Smokers are at high risk for oral disease. As a result, they represent an important target group for population-level, public oral health promotion efforts. While dental health professionals often address smoking with their patients, no systematic efforts have been made to offer smokers an intervention to improve their use of oral health care. This paper details the rationale, design, and methods of a large, semi-pragmatic, randomized clinical trial designed to address this gap. Participants are recruited via the Oregon, Nebraska and Louisiana state-sponsored tobacco quitlines and randomized to receive standard quitline care versus standard care plus a multi-modal oral health promotion program (Oral Health 4 Life) integrated within the quitline services. All participants are followed for 6months to assess the impact of the intervention on smoking abstinence and utilization of professional dental care. In addition, the study will assess the cost of the intervention and provide practical guidance to states on whether the intervention is financially feasible to implement, should the intervention be effective. This study protocol may be useful to others interested in promoting oral health among smokers, those interested in partnering with tobacco quitlines to extend standard services to address other high risk health behaviors among smokers, or those interested in semi-pragmatic trial design.

Background

Pharmacist- or nurse-led team care decreases patient blood pressure (BP) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk.

Purpose

To evaluate whether a Web-based dietitian-led (WD) team care intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased BP, CVD risk, and weight compared to usual care (UC).

Methods

Electronic health record (EHR) data identified patients aged 30-69 years with BMI >26, elevated BP, and 10%-25% 10-year Framingham CVD risk who were registered patient website users. Patients with uncontrolled BP at screening were randomized to UC or WD, which included a home BP monitor, scale, and dietitian team care. WD participants had a single in-person dietitian visit to obtain baseline information and create a plan to reduce CVD risk. Planned follow-up occurred via secure messaging to report BP, weight, and fruit and vegetable intake and receive ongoing feedback. If needed, dietitians encouraged patients and their physicians to intensify antihypertensive and lipid-lowering medications. Primary outcomes were change in systolic BP and weight loss ≥4 kg at 6 months. Feasibility outcomes included intervention utilization and satisfaction.

Results

Between 2010 and 2011, a total of 90 of 101 participants completed 6-month follow-ups. The WD group had higher rates of secure messaging utilization and patient satisfaction. The WD group lost significantly more weight than the UC group (adjusted net difference=-3.2 kg, 95% CI=-5.0, -1.5, p<0.001) and was more likely to lose ≥4 kg (adjusted relative risk [RRadj]=2.96, 95% CI=1.16, 7.53). BP control and CVD risk reduction were greater in WD than UC, but differences were not statistically significant.

Conclusions

WD intervention was feasible and resulted in decreased weight, BP, and CVD risk. A larger trial is justified.

Trial registration number

Trial Registration Number: NCT01077388.

Purpose

This study aims to determine whether radiologists who perform well in screening also perform well in interpreting diagnostic mammography.

Materials and methods

We evaluated the accuracy of 468 radiologists interpreting 2,234,947 screening and 196,164 diagnostic mammograms. Adjusting for site, radiologist, and patient characteristics, we identified radiologists with performance in the highest tertile and compared to those with lower performance.

Results

A moderate correlation was noted for radiologists' accuracy when interpreting screening versus their accuracy on diagnostic examinations: sensitivity (r_spearman=0.51, 95% CI: 0.22, 0.80; P=.0006) and specificity (r_spearman=0.40, 95% CI: 0.30, 0.49; P<.0001).

Conclusion

Different educational approaches to screening and diagnostic imaging should be considered.

Background

Web-based collaborative approaches to managing chronic illness show promise for both improving health outcomes and increasing the efficiency of the healthcare system.

Objective

Analyze the cost-effectiveness of the Electronic Communications and Home Blood Pressure Monitoring to Improve Blood Pressure Control (e-BP) study, a randomized controlled trial that used a patient-shared electronic medical record, home blood pressure (BP) monitoring, and web-based pharmacist care to improve BP control (<140/90 mm Hg).

Study design

Incremental cost-effectiveness analysis conducted from a health plan perspective.

Methods

Cost-effectiveness of home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care estimated for percent change in patients with controlled BP and cost per mm Hg in diastolic and systolic BP relative to usual care and home BP monitoring alone.

Results

A 1% improvement in number of patients with controlled BP using home BP monitoring and web-based pharmacist care-the e-BP program-costs $16.65 (95% confidence interval: 15.37- 17.94) relative to home BP monitoring and web training alone. Each mm HG reduction in systolic and diastolic BP achieved through the e-BP program costs $65.29 (59.91-70.67) relativeto home BP monitoring and web tools only. Life expectancy was increased at an incremental cost of $1850 (1635-2064) and $2220 (1745-2694) per year of life saved for men and women, respectively.

Conclusions

Web-based collaborative care can be used to achieve BP control at a relatively low cost. Future research should examine the cost impact of potential long-term clinical improvements.

Rationale and objectives

The aim of this study was to describe the impact of a tailored Web-based educational program designed to reduce excessive screening mammography recall.

Materials and methods

Radiologists enrolled in one of four mammography registries in the United States were invited to take part and were randomly assigned to receive the intervention or to serve as controls. The controls were offered the intervention at the end of the study, and data collection included an assessment of their clinical practice as well. The intervention provided each radiologist with individual audit data for his or her sensitivity, specificity, recall rate, positive predictive value, and cancer detection rate compared to national benchmarks and peer comparisons for the same measures; profiled breast cancer risk in each radiologist's respective patient populations to illustrate how low breast cancer risk is in population-based settings; and evaluated the possible impact of medical malpractice concerns on recall rates. Participants' recall rates from actual practice were evaluated for three time periods: the 9 months before the intervention was delivered to the intervention group (baseline period), the 9 months between the intervention and control groups (T1), and the 9 months after completion of the intervention by the controls (T2). Logistic regression models examining the probability that a mammogram was recalled included indication of intervention versus control and time period (baseline, T1, and T2). Interactions between the groups and time period were also included to determine if the association between time period and the probability of a positive result differed across groups.

Results

Thirty-one radiologists who completed the continuing medical education intervention were included in the adjusted model comparing radiologists in the intervention group (n = 22) to radiologists who completed the intervention in the control group (n = 9). At T1, the intervention group had 12% higher odds of positive mammographic results compared to the controls, after controlling for baseline (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-1.27; P = .0569). At T2, a similar association was found, but it was not statistically significant (odds ratio, 1.10; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 1.25). No associations were found among radiologists in the control group when comparing those who completed the continuing medical education intervention (n = 9) to those who did not (n = 10). In addition, no associations were found between time period and recall rate among radiologists who set realistic goals.

Conclusions

This study resulted in a null effect, which may indicate that a single 1-hour intervention is not adequate to change excessive recall among radiologists who undertook the intervention being tested.

Background

There has been a dramatic shift in use of bariatric procedures, but little is known about their long-term comparative effectiveness.

Objective

To compare weight loss and safety among bariatric procedures.

Design

Retrospective observational cohort study, January 2005 to September 2015. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02741674).

Setting

41 health systems in the National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network.

Participants

65 093 patients aged 20 to 79 years with body mass index (BMI) of 35 kg/m2 or greater who had bariatric procedures.

Intervention

32 208 Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB), 29 693 sleeve gastrectomy (SG), and 3192 adjustable gastric banding (AGB) procedures.

Measurements

Estimated percent total weight loss (TWL) at 1, 3, and 5 years; 30-day rates of major adverse events.

Results

Total numbers of eligible patients with weight measures at 1, 3, and 5 years were 44 978 (84%), 20 783 (68%), and 7159 (69%), respectively. Thirty-day rates of major adverse events were 5.0% for RYGB, 2.6% for SG, and 2.9% for AGB. One-year mean TWLs were 31.2% (95% CI, 31.1% to 31.3%) for RYGB, 25.2% (CI, 25.1% to 25.4%) for SG, and 13.7% (CI, 13.3% to 14.0%) for AGB. At 1 year, RYGB patients lost 5.9 (CI, 5.8 to 6.1) percentage points more weight than SG patients and 17.7 (CI, 17.3 to 18.1) percentage points more than AGB patients, and SG patients lost 12.0 (CI, 11.6 to 12.5) percentage points more than AGB patients. Five-year mean TWLs were 25.5% (CI, 25.1% to 25.9%) for RYGB, 18.8% (CI, 18.0% to 19.6%) for SG, and 11.7% (CI, 10.2% to 13.1%) for AGB. Patients with diabetes, those with BMI less than 50 kg/m2, those aged 65 years or older, African American patients, and Hispanic patients lost less weight than patients without those characteristics.

Limitation

Potential unobserved confounding due to nonrandomized design; electronic health record databases had missing outcome data.

Conclusion

Adults lost more weight with RYGB than with SG or AGB at 1, 3, and 5 years; however, RYGB had the highest 30-day rate of major adverse events. Small subgroup differences in weight loss outcomes were observed.

Primary funding source

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.