Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 17 de 17
Filter
Add more filters

Country/Region as subject
Publication year range
1.
Ann Intern Med ; 175(2): 256-266, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34871056

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Video teleconferencing (VTC) as a substitute for in-person health care or as an adjunct to usual care has increased in recent years. PURPOSE: To assess the benefits and harms of VTC visits for disease prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and to develop an evidence map describing gaps in the evidence. DATA SOURCES: Systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2013 to 3 March 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Two investigators independently screened the literature and identified 38 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Data abstraction by a single investigator was confirmed by a second investigator; 2 investigators independently rated risk of bias. DATA SYNTHESIS: Results from 20 RCTs rated low risk of bias or some concerns of bias show that the use of VTC for the treatment and management of specific diseases produces largely similar outcomes when used to replace or augment usual care. Nine of 12 studies where VTC was intended to replace usual care and 5 of 8 studies where VTC was intended to augment usual care found similar effects between the intervention and control groups. The remaining 6 included studies (3 intended to replace usual care and 3 intended to augment usual care) found 1 or more primary outcomes that favored the VTC group over the usual care group. Studies comparing VTC with usual care that did not involve in-person care were more likely to favor the VTC group. No studies evaluated the use of VTC for diagnosis or prevention of disease. Studies that reported harms found no differences between the intervention and control groups; however, many studies did not report harms. No studies evaluated the effect of VTC on health equity or disparities. LIMITATIONS: Studies that focused on mental health, substance use disorders, maternal care, and weight management were excluded. Included studies were limited to RCTs with sample sizes of 50 patients or greater. Component analyses were not conducted in the studies. CONCLUSION: Replacing or augmenting aspects of usual care with VTC generally results in similar clinical effectiveness, health care use, patient satisfaction, and quality of life as usual care for areas studied. However, included trials were limited to a handful of disease categories, with patients seeking care for a limited set of purposes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.


Subject(s)
Telemedicine , Humans
2.
JAMA ; 311(18): 1889-900, 2014 May 14.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24825644

ABSTRACT

IMPORTANCE: Alcohol use disorders cause substantial morbidity and early mortality yet remain greatly undertreated. Medications are considerably underused. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the benefits and harms of medications (US FDA-approved and others) for adults with alcohol use disorders. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, FDA website, and clinical trials registries (January 1, 1970, to March 1, 2014). STUDY SELECTION: Two reviewers selected randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 12 weeks' duration that reported eligible outcomes and head-to-head prospective cohort studies reporting health outcomes or harms. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: We conducted meta-analyses using random-effects models and calculated numbers needed to treat for benefit (NNTs) or harm (NNHs). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Alcohol consumption, motor vehicle crashes, injuries, quality of life, function, mortality, and harms. RESULTS: We included 122 RCTs and 1 cohort study (total 22,803 participants). Most assessed acamprosate (27 studies, n = 7519), naltrexone (53 studies, n = 9140), or both. The NNT to prevent return to any drinking for acamprosate was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; risk difference [RD], -0.09; 95% CI, -0.14 to -0.04) and was 20 (95% CI, 11 to 500; RD, -0.05; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.002) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). The NNT to prevent return to heavy drinking was 12 (95% CI, 8 to 26; RD -0.09; 95% CI, -0.13 to -0.04) for oral naltrexone (50 mg/d). Meta-analyses of trials comparing acamprosate to naltrexone found no statistically significant difference between them for return to any drinking (RD, 0.02; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.08) or heavy drinking (RD, 0.01; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.06). For injectable naltrexone, meta-analyses found no association with return to any drinking (RD, -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03) or heavy drinking (RD, -0.01; 95% CI, -0.14 to 0.13) but found an association with reduction in heavy drinking days (weighted mean difference [WMD], -4.6%; 95% CI, -8.5% to -0.56%). Among medications used off-label, moderate evidence supports an association with improvement in some consumption outcomes for nalmefene (heavy drinking days per month: WMD, -2.0; 95% CI, -3.0 to -1.0; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.02; 95% CI, -1.77 to -0.28) and topiramate (% heavy drinking days: WMD, -9.0%; 95% CI, -15.3% to -2.7%; drinks per drinking day: WMD, -1.0; 95% CI, -1.6 to -0.48). For naltrexone and nalmefene, NNHs for withdrawal from trials due to adverse events were 48 (95% CI, 30 to 112) and 12 (95% CI, 7 to 50), respectively; risk was not significantly increased for acamprosate or topiramate. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Both acamprosate and oral naltrexone were associated with reduction in return to drinking. When directly compared with one another, no significant differences were found between acamprosate and naltrexone for controlling alcohol consumption. Factors such as dosing frequency, potential adverse events, and availability of treatments may guide medication choice.


Subject(s)
Alcohol-Related Disorders/drug therapy , Acamprosate , Fructose/adverse effects , Fructose/analogs & derivatives , Fructose/therapeutic use , Harm Reduction , Humans , Naltrexone/adverse effects , Naltrexone/analogs & derivatives , Naltrexone/therapeutic use , Outpatients , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Taurine/adverse effects , Taurine/analogs & derivatives , Taurine/therapeutic use , Topiramate
3.
Ann Intern Med ; 157(11): 785-95, 2012 Dec 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-22964778

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Suboptimum medication adherence is common in the United States and leads to serious negative health consequences but may respond to intervention. PURPOSE: To assess the comparative effectiveness of patient, provider, systems, and policy interventions that aim to improve medication adherence for chronic health conditions in the United States. DATA SOURCES: Eligible peer-reviewed publications from MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library indexed through 4 June 2012 and additional studies from reference lists and technical experts. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized, controlled trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions to improve adherence to long-term medications and nonrandomized studies of policy interventions to improve medication adherence. DATA EXTRACTION: Two investigators independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant studies. DATA SYNTHESIS: The evidence was synthesized separately for each clinical condition; within each condition, the type of intervention was synthesized. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence by using established criteria. From 4124 eligible abstracts, 62 trials of patient-, provider-, or systems-level interventions evaluated 18 types of interventions; another 4 observational studies and 1 trial of policy interventions evaluated the effect of reduced medication copayments or improved prescription drug coverage. Clinical conditions amenable to multiple approaches to improving adherence include hypertension, heart failure, depression, and asthma. Interventions that improve adherence across multiple clinical conditions include policy interventions to reduce copayments or improve prescription drug coverage, systems interventions to offer case management, and patient-level educational interventions with behavioral support. LIMITATIONS: Studies were limited to adults with chronic conditions (excluding HIV, AIDS, severe mental illness, and substance abuse) in the United States. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity hindered quantitative data pooling. CONCLUSION: Reduced out-of-pocket expenses, case management, and patient education with behavioral support all improved medication adherence for more than 1 condition. Evidence is limited on whether these approaches are broadly applicable or affect longterm medication adherence and health outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.


Subject(s)
Chronic Disease/drug therapy , Medication Adherence , Case Management , Comparative Effectiveness Research , Health Policy , Humans , Insurance Coverage , Outcome Assessment, Health Care , Patient Education as Topic , Self Administration , United States
4.
N C Med J ; 74(6): 485-93, 2013.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24316770

ABSTRACT

Pharmacogenomics offers the hope of greater individualization of treatment. Therapies that exemplify the promise of pharmacogenomics include anticoagulation with warfarin and the use of antiplatelet medications (eg, clopidogrel) for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome. Good evidence of clinical utility must be obtained before pharmacogenomic testing is widely implemented.


Subject(s)
Pharmacogenetics , Precision Medicine , Humans
5.
J Commun Healthc ; 16(3): 260-267, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37859459

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers often encounter clinical trial results in the form of visual data displays. Although there is a robust literature on patient responses to data displays in medical settings, less is known about how providers comprehend and apply this information. Our study provides a scoping review of the literature on providers' reactions to and perceptions of data displays. METHODS: We searched article databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library) supplemented by handsearching. Eligible articles were published in English from 1990 to 2020. RESULTS: We identified 15 articles meeting our criteria. Studies with physicians were more prevalent (13/15) than those with other healthcare providers (6/15). Commonly assessed outcomes included objective (10/15) and subjective comprehension (4/15), preference for certain data display formats (6/15), and hypothetical decision-making around prescribing (4/15). In studies that assessed comprehension of clinical trial concepts, scores were average or below what would be considered mastery of the information. Data display formats that were preferred did not always correlate with better comprehension of information; lesser preferred formats (e.g. icon array) often resulted in better comprehension. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that healthcare providers may not accurately interpret complex types of data displays, and it is unknown if such limitations affect actual decision-making. Interventions are needed to enhance comprehension of complex data displays within the context of prescription drug professional promotion.


Subject(s)
Data Display , Physicians , Humans , Health Personnel , PubMed
6.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37902689

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is the most common personality disorder, affecting 1.8% of the general population, 10% of psychiatric outpatients, and 15%-25% of psychiatric inpatients. Practice guidelines recommend psychotherapies as first-line treatments. However, psychotherapies commonly used for the treatment of BPD are numerous, and little is known about the comparative effectiveness of each individual psychotherapy versus treatment as usual (TAU) or other psychotherapies. To systematically assess the comparative effectiveness of commonly used psychotherapies versus TAU or versus other psychotherapies for BPD treatment. METHOD: We conducted systematic literature searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and APA PsycINFO up to July 14, 2022, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (a) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (b) treatment with commonly used psychotherapies, (c) comparison with TAU or another psychotherapy, (d) assessment of relevant BPD-related health outcomes, and (e) randomized or nonrandomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. RESULTS: We found 25 psychotherapy studies meeting inclusion criteria with data on 2,545 participants. Seventeen studies compared nine psychotherapies with TAU and nine studies compared eight psychotherapies with another psychotherapy for the treatment of BPD. Overall, both TAU and included psychotherapies were effective in treating the severity and symptoms of BPD. Moderate certainty of evidence suggests that systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving is more effective than TAU for the treatment of BPD; low certainty of evidence suggests that dialectical behavior therapy, schema therapy, transference-focused psychotherapy, acceptance and commitment therapy, manual-assisted cognitive therapy, and cognitive behavioral therapy are more effective than TAU for treating BPD. We were unable to draw conclusions from head-to-head comparisons of psychotherapies, which were limited to single studies with very low to low certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: All commonly used psychotherapies improve BPD severity, symptoms, and functioning. Our assessment found no strong evidence suggesting that any one psychotherapy is more beneficial than another. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

7.
Spine J ; 22(8): 1240-1253, 2022 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35017057

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Sacroiliac (SI) joint pain causes significant disability and impairment to quality of life (QOL). Minimally invasive SI joint fusion is increasingly used to relieve chronic SI joint pain among patients who do not respond to nonsurgical treatment. PURPOSE: To systematically review the existing literature to assess the effectiveness and safety of minimally invasive SI joint fusion. STUDY DESIGN/SETTING: Systematic review. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and a clinical trial registry from database inception to June 30, 2021. STUDY SELECTION: Eligible studies were primary research studies published in the English language, enrolled adults with SI joint pain, and compared SI joint fusion to nonsurgical interventions or alternative minimally invasive procedures. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or controlled cohort studies (CCSs) that reported effectiveness (pain, physical function, QOL, opioid use) or safety outcomes (adverse events [AEs], revision surgeries) and uncontrolled studies that reported safety outcomes. DATA ABSTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were abstracted into structured forms; two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias using standard instruments; certainty of evidence was rated using GRADE. RESULTS: Forty studies (2 RCTs, 3 CCSs, and 35 uncontrolled studies) were included. Minimally invasive SI joint fusion with the iFuse Implant System appeared to result in larger improvements in pain (two RCTs: mean difference in visual analog scale -40.5 mm, 95% CI, -50.1 to -30.9; -38.1 mm, p<.0001) and larger improvements in physical function (mean difference in Oswestry Disability Index -25.4 points, 95% CI, -32.5 to -18.3; -19.8 points, p<.0001) compared to conservative management at 6 months. Improvements in pain and physical function for the RCTs appeared durable at 1- and 2-year follow-up. Findings were similar in one CCS. The two RCTs also found significant improvements in QOL at 6 months and 1 year. Opioid use may be improved at 6 months and 1 to 2 years. AEs appeared higher in the fusion group at 6 months. The incidence of revision surgery varied by study; the highest was 3.8% at 2 years. Two CCSs compared the effectiveness of alternative minimally invasive fusion procedures. One CCS compared iFuse to the Rialto SI Fusion System and reported no differences in pain, function, QOL, and revision surgeries from 6 months to 1 year. One CCS compared iFuse to percutaneous screw fixation and reported significantly fewer revisions among iFuse participants (mean difference -61.0%, 95% CI, -78.4% to -43.5%). The 35 uncontrolled studies had serious limitations and reported heterogeneous safety outcomes. Two of the larger studies reported a 13.2% incidence of complications from minimally invasive SI joint fusion at 90 days using an insurance claims database and a 3.1% incidence of revision surgery over 2.5 years using a postmarket surveillance database. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients meeting diagnostic criteria for SI joint pain and who have not responded to conservative care, minimally invasive SI joint fusion is probably more effective than conservative management for reducing pain and opioid use and improving physical function and QOL. Fusion with iFuse and Rialto appear to have similar effectiveness. AEs appear to be higher for minimally invasive SI joint fusion than conservative management through 6 months. Based on evidence from uncontrolled studies, serious AEs from minimally invasive SI joint fusion may be higher in usual practice compared to what is reported in trials. The incidence of revision surgery is likely no higher than 3.8% at 2 years. Limited evidence is available that compares different minimally invasive devices.


Subject(s)
Chronic Pain , Spinal Diseases , Spinal Fusion , Adult , Analgesics, Opioid , Arthralgia , Chronic Pain/surgery , Humans , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/adverse effects , Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures/methods , Sacroiliac Joint/surgery , Spinal Fusion/methods
8.
CNS Drugs ; 35(10): 1053-1067, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34495494

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Borderline personality disorder (BPD) is a debilitating psychiatric disorder that affects 0.4-3.9% of the population in Western countries. Currently, no medications have been approved by regulatory agencies for the treatment of BPD. Nevertheless, up to 96% of patients with BPD receive at least one psychotropic medication. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to assess the general efficacy and the comparative effectiveness of different pharmacological treatments for BPD patients. METHODS: We conducted systematic literature searches limited to English language in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and PsycINFO up to April 6, 2021, and searched reference lists of pertinent articles and reviews. Inclusion criteria were (i) patients 13 years or older with a diagnosis of BPD, (ii) treatment with anticonvulsive medications, antidepressants, antipsychotic medications, benzodiazepines, melatonin, opioid agonists or antagonists, or sedative or hypnotic medications for at least 8 weeks, (iii) comparison with placebo or an eligible medication, (iv) assessment of health-relevant outcomes, (v) randomized or non-randomized trials or controlled observational studies. Two investigators independently screened abstracts and full-text articles and graded the certainty of evidence based on the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. For meta-analyses, we used restricted maximum likelihood random effects models to estimate pooled effects. RESULTS: Of 12,062 unique records, we included 21 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with data on 1768 participants. Nineteen RCTs compared pharmacotherapies with placebo; two RCTs assessed active treatments head-to-head. Out of 87 medications in use in clinical practice, we found studies on just nine. Overall, the evidence indicates that the efficacy of pharmacotherapies for the treatment of BPD is limited. Second-generation antipsychotics, anticonvulsants, and antidepressants were not able to consistently reduce the severity of BPD. Low-certainty evidence indicates that anticonvulsants can improve specific symptoms associated with BPD such as anger, aggression, and affective lability but the evidence is mostly limited to single studies. Second-generation antipsychotics had little effect on the severity of specific BPD symptoms, but they improved general psychiatric symptoms in patients with BPD. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the common use of pharmacotherapies for patients with BPD, the available evidence does not support the efficacy of pharmacotherapies alone to reduce the severity of BPD. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number, CRD42020194098.


Subject(s)
Anticonvulsants/therapeutic use , Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation/therapeutic use , Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Borderline Personality Disorder/diagnosis , Borderline Personality Disorder/drug therapy , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic/methods , Borderline Personality Disorder/psychology , Humans , Psychotropic Drugs/therapeutic use , Treatment Outcome
9.
Dev Med Child Neurol ; 51(10): 779-86, 2009 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19416313

ABSTRACT

AIM: To estimate the prevalence of major birth defects among children with autism, the prevalence of autism in children with birth defects, and the risk for autism associated with having birth defects. METHOD: Retrospective cohort including all children born in Atlanta, GA, USA, 1986 to 1993, who survived to age 3 years and were identified through Georgia vital records. Children with autism and other developmental disabilities residing in Atlanta at ages 3 to 10 years in 1996 were identified through the Metropolitan Atlanta Developmental Disabilities Surveillance Program. Children with major birth defects through age 6 years were identified by the Metropolitan Atlanta Congenital Defects Program. RESULTS: Birth defects were found among 6% of children with autism (total n=617; 488 males, 129 females) and was associated with a near twofold increased risk for autism overall. However, the risk magnitude and statistical significance varied by type of birth defect. With any type of birth defect, the risk for autism accompanied by intellectual disability or other developmental disabilities was typically higher than the risk for autism alone. A 6:1 to 8:1 male bias was observed among children with autism and a birth defect. INTERPRETATION: Investigation of the association between autism and birth defects is warranted, especially for the role of birth defects in autism among sex-specific or autism subgroups.


Subject(s)
Autistic Disorder/epidemiology , Congenital Abnormalities/epidemiology , Child , Child, Preschool , Cohort Studies , Community Health Planning , Developmental Disabilities/epidemiology , Disability Evaluation , Female , Georgia/epidemiology , Humans , Male , Prevalence , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors
10.
Am J Prev Med ; 54(1S1): S38-S52, 2018 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29254524

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Groups making recommendations need evidence about whether preventive services improve health outcomes (HOs). When such evidence is not available, groups may choose to evaluate evidence about effects on intermediate outcomes (IOs) and the link between IOs and HOs. This paper aims to describe considerations for assessing the evidence linking changes in IOs to changes in HOs. METHODS: Working definitions of IOs, HOs, and other outcomes were developed. All current U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations through April 2016 were examined to identify how evidence of the IO-HO link was gathered and the criteria that appeared to be used to determine the adequacy of the evidence. Methods of other expert and recommendation-making groups were also examined. RESULTS: Forty-four USPSTF recommendations involved a relevant IO-HO link. The approaches used most commonly to gather evidence about the link were selected review (19 of 44, 43%) and systematic review (12 of 44, 27%). Some key considerations when assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO-HO link include adjustment for confounding, proximity of the IO to the HO in the causal pathway, and independence of IO-HO relationship from specific treatments. CONCLUSIONS: Considerations were identified for recommendation-making groups to use when gathering and assessing the adequacy of evidence about the IO-HO link. Using a standard set of written principles could improve the transparency of assessments of the IO-HO link, especially if used together with judgment in a reasoned conjecture and refutation process. Ideally, the process would result in an estimate of the magnitude of change in HOs that is expected for specified changes in IOs.


Subject(s)
Advisory Committees/standards , Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care/methods , Preventive Health Services/standards , Delivery of Health Care , Evidence-Based Medicine/standards , Humans , United States
11.
J Healthc Qual ; 37(1): 41-54, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26042376

ABSTRACT

Evaluating implementation of complex interventions to improve care transitions and comparison across studies is challenging due to issues such as variation in methods and lack of reporting key evaluation elements. This article describes a framework for evaluating implementation of hospital to ambulatory care transitions interventions and application to a case study. We searched published and gray literature for relevant frameworks. We adapted the general Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, adding elements relevant to other complex interventions. We refined these adaptations through structured expert input and application to case studies. Key adaptations included conceptualization around organizations, not just settings, and around patient- and caregiver-centeredness. Although these interventions are often oriented toward institutional outcomes such as readmissions, tailoring interventions to specific patient needs strengthens effectiveness. Coordination and communication are important between organizations and providers and with patients and caregivers. Roles of those involved in the intervention--providers, administrators, and facilitators from different organizations--are also key constructs. Finally, as these interventions often are tailored to specific settings and adapt over time, assessing intervention design--which components are implemented as part of the bundle, how they are actually implemented, and their differential impact on effectiveness--is critical.


Subject(s)
Patient Discharge/standards , Caregivers , Heart Failure/therapy , Humans , Ohio , Organizational Case Studies , Patient Readmission , Practice Guidelines as Topic
12.
J Psychiatr Pract ; 21(1): 26-36, 2015 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25603449

ABSTRACT

The use of antipsychotics, particularly second generation antipsychotics, among children and adolescents has increased markedly during the past 20 years. Existing evidence gaps make this practice controversial and hinder treatment decision-making. This article describes and prioritizes future research needs regarding antipsychotic treatment in youth, focusing on within-class and between-class drug comparisons with regard to key population subgroups, efficacy and effectiveness outcomes, and adverse event outcomes. Using as a foundation a recent systematic review of antipsychotic treatment among youth, which was completed by a different Evidence-based Practice Center, we worked with a diverse group of 12 stakeholders representing researchers, funders, health care providers, patients, and families to identify and prioritize research needs. From an initial list of 16 evidence gaps, we enumerated 6 high-priority research needs: 1) long-term comparative effectiveness across all psychiatric disorders; 2) comparative long-term risks of adverse outcomes; 3) short-term risks of adverse events; 4) differentials of efficacy, effectiveness, and safety for population subgroups; 5) comparative effectiveness among those with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and disruptive behavior disorders and common comorbidities; 6) comparative effectiveness among those with bipolar disorder and common comorbidities. In this article, we describe these future research needs in detail and discuss study designs that could be used to address them.


Subject(s)
Antipsychotic Agents/therapeutic use , Biomedical Research/standards , Health Services Research/standards , Mental Disorders/drug therapy , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Research Design/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Attention Deficit and Disruptive Behavior Disorders/drug therapy , Bipolar Disorder/drug therapy , Child , Female , Humans , Male , Review Literature as Topic , United States , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality , Young Adult
13.
Am J Prev Med ; 24(2): 152-9, 2003 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-12568821

ABSTRACT

Given the substantial morbidity and mortality associated with type 2 diabetes, it is important that public health seek ways to delay or prevent the onset of this condition. Risk factors for type 2 diabetes are well established and include underlying genetic susceptibility. Despite this knowledge, as well as significant advances in understanding the human genome, the prevalence of type 2 diabetes continues to rise at an alarming rate. Because type 2 diabetes is a complex condition involving a combination of genetic and environmental factors, DNA testing for susceptibility genes is not yet warranted. However, because family history reflects genetic susceptibility in addition to other factors, it may be a useful public health tool for disease prevention. When evaluating family history as a public health tool, several important issues need to be considered, including the analytic and clinical validity and the clinical utility of using family history as a screening tool. These issues as well as a review of the epidemiologic evidence evaluating family history as a risk factor will be reviewed.Overall, a family history approach appears to be a promising new public health tool to fight the growing epidemic of diabetes in the United States. Adequate levels of funding to further evaluate this approach and to develop appropriate tools should be made available for research activities focused on this important area.


Subject(s)
Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/prevention & control , Family , Medical History Taking , Public Health , Risk Assessment/methods , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/epidemiology , Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2/genetics , Genetic Predisposition to Disease , Health Behavior , Humans , Risk Factors , United States/epidemiology
14.
Pharmacogenomics ; 15(13): 1687-700, 2014 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25410894

ABSTRACT

AIM: To assess whether response to medications for alcohol use disorders varies by genotype. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis. RESULTS: We found no studies that assessed the clinical utility of genotype-guided dosing strategies or genotype-guided medication selection, and none randomized by genotype. All included studies assessed the association between genotype and response to medication. Of 15 included studies, eight (n = 1365 participants) assessed variation in naltrexone response and polymorphisms of OPRM1. Our meta-analyses for return to heavy drinking found no significant difference between A allele homozygotes and those with at least one G allele, both without (risk difference: 0.26; 95% CI: -0.01-0.53; n = 174) and with inclusion of studies rated as high or unclear risk of bias (risk difference: 0.14; 95% CI: -0.03-0.3; n = 382). For all other polymorphism-medication pairs, we found just one eligible study. CONCLUSION: Estimates of effect for return to heavy drinking suggest it is possible that patients with at least one G allele of A118G polymorphism of OPRM1 might be more likely to respond to naltrexone, but confidence intervals were wide; additional studies are needed to improve confidence in the estimates.


Subject(s)
Alcohol-Induced Disorders/genetics , Polymorphism, Genetic , Alcohol-Induced Disorders/drug therapy , Genotype , Humans , Naltrexone/therapeutic use , Receptors, Opioid, mu/genetics
15.
J Psychiatr Pract ; 20(2): 104-17, 2014 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24638045

ABSTRACT

With onset often occurring before 6 years of age, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) involves attention problems, impulsivity, overactivity, and sometimes disruptive behavior. Impairment usually persists into adulthood, with an estimated worldwide prevalence in adults of 2.5%. Existing gaps in evidence concerning ADHD hinder decision-making about treatment. This article describes and prioritizes future research needs for ADHD in three areas: treatment effectiveness for at-risk preschoolers; long-term treatment effectiveness; and variability in prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment.Using a recent systematic review concerning ADHD completed by a different evidence-based practice center as a foundation, we worked with a diverse group of 12 stakeholders, who represented researchers, funders, healthcare providers, patients, and families, to identify and prioritize research needs. From an initial list of 29 evidence gaps, we enumerated 8 high-priority research needs: a) accurate, brief standardized diagnosis and assessment; b) comparative effectiveness and safety of pharmacologic treatments for children under 6 years of age; c) comparative effectiveness of different combinations of psychosocial and pharmacologic treatments for children under 6 years of age; d) case identification and measurement of prevalence and outcomes; e) comparative effectiveness of psychosocial treatment alone versus pharmacologic and combination treatments for children under 6 years of age; f) comparative long-term treatment effectiveness for people 6 years of age and older; g) relative efficacy of specific psychosocial program components for children under 6 years of age; and h) identification of person-level effect modifiers for people 6 years of age and older. In this article, we describe these future research needs in detail and discuss study designs that could be used to address them.


Subject(s)
Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/therapy , Biomedical Research/standards , Health Services Research/standards , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/standards , Research Design/standards , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/diagnosis , Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity/epidemiology , Humans , Review Literature as Topic , United States , United States Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
16.
J Psychiatr Pract ; 19(5): 345-59, 2013 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24042241

ABSTRACT

Research needs are many in the current health care environment. In this article, we describe a novel method developed by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center Program for prioritizing areas for future research. Using a recent- ly published systematic review as a foundation, investigators worked with a diverse group of 10 stakeholders to identify and prioritize research needs. We enumerate 13 high-priority research needs, as determined by stakeholders who represented researchers, funders, health care providers, and patients and families, and discuss considerations for specific study designs. Our findings suggest that future research on integrating mental health and primary care should focus first on a) identifying methods of integrating primary care into specialty mental health settings, b) identifying cross-cutting strategies for integration across multiple mental health diagnostic categories as opposed to a separate strategy for each diagnostic category, and c) examining the use of information technology for integrating mental and general medical health care. Other priorities for consideration include examining the economic and organizational sus- tainability of successful integration models, identifying dissemination methods for various settings, examining the business case for integration as well as methods of payment, assessing the cost-effectiveness of integration, and identifying key components of successful strategies. The importance of sustainability and economic justification for integrated care strategies was a recurring theme in discussions with the stake- holders. The ability to sustain integrated care in everyday practice remains to be proved and will depend in part on the level of incentives and sup- port provided through payment system reform, as well as the ability of practices to provide care efficiently.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Health Services Research , Mental Health Services/organization & administration , Primary Health Care/organization & administration , Substance-Related Disorders/therapy , Adult , Health Priorities , Health Services Needs and Demand , Humans , Primary Health Care/methods , Program Evaluation
17.
Evid Rep Technol Assess (Full Rep) ; (208.4): 1-685, 2012 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24422970

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of patient, provider, and systems interventions (Key Question [KQ] 1) or policy interventions (KQ 2) in improving medication adherence for an array of chronic health conditions. For interventions that are effective in improving adherence, we then assessed their effectiveness in improving health, health care utilization, and adverse events. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE®, the Cochrane Library. Additional studies were identified from reference lists and technical experts. REVIEW METHODS: Two people independently selected, extracted data from, and rated the risk of bias of relevant trials and systematic reviews. We synthesized the evidence for effectiveness separately for each clinical condition, and within each condition, by type of intervention. We also evaluated the prevalence of intervention components across clinical conditions and the effectiveness of interventions for a range of vulnerable populations. Two reviewers graded the strength of evidence using established criteria. RESULTS: We found a total of 62 eligible studies (58 trials and 4 observational studies) from our review of 3,979 abstracts. These studies included patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, heart failure, myocardial infarction, asthma, depression, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, musculoskeletal diseases, and multiple chronic conditions. Fifty-seven trials of patient, provider, or systems interventions (KQ 1) evaluated 20 different types of interventions; 4 observational studies and one trial of policy interventions (KQ 2) evaluated the effect of reduced out-of-pocket expenses or improved prescription drug coverage. We found the most consistent evidence of improvement in medication adherence for interventions to reduce out-of-pocket expenses or improve prescription drug coverage, case management, and educational interventions across clinical conditions. Within clinical conditions, we found the strongest support for self-management of medications for short-term improvement in adherence for asthma patients; collaborative care or case management programs for short-term improvement of adherence and to improve symptoms for patients taking depression medications; and pharmacist-led approaches for hypertensive patients to improve systolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Diverse interventions offer promising approaches to improving medication adherence for chronic conditions, particularly for the short term. Evidence on whether these approaches have broad applicability for clinical conditions and populations is limited, as is evidence regarding long-term medication adherence or health outcomes.


Subject(s)
Case Management/statistics & numerical data , Medication Adherence/statistics & numerical data , Motivation , Patient Education as Topic/methods , Patient Education as Topic/standards , Quality Improvement/statistics & numerical data , Self Administration/statistics & numerical data , Humans , United States/epidemiology
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL