Alternative community-led intervention to improve uptake of cataract surgery services in rural Tanzania-The Dodoma Community Cataract Acceptance Trial (DoCCAT): a protocol for intervention co-designing and implementation in a cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Age-related lens opacification (cataract) remains the leading cause of visual impairment and blindness worldwide. In low- and middle-income countries, utilization of cataract surgical services is often limited despite community-based outreach programmes. Community-led research, whereby researchers and community members collaboratively co-design intervention is an approach that ensures the interventions are locally relevant and that their implementation is feasible and socially accepted in the targeted contexts. Community-led interventions have the potential to increase cataract surgery uptake if done appropriately. In this study, once the intervention is co-designed it will be implemented through a cluster-randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with ward as a unit of randomization. This study will utilise both the qualitative methods for co-designing the intervention and the quantitative methods for effective assessment of the developed community-led intervention through a cRCT in 80 rural wards of Dodoma region, Tanzania (40 Intervention). The 'intervention package' will be developed through participatory community meetings and ongoing evaluation and modification of the intervention based on its impact on service utilization. Leask's four stages of intervention co-creation will guide the development within Rifkin's CHOICE framework. The primary outcomes are two: the number of patients attending eye disease screening camps, and the number of patients accepting cataract surgery. NVivo version 12 will be used for qualitative data analysis and Stata version 12 for quantitative data. Independent and paired t-tests will be performed to make comparisons between and within groups. P-values less than 0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

First-line first? Trends in thiazide prescribing for hypertensive seniors.

BACKGROUND: Evidence of reduced cardiovascular morbidity and mortality as well as cost support thiazide diuretics as the first-line choice for treatment of hypertension. The purpose of this study was to determine the proportion of senior hypertensives that received thiazide diuretics as first-line treatment, and to determine if cardiovascular and other potentially relevant comorbidities predict the choice of first-line therapy. METHODS AND FINDINGS: British Columbia PharmaCare data were used to determine the cohort of seniors (residents aged 65 or older) who received their first reimbursed hypertension drug during the period 1993 to 2000. These individual records were linked to medical and hospital claims data using the British Columbia Linked Health Database to find the subset that had diagnoses indicating the presence of hypertension as well as cardiovascular and other relevant comorbidities. Rates of first-line thiazide prescribing as proportion of all first-line treatment were analysed, accounting for patient age, sex, overall clinical complexity, and potentially relevant comorbidities. For the period 1993 to 2000, 82,824 seniors who had diagnoses of hypertension were identified as new users of hypertension drugs. The overall rate at which thiazides were used as first-line treatment varied from 38% among senior hypertensives without any potentially relevant comorbidity to 9% among hypertensives with previous acute myocardial infarction. The rate of first-line thiazide diuretic prescribing for patients with and without potentially relevant comorbidities increased over the study period. Women were more likely than men, and older patients were more likely than younger, to receive first-line thiazide therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate that first-line prescribing practices for hypertension are not consistent with the evidence from randomized control trials measuring morbidity and mortality. The health and financial cost of not selecting the most effective and least costly therapeutic options are significant.

Effect of periodic letters on evidence-based drug therapy on prescribing behaviour: a randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of regular and expected printed educational materials on physician prescribing behaviour has not been studied. We sought to measure the impact of a series of evidence-based drug therapy letters mailed to physicians in British Columbia on prescribing to newly treated patients. METHODS: A paired, cluster randomized community design was used. The study population included 499 physicians from 24 local health areas in British Columbia. Local health areas were paired by number of physicians, and 1 of each pair was randomly selected and its physicians assigned to an intervention group or a control group. The intervention was 12 issues of an evidence-based series called Therapeutics Letter. Physicians in the control group (n = 241) received the letters 3-8 months after physicians in the intervention group (n = 258). The impact on prescribing to newly treated patients (defined as patients who had not previously made a claim for any medication from the class of drugs profiled in the letter) was analyzed using the drug claims database of BC Pharmacare, a publicly funded drug benefits program that covered all seniors and people receiving social assistance. RESULTS: The probability of prescribing a drug recommended in the Therapeutics Letter rather than another drug in the same class increased by 30% in the 3 months after the mailing of the letter relative to the preceding 3 months, adjusted for any before-after changes in the control group (relative risk 1.30; 95% confidence interval 1.13-1.52). No letter achieved statistical significance on its own. However, 11 of the 12 letters produced prescribing changes in the predicted direction such that the overall result was significant when their effect was combined. INTERPRETATION: The combined effect of an ongoing series of printed letters distributed from a credible and trusted source can have a clinically significant effect on prescribing to newly treated patients.