Private costs almost equal health care costs when intervening in mild Alzheimer's: a cohort study alongside the DAISY trial

Udgivelsesdato: Nov 25, 200

Cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in families of patients with germline MUTYH mutations

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>MUTYH associated polyposis (MAP) is an autosomal recessive inherited disorder. Carriers of bi-allelic <it>MUTYH </it>germline mutations have a risk of approximately 60% to develop colorectal carcinoma (CRC). In the general population about 1.5% is a heterozygous <it>MUTYH </it>mutation carrier. Children of MAP patients have an increased risk of inheriting two <it>MUTYH </it>mutations compared to the general population, implicating an increased risk for developing CRC.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using data from the literature and Dutch MAP patients (n = 40), we constructed a Markov model to perform a societal cost-utility analysis of genetic screening in MAP families. Genetic screening was done by testing the spouse first and, in case of a heterozygous spouse, also testing of the children.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The cost of genetic screening of families of MAP patients, when compared to no genetic screening, was estimated at €25,000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY). The presence of Fecal Occult Blood testing (FOBT) population screening only slightly increased this cost-utility ratio to €25,500 per QALY. For a MUTYH heterozygote index-patient, the ratio was €51,500 per QALY. The results of our analysis were sensitive to several of the parameters in the model, including the cost assumed for molecular genetic testing.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The costs per QALY of genetic screening in families of MAP patients are acceptable according to international standards. Therefore, genetic testing of spouses and/or children should be discussed with and offered to counselees.</p

Spiritual Well-Being and Depression in Patients with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND: In patients with chronic heart failure, depression is common and associated with poor quality of life, more frequent hospitalizations, and higher mortality. Spiritual well-being is an important, modifiable coping resource in patients with terminal cancer and is associated with less depression, but little is known about the role of spiritual well-being in patients with heart failure. OBJECTIVE: To identify the relationship between spiritual well-being and depression in patients with heart failure. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty patients aged 60 years or older with New York Heart Association class II–IV heart failure. MEASUREMENTS: Spiritual well-being was measured using the total scale and 2 subscales (meaning/peace, faith) of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy—Spiritual Well-being scale, depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale—Short Form (GDS-SF). RESULTS: The median age of participants was 75 years. Nineteen participants (32%) had clinically significant depression (GDS-SF > 4). Greater spiritual well-being was strongly inversely correlated with depression (Spearman’s correlation −0.55, 95% confidence interval −0.70 to −0.35). In particular, greater meaning/peace was strongly associated with less depression (r = −.60, P < .0001), while faith was only modestly associated (r = −.38, P < .01). In a regression analysis accounting for gender, income, and other risk factors for depression (social support, physical symptoms, and health status), greater spiritual well-being continued to be significantly associated with less depression (P = .05). Between the 2 spiritual well-being subscales, only meaning/peace contributed significantly to this effect (P = .02) and accounted for 7% of the variance in depression. CONCLUSIONS: Among outpatients with heart failure, greater spiritual well-being, particularly meaning/peace, was strongly associated with less depression. Enhancement of patients’ sense of spiritual well-being might reduce or prevent depression and thus improve quality of life and other outcomes in this population

Interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing: a systematic review

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There has been considerable interest recently in developing and evaluating interventions to increase research use by clinicians. However, most work has focused on medical practices; and nursing is not well represented in existing systematic reviews. The purpose of this article is to report findings from a systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Objective</p> <p>To assess the evidence on interventions aimed at increasing research use in nursing.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A systematic review of research use in nursing was conducted using databases (Medline, CINAHL, Healthstar, ERIC, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Psychinfo), grey literature, ancestry searching (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews), key informants, and manual searching of journals. Randomized controlled trials and controlled before- and after-studies were included if they included nurses, if the intervention was explicitly aimed at increasing research use or evidence-based practice, and if there was an explicit outcome to research use. Methodological quality was assessed using pre-existing tools. Data on interventions and outcomes were extracted and categorized using a pre-established taxonomy.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Over 8,000 titles were screened. Three randomized controlled trials and one controlled before- and after-study met the inclusion criteria. The methodological quality of included studies was generally low. Three investigators evaluated single interventions. The most common intervention was education. Investigators measured research use using a combination of surveys (three studies) and compliance with guidelines (one study). Researcher-led educational meetings were ineffective in two studies. Educational meetings led by a local opinion leader (one study) and the formation of multidisciplinary committees (one study) were both effective at increasing research use.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Little is known about how to increase research use in nursing, and the evidence to support or refute specific interventions is inconclusive. To advance the field, we recommend that investigators: (1) use theoretically informed interventions to increase research use, (2) measure research use longitudinally using theoretically informed and psychometrically sound measures of research use, as well as, measuring patient outcomes relevant to the intervention, and (3) use more robust and methodologically sound study designs to evaluate interventions. If investigators aim to establish a link between using research and improved patient outcomes they must first identify those interventions that are effective at increasing research use.</p

Individual determinants of research utilization by nurses: a systematic review update

BACKGROUND: Interventions that have a better than random chance of increasing nurses' use of research are important to the delivery of quality patient care. However, few reports exist of successful research utilization in nursing interventions. Systematic identification and evaluation of individual characteristics associated with and predicting research utilization may inform the development of research utilization interventions.OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence published in a previous systematic review on individual characteristics influencing research utilization by nurses.METHODS: As part of a larger systematic review on research utilization instruments, 12 online bibliographic databases were searched. Hand searching of specialized journals and an ancestry search was also conducted. Randomized controlled trials, clinical trials, and observational study designs examining the association between individual characteristics and nurses' use of research were eligible for inclusion. Studies were limited to those published in the English, Danish, Swedish, and Norwegian languages. A vote counting approach to data synthesis was taken.RESULTS: A total of 42,770 titles were identified, of which 501 were retrieved. Of these 501 articles, 45 satisfied our inclusion criteria. Articles assessed research utilization in general (n = 39) or kinds of research utilization (n = 6) using self-report survey measures. Individual nurse characteristics were classified according to six categories: beliefs and attitudes, involvement in research activities, information seeking, education, professional characteristics, and socio-demographic/socio-economic characteristics. A seventh category, critical thinking, emerged in studies examining kinds of research utilization. Positive relationships, at statistically significant levels, for general research utilization were found in four categories: beliefs and attitudes, information seeking, education, and professional characteristics. The only characteristic assessed in a sufficient number of studies and with consistent findings for the kinds of research utilization was attitude towards research; this characteristic had a positive association with instrumental and overall research utilization.CONCLUSIONS: This review reinforced conclusions in the previous review with respect to positive relationships between general research utilization and: beliefs and attitudes, and current role. Furthermore, attending conferences/in-services, having a graduate degree in nursing, working in a specialty area, and job satisfaction were also identified as individual characteristics important to research utilization. While these findings hold promise as potential targets of future research utilization interventions, there were methodological problems inherent in many of the studies that necessitate their findings be replicated in further research using more robust study designs and multivariate assessment methods.</p

To what extent do nurses use research in clinical practice? A systematic review

Background : In the past forty years, many gains have been made in our understanding of the concept of research utilization. While numerous studies exist on professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, no attempt has been made to systematically evaluate and synthesize this body of literature with respect to the extent to which nurses use research in their clinical practice. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and analyze the available evidence related to the extent to which nurses use research findings in practice. Methods : This study was a systematic review of published and grey literature. The search strategy included 13 online bibliographic databases: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, HAPI, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, ABI Inform, Sociological Abstracts, and Dissertation Abstracts. The inclusion criteria consisted of primary research reports that assess professional nurses\u27 use of research in practice, written in the English or Scandinavian languages. Extent of research use was determined by assigning research use scores reported in each article to one of four quartiles: low, moderate-low, moderate-high, or high. Results : Following removal of duplicate citations, a total of 12,418 titles were identified through database searches, of which 133 articles were retrieved. Of the articles retrieved, 55 satisfied the inclusion criteria. The 55 final reports included cross-sectional/survey (n = 51) and quasi-experimental (n = 4) designs. A sensitivity analysis, comparing findings from all reports with those rated moderate (moderate-weak and moderate-strong) and strong quality, did not show significant differences. In a majority of the articles identified (n = 38, 69%), nurses reported moderate-high research use. Conclusions : According to this review, nurses\u27 reported use of research is moderate-high and has remained relatively consistent over time until the early 2000\u27s. This finding, however, may paint an overly optimistic picture of the extent to which nurses use research in their practice given the methodological problems inherent in the majority of studies. There is a clear need for the development of standard measures of research use and robust well-designed studies examining nurses\u27 use of research and its impact on patient outcomes. The relatively unchanged self-reports of moderate-high research use by nurses is troubling given that over 40 years have elapsed since the first studies in this review were conducted and the increasing emphasis in the past 15 years on evidence-based practice. More troubling is the absence of studies in which attempts are made to assess the effects of varying levels of research use on patient outcomes.<br /

Study protocol for the translating research in elder care (TREC): building context – an organizational monitoring program in long-term care project (project one)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>While there is a growing awareness of the importance of organizational context (or the work environment/setting) to successful knowledge translation, and successful knowledge translation to better patient, provider (staff), and system outcomes, little empirical evidence supports these assumptions. Further, little is known about the factors that enhance knowledge translation and better outcomes in residential long-term care facilities, where care has been shown to be suboptimal. The project described in this protocol is one of the two main projects of the larger five-year Translating Research in Elder Care (TREC) program.</p> <p>Aims</p> <p>The purpose of this project is to establish the magnitude of the effect of organizational context on knowledge translation, and subsequently on resident, staff (unregulated, regulated, and managerial) and system outcomes in long-term care facilities in the three Canadian Prairie Provinces (Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba).</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>This study protocol describes the details of a multi-level – including provinces, regions, facilities, units within facilities, and individuals who receive care (residents) or work (staff) in facilities – and longitudinal (five-year) research project. A stratified random sample of 36 residential long-term care facilities (30 urban and 6 rural) from the Canadian Prairie Provinces will comprise the sample. Caregivers and care managers within these facilities will be asked to complete the TREC survey – a suite of survey instruments designed to assess organizational context and related factors hypothesized to be important to successful knowledge translation and to achieving better resident, staff, and system outcomes. Facility and unit level data will be collected using standardized data collection forms, and resident outcomes using the Resident Assessment Instrument-Minimum Data Set version 2.0 instrument. A variety of analytic techniques will be employed including descriptive analyses, psychometric analyses, multi-level modeling, and mixed-method analyses.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Three key challenging areas associated with conducting this project are discussed: sampling, participant recruitment, and sample retention; survey administration (with unregulated caregivers); and the provision of a stable set of study definitions to guide the project.</p

A systematic review of the psychometric properties of self-report research utilization measures used in healthcare

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In healthcare, a gap exists between what is known from research and what is practiced. Understanding this gap depends upon our ability to robustly measure research utilization.</p> <p>Objectives</p> <p>The objectives of this systematic review were: to identify self-report measures of research utilization used in healthcare, and to assess the psychometric properties (acceptability, reliability, and validity) of these measures.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a systematic review of literature reporting use or development of self-report research utilization measures. Our search included: multiple databases, ancestry searches, and a hand search. Acceptability was assessed by examining time to complete the measure and missing data rates. Our approach to reliability and validity assessment followed that outlined in the <it>Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing</it>.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 42,770 titles screened, 97 original studies (108 articles) were included in this review. The 97 studies reported on the use or development of 60 unique self-report research utilization measures. Seven of the measures were assessed in more than one study. Study samples consisted of healthcare providers (92 studies) and healthcare decision makers (5 studies). No studies reported data on acceptability of the measures. Reliability was reported in 32 (33%) of the studies, representing 13 of the 60 measures. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) reliability was reported in 31 studies; values exceeded 0.70 in 29 studies. Test-retest reliability was reported in 3 studies with Pearson's <it>r </it>coefficients > 0.80. No validity information was reported for 12 of the 60 measures. The remaining 48 measures were classified into a three-level validity hierarchy according to the number of validity sources reported in 50% or more of the studies using the measure. Level one measures (n = 6) reported evidence from any three (out of four possible) <it>Standards </it>validity sources (which, in the case of single item measures, was all applicable validity sources). Level two measures (n = 16) had evidence from any two validity sources, and level three measures (n = 26) from only one validity source.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>This review reveals significant underdevelopment in the measurement of research utilization. Substantial methodological advances with respect to construct clarity, use of research utilization and related theory, use of measurement theory, and psychometric assessment are required. Also needed are improved reporting practices and the adoption of a more contemporary view of validity (<it>i.e.</it>, the <it>Standards</it>) in future research utilization measurement studies.</p

Prévalence de la douleur chronique et des limitations fonctionnelles qui lui sont associées au Canada entre 1994 et 2008

Introduction On observe actuellement une absence de concordance entre la prévalence estimative de la douleur chronique au Canada et dans le monde. Nous souhaitions donc dans le cadre de cette étude déterminer la prévalence de la douleur chronique selon le sexe et l’âge de même que la prévalence des limitations fonctionnelles associées à la douleur chronique selon le sexe, au Canada, pour la période 1994-2008. Méthodologie En utilisant les données extraites de sept cycles transversaux de l’Enquête nationale sur la santé de la population et de l’Enquête sur la santé dans les collectivités canadiennes, nous avons défini deux résultats catégoriels, à savoir la douleur chronique et les limitations fonctionnelles associées à la douleur chronique. Résultats La prévalence de la douleur chronique variait entre 15,1 % (1996-1997) et 18,9 % (1994-1995); elle était supérieure chez les femmes (entre 16,5 % et 21,5 %) ainsi que chez les Canadiens les plus âgés, c’est-à-dire chez les membres du groupe d’âge « 65 ans et plus » (entre 23,9 % et 31,3 %). La plus forte prévalence de douleur chronique (entre 26,0 % et 34,2 %) était observée pour tous les cycles chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus. Finalement, la majorité des adultes canadiens affirmant souffrir de douleur chronique signalaient aussi que cette douleur empêchait la réalisation d’au moins quelques activités (de 11,4 % à 13,3 % de la population totale). Conclusion Les résultats de cette étude populationnelle concordent avec les estimations internationales et confirment que la douleur chronique est bien présente au Canada et qu’elle affecte les activités quotidiennes des personnes touchées. Ils mettent aussi en évidence la nécessité de procéder à de plus amples études en employant une définition plus précise de la douleur et des limitations fonctionnelles qui lui sont associées. </sec

The prevalence of chronic pain and pain-related interference in the Canadian population from 1994 to 2008

Introduction Estimates of the prevalence of chronic pain worldwide and in Canada are inconsistent. Our primary objectives were to determine the prevalence of chronic pain by sex and age and to determine the prevalence of pain-related interference for Canadian men and women between 1994 and 2008. Methods Using data from seven cross-sectional cycles in the National Population Health Survey and the Canadian Community Health Survey, we defined two categorical outcomes, chronic pain and pain-related interference with activities. Results Prevalence of chronic pain ranged from 15.1% in 1996/97 to 18.9% in 1994/95. Chronic pain was most prevalent among women (range: 16.5% to 21.5%), and in the oldest (65 years plus) age group (range: 23.9% to 31.3%). Women aged 65 years plus consistently reported the highest prevalence of chronic pain (range: 26.0% to 34.2%). The majority of adult Canadians who reported chronic pain also reported at least a few activities prevented due to this pain (range: 11.4% to 13.3% of the overall population). Conclusion Similar to international estimates, this Canadian population-based study confirms that chronic pain persists and impacts daily activities. Further study with more detailed definitions of pain and pain-related interference is warranted. </sec