RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There have only been two efficacy trials reporting a head-to-head comparison of medications and psychotherapy for PTSD, and neither was conducted in primary care. Therefore, this protocol paper describes a pragmatic trial that compares outcomes of primary care patients randomized to initially receive a brief trauma-focused psychotherapy or a choice of three antidepressants. In addition, because there are few trials examining the effectiveness of subsequent treatments for patients not responding to the initial treatment, this pragmatic trial also compares the outcomes of those switching or augmenting treatments. METHOD: Patients screening positive for PTSD (n = 700) were recruited from the primary care clinics of 7 Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHC) and 8 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Centers and randomized in the ratio 1:1:2 to one of three treatment sequences: 1) selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) followed by augmentation with Written Exposure Therapy (WET), 2) SSRI followed by a switch to serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor (SNRI), or 3) WET followed by a switch to SSRI. Participants complete surveys at baseline, 4 months, and 8 months. The primary outcome is PTSD symptom severity as measured by the PTSD Checklist (PCL-5). RESULTS: Average PCL-5 scores (M = 52.8, SD = 11.1) indicated considerable severity. The most common bothersome traumatic event for VA enrollees was combat (47.8%), and for FQHC enrollees was other (28.2%), followed by sexual assault (23.4%), and child abuse (19.8%). Only 22.4% were taking an antidepressant at baseline. CONCLUSION: Results will help healthcare systems and clinicians make decisions about which treatments to offer to patients.
Assuntos
Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos , Adulto , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Antidepressivos/uso terapêutico , Antidepressivos/administração & dosagem , Terapia Combinada , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Terapia Implosiva/métodos , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Psicoterapia/métodos , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/administração & dosagem , Inibidores da Recaptação de Serotonina e Norepinefrina/uso terapêutico , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Resultado do Tratamento , Ensaios Clínicos Pragmáticos como AssuntoRESUMO
Campylobacteriosis is a frequently reported, food-borne, human bacterial disease that can be associated with ruminant reservoirs, although public health messages primarily focus on poultry. In Washington State, the two counties with the highest concentrations of dairy cattle also report the highest incidences of campylobacteriosis. Conditional logistic regression analysis of case-control data from both counties found living or working on a dairy farm (odds ratio [OR], 6.7 [95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7 to 26.4]) and Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 6.4 [95% CI, 3.1 to 13.1]) to have the strongest significant positive associations with campylobacteriosis. When the analysis was restricted to residents of one county, Hispanic ethnicity (OR, 9.3 [95% CI, 3.9 to 22.2]), contact with cattle (OR, 5.0 [95% CI, 1.3 to 19.5]), and pet ownership (OR, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.1 to 6.3]) were found to be independent risk factors for disease. Campylobacter jejuni isolates from human (n = 65), bovine (n = 28), and retail poultry (n = 27) sources from the same counties were compared using multilocus sequence typing. These results indicated that sequence types commonly found in human isolates were also commonly found in bovine isolates. These findings suggest that, in areas with high concentrations of dairy cattle, exposure to dairy cattle may be more important than food-borne exposure to poultry products as a risk for campylobacteriosis.
Assuntos
Infecções por Campylobacter/epidemiologia , Infecções por Campylobacter/veterinária , Doenças Transmitidas por Alimentos/epidemiologia , Criação de Animais Domésticos , Animais , Infecções por Campylobacter/microbiologia , Campylobacter jejuni/classificação , Campylobacter jejuni/genética , Campylobacter jejuni/isolamento & purificação , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Bovinos , Doenças dos Bovinos/microbiologia , Análise por Conglomerados , Etnicidade , Humanos , Epidemiologia Molecular , Tipagem de Sequências Multilocus , Exposição Ocupacional , Aves Domésticas , Doenças das Aves Domésticas/microbiologia , Fatores de Risco , Washington/epidemiologiaRESUMO
Importance: Only one-third of patients with complex psychiatric disorders engage in specialty mental health care, and only one-tenth receive adequate treatment in primary care. Scalable approaches are critically needed to improve access to effective mental health treatments in underserved primary care settings. Objective: To compare 2 clinic-to-clinic interactive video approaches to delivering evidence-based mental health treatments to patients in primary care clinics. Design, Setting, and Participants: This pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial used a sequential, multiple-assignment, randomized trial (SMART) design with patient-level randomization. Adult patients treated at 24 primary care clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists from 12 federally qualified health centers in 3 states who screened positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and/or bipolar disorder and who were not already receiving pharmacotherapy from a mental health specialist were recruited from November 16, 2016, to June 30, 2019, and observed for 12 months. Interventions: Two approaches were compared: (1) telepsychiatry/telepsychology-enhanced referral (TER), where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists assumed responsibility for treatment, and (2) telepsychiatry collaborative care (TCC), where telepsychiatrists provided consultation to the primary care team. TER included an adaptive intervention (phone-enhanced referral [PER]) for patients not engaging in treatment, which involved telephone outreach and motivational interviewing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survey questions assessed patient-reported outcomes. The Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey Mental Component Summary (MCS) score was the primary outcome (range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes included posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms, manic symptoms, depressive symptoms, anxiety symptoms, recovery, and adverse effects. Results: Of 1004 included participants, 701 of 1000 (70.1%) were female, 660 of 994 (66.4%) were White, and the mean (SD) age was 39.4 (12.9) years. Baseline MCS scores were 2 SDs below the US mean; the mean (SD) MCS scores were 39.7 (14.1) and 41.2 (14.2) in the TCC and TER groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving TCC and TER (ß = 1.0; 95% CI, -0.8 to 2.8; P = .28). Patients in both groups experienced large and clinically meaningful improvements from baseline to 12 months (TCC: Cohen d = 0.81; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; TER: Cohen d = 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.04). For patients not engaging in TER at 6 months, there was no significant difference in 12-month MCS score between those receiving PER and TER (ß = 2.0; 95% CI, -1.7 to 5.7; P = .29). Conclusions and Relevance: In this comparative effectiveness trial of patients with complex psychiatric disorders randomized to receive TCC or TER, significantly and substantially improved outcomes were observed in both groups. From a health care system perspective, clinical leadership should implement whichever approach is most sustainable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02738944.
Assuntos
Transtorno Bipolar/terapia , Prestação Integrada de Cuidados de Saúde/organização & administração , Avaliação de Processos e Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Psiquiatria/organização & administração , Encaminhamento e Consulta/organização & administração , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Telemedicina/organização & administração , Adulto , Pesquisa Comparativa da Efetividade , Prática Clínica Baseada em Evidências/organização & administração , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Psicologia/organização & administraçãoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Managing complex psychiatric disorders like PTSD and bipolar disorder is challenging in Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs) delivering care to U.S residents living in underserved rural areas. This protocol paper describes SPIRIT, a pragmatic comparative effectiveness trial designed to compare two approaches to managing PTSD and bipolar disorder in FQHCs. INTERVENTIONS: Treatment comparators are: 1) Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care, which integrates consulting telepsychiatrists into primary care teams, and 2) Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral, where telepsychiatrists and telepsychologists treat patients directly. METHODS: Because Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral is an adaptive intervention, a Sequential, Multiple Assignment, Randomized Trial design is used. Twenty-four FQHC clinics without on-site psychiatrists or psychologists are participating in the trial. The sample is patients screening positive for PTSD and/or bipolar disorder who are not already engaged in pharmacotherapy with a mental health specialist. Intervention fidelity is measured but not controlled. Patient treatment engagement is measured but not required, and intent-to-treat analysis will be used. Survey questions measure treatment engagement and effectiveness. The Short-Form 12 Mental Health Component Summary (SF-12 MCS) is the primary outcome. RESULTS: A third (34%) of those enrolled (nâ¯=â¯1004) are racial/ethnic minorities, 81% are not fully employed, 68% are Medicaid enrollees, 7% are uninsured, and 62% live in poverty. Mental health related quality of life (SF-12 MCS) is 2.5 standard deviations below the national mean. DISCUSSION: We hypothesize that patients randomized to Telepsychiatry Collaborative Care will have better outcomes than those randomized to Telepsychiatry Enhanced Referral because a higher proportion will engage in evidence-based treatment.
Assuntos
Transtorno Bipolar/terapia , Serviços de Saúde Mental/organização & administração , Atenção Primária à Saúde/organização & administração , Serviços de Saúde Rural/organização & administração , Transtornos de Estresse Pós-Traumáticos/terapia , Telemedicina/organização & administração , Fatores Etários , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde , Área Carente de Assistência Médica , Transtornos Mentais/terapia , Equipe de Assistência ao Paciente/organização & administração , Segurança do Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Projetos de Pesquisa , Fatores Sexuais , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Prevenção do SuicídioRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To assess the availability and use of Washington State's CHILD (Children's Health, Immunization, Linkages, and Development) Profile and other computerized immunization tracking systems, to determine physicians' attitudes about these systems, and to identify factors associated with using them. DESIGN: Randomized, population-based, cross-sectional survey. PARTICIPANTS: Washington family physician and pediatrician specialty organization members providing childhood immunizations in 1998 (N = 2472). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Reported CHILD Profile and other computerized systems use. RESULTS: The adjusted response rate was 75% (n = 1331). Overall, 37.7% of respondents had heard of CHILD Profile, 6.3% used it, and 24.9% used other systems. Groups significantly more likely not to use computerized systems than referent pediatricians in areas fully implementing CHILD Profile were family physicians (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-4.0), private physicians (aOR, 8.0; 95% CI, 3.2-20.1), physicians taking fewest opportunities to immunize (aOR, 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7), and physicians practicing in local health jurisdiction areas with CHILD Profile marketing activity (aOR, 2.1; 95% CI, 1.2-3.9) or in those areas with little or no registry activity (aOR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.6-4.4). Those with systems agreed that they save time (71.0%), make status checks easier (87.1%), and increase immunization coverage (88.6%). Those without systems agreed that they help practices (90.3%) and increase efficiency (76.5%), but fewer agreed that they reduce costs (30.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although most physicians agreed that computerized systems are useful, few had them or used them. Provider-based systems can improve immunization coverage, but the feasibility and effectiveness of communitywide and statewide systems remain unexplored. Because these systems depend on participation, more understanding is needed to help organizations implement them. Interventions to increase availability and use should address provider and health organization needs.