The PD-Ballet study: study protocol for a randomised controlled single-blind hybrid type 2 clinical trial evaluating the effects of ballet dancing on motor and non-motor symptoms in Parkinson's disease.

BACKGROUND: To date, beneficial effects of multimodal exercise programmes on Parkinson's disease (PD) have focused on motor symptoms and little attention has been paid to the potential effects of such programmes on the non-motor symptoms of PD, which are now universally known as one of the key drivers of quality of life and a key unmet need. We aim to explore clinical effectiveness of a ballet-based dance programme in addressing non-motor and motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease across all stages of progression. METHODS: A randomised, single-blind, controlled trial of 160 people with Parkinson's across all motor stages (Participants will be stratified into three groups of motor advancement: Hoehn and Yahr (HY) stages I and II being Mild Group, HY Stage III being Moderate Group and HY Stages IV and V being Severe Group) will be randomly allocated to either an intervention or a control group using an independent randomisation body. The primary outcome is an improvement in non-motor symptoms as measured by the Movement Disorders Society Non-Motor Scale (MDS-NMS). The intervention protocol consists of 12 one-weekly dance sessions led by English National Ballet. Each session is followed by a 'tea and biscuit' social time. Control group follows standard clinical pathway and joins the 'tea and biscuit' to control for any positive effects of social interactions. All participants are assessed at baseline, immediately after completion of the intervention and 3-6 months later to explore any potential longitudinal effects. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, no adequately powered study has explored the effects of a dance-based intervention on non-motor symptoms of Parkinson's disease, assessing these on both holistic and granular levels. We also aim to stratify participants in accordance with their motor state as assessed by. HY staging to explore specific effects on the symptoms at the initial, moderate and complex stages of the disease. If successful, this trial provides first evidence on clinical effectiveness of a ballet-based dance intervention for symptoms of Parkinson's disease, assessed in a robust, rigorous manner. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04719468.

Case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings.

BACKGROUND: Ageing populations globally have contributed to increasing numbers of people living with frailty, which has significant implications for use of health and care services and costs. The British Geriatrics Society defines frailty as "a distinctive health state related to the ageing process in which multiple body systems gradually lose their inbuilt reserves". This leads to an increased susceptibility to adverse outcomes, such as reduced physical function, poorer quality of life, hospital admissions, and mortality. Case management interventions delivered in community settings are led by a health or social care professional, supported by a multidisciplinary team, and focus on the planning, provision, and co-ordination of care to meet the needs of the individual. Case management is one model of integrated care that has gained traction with policymakers to improve outcomes for populations at high risk of decline in health and well-being. These populations include older people living with frailty, who commonly have complex healthcare and social care needs but can experience poorly co-ordinated care due to fragmented care systems. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of case management for integrated care of older people living with frailty compared with usual care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Health Systems Evidence, and PDQ Evidence and databases from inception to 23 September 2022. We also searched clinical registries and relevant grey literature databases, checked references of included trials and relevant systematic reviews, conducted citation searching of included trials, and contacted topic experts. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared case management with standard care in community-dwelling people aged 65 years and older living with frailty. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 trials (11,860 participants), all of which took place in high-income countries. Case management interventions in the included trials varied in terms of organisation, delivery, setting, and care providers involved. Most trials included a variety of healthcare and social care professionals, including nurse practitioners, allied healthcare professionals, social workers, geriatricians, physicians, psychologists, and clinical pharmacists. In nine trials, the case management intervention was delivered by nurses only. Follow-up ranged from three to 36 months. We judged most trials at unclear risk of selection and performance bias; this consideration, together with indirectness, justified downgrading the certainty of the evidence to low or moderate. Case management compared to standard care may result in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Mortality at 12 months' follow-up (7.0% in the intervention group versus 7.5% in the control group; risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to 1.15; I2 = 11%; 14 trials, 9924 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in place of residence to a nursing home at 12 months' follow-up (9.9% in the intervention group versus 13.4% in the control group; RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.01; I2 = 0%; 4 trials, 1108 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Quality of life at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; mean differences (MDs) ranged from -6.32 points (95% CI -11.04 to -1.59) to 6.1 points (95% CI -3.92 to 16.12) when reported; 11 trials, 9284 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Serious adverse effects at 12 to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 2 trials, 592 participants; low-certainty evidence) • Change in physical function at three to 24 months' follow-up (results not pooled; MDs ranged from -0.12 points (95% CI -0.93 to 0.68) to 3.4 points (95% CI -2.35 to 9.15) when reported; 16 trials, 10,652 participants; low-certainty evidence) Case management compared to standard care probably results in little or no difference in the following outcomes. • Healthcare utilisation in terms of hospital admission at 12 months' follow-up (32.7% in the intervention group versus 36.0% in the control group; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.05; I2 = 43%; 6 trials, 2424 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) • Change in costs at six to 36 months' follow-up (results not pooled; 14 trials, 8486 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), which usually included healthcare service costs, intervention costs, and other costs such as informal care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found uncertain evidence regarding whether case management for integrated care of older people with frailty in community settings, compared to standard care, improved patient and service outcomes or reduced costs. There is a need for further research to develop a clear taxonomy of intervention components, to determine the active ingredients that work in case management interventions, and identify how such interventions benefit some people and not others.

The anatomy of clinical decision-making in multidisciplinary cancer meetings: A cross-sectional observational study of teams in a natural context.

In the UK, treatment recommendations for patients with cancer are routinely made by multidisciplinary teams in weekly meetings. However, their performance is variable.The aim of this study was to explore the underlying structure of multidisciplinary decision-making process, and examine how it relates to team ability to reach a decision.This is a cross-sectional observational study consisting of 1045 patient reviews across 4 multidisciplinary cancer teams from teaching and community hospitals in London, UK, from 2010 to 2014. Meetings were chaired by surgeons.We used a validated observational instrument (Metric for the Observation of Decision-making in Cancer Multidisciplinary Meetings) consisting of 13 items to assess the decision-making process of each patient discussion. Rated on a 5-point scale, the items measured quality of presented patient information, and contributions to review by individual disciplines. A dichotomous outcome (yes/no) measured team ability to reach a decision. Ratings were submitted to Exploratory Factor Analysis and regression analysis.The exploratory factor analysis produced 4 factors, labeled "Holistic and Clinical inputs" (patient views, psychosocial aspects, patient history, comorbidities, oncologists', nurses', and surgeons' inputs), "Radiology" (radiology results, radiologists' inputs), "Pathology" (pathology results, pathologists' inputs), and "Meeting Management" (meeting chairs' and coordinators' inputs). A negative cross-loading was observed from surgeons' input on the fourth factor with a follow-up analysis showing negative correlation (r = -0.19, P < 0.001). In logistic regression, all 4 factors predicted team ability to reach a decision (P < 0.001).Hawthorne effect is the main limitation of the study.The decision-making process in cancer meetings is driven by 4 underlying factors representing the complete patient profile and contributions to case review by all core disciplines. Evidence of dual-task interference was observed in relation to the meeting chairs' input and their corresponding surgical input into case reviews.