RESUMEN
IMPORTANCE: Encouraging primary care patients to address depression symptoms and care with clinicians could improve outcomes but may also result in unnecessary treatment. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether a depression engagement video (DEV) or a tailored interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) improves initial depression care compared with a control without increasing unnecessary antidepressant prescribing. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Randomized clinical trial comparing DEV, IMCP, and control among 925 adult patients treated by 135 primary care clinicians (603 patients with depression and 322 patients without depression, defined by Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9] score) conducted from June 2010 through March 2012 at 7 primary care clinical sites in California. INTERVENTIONS: DEV targeted to sex and income, an IMCP tailored to individual patient characteristics, and a sleep hygiene video (control). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Among depressed patients, superiority assessment of the composite measure of patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation, mental health referral, or both (primary outcome); depression at 12-week follow-up, measured by the PHQ-8 (secondary outcome). Among nondepressed patients, noninferiority assessment of clinician- and patient-reported antidepressant drug recommendation (primary outcomes) with a noninferiority margin of 3.5%. Analyses were cluster adjusted. RESULTS: Of the 925 eligible patients, 867 were included in the primary analysis (depressed, 559; nondepressed, 308). Among depressed patients, rates of achieving the primary outcome were 17.5% for DEV, 26% for IMCP, and 16.3% for control (DEV vs control, 1.1 [95% CI, -6.7 to 8.9], P = .79; IMCP vs control, 9.9 [95% CI, 1.6 to 18.2], P = .02). There were no effects on PHQ-8 measured depression score at the 12-week follow-up: DEV vs control, -0.2 (95% CI, -1.2 to 0.8); IMCP vs control, 0.9 (95% CI, -0.1 to 1.9). Among nondepressed patients, clinician-reported antidepressant prescribing in the DEV and IMCP groups was noninferior to control (mean percentage point difference [PPD]: DEV vs control, -2.2 [90% CI, -8.0 to 3.49], P = .0499 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control, -3.3 [90% CI, -9.1 to 2.4], P = .02 for noninferiority); patient-reported antidepressant recommendation did not achieve noninferiority (mean PPD: DEV vs control, 0.9 [90% CI, -4.9 to 6.7], P = .23 for noninferiority; IMCP vs control, 0.3 [90% CI, -5.1 to 5.7], P = .16 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A tailored IMCP increased clinician recommendations for antidepressant drugs, a mental health referral, or both among depressed patients but had no effect on mental health at the 12-week follow-up. The possibility that the IMCP and DEV increased patient-reported clinician recommendations for an antidepressant drug among nondepressed patients could not be excluded. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01144104.
Asunto(s)
Comunicación , Depresión/diagnóstico , Depresión/terapia , Multimedia , Atención Primaria de Salud , Terapia Asistida por Computador , Grabación en Video , Adulto , Anciano , Antidepresivos/uso terapéutico , Femenino , Humanos , Renta , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Relaciones Médico-Paciente , Derivación y Consulta , Factores Sexuales , Programas InformáticosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the characteristics of human papillomavirus testing, particularly Hybrid Capture 2, in follow-up evaluations after treatment for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia for the detection of residual or recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade >/= 2. STUDY DESIGN: Medline was searched for relevant studies that were published between 1992 and September 2007. Of the 1107 citations that were identified, 20 articles met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: Studies that used polymerase chain reaction testing were too heterogeneous to combine. We identified 5 studies that performed both Hybrid Capture 2 and colposcopy. Pooled sensitivity for Hybrid Capture 2 was 90.7% (95% CI, 75.4-96.9%), and pooled specificity was 74.6% (95% CI, 60.4-85.0%). Pooled sensitivity for cervical cytologic testing was 76.6% (95% CI, 62.0-86.8%), and pooled specificity was 89.7% (95% CI, 22.7-99.6%). CONCLUSION: Hybrid Capture 2 testing can identify approximately 91% of women with residual or recurrent cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade >/= 2; however, approximately 30% of women would undergo colposcopy in follow-up evaluation.
Asunto(s)
Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/diagnóstico , Recurrencia Local de Neoplasia/virología , Papillomaviridae/aislamiento & purificación , Displasia del Cuello del Útero/diagnóstico , Displasia del Cuello del Útero/virología , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/diagnóstico , Neoplasias del Cuello Uterino/virología , Colposcopía , Femenino , Estudios de Seguimiento , Humanos , Virología/métodosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Averaging length of stay (LOS) ignores patient complexity and is a poor metric for quality control in geriatric hip fracture programs. We developed a predictive model of LOS that compares patient complexity to the logistic effects of our institution's hip fracture care pathway. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients enrolled into a hip fracture co-management pathway at an academic level I trauma center from 2014 to 2015. Patient complexity was approximated using the Charlson Comorbidity Index and ASA score. A predictive model of LOS was developed from patient-specific and system-specific variables using a multivariate linear regression analysis; it was tested against a sample of patients from 2016. RESULTS: LOS averaged 5.95 days. Avoidance of delirium and reduced time to surgery were found to be notable predictors of reduced LOS. The Charlson Comorbidity Index was not a strong predictor of LOS, but the ASA score was. Our predictive LOS model worked well for 63% of patients from the 2016 group; for those it did not work well for, 80% had postoperative complications. DISCUSSION: Predictive LOS modeling accounting for patient complexity was effective for identifying (1) reasons for outliers to the expected LOS and (2) effective measures to target for improving our hip fracture program. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.