An evidence-based approach to the use of telehealth in long-term health conditions: development of an intervention and evaluation through pragmatic randomised controlled trials in patients with depression or raised cardiovascular risk

Behavioral weight loss interventions for people with physical disabilities: A systematic review

AIM

The aim of this study is to examine which interventions lead to clinically significant weight loss among people with physical disabilities.

METHODS

We systematically searched three electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and CENTRAL) including studies until May 2022 to find randomized controlled trials on behavioral interventions and weight-related outcomes in people with physical disabilities. Pharmacological or surgical interventions were excluded. Study quality was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool. Interventions were grouped as dietary, physical activity, education/coaching, or multi-component. Mean weight changes, standard deviations, confidence intervals, and effect sizes were extracted or calculated for assessment of the intervention effect.

RESULTS

Sixty studies involving 6,511 participants were included in the qualitative synthesis. Most studies (n = 32) included multi-component interventions, incorporating dietary and physical activity components. Limited evidence suggests that extensive dietary interventions or long-term multi-component interventions might lead to a clinically relevant weight reduction of at least 5% for older individuals (age > 50) with mild-to-moderate mobility impairments.

DISCUSSION

Due to the high heterogeneity of studies and low study quality, it can be assumed that the range of applicability of the findings is questionable. Further research should examine younger age groups (i.e., children, adolescents, and adults under 40 years) and compare different settings such as schools, clinics, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities.

A guide for a student-led doctoral-level qualitative methods short course in epidemiology: faculty and student perspectives

Qualitative research and mixed methods are core competencies for epidemiologists. In response to the shortage of guidance on graduate course development, we wrote a course development guide aimed at faculty and students designing similar courses in epidemiology curricula. The guide combines established educational theory with faculty and student experiences from a recent introductory course for epidemiology and biostatistics doctoral students at the University of Zurich and Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich. We propose a student-centred course with inverse classroom teaching and practice exercises with faculty input. Integration of student input during the course development process helps align the course syllabus with student needs. The proposed course comprises six sessions that cover learning outcomes in comprehension, knowledge, application, analysis, synthesis and evaluation. Following an introductory session, the students engage in face-to-face interviews, focus group interviews, observational methods, analysis and how qualitative and quantitative methods are integrated in mixed methods. Furthermore, the course covers interviewer safety, research ethics, quality in qualitative research and a practice session focused on the use of interview hardware, including video and audio recorders. The student-led teaching characteristic of the course allows for an immersive and reflective teaching-learning environment. After implementation of the course and learning from faculty and student perspectives, we propose these additional foci: a student project to apply learned knowledge to a case study; integration in mixed-methods; and providing faculty a larger space to cover theory and field anecdotes.

A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCT

Background

People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs.

Objective

To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

Design

Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm.

Setting

Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland.

Participants

Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions.

Interventions

The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective.

Results

Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention.

Limitations

In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review.

Conclusions

The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.