Summary This article is a report of the fourth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema (HOME) initiative held in Malmö, Sweden on 23–24 April 2015 (HOME IV). The aim of the meeting was to achieve consensus over the preferred outcome instruments for measuring patient‐reported symptoms and quality of life for the HOME core outcome set for atopic eczema (AE). Following presentations, which included data from systematic reviews, consensus discussions were held in a mixture of whole group and small group discussions. Small groups were allocated a priori to ensure representation of different stakeholders and countries. Decisions were voted on using electronic keypads. For the patient‐reported symptoms, the group agreed by vote that itch, sleep loss, dryness, redness/inflamed skin and irritated skin were all considered essential aspects of AE symptoms. Many instruments for capturing patient‐reported symptoms were discussed [including the Patient‐Oriented SCOring Atopic Dermatitis index, Patient‐Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Self‐Administered Eczema Area and Severity Index, Itch Severity Scale, Atopic Dermatitis Quickscore and the Nottingham Eczema Severity Score] and, by consensus, POEM was selected as the preferred instrument to measure patient‐reported symptoms. Further work is needed to determine the reliability and measurement error of POEM. Further work is also required to establish the importance of pain/soreness and the importance of collecting information regarding the intensity of symptoms in addition to their frequency. Much of the discussion on quality of life concerned the Dermatology Life Quality Index and Quality of Life Index for Atopic Dermatitis; however, consensus on a preferred instrument for measuring this domain could not be reached. In summary, POEM is recommended as the HOME core outcome instrument for measuring AE symptoms.
Summary This is the report from the fifth meeting of the Harmonising Outcome Measures for Eczema initiative (HOME V). The meeting was held on 12–14 June 2017 in Nantes, France, with 81 participants. The main aims of the meeting were (i) to achieve consensus over the definition of the core domain of long‐term control and how to measure it and (ii) to prioritize future areas of research for the measurement of the core domain of quality of life (QoL) in children. Moderated whole‐group and small‐group consensus discussions were informed by presentations of qualitative studies, systematic reviews and validation studies. Small‐group allocations were performed a priori to ensure that each group included different stakeholders from a variety of geographical regions. Anonymous whole‐group voting was carried out using handheld electronic voting pads according to predefined consensus rules. It was agreed by consensus that the long‐term control domain should include signs, symptoms, quality of life and a patient global instrument. The group agreed that itch intensity should be measured when assessing long‐term control of eczema in addition to the frequency of itch captured by the symptoms domain. There was no recommendation of an instrument for the core outcome domain of quality of life in children, but existing instruments were assessed for face validity and feasibility, and future work that will facilitate the recommendation of an instrument was agreed upon.
Background Medically underserved people with type 2 diabetes mellitus face limited access to group-based diabetes care, placing them at risk for poor disease control and complications. Immersive technology and telemedicine solutions could bridge this gap. Objective The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of diabetes medical group visits (DMGVs) delivered in an immersive telemedicine platform versus an in-person (IP) setting and establish the noninferiority of the technology-enabled approach for changes in hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) and physical activity (measured in metabolic equivalent of task [MET]) at 6 months. Methods This study is a noninferiority randomized controlled trial conducted from February 2017 to December 2019 at an urban safety net health system and community health center. We enrolled adult women (aged ≥18 years) who self-reported African American or Black race or Hispanic or Latina ethnicity and had type 2 diabetes mellitus and HbA1c ≥8%. Participants attended 8 weekly DMGVs, which included diabetes self-management education, peer support, and clinician counseling using a culturally adapted curriculum in English or Spanish. In-person participants convened in clinical settings, while virtual world (VW) participants met remotely via an avatar-driven, 3D VW linked to video teleconferencing. Follow-up occurred 6 months post enrollment. Primary outcomes were mean changes in HbA1c and physical activity at 6 months, with noninferiority margins of 0.7% and 12 MET-hours, respectively. Secondary outcomes included changes in diabetes distress and depressive symptoms. Results Of 309 female participants (mean age 55, SD 10.6 years; n=195, 63% African American or Black; n=105, 34% Hispanic or Latina; n=151 IP; and n=158 in VW), 207 (67%) met per-protocol criteria. In the intention-to-treat analysis, we confirmed noninferiority for primary outcomes. We found similar improvements in mean HbA1c by group at 6 months (IP: –0.8%, SD 1.9%; VW: –0.5%, SD 1.8%; mean difference 0.3, 97.5% CI –∞ to 0.3; P<.001). However, there were no detectable improvements in physical activity (IP: –6.5, SD 43.6; VW: –9.6, SD 44.8 MET-hours; mean difference –3.1, 97.5% CI –6.9 to ∞; P=.02). The proportion of participants with significant diabetes distress and depressive symptoms at 6 months decreased in both groups. Conclusions In this noninferiority randomized controlled trial, immersive telemedicine was a noninferior platform for delivering diabetes care, eliciting comparable glycemic control improvement, and enhancing patient engagement, compared to IP DMGVs. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02726425; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02726425
PURPOSETo determine if hospitalized patients with depressive symptoms will benefit from post-discharge depression treatment with care transition support. METHODS This is a randomized controlled trial of hospitalized patients with patient health questionnaire-9 score of 10 or more. We delivered the Re-Engineered Discharge (RED) and randomized participants to groups receiving RED-only or RED for Depression (RED-D), a 12-week post-discharge telehealth intervention including cognitive behavioral therapy, selfmanagement support, and patient navigation. Primary outcomes were hospital readmission and reutilization rates at 30 and 90 days post discharge. RESULTSWe randomized 709 participants (353 RED-D, 356 RED-only). At 90 days, 265 (75%) intervention participants had received at least 1 RED-D session (median 4). At 30 days, the intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences between RED-D vs RED-only in hospital readmission (9% vs 10%, incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.92 [95% CI, 0.56-1.52]) or reutilization (27% vs 24%, IRR 1.14 [95% CI, 0.85-1.54]). The intention-to-treat analysis also showed no differences at 90 days in readmission (28% vs 21%, IRR 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.78]) or reutilization (70% vs 57%, IRR 1.22 [95% CI, 1.01-1.49]). In the as-treated analysis, each additional RED-D session was associated with a decrease in 30-and 90-day readmissions. At 30 days, among 104 participants receiving 3 or more sessions, there were fewer readmissions (3% vs 10%, IRR 0.30 [95% CI, 0.07-0.84]) compared with the control group. At 90 days, among 109 participants receiving 6 or more sessions, there were fewer readmissions (11% vs 21%, IRR 0.52 [95% CI, 0.27-0.92]). Intention-to-treat analysis showed no differences between study groups on secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS Care transition support and post-discharge depression treatment can reduce unplanned hospital use with sufficient uptake of the RED-D intervention.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.