Dataset Information

Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The burden of neurological disorders is increasing, but access to care is limited. Providing specialty care to patients via telemedicine could help alleviate this growing problem.

Objective

To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and economic benefits of using web-based videoconferencing (telemedicine) to provide specialty care to patients with Parkinson disease in their homes.

Design

A 7-month, 2-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.

Setting

Patients' homes and outpatient clinics at 2 academic medical centers.

Participants

Twenty patients with Parkinson disease with Internet access at home.

Intervention

Care from a specialist delivered remotely at home or in person in the clinic.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome variable was feasibility, as measured by the percentage of telemedicine visits completed as scheduled. Secondary outcome measures included clinical benefit, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson Disease Questionnaire, and economic value, as measured by time and travel.

Results

Twenty participants enrolled in the study and were randomly assigned to telemedicine (n = 9) or in-person care (n = 11). Of the 27 scheduled telemedicine visits, 25 (93%) were completed, and of the 33 scheduled in-person visits, 30 (91%) were completed (P = .99). In this small study, the change in quality of life did not differ for those randomly assigned to telemedicine compared with those randomly assigned to in-person care (4.0-point improvement vs 6.4-point improvement; P = .61). Compared with in-person visits, each telemedicine visit saved participants, on average, 100 miles of travel and 3 hours of time.

Conclusion and relevance

Using web-based videoconferencing to provide specialty care at home is feasible, provides value to patients, and may offer similar clinical benefit to that of in-person care. Larger studies are needed to determine whether the clinical benefits are indeed comparable to those of in-person care and whether the results observed are generalizable.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01476306.

SUBMITTER: Dorsey ER

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3791511 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.

Dorsey E Ray ER Venkataraman Vinayak V Grana Matthew J MJ Bull Michael T MT George Benjamin P BP Boyd Cynthia M CM Beck Christopher A CA Rajan Balaraman B Seidmann Abraham A Biglan Kevin M KM

JAMA neurology 20130501 5

<h4>Importance</h4>The burden of neurological disorders is increasing, but access to care is limited. Providing specialty care to patients via telemedicine could help alleviate this growing problem.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate the feasibility, effectiveness, and economic benefits of using web-based videoconferencing (telemedicine) to provide specialty care to patients with Parkinson disease in their homes.<h4>Design</h4>A 7-month, 2-center, randomized controlled clinical trial.<h4>Setting</h4>P ...[more]

PMID: 23479138

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether providing remote neurologic care into the homes of people with Parkinson disease (PD) is feasible, beneficial, and valuable.MethodsIn a 1-year randomized controlled trial, we compared usual care to usual care supplemented by 4 virtual visits via video conferencing from a remote specialist into patients' homes. Primary outcome measures were feasibility, as measured by the proportion who completed at least one virtual visit and the proportion of virtual visits completed on time; and efficacy, as measured by the change in the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39, a quality of life scale. Secondary outcomes included quality of care, caregiver burden, and time and travel savings.ResultsA total of 927 individuals indicated interest, 210 were enrolled, and 195 were randomized. Participants had recently seen a specialist (73%) and were largely college-educated (73%) and white (96%). Ninety-five (98% of the intervention group) completed at least one virtual visit, and 91% of 388 virtual visits were completed. Quality of life did not improve in those receiving virtual house calls (0.3 points worse on a 100-point scale; 95% confidence interval [CI] -2.0 to 2.7 points; p = 0.78) nor did quality of care or caregiver burden. Each virtual house call saved patients a median of 88 minutes (95% CI 70-120; p < 0.0001) and 38 miles per visit (95% CI 36-56; p < 0.0001).ConclusionsProviding remote neurologic care directly into the homes of people with PD was feasible and was neither more nor less efficacious than usual in-person care. Virtual house calls generated great interest and provided substantial convenience.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02038959.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with PD, virtual house calls from a neurologist are feasible and do not significantly change quality of life compared to in-person visits. The study is rated Class III because it was not possible to mask patients to visit type.

Project description:Interest in improving care for the growing number of individuals with chronic conditions is rising. However, access to care is limited by distance, disability, and distribution of doctors. Small-scale studies in Parkinson disease, a prototypical chronic condition, have suggested that delivering care using video house calls is feasible, offers similar clinical outcomes to in-person care, and reduces travel burden.We are conducting a randomized comparative effectiveness study (Connect.Parkinson) comparing usual care in the community to usual care augmented by virtual house calls with a Parkinson disease specialist. Recruitment is completed centrally using online advertisements and emails and by contacting physicians, support groups, and allied health professionals. Efforts target areas with a high proportion of individuals not receiving care from neurologists. Approximately 200 individuals with Parkinson disease and their care partners will be enrolled at 20 centers throughout the United States and followed for one year. Participants receive educational materials, then are randomized in a 1:1 ratio to continue their usual care (control arm) or usual care and specialty care delivered virtually (intervention arm). Care partners are surveyed about their time and travel burden and their perceived caregiver burden. Participants are evaluated via electronic survey forms and videoconferencing with a blinded independent rater at baseline and at 12 months. All study activities are completed remotely.The primary outcomes are: (1) feasibility, as measured by the proportion of visits completed, and (2) quality of life, as measured by the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire. Secondary outcomes include measures of clinical benefit, quality of care, time and travel burden, and caregiver burden.Connect.Parkinson will evaluate the feasibility and effectiveness of using technology to deliver care into the homes of individuals with Parkinson disease. The trial may serve as a model for increasing access and delivering patient-centered care at home for individuals with chronic conditions.This trial was registered on clinicaltrials.gov on January 8, 2014 [NCT02038959].

Project description:In the present study, we examined the potential symptomatic and/or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections compared to placebo in moderatly affected Parkinson disease patients. We conducted a prospective, randomized double-blind study in 40 Parkinson disease patients at Hoehn & Yahr stages 1.5 to 3 who were either assigned to monthly bee venom injections or equivalent volumes of saline (treatment/placebo group: n = 20/20). The primary objective of this study was to assess a potential symptomatic effect of s.c. bee venom injections (100 μg) compared to placebo 11 months after initiation of therapy on United Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) III scores in the « off » condition pre-and post-injection at a 60 minute interval. Secondary objectives included the evolution of UPDRS III scores over the study period and [123I]-FP-CIT scans to evaluate disease progression. Finally, safety was assessed by monitoring specific IgE against bee venom and skin tests when necessary. After an 11 month period of monthly administration, bee venom did not significantly decrease UPDRS III scores in the « off » condition. Also, UPDRS III scores over the study course, and nuclear imaging, did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Four patients were excluded during the trial due to positive skin tests but no systemic allergic reaction was recorded. After an initial increase, specific IgE against bee venom decreased in all patients completing the trial. This study did not evidence any clear symptomatic or disease-modifying effects of monthly bee venom injections over an 11 month period compared to placebo using a standard bee venom allergy desensitization protocol in Parkinson disease patients. However, bee venom administration appeared safe in non-allergic subjects. Thus, we suggest that higher administration frequency and possibly higher individual doses of bee venom may reveal its potency in treating Parkinson disease.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01341431.

Project description:ObjectiveEpidemiologic studies consistently link caffeine, a nonselective adenosine antagonist, to lower risk of Parkinson disease (PD). However, the symptomatic effects of caffeine in PD have not been adequately evaluated.MethodsWe conducted a 6-week randomized controlled trial of caffeine in PD to assess effects upon daytime somnolence, motor severity, and other nonmotor features. Patients with PD with daytime somnolence (Epworth >10) were given caffeine 100 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, then 200 mg twice daily ×3 weeks, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was the Epworth Sleepiness Scale score. Secondary outcomes included motor severity, sleep markers, fatigue, depression, and quality of life. Effects of caffeine were analyzed with Bayesian hierarchical models, adjusting for study site, baseline scores, age, and sex.ResultsOf 61 patients, 31 were randomized to placebo and 30 to caffeine. On the primary intention-to-treat analysis, caffeine resulted in a nonsignificant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score (-1.71 points; 95% confidence interval [CI] -3.57, 0.13). However, somnolence improved on the Clinical Global Impression of Change (+0.64; 0.16, 1.13, intention-to-treat), with significant reduction in Epworth Sleepiness Scale score on per-protocol analysis (-1.97; -3.87, -0.05). Caffeine reduced the total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale score (-4.69 points; -7.7, -1.6) and the objective motor component (-3.15 points; -5.50, -0.83). Other than modest improvement in global health measures, there were no changes in quality of life, depression, or sleep quality. Adverse events were comparable in caffeine and placebo groups.ConclusionsCaffeine provided only equivocal borderline improvement in excessive somnolence in PD, but improved objective motor measures. These potential motor benefits suggest that a larger long-term trial of caffeine is warranted.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class I evidence that caffeine, up to 200 mg BID for 6 weeks, had no significant benefit on excessive daytime sleepiness in patients with PD.

Project description:BackgroundIn the field of health care, knowledge and clinical reasoning are key with regard to quality and confidence in decision making. The development of knowledge and clinical reasoning is influenced not only by students' intrinsic factors but also by extrinsic factors such as satisfaction with taught content, pedagogic resources and pedagogic methods, and the nature of the objectives and challenges proposed. Nowadays, professors play the role of learning facilitators rather than simple "lecturers" and face students as active learners who are capable of attributing individual meanings to their personal goals, challenges, and experiences to build their own knowledge over time. Innovations in health simulation technologies have led to clinical virtual simulation. Clinical virtual simulation is the recreation of reality depicted on a computer screen and involves real people operating simulated systems. It is a type of simulation that places people in a central role through their exercising of motor control skills, decision skills, and communication skills using virtual patients in a variety of clinical settings. Clinical virtual simulation can provide a pedagogical strategy and can act as a facilitator of knowledge retention, clinical reasoning, improved satisfaction with learning, and finally, improved self-efficacy. However, little is known about its effectiveness with regard to satisfaction, self-efficacy, knowledge retention, and clinical reasoning.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of clinical virtual simulation with regard to knowledge retention, clinical reasoning, self-efficacy, and satisfaction with the learning experience among nursing students.MethodsA randomized controlled trial with a pretest and 2 posttests was carried out with Portuguese nursing students (N=42). The participants, split into 2 groups, had a lesson with the same objectives and timing. The experimental group (n=21) used a case-based learning approach, with clinical virtual simulator as a resource, whereas the control group (n=21) used the same case-based learning approach, with recourse to a low-fidelity simulator and a realistic environment. The classes were conducted by the usual course lecturers. We assessed knowledge and clinical reasoning before the intervention, after the intervention, and 2 months later, with a true or false and multiple-choice knowledge test. The students' levels of learning satisfaction and self-efficacy were assessed with a Likert scale after the intervention.ResultsThe experimental group made more significant improvements in knowledge after the intervention (P=.001; d=1.13) and 2 months later (P=.02; d=0.75), and it also showed higher levels of learning satisfaction (P<.001; d=1.33). We did not find statistical differences in self-efficacy perceptions (P=.9; d=0.054).ConclusionsThe introduction of clinical virtual simulation in nursing education has the potential to improve knowledge retention and clinical reasoning in an initial stage and over time, and it increases the satisfaction with the learning experience among nursing students.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether falls can be prevented with minimally supervised exercise targeting potentially remediable fall risk factors, i.e., poor balance, reduced leg muscle strength, and freezing of gait, in people with Parkinson disease.MethodsTwo hundred thirty-one people with Parkinson disease were randomized into exercise or usual-care control groups. Exercises were practiced for 40 to 60 minutes, 3 times weekly for 6 months. Primary outcomes were fall rates and proportion of fallers during the intervention period. Secondary outcomes were physical (balance, mobility, freezing of gait, habitual physical activity), psychological (fear of falling, affect), and quality-of-life measures.ResultsThere was no significant difference between groups in the rate of falls (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.73, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-1.17, p = 0.18) or proportion of fallers (p = 0.45). Preplanned subgroup analysis revealed a significant interaction for disease severity (p < 0.001). In the lower disease severity subgroup, there were fewer falls in the exercise group compared with controls (IRR = 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.62, p < 0.001), while in the higher disease severity subgroup, there was a trend toward more falls in the exercise group (IRR = 1.61, 95% CI 0.86-3.03, p = 0.13). Postintervention, the exercise group scored significantly (p < 0.05) better than controls on the Short Physical Performance Battery, sit-to-stand, fear of falling, affect, and quality of life, after adjusting for baseline performance.ConclusionsAn exercise program targeting balance, leg strength, and freezing of gait did not reduce falls but improved physical and psychological health. Falls were reduced in people with milder disease but not in those with more severe Parkinson disease.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class III evidence that for patients with Parkinson disease, a minimally supervised exercise program does not reduce fall risk. This study lacked the precision to exclude a moderate reduction or modest increase in fall risk from exercise.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12608000303347).

Dataset Information

Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.

Importance

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion and relevance

Trial registration

Publications

Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets