and overall experience in the preoperative setting. When assessing surgical outcomes, measuring patient satisfaction is necessary. A qualitative systematic review of patient satisfaction measures noted a scarcity of well-development quality improvement initiatives to improve patient satisfaction. Anxiety, a potent behavioral and psychological reaction, weighs heavily on a patient's perioperative experience and is exacerbated by preoperative concerns about underlying disease and impending anesthesia and surgery. There are multiple stressors on the day of the surgery: unfamiliar environment, multiple forms to be signed, and multiple short encounters with new and unfamiliar personnel. These create confusion, increase baseline anxiety, and can negatively affect patient experience, and by extension surgical outcomes. Increasing familiarity with this environment can help patients feel more informed about what matters most to them, and have more accurate expectations of possible benefits and harms of their options. This can potentially decrease overall anxiety, improve patient satisfaction, and decrease pain levels. With the current study investigators will have the following two specific aims: Aim 1. To determine whether an immersive preoperative experience (video) is associated with decreased anxiety and improved patient experience during the perioperative phase. Aim 2. To determine whether an immersive preoperative experience is associated with decreased stress, improved patient satisfaction, and decreased pain during the perioperative phase.
The Patient Centered Virtual Multimedia Interactive Informed Consent tool (VIC) will be developed as a patient-centered web-based mobile application and will be able to run on mobile devices. The development of VIC is to create a reusable infrastructure for integrating the informed consent process into clinical care and the clinical workflow in a way that enhances patient comprehension while improving the efficiency of obtaining patient consent.
Investigators will conduct a randomized trial with patients, through one-on-one interviews, to evaluate their understanding of and willingness to use a decision support tool and to determine if receiving and discussing the decision support tool improves the likelihood that a patient is adherent to a new antihypertensive medication.
The burden of urinary incontinence (UI) on American women is immense in both human and financial terms, and continues to rise with the aging US population. Although numerous non-surgical management strategies have proven efficacy for both stress and urge urinary incontinence, there remains a lack of appropriate UI management in the primary care setting. The goal of this multi-site cluster randomized comparative effectiveness trial is to compare the effects of two methods of nonsurgical UI care delivery - electronic consult vs. advanced practice provider (APP) co-management. These two evidence-based, practice-changing strategies are designed to improve the quality of care for an ethnically diverse population of women with UI, and, by reducing deficits in care, obtain better patient-reported outcomes. Both arms of the study will include basic physician education (academic detailing) and electronic clinical decision support. In Arm 1, the investigators will implement an electronic referral system (electronic referral), in which specialists will electronically review referrals and make additional recommendations if appropriate primary UI care was not provided. In Arm 2, Advanced Practice Provider (APP) co-management will reduce the burden of care on the PCPs by providing UI care, patient education, and assisting with patient self-management through dedicated televisits (APP co-management).
The main goal of this clinical trial is to improve the care for urinary incontinence (UI) provided to adult women by primary care providers. The main questions it aims to answer are: * Can a practice-based intervention involving primary care providers lead to improved quality of incontinence care? * Will this intervention reduce the utilization of specialist care for urinary incontinence? * What effect will this intervention have on patient outcomes, including disease-specific outcomes, symptom severity, quality of life, and patient knowledge? * Does our intervention reduce disparities in care? Provider participants will be randomized at the office level to either an intervention group or a delayed intervention (control) group. The intervention group will receive an intervention consisting of academic detailing, clinical decision support tools, electronic referral, and the ability to refer to an advanced practice provider for co-management. The delayed intervention group will provide usual care until the crossover phase of the study, at which point they will receive the same intervention as the intervention group. Patient participants will bring up urinary incontinence with their primary care provider and complete three electronic surveys. Researchers will compare the intervention group to the delayed intervention (control) group to see if the intervention results in increased adherence to evidence-based quality indicators.
The purpose of this study is to assess which antidepressants work the best in older adults who have treatment-resistant depression (TRD), and to test whether treatment-resistant late life depression is associated with declines in memory and attention and brain structure and function.
The investigators have developed a web-based decision support tool to help women Veterans get the information and care they need to achieve their reproductive goals, whether that includes optimizing their health before desired pregnancies or birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies. The study will test the effect of sending a weblink to the decision tool to women Veterans prior to primary care visits at the VA. Half of participants will be sent a weblink before their appointment, and half will not be sent the link. The investigators hypothesize that participants who are sent the link will be more likely to report patient-centered discussions of their reproductive needs at visits, feel confident in communicating with their health care providers, have accurate knowledge about reproductive health, and choose birth control methods that best fit their preferences and needs.
California counties are in the process of implementing a Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Medicaid 1115 Substance Use Disorder (SUD) demonstration. The demonstration requires that patients be assigned to addiction treatment settings and levels of care systematically, using comprehensive biopsychosocial assessments and guided by the American Society of Addiction Medicine (ASAM) patient placement criteria. RTI International, a nonprofit research institute, and University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) Integrated Substance Abuse Programs have been awarded a contract from the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to study the effects of the ASAM implementation in California. The California 1115 SUD demonstration provides a unique opportunity to learn about the benefits and challenges resulting from system-wide implementation of ASAM criteria. The study will involve surveying patients in counties that are using the ASAM criteria and in counties that have not yet adopted the ASAM criteria. Medicaid patients receiving addiction treatment will be offered the opportunity participate in the study and to be surveyed about their experiences in treatment. The study will also analyze data from the California Outcomes Management System (CalOMS) and conduct interviews with providers, patients, and policymakers in the state. The results of the study will help inform California's efforts to continually improve its addiction treatment systems to better meet the needs of it communities. This study will also produce important and useful information to patients seeking treatment for addiction, and their providers, SUD system administrators, and payers.
Real-world evidence of the clinical course of patient symptoms following initiation of sacubitril/valsartan via PROs with a patient-centered study design will provide important evidence of potentially beneficial outcomes associated with the use of this therapy.
Depressive symptoms and disorders are among the most common adult health conditions with a lifetime prevalence of 15-20% and are a leading cause of disability /morbidity worldwide. Although evidence-based approaches such as cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), antidepressant medications, and depression collaborative care and quality improvement (QI) programs integrating depression care into primary health care can improve depression outcomes and disparities, racial / ethnic disparities continue to persist. Concurrently, according to a 2011 Institute of Medicine (IOM) report, little information exists on how to address the high rates of depression among sexual and gender minorities. Our study randomizes depressed, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, queer), racial / ethnic minority adults to an evidence-based agency-level, depression quality improvement (QI) training \[Resources for Services (RS)\] and technical support alone or to a resiliency class (RC+), a 7-session resiliency, cognitive behavioral therapy class to enhance mood + automated mobile text reminders about basic reminders and care follow-up impact on improving adult patients' depressive symptoms. Depression QI (RS) training will be offered to three clusters of four to five LGBTQ-focused programs: two clusters in LA (Hollywood and South LA) and one cluster in NO. Clusters are comprised of one primary care, one mental health, and two to three community agencies (e.g., faith-based, social services/support, advocacy). All programs will receive depression QI training. Enrolled adult depressed patients (n=320) will be randomized individually to RC+ or RS (depression QI) alone to assess effects on primary outcomes: depressive symptoms \[8-item patient health questionnaire (PHQ-8) score and secondary outcomes: mental health quality of life \[12-item mental composite score (MCS-12) ≤ 40\], Resilience (Brief Resilience Scale), mental wellness, and physical health quality of life \[12-item physical composite (PCS-12)score\] at 6- and 12-month follow-up.
The purpose of this research study is to assess which antidepressants work the best in older adults who have treatment-resistant depression (TRD).
People who sustain moderate to severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) have an increased risk for unintentional injury and harm when resuming day to day activities in the home and community. People who sustain brain injuries primarily want to independently do the activities they enjoy while families primarily focus on avoiding injury or other harm events. Safe@Home is an injury prevention education and activity training program. Participants who have sustained a moderate or severe TBI receive a personalized strengths and safety risk assessment, tailored injury prevention education, and in-home training with a transition coach on self-selected activities. This study will evaluate whether the Safe@Home program reduces injuries and harm and increases clients' independence in their everyday activities in the home and community compared to a usual care control group.
Type 2 diabetes is common in the United States; about 1 in 10 people have the disease. Diabetes can cause devastating health events, such as hospitalizations, kidney failure, blindness, amputation, heart attack, stroke, painful nerve damage (neuropathy), and death. There are many barriers for patients with diabetes that get in the way of controlling risk factors, following recommendations, and getting the care they need from the health system to help prevent these complications; this is especially true for those with other health problems too. Those living in poverty and racial/ethnic minorities are more likely to have complications from diabetes, and less likely to get recommended care from health systems. In order to improve care and outcomes for people with complex medical problems, several states have started the Medicaid Health Home (HH) program, including New York State (NYS) in 2012. This program is for people with two or more chronic health conditions, such as diabetes and heart disease, people with HIV, and people with a serious mental health condition. HHs are meant to manage and coordinate care, by helping health care providers, social service agencies, community-based organizations, and health insurance plans work together. Similar programs have been shown, on a smaller scale, to improve some results for patients with diabetes, such as lab tests indicating level of diabetes control. Studies have not yet looked at how a large program like HHs impacts the way healthcare is delivered and impacts the health events that matter most to patients with diabetes. Also, few studies include stakeholders on the research team, even though they stand to benefit the most from such programs, and have the experience needed as patients, clinicians, advocates, and administrators to guide efforts. The investigators have gathered a research team that includes scientific investigators along with a diverse group of partners, including patients, clinicians, and program administrators. The investigators plan to use two data sources that show what happens to individual patients over time: 1) NYS Medicaid insurance data 2) the New York City-Clinical Data Research Network (NYC-CDRN). The NYC-CDRN has identified a group of patients with diabetes from 7 large health systems; it has also developed a system for putting together the same set of information for each patient, and removing any identifying information. The investigator will look at patients who have diabetes and are part of a HH and study what happened to them over time. The investigator will also look at a comparison group of patients who are very similar to the HH patients, but they did not join a HH, and follow them over time. The investigator will then compare these two groups to each other. The investigator will look at the quality of healthcare they received and their health outcomes. The investigator will focus on health outcomes that are meaningful to patients. This study can provide important knowledge about the effects of the HH program on patients with diabetes.
In 2012, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued guidance to clarify the principal benefit-risk factors FDA considers during the reviews for premarket approval applications and de novo classification requests. In addition to a detailed description of benefits and risks, CDRH listed "patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit" as a factor that CDRH may consider in regulatory reviews. It underlined the need for developing methods to measure patient preference and incorporate it into regulatory decision-making. The purpose of this study is to advance methods for patient and community engagement in patient-centered outcome research (PCOR) and has three objectives. First, demonstrate good practices for patient and community involvement in PCOR projects by applying principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Second, address methodological gaps pertaining to the use of stated-preference methods in studying preferences in PCOR. These include identifying the best methods for designing a preference study and strategies for analyzing variation in preferences. The investigators also seek to assess the relevance of stated-preference methods to patients and stakeholders using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Third, demonstrate good practices for applying stated-preference methods by studying the preferences of patients with type II diabetes. While type II diabetes provides an important case study, this research will advance approaches and methods that will be broadly generalizable to other diseases, and to diverse patient and stakeholder groups. Clinical Significance: This project will illustrate and advance methods for assessing the values of patients and stakeholders. It will demonstrate how CBPR methods apply to PCOR studies and the value of stated-preference methods in measuring the preferences of patients and stakeholders and directing health care.
In 2012, the FDA Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) issued guidance to clarify the principal benefit-risk factors FDA considers during the reviews for premarket approval applications and de novo classification requests. In addition to a detailed description of benefits and risks, CDRH listed "patient tolerance for risk and perspective on benefit" as a factor that CDRH may consider in regulatory reviews. It underlined the need for developing methods to measure patient preference and incorporate it into regulatory decision-making. The purpose of this study is to advance methods for patient and community engagement in patient-centered outcome research (PCOR) and has three objectives. First, demonstrate good practices for patient and community involvement in PCOR projects by applying principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Second, address methodological gaps pertaining to the use of stated-preference methods in studying priorities in PCOR. These include identifying the best methods for identifying patient priorities and strategies for analyzing variation in priorities. The investigators also seek to assess the relevance of stated-preference methods to patients and stakeholders using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Third, demonstrate good practices for applying stated-preference methods by studying the priorities of patients with type II diabetes. While type II diabetes provides an important case study, this research will advance approaches and methods that will be broadly generalizable to other diseases, and to diverse patient and stakeholder groups. Clinical Significance: This project will illustrate and advance methods for assessing the values of patients and stakeholders. It will demonstrate how CBPR methods apply to PCOR studies and the value of stated-preference methods in measuring the priorities of patients and stakeholders and directing health care.
The Evaluating Cancer Survivorship Care Models project is an innovative 3-year study that is collecting data to help understand how to best deliver follow-up care to cancer survivors. Cancer is a complex disease requiring complex treatments that can cause lasting impacts after treatment ends. Some patients face physical, psychosocial, spiritual and/or practical challenges as they adjust to life after cancer. Fortunately, health care providers have begun to focus on the consequences of cancer and its treatment and are more actively working with cancer survivors to manage post-treatment needs and care. Led by the George Washington University and funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, this project brings together representatives from the Commission on Cancer, the Cancer Support Community, LIVESTRONG and the American Cancer Society as well as cancer survivors and healthcare professionals to better understand how different strategies or models of care impact outcomes that are most important to cancer survivors. The project will focus on survivors of breast, prostate and colorectal cancers and will be relevant for understanding the needs and preferences of survivors of other cancers as well. The emphasis is on patient-centered outcomes, which are outcomes that are most significant to patients, such as patient satisfaction and quality of life.
Chronic musculoskeletal pain is an important problem, and treatments are often prescribed in a "trial and error" fashion. Clinicians prescribe a treatment to a patient and then wait and see if the treatment is successful. If the treatment is unsuccessful, they will try a different treatment. The disadvantage to this method is that it may take a long time to find a successful treatment. The purpose of the PREEMPT Study is to test whether using a mobile phone application ("Trialist app") that allows patients and their health care providers to run personalized experiments comparing two pain treatments is more effective than usual care. Patients download the app, and working with their clinicians, set up a personalized trial that makes sense for them. Every day they answer questions to track levels of pain and side effects of treatment, such as fatigue and constipation. Once the personalized trial has ended, the responses to these daily questions on each treatment will be compared. During a regular clinic visit, the patient and the clinician will review visual displays of the results to facilitate treatment decision-making. Approximately 250 patients will be enrolled in the study. Half the patients will use the app and review results with the clinician, and half the patients will continue with their regular care (i.e., will not use the app). The two groups will be compared to see if using the app is successful in improving long term pain outcomes. The goal of the intervention using the Trialist app is to help patients engage actively and collaboratively with their clinicians and identify effective treatments more quickly.
The investigators have designed a tablet-based decision support tool to help women learn more about their birth control options and support them in choosing a method they are happy with. The investigators will test whether the decision support tool helps women choose a birth control method they can continue using successfully by having some women use the tool before their birth control-related visit to a health care provider, and some women not use the tool before their visit. The investigators will then follow up with all the women at four months and seven months after their visit to see if they are still using the birth control method they chose at the visit and how happy they are with the method. Hypotheses: 1. Women who use the contraceptive decision support tool will be more likely to continue using their chosen method at 4 and 7 months follow-up, compared to women who receive usual care. 2. The contraceptive decision support tool will increase women's knowledge, choice of, and use of highly effective reversible contraception, compared to usual care. 3. The contraceptive decision support tool will decrease decision conflict, compared to usual care. 4. The contraceptive decision support tool will increase patient satisfaction with the clinic visit and with their method, compared to usual care. 5. Women who use the contraceptive decision support tool will have fewer unintended pregnancies during the follow-up period, compared to women who received usual care. 6. The contraceptive decision support tool will increase shared patient-provider decision making in contraceptive counseling visits, compared to usual care. 7. The contraceptive decision support tool will decrease provider frustration when providing contraceptive counseling and increase provider job satisfaction. 8. Women using the tool will be more likely to report use of any moderately or highly effective method of contraception at 4 and 7 months follow-up, compared to women not using the tool.
CPIC is a community initiative and research study funded by the NIH. CPIC was developed and is being run by community and academic partners in Los Angeles underserved communities of color. CPIC compares two ways of supporting diverse health and social programs in under-resourced communities to improve their services to depressed clients. One approach is time-limited expert technical assistance coupled with culturally-competent community outreach to individual programs, on how to use quality improvement toolkits for depression that have already been proven to be effective or helpful in primary care settings, but adapted for this study for use in diverse community-based programs in underserved communities. The other approach brings different types of agencies and members in a community together in a 4 to 6-month planning process, to fit the same depression quality improvement programs to the needs and strengths of the community and to develop a network of programs serving the community to support clients with depression together. The study is designed to determine the added value of community engagement and planning over and above what might be offered through a community-oriented, disease management company. Both intervention models are based on the same quality improvement toolkits that support team leadership, care management, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, medication management, and patient education and activation. Investigators hypothesized that the community engagement approach would increase agency and clinician participation in evidence-based trainings and improve client mental health-related quality of life. In addition, during the design phase, community participants prioritized adding as outcomes indicators of social determinants of mental health, including physical functioning, risk factors for homelessness and employment. Investigators hypothesized by activating community agencies that can address health and social services needs to engage depressed clients, these outcomes would also be improved more in the collaboration condition. Investigators also hypothesized that the collaboration approach would increase use of services.
PROSPER (Patient-centered Research into Outcomes Stroke patients Prefer and Effectiveness Research) is a three year research project to create a national, sustainable model to improve decision-making and patient-centered stroke outcomes through comparative effectiveness research.
The objective of this study is to improve the chemotherapy decision making process for Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal cancers. In this study Latinos who are considering 1st line chemotherapy for newly diagnosed advanced colorectal or pancreatic cancer will be randomized to usual care or to usual care supplemented by a Spanish/English language multimedia chemotherapy educational intervention. Primary informal caregivers will also be invited to participate. This research study is evaluating if a new set of educational materials will improve the treatment decision-making process for Latinos with advanced gastrointestinal cancers. This research study will involve about 154 patients and 154 caregivers.
Patients are routinely asked to sign an "informed consent" document prior to starting chemotherapy, indicating they understand the risks and benefits of treatment. Although this could be a strategic moment to equip patients with information they need to make truly informed medical decisions, many patients and caregivers note that these conversations are less useful than they could be. The informed consent process and its associated documents suffer several limitations: 1) risks are emphasized over benefits; 2) educational materials focus on individual drugs instead of regimens; 3) information is presented in written instead of alternative written/audiovisual format; and 4) the patient perspective is lacking. The overarching objective of this project is to develop a library of communication tools for the most common chemotherapy regimens used to treat advanced gastrointestinal cancers. Tools will include video clips and written documents that can be readily distributed, modified, and customized. This toolkit will be crafted in collaboration with oncologists and patients living with gastrointestinal cancer and improves upon existing resources in several ways: 1) balanced discussion of benefits as well as risks, 2) focus on regimens rather than drugs, 3) use of both written and video format, and 4) inclusion of the patient perspective (e.g. video clips of patients describing their experience). A panel of oncologist and patient stakeholders will evaluate the acceptability of the tools. The investigators will then conduct a randomized clinical trial to demonstrate if the informed consent toolkit improves the quality of informed consent for palliative chemotherapy. If effective, the tools will be amenable to broad dissemination via patient accessible cancer education websites and oncology clinics.
The GRADE Study is a pragmatic, unmasked clinical trial that will compare commonly used diabetes medications, when combined with metformin, on glycemia-lowering effectiveness and patient-centered outcomes.
As surgery enters the era of value-based care, it is advocated that postoperative recovery be measured using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as they provide a mean to incorporate the patient's perspectives and experiences into research and clinical decision-making. In abdominal surgery, this is currently precluded by the lack of PRO measures specifically developed and validated in the context of postoperative recovery. The core goal of this research project is to develop a PRO measure aimed to assess postoperative recovery from the perspective of patients undergoing abdominal surgery. This project complies with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) guidelines for PRO development and will be conducted in three phases: Phase 1: Qualitative interviews with patients to develop a conceptual framework and generate relevant items. Phase 2: Use of Rasch Analysis for item-reduction and scale formation. Phase 3: Further assessment of measurement properties based on traditional psychometric methods.
This is a randomized comparative effectiveness trial to improve outcomes among pregnant and post-partum women with symptoms of depression. Both interventions under study will be based in the patient-centered medical home setting at Boston Medical Center - specifically, in prenatal clinic or in the general pediatrics clinic. The study is a type 1 hybrid effectiveness-implementation trial of 230 mothers with clinically significant depressive symptomatology. Of the 230 subjects, half will receive the Engagement-Focused Care Coordination intervention; the other half will receive the Problem Solving Education intervention. Outcomes for mothers will be assessed every 2 months throughout a 12 month follow-up period. This trial is funded by a contract with PCORI, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.
The goal of this study is to improve the methods with which researchers identify patient centered outcomes for use in research. Specifically, the investigators will test the application of concept mapping as compared to one-on-one interviews as a comprehensive and efficient method of identifying patient-important outcomes for use in research.