Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 23
Filtrar
2.
Eur Respir J ; 57(6)2021 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34088754

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution has been linked to childhood-onset asthma, although evidence is still insufficient. Within the multicentre project Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution: A Study in Europe (ELAPSE), we examined the associations of long-term exposures to particulate matter with a diameter <2.5 µm (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and black carbon (BC) with asthma incidence in adults. METHODS: We pooled data from three cohorts in Denmark and Sweden with information on asthma hospital diagnoses. The average concentrations of air pollutants in 2010 were modelled by hybrid land-use regression models at participants' baseline residential addresses. Associations of air pollution exposures with asthma incidence were explored with Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 98 326 participants, 1965 developed asthma during a mean follow-up of 16.6 years. We observed associations in fully adjusted models with hazard ratios of 1.22 (95% CI 1.04-1.43) per 5 µg·m-3 for PM2.5, 1.17 (95% CI 1.10-1.25) per 10 µg·m-3 for NO2 and 1.15 (95% CI 1.08-1.23) per 0.5×10-5 m-1 for BC. Hazard ratios were larger in cohort subsets with exposure levels below the European Union and US limit values and possibly World Health Organization guidelines for PM2.5 and NO2. NO2 and BC estimates remained unchanged in two-pollutant models with PM2.5, whereas PM2.5 estimates were attenuated to unity. The concentration-response curves showed no evidence of a threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term exposure to air pollution, especially from fossil fuel combustion sources such as motorised traffic, was associated with adult-onset asthma, even at levels below the current limit values.


Assuntos
Poluentes Atmosféricos , Poluição do Ar , Asma , Adulto , Poluentes Atmosféricos/análise , Poluição do Ar/análise , Criança , Exposição Ambiental/análise , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Incidência , Material Particulado/análise , Suécia
3.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen ; 141(8)2021 05 25.
Artigo em Inglês, Norueguês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34047169

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In Norway, almost 8 500 patients received mechanical ventilation in 2019. We have investigated the effect of early activity in mechanically ventilated adults in intensive care units on the duration of ventilation, weaning time from mechanical ventilation, mortality, length of stay, and adverse events. METHOD: We conducted a systematic literature search for randomised controlled trials in nine databases. Two authors selected studies, extracted data and then rated the certainty of evidence according to the GRADE framework. RESULTS: A total of 3 270 titles and abstracts were read, and 17 studies with 1 805 patients and a low-to-moderate risk of bias were included. The analyses showed that early mobilisation reduced both the mean duration of ventilation (-1.43 days; 95 % CI -2.68 to -0.18, p = 0.02) and the ICU length of stay (-1.08 days; 95 % CI -1.95 to -0.21, p = 0.02), with the certainty of evidence rated as moderate. Inspiratory muscle training had no effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation (-0.11; 95 % CI -1.76 to 1.53, p = 0.89) or on the weaning time from mechanical ventilation (-0.33; 95 % CI -1.31 to 0.65, p = 0.51), with the certainty of evidence rated as low. Neither early mobilisation nor inspiratory muscle training affected mortality. Few adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: The analyses show that early mobilisation is safe and can shorten the duration of mechanical ventilation and the ICU length of stay, but has no effect on mortality. Inspiratory muscle training had no effect on any of the outcome measures.


Assuntos
Estado Terminal , Respiração Artificial , Adulto , Humanos , Unidades de Terapia Intensiva , Tempo de Internação , Noruega/epidemiologia
4.
Eur Respir J ; 2020 Dec 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33303534

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Long-term exposure to ambient air pollution has been linked to childhood-onset asthma, while evidence is still insufficient. Within the multicentre project "Effects of Low-Level Air Pollution: A Study in Europe" (ELAPSE), we examined the associations of long-term exposures to particulate matter with diameter<2.5 µm (PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and black carbon (BC) with asthma incidence in adults. METHODS: We pooled data from three cohorts in Denmark and Sweden with information on asthma hospital diagnoses. The average concentrations of air pollutants in 2010 were modelled by hybrid land use regression models at participants' baseline residential addresses. Associations of air pollution exposures with asthma incidence were explored with Cox proportional hazard models, adjusting for potential confounders. RESULTS: Of 98 326 participants, 1965 developed asthma during a 16.6 years mean follow-up. We observed associations in fully adjusted models with hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals of 1.22 (1.04-1.43) per 5 µg·m-3 for PM2.5, 1.17 (1.10-1.25) per 10 µg·m-3 for NO2, and 1.15 (1.08-1.23) per 0.5 10-5 m-1 for BC. Hazard ratios were larger in cohort subsets with exposure levels below the EU and US limit values and possibly WHO guidelines for PM2.5 and NO2. NO2 and BC estimates remained unchanged in two-pollutant models with PM2.5, whereas PM2.5 estimates were attenuated to unity. The concentration response curves showed no evidence of a threshold. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term exposure to air pollution, especially from fossil fuel combustion sources such as motorised traffic, was associated with adult-onset asthma, even at levels below the current limit values.

5.
J Am Heart Assoc ; 8(14): e010148, 2019 07 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31306031

RESUMO

Background Thirty-day mortality after hospitalization for stroke is commonly reported as a quality indicator. However, the impact of adjustment for individual and/or neighborhood sociodemographic status ( SDS ) has not been well documented. This study aims to evaluate the role of individual and contextual sociodemographic determinants in explaining the variation across hospitals in Norway and determine the impact when testing for hospitals with low or high mortality. Methods and Results Patient Administrative System data on all 45 448 patients admitted to hospitals in Norway with an incident stroke diagnosis from 2005 to 2009 were included. The data were merged with data from several databases to obtain information on vital status (dead/alive) and individual SDS variables. Logistic regression models were compared to estimate the predictive effect of individual and neighborhood SDS on 30-day mortality and to determine outlier hospitals. All individual SDS factors, except travel time, were statistically significant predictors of 30-day mortality. Of the municipal variables, only the municipal variable proportion of low income was statistically significant as a predictor of 30-day mortality. Including sociodemographic characteristics of the individual and other characteristics of the municipality improved the model fit. However, performance classification was only changed for 1 (out of 56) hospital, from "significantly high mortality" to "nonoutlier." Conclusions Our study showed that those stroke patients with a lower SDS have higher odds of dying after 30 days compared with those with a higher SDS , although this did not have a substantial impact when classifying providers as performing as expected, better than expected, or worse than expected.


Assuntos
Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Mortalidade , Pobreza/estatística & dados numéricos , Características de Residência , Pessoa Solteira/estatística & dados numéricos , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Idoso , Escolaridade , Feminino , Humanos , Renda/estatística & dados numéricos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Estado Civil/estatística & dados numéricos , Noruega , Risco Ajustado
6.
Europace ; 21(8): 1254-1260, 2019 Aug 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31220237

RESUMO

AIMS: A prolonged corrected QT interval (QTc) ≥500 ms is associated with high all-cause mortality in hospitalized patients. We aimed to explore any difference in short- and long-term mortality in patients with QTc ≥500 ms compared with patients with QTc <500 ms after adjustment for comorbidity and main diagnosis. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with QTc ≥500 ms who were hospitalized at Telemark Hospital Trust, Norway between January 2007 and April 2014 were identified. Thirty-day and 3-year all-cause mortality in 980 patients with QTc ≥500 ms were compared with 980 patients with QTc <500 ms, matched for age and sex and adjusting for Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), previous admissions, and main diagnoses. QTc ≥500 ms was associated with increased 30-day all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR) 1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.38-2.62; P < 0.001]. There was no significant difference in mortality between patients with QTc ≥500 ms and patients with QTc <500 ms who died between 30 days and 3 years; 32% vs. 29%, P = 0.20. Graded CCI was associated with increased 3-year all-cause mortality (CCI 1-2: HR 1.62, 95% CI 1.34-1.96; P < 0.001; CCI 3-4: HR 2.50, 95% CI 1.95-3.21; P < 0.001; CCI ≥5: HR 3.76, 95% CI 2.85-4.96; P < 0.001) but was not associated with 30-day all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: QTc ≥500 ms is a powerful predictor of short-term mortality overruling comorbidities. QTc ≥500 ms also predicted long-term mortality, but this effect was mainly caused by the increased short-term mortality. For long-term mortality, comorbidity was more important.


Assuntos
Cardiopatias , Hospitalização/estatística & dados numéricos , Pacientes Internados/estatística & dados numéricos , Síndrome do QT Longo/diagnóstico , Neoplasias , Acidente Vascular Cerebral , Causas de Morte , Comorbidade , Eletrocardiografia/métodos , Feminino , Cardiopatias/diagnóstico , Cardiopatias/epidemiologia , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Mortalidade , Neoplasias/diagnóstico , Neoplasias/epidemiologia , Noruega/epidemiologia , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Risco , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/diagnóstico , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/epidemiologia , Tempo
7.
BMJ Open ; 9(4): e026422, 2019 04 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30948604

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: Postoperative wound dehiscence (PWD) is a serious complication to laparotomy, leading to higher mortality, readmissions and cost. The aims of the present study are to investigate whether risk adjusted PWD rates could reliably differentiate between Norwegian hospitals, and whether PWD rates were associated with hospital characteristics such as hospital type and laparotomy volume. DESIGN: Observational study using patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals, obtained from the Norwegian Patient Registry, for the period 2011-2015, and linked using the unique person identification number. PARTICIPANTS: All patients undergoing laparotomy, aged at least 15 years, with length of stay at least 2 days and no diagnosis code for immunocompromised state or relating to pregnancy, childbirth and puerperium. The final data set comprised 66 925 patients with 78 086 laparotomy episodes from 47 hospitals. OUTCOMES: The outcome was wound dehiscence, identified by the presence of a wound reclosure code, risk adjusted for patient characteristics and operation type. RESULTS: The final data set comprised 1477 wound dehiscences. Crude PWD rates varied from 0% to 5.1% among hospitals, with an overall rate of 1.89%. Three hospitals with statistically significantly higher PWD than average were identified, after case mix adjustment and correction for multiple comparisons. Hospital volume was not associated with PWD rate, except that hospitals with very few laparotomies had lower PWD rates. CONCLUSIONS: Among Norwegian hospitals, there is considerable variation in PWD rate that cannot be explained by operation type, age or comorbidity. This warrants further investigation into possible causes, such as surgical technique, perioperative procedures or handling of complications. The risk adjusted PWD rate after laparotomy is a candidate quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals.


Assuntos
Laparotomia , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde/normas , Deiscência da Ferida Operatória/epidemiologia , Idoso , Estudos de Coortes , Feminino , Hospitais , Humanos , Laparotomia/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Noruega , Sistema de Registros , Risco Ajustado , Deiscência da Ferida Operatória/etiologia
8.
PLoS One ; 13(4): e0195248, 2018.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29652941

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: A common quality indicator for monitoring and comparing hospitals is based on death within 30 days of admission. An important use is to determine whether a hospital has higher or lower mortality than other hospitals. Thus, the ability to identify such outliers correctly is essential. Two approaches for detection are: 1) calculating the ratio of observed to expected number of deaths (OE) per hospital and 2) including all hospitals in a logistic regression (LR) comparing each hospital to a form of average over all hospitals. The aim of this study was to compare OE and LR with respect to correctly identifying 30-day mortality outliers. Modifications of the methods, i.e., variance corrected approach of OE (OE-Faris), bias corrected LR (LR-Firth), and trimmed mean variants of LR and LR-Firth were also studied. MATERIALS AND METHODS: To study the properties of OE and LR and their variants, we performed a simulation study by generating patient data from hospitals with known outlier status (low mortality, high mortality, non-outlier). Data from simulated scenarios with varying number of hospitals, hospital volume, and mortality outlier status, were analysed by the different methods and compared by level of significance (ability to falsely claim an outlier) and power (ability to reveal an outlier). Moreover, administrative data for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke, and hip fracture from Norwegian hospitals for 2012-2014 were analysed. RESULTS: None of the methods achieved the nominal (test) level of significance for both low and high mortality outliers. For low mortality outliers, the levels of significance were increased four- to fivefold for OE and OE-Faris. For high mortality outliers, OE and OE-Faris, LR 25% trimmed and LR-Firth 10% and 25% trimmed maintained approximately the nominal level. The methods agreed with respect to outlier status for 94.1% of the AMI hospitals, 98.0% of the stroke, and 97.8% of the hip fracture hospitals. CONCLUSION: We recommend, on the balance, LR-Firth 10% or 25% trimmed for detection of both low and high mortality outliers.


Assuntos
Mortalidade Hospitalar , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Modelos Logísticos , Masculino , Projetos de Pesquisa
9.
Lancet ; 390(10092): 389-398, 2017 07 22.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-28539196

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: As part of the Informed Health Choices project, we developed a podcast called The Health Choices Programme to help improve the ability of people to assess claims about the benefits and harms of treatments. We aimed to evaluate the effects of the podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about the effects of treatments. METHODS: We did this randomised controlled trial in central Uganda. We recruited parents of children aged 10-12 years who were in their fifth year of school at 35 schools that were participating in a linked trial of the Informed Health Choices primary school resources. The parents were randomly allocated (1:1), via a web-based random number generator with block sizes of four and six, to listen to either the Informed Health Choices podcast (intervention group) or typical public service announcements about health issues (control group). Randomisation was stratified by parents' highest level of formal education attained (primary school, secondary school, or tertiary education) and the allocation of their children's school in the trial of the primary school resources (intervention vs control). The primary outcome, measured after listening to the entire podcast, was the mean score and the proportion of parents with passing scores on a test with two multiple choice questions for each of nine key concepts essential to assessing claims about treatments (18 questions in total). We did intention-to-treat analyses. This trial is registered with the Pan African Clinical Trial Registry, number PACTR201606001676150. FINDINGS: We recruited parents between July 21, 2016, and Oct 7, 2016. We randomly assigned 675 parents to the podcast group (n=334) or the public service announcement group (n=341); 561 (83%) participants completed follow-up. The mean score for parents in the podcast group was 67·8% (SD 19·6) compared with 52·4% (17·6) in the control group (adjusted mean difference 15·5%, 95% CI 12·5-18·6; p<0·0001). In the podcast group, 203 (71%) of 288 parents had a predetermined passing score (≥11 of 18 correct answers) compared with 103 (38%) of 273 parents in the control group (adjusted difference 34%, 95% CI 26-41; p<0·0001). No adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Listening to the Informed Health Choices podcast led to a large improvement in the ability of parents to assess claims about the effects of treatments. Future studies should assess the long-term effects of use of the podcast, the effects on actual health choices and outcomes, and how transferable our findings are to other countries. FUNDING: Research Council of Norway.


Assuntos
Comportamento de Escolha , Educação em Saúde/métodos , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Pais/psicologia , Webcasts como Assunto , Adulto , Criança , Tomada de Decisões , Escolaridade , Feminino , Humanos , Serviços de Informação/organização & administração , Masculino , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde/métodos , Terapêutica/efeitos adversos , Uganda
10.
PLoS One ; 11(5): e0156075, 2016.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27203243

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to assess the validity of patient administrative data (PAS) for calculating 30-day mortality after hip fracture as a quality indicator, by a retrospective study of medical records. METHODS: We used PAS data from all Norwegian hospitals (2005-2009), merged with vital status from the National Registry, to calculate 30-day case-mix adjusted mortality for each hospital (n = 51). We used stratified sampling to establish a representative sample of both hospitals and cases. The hospitals were stratified according to high, low and medium mortality of which 4, 3, and 5 hospitals were sampled, respectively. Within hospitals, cases were sampled stratified according to year of admission, age, length of stay, and vital 30-day status (alive/dead). The final study sample included 1043 cases from 11 hospitals. Clinical information was abstracted from the medical records. Diagnostic and clinical information from the medical records and PAS were used to define definite and probable hip fracture. We used logistic regression analysis in order to estimate systematic between-hospital variation in unmeasured confounding. Finally, to study the consequences of unmeasured confounding for identifying mortality outlier hospitals, a sensitivity analysis was performed. RESULTS: The estimated overall positive predictive value was 95.9% for definite and 99.7% for definite or probable hip fracture, with no statistically significant differences between hospitals. The standard deviation of the additional, systematic hospital bias in mortality estimates was 0.044 on the logistic scale. The effect of unmeasured confounding on outlier detection was small to moderate, noticeable only for large hospital volumes. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that PAS data are adequate for identifying cases of hip fracture, and the effect of unmeasured case mix variation was small. In conclusion, PAS data are adequate for calculating 30-day mortality after hip-fracture as a quality indicator in Norway.


Assuntos
Registros Médicos , Algoritmos , Fraturas do Quadril/mortalidade , Humanos , Modelos Teóricos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Fatores de Tempo
13.
PLoS One ; 10(9): e0136547, 2015.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26352600

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services (NOKC) reports 30-day survival as a quality indicator for Norwegian hospitals. The indicators have been published annually since 2011 on the website of the Norwegian Directorate of Health (www.helsenorge.no), as part of the Norwegian Quality Indicator System authorized by the Ministry of Health. Openness regarding calculation of quality indicators is important, as it provides the opportunity to critically review and discuss the method. The purpose of this article is to describe the data collection, data pre-processing, and data analyses, as carried out by NOKC, for the calculation of 30-day risk-adjusted survival probability as a quality indicator. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Three diagnosis-specific 30-day survival indicators (first time acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture) are estimated based on all-cause deaths, occurring in-hospital or out-of-hospital, within 30 days counting from the first day of hospitalization. Furthermore, a hospital-wide (i.e. overall) 30-day survival indicator is calculated. Patient administrative data from all Norwegian hospitals and information from the Norwegian Population Register are retrieved annually, and linked to datasets for previous years. The outcome (alive/death within 30 days) is attributed to every hospital by the fraction of time spent in each hospital. A logistic regression followed by a hierarchical Bayesian analysis is used for the estimation of risk-adjusted survival probabilities. A multiple testing procedure with a false discovery rate of 5% is used to identify hospitals, hospital trusts and regional health authorities with significantly higher/lower survival than the reference. In addition, estimated risk-adjusted survival probabilities are published per hospital, hospital trust and regional health authority. The variation in risk-adjusted survival probabilities across hospitals for AMI shows a decreasing trend over time: estimated survival probabilities for AMI in 2011 varied from 80.6% (in the hospital with lowest estimated survival) to 91.7% (in the hospital with highest estimated survival), whereas it ranged from 83.8% to 91.2% in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: Since 2011, several hospitals and hospital trusts have initiated quality improvement projects, and some of the hospitals have improved the survival over these years. Public reporting of survival/mortality indicators are increasingly being used as quality measures of health care systems. Openness regarding the methods used to calculate the indicators are important, as it provides the opportunity of critically reviewing and discussing the methods in the literature. In this way, the methods employed for establishing the indicators may be improved.


Assuntos
Mortalidade Hospitalar , Comorbidade , Grupos Diagnósticos Relacionados , Cuidado Periódico , Registros Hospitalares , Hospitais/normas , Hospitais/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Tempo de Internação , Noruega/epidemiologia , Admissão do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Alta do Paciente/estatística & dados numéricos , Transferência de Pacientes , Probabilidade , Melhoria de Qualidade , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Análise de Sobrevida
14.
BMJ Open ; 5(3): e006741, 2015 Mar 25.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25808167

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate survival curves (Kaplan-Meier) as a means of identifying areas in the clinical pathway amenable to quality improvement. DESIGN: Observational before-after study. SETTING: In Norway, annual public reporting of nationwide 30-day in-and-out-of-hospital mortality (30D) for three medical conditions started in 2011: first time acute myocardial infarction (AMI), stroke and hip fracture; reported for 2009. 12 of 61 hospitals had statistically significant lower/higher mortality compared with the hospital mean. PARTICIPANTS: Three hospitals with significantly higher mortality requested detailed analyses for quality improvement purposes: Telemark Hospital Trust Skien (AMI and stroke), Østfold Hospital Trust Fredrikstad (stroke), Innlandet Hospital Trust Gjøvik (hip fracture). OUTCOME MEASURES: Survival curves, crude and risk-adjusted 30D before (2008-2009) and after (2012-2013). INTERVENTIONS: Unadjusted survival curves for the outlier hospitals were compared to curves based on pooled data from the other hospitals for the 30-day period 2008-2009. For patients admitted with AMI (Skien), stroke (Fredrikstad) and hip fracture (Gjøvik), the curves suggested increased mortality from the initial part of the clinical pathway. For stroke (Skien), increased mortality appeared after about 8 days. The curve profiles were thought to reflect suboptimal care in various phases in the clinical pathway. This informed improvement efforts. RESULTS: For 2008-2009, hospital-specific curves differed from other hospitals: borderline significant for AMI (p=0.064), highly significant (p≤0.005) for the remainder. After intervention, no difference was found (p>0.188). Before-after comparison of the curves within each hospital revealed a significant change for Fredrikstad (p=0.006). For the three hospitals, crude 30D declined and they were non-outliers for risk-adjusted 30D for 2013. CONCLUSIONS: Survival curves as a supplement to 30D may be useful for identifying suboptimal care in the clinical pathway, and thus informing design of quality improvement projects.


Assuntos
Fraturas do Quadril/mortalidade , Mortalidade Hospitalar , Hospitais/normas , Infarto do Miocárdio/mortalidade , Melhoria de Qualidade , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/mortalidade , Sobreviventes/estatística & dados numéricos , Doença Aguda , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Infarto Miocárdico de Parede Anterior/mortalidade , Infarto Miocárdico de Parede Anterior/terapia , Estudos Controlados Antes e Depois , Feminino , Fraturas do Quadril/terapia , Hospitalização , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Infarto do Miocárdio/terapia , Noruega/epidemiologia , Avaliação de Resultados em Cuidados de Saúde , Indicadores de Qualidade em Assistência à Saúde , Acidente Vascular Cerebral/terapia , Adulto Jovem
15.
PLoS One ; 5(3): e9469, 2010 Mar 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-20209127

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing three valence framing presentations of the benefits of antihypertensive medication in preventing cardiovascular disease (CVD) for people with newly diagnosed hypertension to determine which framing presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this second in a series of televised trials in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company, adult volunteers rated the relative importance of the consequences of taking antihypertensive medication using visual analogue scales (VAS). Participants viewed information (or no information) to which they were randomized and decided whether or not to take medication. We compared positive framing over 10 years (the number escaping CVD per 1000); negative framing over 10 years (the number that will have CVD) and negative framing per year over 10 years of the effects of antihypertensive medication on the 10-year risk for CVD for a 40 year-old man with newly diagnosed hypertension without other risk factors. Finally, all participants were shown all presentations and detailed patient information about hypertension and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS-scores for the undesirable consequences of antihypertensive medication from the VAS-score for the benefit of CVD risk reduction. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,528 participants completed the study. The statistically significant differences between the groups in the likelihood of choosing to take antihypertensive medication in relation to different values (RIS) increased as the RIS increased. Positively framed information lead to decisions most consistent with those made by everyone for the second, more fully informed decision. There was a statistically significant decrease in deciding to take antihypertensives on the second decision, both within groups and overall. CONCLUSIONS: For decisions about taking antihypertensive medication for people with a relatively low baseline risk of CVD (70 per 1000 over 10 years), both positive and negative framing resulted in significantly more people deciding to take medication compared to what participants decided after being shown all three of the presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN 33771631.


Assuntos
Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Atitude Frente a Saúde , Tomada de Decisões , Feminino , Humanos , Hipertensão/complicações , Internet , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Noruega , Medição da Dor , Risco
16.
PLoS Med ; 6(8): e1000134, 2009 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19707575

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: While different ways of presenting treatment effects can affect health care decisions, little is known about which presentations best help people make decisions consistent with their own values. We compared six summary statistics for communicating coronary heart disease (CHD) risk reduction with statins: relative risk reduction and five absolute summary measures-absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a randomized trial to determine which presentation resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. We recruited adult volunteers who participated through an interactive Web site. Participants rated the relative importance of outcomes using visual analogue scales (VAS). We then randomized participants to one of the six summary statistics and asked them to choose whether to take statins based on this information. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the downsides of taking statins from the VAS score for CHD. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 2,978 participants completed the study. Relative risk reduction resulted in a 21% higher probability of choosing to take statins over all values of RIS compared to the absolute summary statistics. This corresponds to a number needed to treat (NNT) of 5; i.e., for every five participants shown the relative risk reduction one additional participant chose to take statins, compared to the other summary statistics. There were no significant differences among the absolute summary statistics in the association between RIS and participants' decisions whether to take statins. Natural frequencies were best understood (86% reported they understood them well or very well), and participants were most satisfied with this information. CONCLUSIONS: Presenting the benefits of taking statins as a relative risk reduction increases the likelihood of people accepting treatment compared to presenting absolute summary statistics, independent of the relative importance they attach to the consequences. Natural frequencies may be the most suitable summary statistic for presenting treatment effects, based on self-reported preference, understanding of and satisfaction with the information, and confidence in the decision. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN85194921.


Assuntos
Doença das Coronárias/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/métodos , Educação de Pacientes como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Adolescente , Adulto , Tomada de Decisões , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Participação do Paciente , Satisfação do Paciente , Adulto Jovem
17.
PLoS Med ; 6(8): e1000140, 2009 Aug.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19707579

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing four graphical displays of the benefits of antibiotics for people with sore throat who must decide whether to go to the doctor to seek treatment. Our objective was to determine which display resulted in choices most consistent with participants' values. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This was the first of a series of televised trials undertaken in cooperation with the Norwegian Broadcasting Company. We recruited adult volunteers in Norway through a nationally televised weekly health program. Participants went to our Web site and rated the relative importance of the consequences of treatment using visual analogue scales (VAS). They viewed the graphical display (or no information) to which they were randomized and were asked to decide whether to go to the doctor for an antibiotic prescription. We compared four presentations: face icons (happy/sad) or a bar graph showing the proportion of people with symptoms on day three with and without treatment, a bar graph of the average duration of symptoms, and a bar graph of proportion with symptoms on both days three and seven. Before completing the study, all participants were shown all the displays and detailed patient information about the treatment of sore throat and were asked to decide again. We calculated a relative importance score (RIS) by subtracting the VAS scores for the undesirable consequences of antibiotics from the VAS score for the benefit of symptom relief. We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' RIS and their choice. 1,760 participants completed the study. There were statistically significant differences in the likelihood of choosing to go to the doctor in relation to different values (RIS). Of the four presentations, the bar graph of duration of symptoms resulted in decisions that were most consistent with the more fully informed second decision. Most participants also preferred this presentation (38%) and found it easiest to understand (37%). Participants shown the other three presentations were more likely to decide to go to the doctor based on their first decision than everyone based on the second decision. Participants preferred the graph using faces the least (14.4%). CONCLUSIONS: For decisions about going to the doctor to get antibiotics for sore throat, treatment effects presented by a bar graph showing the duration of symptoms helped people make decisions more consistent with their values than treatment effects presented as graphical displays of proportions of people with sore throat following treatment. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: ISRCTN58507086.


Assuntos
Antibacterianos/uso terapêutico , Tomada de Decisões , Faringite/tratamento farmacológico , Adolescente , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição de Risco , Adulto Jovem
18.
PLoS One ; 3(11): e3693, 2008.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19030110

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Different presentations of treatment effects can affect decisions. However, previous studies have not evaluated which presentations best help people make decisions that are consistent with their own values. We undertook a pilot study to compare different methods for doing this. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an Internet-based randomized trial comparing summary statistics for communicating the effects of statins on the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). Participants rated the relative importance of treatment consequences using visual analogue scales (VAS) and category rating scales (CRS) with five response options. We randomized participants to either VAS or CRS first and to one of six summary statistics: relative risk reduction (RRR) and five absolute measures of effect: absolute risk reduction, number needed to treat, event rates, tablets needed to take, and natural frequencies (whole numbers). We used logistic regression to determine the association between participants' elicited values and treatment choices. 770 participants age 18 or over and literate in English completed the study. In all, 13% in the VAS-first group failed to complete their VAS rating, while 9% of the CRS-first group failed to complete their scoring (p = 0.03). Different ways of weighting the elicited values had little impact on the analyses comparing the different presentations. Most (51%) preferred the RRR compared to the other five summary statistics (1% to 25%, p = 0.074). However, decisions in the group presented the RRR deviated substantially from those made in the other five groups. The odds of participants in the RRR group deciding to take statins were 3.1 to 5.8 times that of those in the other groups across a wide range of values (p = 0.0007). Participants with a scientific background, who were more numerate or had more years of education were more likely to decide not to take statins. CONCLUSIONS: Internet-based trials comparing different presentations of treatment effects are feasible, but recruiting participants is a major challenge. Despite a slightly higher response rate for CRS, VAS is preferable to avoid approximation of a continuous variable. Although most participants preferred the RRR, participants shown the RRR were more likely to decide to take statins regardless of their values compared with participants who were shown any of the five other summary statistics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN85194921.


Assuntos
Comportamento de Escolha , Participação do Paciente , Medição de Risco/métodos , Comportamento de Redução do Risco , Doença das Coronárias/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/efeitos adversos , Inibidores de Hidroximetilglutaril-CoA Redutases/uso terapêutico , Internet , Métodos , Projetos Piloto , Análise de Regressão
19.
PLoS Med ; 4(7): e232, 2007 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-17622192

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: The purpose of our study was to evaluate the effects of a new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication that made thiazides mandatory first-line drugs for newly treated, uncomplicated hypertension. The objective of the new regulation was to reduce drug expenditures. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted an interrupted time-series analysis on prescribing data before and after the new reimbursement rule for antihypertensive medication was put into effect. All patients started on antihypertensive medication in 61 general practices in Norway were included in the analysis. The new rule was put forward by the Ministry of Health and was approved by parliament. Adherence to the rule was monitored only minimally, and there were no penalties for non-adherence. Our primary outcome was the proportion of thiazide prescriptions among all prescriptions made for persons started on antihypertensive medication. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, reached recommended blood-pressure goals and the proportion of patients who, within 4 mo, were not started on a second antihypertensive drug. We also compared drug costs before and after the intervention. During the baseline period, 10% of patients started on antihypertensive medication were given a thiazide prescription. This proportion rose steadily during the transition period, after which it remained stable at 25%. For other outcomes, no statistically significant differences were demonstrated. Achievement of treatment goals was slightly higher (56.6% versus 58.4%) after the new rule was introduced, and the prescribing of a second drug was slightly lower (24.0% versus 21.8%). Drug costs were reduced by an estimated Norwegian kroner 4.8 million (0.58 million Euros, US$0.72 million) in the first year, which is equivalent to Norwegian kroner 1.06 per inhabitant (0.13 Euros, US$0.16). CONCLUSIONS: Prescribing of thiazides in Norway for uncomplicated hypertension more than doubled after a reimbursement rule requiring the use of thiazides as the first-choice therapy was put into effect. However, the resulting savings on drug expenditures were modest. There were no significant changes in the achievement of treatment goals or in the prescribing of a second antihypertensive drug.


Assuntos
Hipertensão/tratamento farmacológico , Tiazidas/uso terapêutico , Anti-Hipertensivos/administração & dosagem , Anti-Hipertensivos/economia , Anti-Hipertensivos/uso terapêutico , Uso de Medicamentos/economia , Uso de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde/economia , Reembolso de Seguro de Saúde/estatística & dados numéricos , Noruega , Padrões de Prática Médica/estatística & dados numéricos , Tiazidas/administração & dosagem , Tiazidas/economia , Fatores de Tempo
20.
BMJ ; 330(7501): 1175, 2005 May 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-15905256

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To systematically compare the outcomes of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with those in comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment. DATA SOURCES: Bibliographic databases, reference lists from eligible articles, medical journals, and study authors. REVIEW METHODS: RCTs and cohort studies that evaluated the clinical outcomes of participants in RCTs and comparable non-participants who received the same or similar treatment. RESULTS: Five RCTs (six comparisons) and 50 cohort studies (85 comparisons) provided data on 31,140 patients treated in RCTs and 20,380 comparable patients treated outside RCTs. In the five RCTs, in which patients were given the option of participating or not, the comparisons provided limited information because of small sample sizes (a total of 412 patients) and the nature of the questions considered. 73 dichotomous outcomes were compared, of which 59 reported no statistically significant differences. For patients treated within RCTs, 10 comparisons reported significantly better outcomes and four reported significantly worse outcomes. Significantly heterogeneity was found (I2 = 89%) among the comparisons of 73 dichotomous outcomes; none of our a priori explanatory factors helped explain this heterogeneity. The 18 comparisons of continuous outcomes showed no significant differences in heterogeneity (I2 = 0%). The overall pooled estimate for continuous outcomes of the effect of participating in an RCT was not significant (standardised mean difference 0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.10 to 0.12). CONCLUSION: No strong evidence was found of a harmful or beneficial effect of participating in RCTs compared with receiving the same or similar treatment outside such trials.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do Tratamento , Humanos , Fatores de Risco
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...