randomized control trial

随机对照试验
  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    这项研究评估了经济激励措施对越南贫困/近贫困家庭拥有卫生厕所的影响。农村公社被随机分配到对照组和三个治疗组:(T1)为安装卫生厕所的家庭提供回扣;(T2)如果公社中卫生厕所的比例增加30个百分点,则对公社政府的经济奖励;(T3)家庭回扣和公社奖励。我们发现家庭回扣(治疗武器1和3)对化粪池厕所的家庭所有权产生了强烈而积极的影响,但公社奖励(治疗武器2)对化粪池厕所的家庭所有权影响不大。我们的分析提供了暗示性证据,表明小额信贷是退税鼓励安装化粪池厕所的渠道。我们还发现,治疗臂3增加了人们关于卫生和家庭内洗手的水和肥皂的可用性的知识。
    This study assesses the impact of financial incentives on hygienic latrine ownership by poor/near-poor households in Vietnam. Rural communes were randomly assigned to a control group and three treatment arm groups: (T1) a rebate for households that installed a hygienic latrine; (T2) a financial reward for commune governments if the proportion of hygienic latrines in their commune increased by 30 percentage points; (T3) both a household rebate and a commune reward. We find a strong and positive effect from the household rebate (treatment arms 1 and 3) but an insignificant effect from the commune reward (treatment arm 2) on household ownership of a septic tank latrine. Our analysis provides suggestive evidence that microcredit is a channel through which a rebate encourages the installation of septic tank latrines. We also find that treatment arm 3 increases people\'s knowledge regarding sanitation and the availability of water and soap for handwashing within households.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在随机临床试验(RCT)中发现强迫症(OCD)的接受和承诺疗法(ACT)有效,但这两个广为人知的RCT是在美国境内进行的,主要是白色样本。需要研究评估典型西方文化之外的强迫症治疗方法,如ACT。当前的范围审查总结了18个RCT的主要特征和发现,这些RCT评估了伊朗的ACT强迫症。这些RCT在更广泛的科学文献中基本上是未知的,尽管代表了强迫症试验的绝大多数ACT,部分原因是大多数是以波斯语出版的。RCT的优势是分组治疗的参与者,大多数方案不包括暴露练习。在18次试验中,5是单身。在许多试验中,使用选择性5-羟色胺再摄取抑制剂(SSRIs)在治疗前稳定剂量的所有参与者中都很常见。方法学质量低到中等。ACT与非传统比较条件不一致,稍微有利于经验验证的治疗方法,与等候名单和SSRI相比,也是有利的。变化过程数据表明,ACT比认知行为疗法或SSRIs更增加了心理灵活性。这些结果突出表明,来自西方人群的ACT强迫症的发现可以复制并推广到伊朗的个人。这些发现还提供了在伊朗研究ACT所获得的见解,并大大扩展了基于ACT的OCD文献,这些文献可以被所有研究人员纳入奖学金。
    Acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT) for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been found efficacious in randomized clinical trials (RCTs), but the two widely known RCTs were conducted within the United States with predominantly White samples. Research that evaluates treatments like ACT for OCD outside the typical Western cultures is needed. The current scoping review summarizes the key characteristics and findings from 18 RCTs that evaluated ACT for OCD in Iran. These RCTs are largely unknown in the broader scientific literature despite representing the vast majority of ACT for OCD trials, in part because the majority are published in Persian. The preponderance of RCTs treated participants in groups, and most protocols did not include exposure exercises. Of 18 trials, 5 were single sex. Use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) was common with all participants on stable doses at pretreatment in many of the trials. Methodological quality was low to medium. ACT was inconsistent against nontraditional comparison conditions, slightly favorable to empirically validated treatments, and favorable compared with the waitlist and SSRIs. The process of change data indicated that ACT increased the psychological flexibility more than cognitive behavior therapy or SSRIs. These results highlight that findings on ACT for OCD from Western populations replicate and generalize to individuals in Iran. These findings also offer insights gained from studying ACT in Iran and significantly expand the literature based on ACT for OCD that can be integrated into scholarship by all researchers.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    目的:随机对照试验(RCTs)是评价癌症新疗法疗效和安全性的金标准。然而,将患者纳入临床试验的控制组可能对罕见癌症具有挑战性,特别是在精确肿瘤学和靶向治疗的背景下。外部控制臂(ECA)是解决临床研究设计中这些挑战的潜在解决方案。我们进行了范围审查,以探讨ECA在肿瘤学中的应用。
    方法:我们系统地检索了四个数据库,即MEDLINE,EMBASE,WebofScience,还有Scopus.我们筛选了标题,摘要,以及针对接受癌症治疗的患者的合格文章的全文,雇用ECA,并报告临床结果。
    结果:在筛选的629篇文章中,这次审查中包括23人。最早的纳入研究发表于1996年,而大多数研究发表于过去5年。44%(10/23)的ECA用于血液相关癌症研究。地理上,30%(7/23)的研究是在美国进行的,22%(5/23)在日本,9%(2/23)在韩国。用于构建ECA的主要数据源涉及来自先前试验的汇总数据(35%,8/23),行政健康数据库(17%,4/23)和电子病历(17%,4/23)。虽然52%(12/23)的研究采用了调整治疗和ECA特征的方法,48%(11/23)缺乏明确的策略。
    结论:ECA为肿瘤学研究提供了一种有价值的方法,特别是当替代设计是不可行的。然而,仔细的方法规划和详细的报告对于有意义和可靠的结果至关重要。
    OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of new cancer therapies. However, enrolling patients in control arms of clinical trials can be challenging for rare cancers, particularly in the context of precision oncology and targeted therapies. External Control Arms (ECAs) are a potential solution to address these challenges in clinical research design. We conducted a scoping review to explore the use of ECAs in oncology.
    METHODS: We systematically searched four databases, namely MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Scopus. We screened titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligible articles focusing on patients undergoing therapy for cancer, employing ECAs, and reporting clinical outcomes.
    RESULTS: Of the 629 articles screened, 23 were included in this review. The earliest included studies were published in 1996, while most studies were published in the past 5 years. 44% (10/23) of ECAs were employed in blood-related cancer studies. Geographically, 30% (7/23) of studies were conducted in the United States, 22% (5/23) in Japan, and 9% (2/23) in South Korea. The primary data sources used to construct the ECAs involved pooled data from previous trials (35%, 8/23), administrative health databases (17%, 4/23) and electronic medical records (17%, 4/23). While 52% (12/23) of the studies employed methods to align treatment and ECAs characteristics, 48% (11/23) lacked explicit strategies.
    CONCLUSIONS: ECAs offer a valuable approach in oncology research, particularly when alternative designs are not feasible. However, careful methodological planning and detailed reporting are essential for meaningful and reliable results.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    正念是非洲裔美国人很有前途的健康促进策略,必须使这种人群能够获得具有文化响应的正念方法。解决这一需求的一种方法是开发和测试文化响应性移动健康(mhealth)应用程序是否有效地减少该人群中与压力相关的结果。有了这个目标,我们在12周的干预期内采用了重复测量的随机对照试验(RCT),以评估干预组中的参与者在减轻压力方面是否优于等待名单对照组,抑郁症状,焦虑,情绪调节困难以及自我同情的增加,弹性,和正念的态度和行为。我们的样本包括170名黑人/非裔美国人参与者,他们被随机分配到干预条件(n=84)或等待名单对照组(n=86)。干预条件的参与者报告了更多的自我同情,使用更多的正念,并且使用正念有更高的自我效能感;然而,没有明显的其他差异。参与者对该应用程序表示了很高的满意度,并对其与生活的相关性给予了积极评价。这些发现支持文化响应正念mHealth应用程序的功效,以增强自我同情心并增加对健康促进行为的使用,像正念,在非洲裔美国人中。讨论了对未来研究的启示。
    Mindfulness is a promising health promotion strategy for African Americans, and it is imperative that culturally responsive mindfulness approaches be accessible to this population. One way to address this need is to develop and test if culturally responsive mobile health (mhealth) applications are efficacious in reducing stress-related outcomes in this population. With this goal in mind, we employed a repeated-measures randomized control trial (RCT) across a 12-week intervention period to evaluate if participants in the intervention group outperformed a wait-list control group in reductions in stress, depressive symptoms, anxiety, emotional regulation difficulties as well as in increases in self-compassion, resilience, and mindfulness attitudes and behaviors. Our sample included 170 Black/African American participants who were randomly assigned to either the intervention condition (n = 84) or the wait-list control group (n = 86). Participants in the intervention condition reported more self-compassion, used more mindfulness, and had greater self-efficacy using mindfulness; yet, no other differences were evident. Participants expressed high levels of satisfaction with the app and gave it a positive rating for its relevance to their lives. These findings support the efficacy of a culturally responsive mindfulness mHealth app to enhance self-compassion and increase the use of health-promoting behaviors, like mindfulness, among African Americans. Implications for future research are discussed.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:虽然使用互联网和社交媒体进行研究招聘的优势是有据可查的,不断发展的在线环境也增强了虚假陈述获得激励或“巨魔”研究的动机。这种欺诈性攻击会损害数据完整性,项目时间的重大损失;资金;特别是对于弱势群体,研究信任。随着新技术和不断发展的社交媒体平台的迅速出现,在线数据收集中的虚假陈述变得更加容易。这种延续可能是由机器人或有恶意的个人发生的,但是仔细的计划可以帮助过滤掉欺诈性数据。
    目标:以城市美洲印第安人和阿拉斯加土著年轻女性为例,本文旨在描述PRIOR(在线研究中提高数据完整性的协议),这是一个两步整合协议,用于打击在线调查研究中的欺诈参与。
    方法:从2019年2月至2020年8月,我们招募了参与者进行形成性研究,准备一项前概念健康计划的在线随机对照试验。首先,我们描述了防止欺诈参与的初始方案,这被证明是不成功的。然后,我们描述了我们在2020年5月为提高协议性能和创建PRIOR所做的修改.变化包括传输数据收集平台,收集嵌入式地理空间变量,在筛查调查中启用定时功能,为每种数据收集方法或平台创建URL链接,并手动确认潜在合格参与者的识别信息。
    结果:在实施之前,该项目在学习入学时经历了大量的欺诈尝试,在1300名筛选的参与者中,不到1%(n=6)被确定为真正符合条件。有了修改后的协议,在完成筛查调查的461人中,381不符合调查评估的资格标准。在80个这样做的人中,25人(31%)被确定为不合格。共有55人(69%)被确定为合格并在方案中得到验证,并被纳入形成性研究。
    结论:欺诈性调查损害了研究的完整性,数据的有效性,以及参与者群体之间的信任。他们还耗尽了稀缺的研究资源,包括受访者的薪酬和人员时间。我们在防止数据在线虚假陈述之前的方法是成功的。本文回顾了有关在线研究中欺诈性数据参与的关键要素,并说明了为什么防止欺诈性数据收集的增强协议对于与弱势群体建立信任至关重要。
    背景:ClinicalTrials.govNCT04376346;https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/研究/NCT04376346。
    DERR1-10.2196/52281。
    BACKGROUND: While the advantages of using the internet and social media for research recruitment are well documented, the evolving online environment also enhances motivations for misrepresentation to receive incentives or to \"troll\" research studies. Such fraudulent assaults can compromise data integrity, with substantial losses in project time; money; and especially for vulnerable populations, research trust. With the rapid advent of new technology and ever-evolving social media platforms, it has become easier for misrepresentation to occur within online data collection. This perpetuation can occur by bots or individuals with malintent, but careful planning can help aid in filtering out fraudulent data.
    OBJECTIVE: Using an example with urban American Indian and Alaska Native young women, this paper aims to describe PRIOR (Protocol for Increasing Data Integrity in Online Research), which is a 2-step integration protocol for combating fraudulent participation in online survey research.
    METHODS: From February 2019 to August 2020, we recruited participants for formative research preparatory to an online randomized control trial of a preconceptual health program. First, we described our initial protocol for preventing fraudulent participation, which proved to be unsuccessful. Then, we described modifications we made in May 2020 to improve the protocol performance and the creation of PRIOR. Changes included transferring data collection platforms, collecting embedded geospatial variables, enabling timing features within the screening survey, creating URL links for each method or platform of data collection, and manually confirming potentially eligible participants\' identifying information.
    RESULTS: Before the implementation of PRIOR, the project experienced substantial fraudulent attempts at study enrollment, with less than 1% (n=6) of 1300 screened participants being identified as truly eligible. With the modified protocol, of the 461 individuals who completed a screening survey, 381 did not meet the eligibility criteria assessed on the survey. Of the 80 that did, 25 (31%) were identified as ineligible via PRIOR. A total of 55 (69%) were identified as eligible and verified in the protocol and were enrolled in the formative study.
    CONCLUSIONS: Fraudulent surveys compromise study integrity, validity of the data, and trust among participant populations. They also deplete scarce research resources including respondent compensation and personnel time. Our approach of PRIOR to prevent online misrepresentation in data was successful. This paper reviews key elements regarding fraudulent data participation in online research and demonstrates why enhanced protocols to prevent fraudulent data collection are crucial for building trust with vulnerable populations.
    BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04376346; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04376346.
    UNASSIGNED: DERR1-10.2196/52281.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:COVID-19大流行对全球产生了深远的影响,尽管大多数最近感染的病例都表现为轻度至中度症状。先前的临床研究表明,疏风解毒(SFJD)胶囊,一种中草药,有效缓解与普通感冒相关的症状,甲型H1N1流感,和COVID-19。本研究旨在评估SFJD胶囊治疗轻中度COVID-19感染症状的有效性和安全性。方法:随机,双盲,安慰剂对照试验于2022年5月至12月在中国两家医院进行.在发病后3天内出现呼吸道症状的轻度和中度COVID-19感染患者以1:1的比例随机分配到SFJD或安慰剂组。个体连续五天每天三次接受SFJD胶囊或安慰剂。在SARS-CoV-2的RT-PCR类核苷酸测试变为阴性后,对参与者进行了14天以上的随访。主要结局指标是从基线到随访结束,缓解COVID-19症状的时间。结果:共筛选了478名参与者;最终,407在随机分组后完成了试验(SFJD,n=203;安慰剂,n=204)。两组间基线参数无统计学差异。SFJD组缓解所有症状的中位时间为7天,而安慰剂组为8天(p=0.037)。值得注意的是,与安慰剂组相比,SFJD组明显减轻了发热/寒战(p=0.04)和头痛(p=0.016).此外,与安慰剂组相比,SFJD组24小时内达到正常体温所需的中位时间缩短了7小时(p=0.033).在本试验期间,没有发生死亡或严重或危急状况的情况;此外,未报告严重不良事件.结论:该试验是在独特的受控医院环境中进行的,用SFJD胶囊治疗5天,总体症状减轻1天,特别是头痛和发烧/发冷,在有轻度或中度症状的COVID-19感染参与者中。与安慰剂相比,SFJD胶囊被发现是安全的,副作用较少。SFJD胶囊可能是缓解COVID-19轻中度症状的有效治疗方法。临床试验注册:https://www.isrctn.com/,标识符ISRCTN14236594。
    Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a profound global impact, although the majority of recently infected cases have presented with mild to moderate symptoms. Previous clinical studies have demonstrated that Shufeng Jiedu (SFJD) capsule, a Chinese herbal patent medicine, effectively alleviates symptoms associated with the common cold, H1N1 influenza, and COVID-19. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of SFJD capsules in managing symptoms of mild to moderate COVID-19 infection. Methods: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted from May to December 2022 at two hospitals in China. Mild and moderate COVID-19-infected patients presenting respiratory symptoms within 3 days from onset were randomly assigned to either the SFJD or placebo groups in a 1:1 ratio. Individuals received SFJD capsules or a placebo three times daily for five consecutive days. Participants were followed up for more than 14 days after their RT-PCR nucleoid acid test for SARS-CoV-2 turned negative. The primary outcome measure was time to alleviate COVID-19 symptoms from baseline until the end of follow-up. Results: A total of 478 participants were screened; ultimately, 407 completed the trial after randomization (SFJD, n = 203; placebo, n = 204). No statistically significant difference in baseline parameters was observed between the two groups. The median time to alleviate all symptoms was 7 days in the SFJD group compared to 8 days in the placebo group (p = 0.037). Notably, the SFJD group significantly attenuated fever/chills (p = 0.04) and headache (p = 0.016) compared to the placebo group. Furthermore, the median time taken to reach normal body temperature within 24 h was reduced by 7 hours in the SFJD group compared to the placebo group (p = 0.033). No deaths or instances of serious or critical conditions occurred during this trial period; moreover, no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusion: The trial was conducted in a unique controlled hospital setting, and the 5-day treatment with SFJD capsules resulted in a 1-day reduction in overall symptoms, particularly headache and fever/chills, among COVID-19-infected participants with mild or moderate symptoms. Compared to placebo, SFJD capsules were found to be safe with fewer side effects. SFJD capsules could potentially serve as an effective treatment for alleviating mild to moderate symptoms of COVID-19. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/, identifier ISRCTN14236594.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    在孟加拉国农村,我们评估是否仅农业培训,仅营养行为沟通变化(BCC),农业培训和营养BCC相结合,或农业培训和营养BCC结合性别敏感性提高:(a)生产多样性,无论是在家庭田地上还是通过作物,在家庭宅基地附近进行的牲畜或水产养殖活动,以及(b)饮食多样性和家庭饮食质量。所有治疗武器均由政府雇员实施。实施质量很高。没有任何处理增加了田间作物的生产多样化。经过农业培训的治疗部门确实增加了在宅基地花园中种植的不同作物的数量以及任何鸡蛋的可能性,乳制品,或鱼类产量,但这些效应大小的幅度很小。所有的农业治疗武器,以百分比计算,对宅基地生产水平的措施有很大影响。然而,因为生产的基线水平很低,这些变化的绝对幅度不大。当营养和农业培训相结合时,几乎所有治疗手段都改善了食物消费和饮食的措施,效果最大。相对于农业和营养培训相结合的治疗方法,我们发现增加性别敏感性对我们的生产多样性或饮食质量没有显著影响.结合农业培训和营养BCC的干预措施可以改善生产多样性和饮食质量,但它们不是灵丹妙药。他们可以,然而,有助于改善农村家庭的饮食。
    In the context of rural Bangladesh, we assess whether agriculture training alone, nutrition Behavior Communication Change (BCC) alone, combined agriculture training and nutrition BCC, or agriculture training and nutrition BCC combined with gender sensitization improve: (a) production diversity, either on household fields or through crop, livestock or aquaculture activities carried out near the family homestead and (b) diet diversity and the quality of household diets. All treatment arms were implemented by government employees. Implementation quality was high. No treatment increased production diversification of crops grown on fields. Treatment arms with agricultural training did increase the number of different crops grown in homestead gardens and the likelihood of any egg, dairy, or fish production but the magnitudes of these effect sizes were small. All agricultural treatment arms had, in percentage terms, large effects on measures of levels of homestead production. However, because baseline levels of production were low, the magnitude of these changes in absolute terms was modest. Nearly all treatment arms improved measures of food consumption and diet with the largest effects found when nutrition and agriculture training were combined. Relative to treatments combining agriculture and nutrition training, we find no significant impact of adding the gender sensitization on our measures of production diversity or diet quality. Interventions that combine agricultural training and nutrition BCC can improve both production diversity and diet quality, but they are not a panacea. They can, however, contribute towards better diets of rural households.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:面对经典随机对照试验的高成本和有限的效率,研究人员越来越多地应用自适应设计来加快新药的开发。然而,适应性设计在药物随机对照试验(RCT)中的应用以及报告是否充分尚不清楚.因此,本研究旨在总结相关试验的流行病学特征,并通过自适应设计CONSORT扩展(ACE)检查表评估其报告质量.
    方法:我们搜索了MEDLINE,EMBASE,Cochrane中央对照试验登记册(CENTRAL)和ClinicalTrials.gov从开始到2020年1月。我们纳入了明确宣称为适应性试验或使用任何类型适应性设计的药物随机对照试验。我们提取了纳入研究的流行病学特征,以总结其适应性设计应用。我们通过自适应设计CONSORTExtension(ACE)检查表评估了试验的报告质量。使用单变量和多变量线性回归模型将四个预设因素与报告质量相关联。
    结果:我们的调查包括108项适应性试验。我们发现自适应设计多年来得到越来越多的应用,并常用于II期试验(n=45,41.7%)。使用自适应设计的主要原因是加快试验速度和促进决策(n=24,22.2%),最大化参与者的利益(n=21,19.4%),并减少总样本量(n=15,13.9%)。组序贯设计(n=63,58.3%)是最常用的方法,其次是自适应随机化设计(n=26,24.1%),和适应性剂量发现设计(n=24,22.2%)。26个主题的ACE检查表的遵守比例从7.4%到99.1%不等,有八个主题得到充分报告(即,依从性水平≥80%),和其他八个报告不佳(即,粘附水平≤30%)。此外,在适应性试验的七个项目中,三个报告不佳:统计分析计划的可及性(n=8,7.4%),保密措施(n=14,13.0%),和评估中间阶段之间的相似性(n=25,23.1%)。ACE检查表的平均得分为13.9(标准偏差[SD],3.5)中的26个。根据我们的多元回归分析,后来发表的试验(估计β=0.14,p<0.01)和多中心试验(估计β=2.22,p<0.01)与更好的报告相关.
    结论:多年来,自适应设计的使用越来越多,主要应用于早期药物试验。然而,适应性试验的报告质量欠佳,需要作出巨大努力来改进报告。
    BACKGROUND: Faced with the high cost and limited efficiency of classical randomized controlled trials, researchers are increasingly applying adaptive designs to speed up the development of new drugs. However, the application of adaptive design to drug randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and whether the reporting is adequate are unclear. Thus, this study aimed to summarize the epidemiological characteristics of the relevant trials and assess their reporting quality by the Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist.
    METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov from inception to January 2020. We included drug RCTs that explicitly claimed to be adaptive trials or used any type of adaptative design. We extracted the epidemiological characteristics of included studies to summarize their adaptive design application. We assessed the reporting quality of the trials by Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) checklist. Univariable and multivariable linear regression models were used to the association of four prespecified factors with the quality of reporting.
    RESULTS: Our survey included 108 adaptive trials. We found that adaptive design has been increasingly applied over the years, and was commonly used in phase II trials (n = 45, 41.7%). The primary reasons for using adaptive design were to speed the trial and facilitate decision-making (n = 24, 22.2%), maximize the benefit of participants (n = 21, 19.4%), and reduce the total sample size (n = 15, 13.9%). Group sequential design (n = 63, 58.3%) was the most frequently applied method, followed by adaptive randomization design (n = 26, 24.1%), and adaptive dose-finding design (n = 24, 22.2%). The proportion of adherence to the ACE checklist of 26 topics ranged from 7.4 to 99.1%, with eight topics being adequately reported (i.e., level of adherence ≥ 80%), and eight others being poorly reported (i.e., level of adherence ≤ 30%). In addition, among the seven items specific for adaptive trials, three were poorly reported: accessibility to statistical analysis plan (n = 8, 7.4%), measures for confidentiality (n = 14, 13.0%), and assessments of similarity between interim stages (n = 25, 23.1%). The mean score of the ACE checklist was 13.9 (standard deviation [SD], 3.5) out of 26. According to our multivariable regression analysis, later published trials (estimated β = 0.14, p < 0.01) and the multicenter trials (estimated β = 2.22, p < 0.01) were associated with better reporting.
    CONCLUSIONS: Adaptive design has shown an increasing use over the years, and was primarily applied to early phase drug trials. However, the reporting quality of adaptive trials is suboptimal, and substantial efforts are needed to improve the reporting.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

       PDF(Pubmed)

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:临床医生合作可以帮助高危人群控制自杀危机。然而,有限的研究直接研究了评估和干预期间更高的患者-临床医生合作如何有效减少自杀意念.这项新的随机临床试验比较了一种高与通过配对常用评估,患者与临床医生的合作水平较低(结构化访谈与叙事评估)和干预方法(安全规划干预与危机应对计划)。我们假设,在评估(叙事评估)或干预(危机应对计划)期间,涉及更高(比更低)的患者-临床医生合作的干预措施将导致自杀意念的更大减少。
    方法:82名有自杀意念和/或尝试史的参与者被随机分配到患者-临床医生合作不同的四种干预措施之一。减员后,66名参与者完成了研究.在治疗前14天和治疗后14天通过生态瞬时评估测量自杀意念。
    结果:尽管所有组的自杀意念的严重程度都有所下降,与包括基于检查表的评估(结构化访谈)的组相比,包括高度协作评估的两组(叙事评估+安全计划;DIN=0.26,和叙事评估+危机应对计划;DIN=0.19)的自杀意念在事后减少幅度更大.
    结论:使用更大的样本进行更长的随访时间将有助于了解干预效果的持久性。
    结论:结果表明,在自杀风险评估中纳入更高的患者-临床医生合作技术可以有效减少自杀念头。因此,与基于清单的评估方法相比,临床医生主导的协作风险评估方法可以增强安全计划型干预措施在自杀风险升高患者中的效果.
    BACKGROUND: Clinician collaboration can help high-risk individuals to manage their suicidal crises. However, limited research has directly examined how higher patient-clinician collaboration during assessment and intervention can effectively reduce suicidal ideation. This novel randomized clinical trial compared a high vs. low level of patient-clinician collaboration by pairing commonly used assessment (Structured Interview vs. Narrative Assessment) and intervention approaches (Safety Planning Intervention vs. Crisis Response Planning). We hypothesized that the interventions involving higher (than lower) patient-clinician collaboration during assessment (Narrative Assessment) or intervention (Crisis Response Planning) would lead to larger reductions in suicidal ideation.
    METHODS: Eighty-two participants with a history of suicide ideation and/or attempts were randomly assigned to one of the four interventions varying in patient-clinician collaboration. After attrition, sixty-six participants completed the study. Suicidal ideation via ecological momentary assessment was measured 14 days before and 14 days after treatment.
    RESULTS: Although the severity of suicidal ideation decreased in all groups, the two groups that included highly collaborative assessment had larger pre-post reductions in suicidal ideation (Narrative Assessment+Safety Plan; dwithin = 0.26, and Narrative Assessment+Crisis Response Plan; dwithin = 0.19) than the groups that included a checklist-based assessment (Structured Interview).
    CONCLUSIONS: Longer follow-up periods with a larger sample would have provided an understanding of the durability of intervention effects.
    CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that the inclusion of higher patient-clinician collaboration techniques during suicide risk assessment can effectively reduce suicidal thoughts. Thus, clinician-led collaborative risk assessment approaches can enhance the effects of safety planning-type interventions among patients with elevated risk for suicide versus checklist-based assessment approaches.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

  • 文章类型: Journal Article
    背景:为了应对不断增长的可访问需求,高效,和有效的姑息治疗服务,我们设计的,已实施,并评估了以社区卫生工作者为中心的严重疾病患者的新型家庭姑息治疗(PC@H)模型,注册护士,一个社会工作者,有先进的执业护士和医生的支持。我们的目标是测量接受PC@H对患者症状的影响,生活质量,以及医疗保健利用率和成本。
    方法:我们平行招募了136名患有严重疾病的患者,随机对照试验。我们的主要结果是6周时症状负担的变化。次要结果包括3个月时症状负担的变化,6周和3个月时生活质量的变化,使用组t检验估计。在探索性目标中,我们使用广义线性模型研究了PC@H对医疗保健利用率和成本的影响。
    结果:PC@H导致6周时患者症状有更大的改善(1.30分改善,n=37)和3个月(3.14分改善,n=21)与对照组相比。两组之间的医疗保健利用率和成本没有差异。不幸的是,由于COVID-19大流行和资金的损失,试验未能如原计划那样完成.
    结论:利用社区卫生工作者的家庭姑息治疗模式,注册护士,与标准护理相比,社会工作者作为主要的护理提供者可能会改善患者的症状和生活质量。我们没有表现出与收到PC@H相关的医疗保健利用率和成本的显著差异,可能是由于无法达到预期的样本量和统计能力不足,由于调查人员无法控制的因素,如COVID-19公共卫生紧急情况和赠款资金的变化。
    BACKGROUND: In response to a growing need for accessible, efficient, and effective palliative care services, we designed, implemented, and evaluated a novel palliative care at home (PC@H) model for people with serious illness that is centered around a community health worker, a registered nurse, and a social worker, with an advanced practice nurse and a physician for support. Our objectives were to measure the impact of receipt of PC@H on patient symptoms, quality of life, and healthcare utilization and costs.
    METHODS: We enrolled 136 patients with serious illness in this parallel, randomized controlled trial. Our primary outcome was change in symptom burden at 6 weeks. Secondary outcomes included change in symptom burden at 3 months, change in quality of life at 6 weeks and 3 months, estimated using a group t-test. In an exploratory aim, we examined the impact of PC@H on healthcare utilization and cost using a generalized linear model.
    RESULTS: PC@H resulted in a greater improvement in patient symptoms at 6 weeks (1.30 score improvement, n = 37) and 3 months (3.14 score improvement, n = 21) compared with controls. There were no differences in healthcare utilization and costs between the two groups. Unfortunately, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a loss of funding, the trial was not able to be completed as originally intended.
    CONCLUSIONS: A palliative care at home model that leverages community health workers, registered nurses, and social workers as the primary deliverers of care may result in improved patient symptoms and quality of life compared with standard care. We did not demonstrate significant differences in healthcare utilization and cost associated with receipt of PC@H, likely due to inability to reach the intended sample size and insufficient statistical power, due to elements beyond the investigators\' control such as the COVID-19 public health emergency and changes in grant funding.
    导出

    更多引用

    收藏

    翻译标题摘要

    我要上传

    求助全文

公众号