Dataset Information

Primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing to improve health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): Pilot study for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Individuals with multimorbidity in deprived areas experience worse health outcomes and fragmented care. Research suggests that primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing have potential to improve health and well-being. This paper reports the results of a pilot study conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to test the effectiveness of primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing in improving health outcomes for people with multimorbidity who attend general practices in deprived areas in Ireland.

Methods

An uncontrolled pilot study of an intervention based on the Glasgow Deep End links worker programme, in a single general practice, tested the feasibility and acceptability of planned processes for a RCT. Outcomes were recruitment and retention rates and acceptability of the trial processes and intervention to patients, general practitioners (GPs) and the link worker. Structured interviews were conducted with six patients, the link worker and two GPs within the practice and analysed using descriptive qualitative analysis. Feedback from a Public Patient Involvement group and an Implementation Advisory Group of key stakeholders was incorporated into the evaluation process.

Results

Twelve out of 14 patients completed the intervention. Selection and recruitment processes were lengthier than expected. GPs recommended including psychosocial need in the selection process. Interviewed patients, the GPs and the link worker were positive about the intervention.

Conclusion

A range of adaptations were identified for the main trial, mainly considering psychosocial need in the selection process to reflect normal referral pathways. This has resulted in a pragmatic RCT design.

SUBMITTER: Kiely B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8142241 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing to improve health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): Pilot study for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Kiely Bridget B Connolly Deirdre D Clyne Barbara B Boland Fiona F O'Donnell Patrick P Shea Eamon O EO Smith Susan M SM

Journal of multimorbidity and comorbidity 20210101

<h4>Introduction</h4>Individuals with multimorbidity in deprived areas experience worse health outcomes and fragmented care. Research suggests that primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing have potential to improve health and well-being. This paper reports the results of a pilot study conducted in preparation for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) that aims to test the effectiveness of primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing in improving health outcomes ...[more]

PMID: 34094992

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo estimate the effectiveness of different strategies involving delayed antibiotic prescription for acute respiratory tract infections.DesignOpen, pragmatic, parallel group, factorial, randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care in the United Kingdom.Patients889 patients aged 3 years and over with acute respiratory tract infection, recruited between 3 March 2010 and 28 March 2012 by 53 health professionals in 25 practices.InterventionsPatients judged not to need immediate antibiotics were randomised to undergo four strategies of delayed prescription: recontact for a prescription, post-dated prescription, collection of the prescription, and be given the prescription (patient led). During the trial, a strategy of no antibiotic prescription was added as another randomised comparison. Analysis was intention to treat.Main outcome measuresMean symptom severity (0-6 scale) at days 2-4 (primary outcome), antibiotic use, and patients' beliefs in the effectiveness of antibiotic use. Secondary analysis included comparison with immediate use of antibiotics.ResultsMean symptom severity had minimal differences between the strategies involving no prescription and delayed prescription (recontact, post-date, collection, patient led; 1.62, 1.60, 1.82, 1.68, 1.75, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.61, P=0.625). Duration of symptoms rated moderately bad or worse also did not differ between no prescription and delayed prescription strategies combined (median 3 days v 4 days; 4.29, P=0.368). There were modest and non-significant differences in patients very satisfied with the consultation between the randomised groups (79%, 74%, 80%, 88%, 89%, respectively; likelihood ratio test χ(2) 2.38, P=0.667), belief in antibiotics (71%, 74%, 73%, 72%, 66%; 1.62, P=0.805), or antibiotic use (26%, 37%, 37%, 33%, 39%; 4.96, P=0.292). By contrast, most patients given immediate antibiotics used antibiotics (97%) and strongly believed in them (93%), but with no benefit for symptom severity (score 1.76) or duration (median 4 days).ConclusionStrategies of no prescription or delayed antibiotic prescription result in fewer than 40% of patients using antibiotics, and are associated with less strong beliefs in antibiotics, and similar symptomatic outcomes to immediate prescription. If clear advice is given to patients, there is probably little to choose between the different strategies of delayed prescription.Trial registrationISRCTN38551726.

Project description:ObjectiveTo study the effects of a primary care medication review intervention centred around an electronic clinical decision support system (eCDSS) on appropriateness of medication and the number of prescribing omissions in older adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care.DesignCluster randomised clinical trial.SettingSwiss primary care, between December 2018 and February 2021.ParticipantsEligible patients were ≥65 years of age with three or more chronic conditions and five or more long term medications.InterventionThe intervention to optimise pharmacotherapy centred around an eCDSS was conducted by general practitioners, followed by shared decision making between general practitioners and patients, and was compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care between patients and general practitioners.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcomes were improvement in the Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI) and the Assessment of Underutilisation (AOU) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included number of medications, falls, fractures, and quality of life.ResultsIn 43 general practitioner clusters, 323 patients were recruited (median age 77 (interquartile range 73-83) years; 45% (n=146) women). Twenty one general practitioners with 160 patients were assigned to the intervention group and 22 general practitioners with 163 patients to the control group. On average, one recommendation to stop or start a medication was reported to be implemented per patient. At 12 months, the results of the intention-to-treat analysis of the improvement in appropriateness of medication (odds ratio 1.05, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.87) and the number of prescribing omissions (0.90, 0.41 to 1.96) were inconclusive. The same was the case for the per protocol analysis. No clear evidence was found for a difference in safety outcomes at the 12 month follow-up, but fewer safety events were reported in the intervention group than in the control group at six and 12 months.ConclusionsIn this randomised trial of general practitioners and older adults, the results were inconclusive as to whether the medication review intervention centred around the use of an eCDSS led to an improvement in appropriateness of medication or a reduction in prescribing omissions at 12 months compared with a discussion about medication in line with usual care. Nevertheless, the intervention could be safely delivered without causing any harm to patients.Trial registrationNCT03724539Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03724539.

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to test, in real-world clinical practice, the effectiveness of a Transitional Care Stroke Intervention (TCSI) compared to usual care on health outcomes, self-management, patient experience, and health and social service use costs in older adults (≥ 55 years) with stroke and multimorbidity (≥ 2 chronic conditions).MethodsThis pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) included older adults discharged from hospital to community with stroke and multimorbidity using outpatient stroke rehabilitation services in two communities in Ontario, Canada. Participants were randomized 1:1 to usual care (control group) or usual care plus the 6-month TCSI (intervention group). The TCSI was delivered virtually by an interprofessional (IP) team, and included care coordination/system navigation support, phone/video visits, monthly IP team conferences, and an online resource to support system navigation. The primary outcome was risk of hospital readmission (all cause) after six-months. Secondary outcomes included physical and mental functioning, stroke self-management, patient experience, and health and social service use costs. The intention-to-treat principle was used to conduct the primary and secondary analyses.ResultsNinety participants were enrolled (44 intervention, 46 control); 11 (12%) participants were lost to follow-up, leaving 79 (39 intervention, 40 control). No significant between-group differences were seen for baseline to six-month risk of hospital readmission. Differences favouring the intervention group were seen in the following secondary outcomes: physical functioning (SF-12 PCS mean difference: 5.10; 95% CI: 1.58-8.62, p = 0.005), stroke self-management (Southampton Stroke Self-Management Questionnaire mean difference: 6.00; 95% CI: 0.51-11.50, p = 0.03), and patient experience (Person-Centred Coordinated Care Experiences Questionnaire mean difference: 2.64, 95% CI: 0.81, 4.47, p = 0.005). No between-group differences were found in total healthcare costs or other secondary outcomes.ConclusionsAlthough participation in the TCSI did not impact hospital readmissions, there were improvements in physical functioning, stroke self-management and patient experience in older adults with stroke and multimorbidity without increasing total healthcare costs. Challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, including the shift from in-person to virtual delivery, and re-deployment of interventionists could have influenced the results. A larger pragmatic RCT is needed to determine intervention effectiveness in diverse geographic settings and ethno-cultural populations and examine intervention scalability.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04278794 . Registered May 2, 2020.

Project description:BackgroundThe management of people with multiple chronic conditions challenges health-care systems designed around single conditions. There is international consensus that care for multimorbidity should be patient-centred, focus on quality of life, and promote self-management towards agreed goals. However, there is little evidence about the effectiveness of this approach. Our hypothesis was that the patient-centred, so-called 3D approach (based on dimensions of health, depression, and drugs) for patients with multimorbidity would improve their health-related quality of life, which is the ultimate aim of the 3D intervention.MethodsWe did this pragmatic cluster-randomised trial in general practices in England and Scotland. Practices were randomly allocated to continue usual care (17 practices) or to provide 6-monthly comprehensive 3D reviews, incorporating patient-centred strategies that reflected international consensus on best care (16 practices). Randomisation was computer-generated, stratified by area, and minimised by practice deprivation and list size. Adults with three or more chronic conditions were recruited. The primary outcome was quality of life (assessed with EQ-5D-5L) after 15 months' follow-up. Participants were not masked to group assignment, but analysis of outcomes was blinded. We analysed the primary outcome in the intention-to-treat population, with missing data being multiply imputed. This trial is registered as an International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial, number ISRCTN06180958.FindingsBetween May 20, 2015, and Dec 31, 2015, we recruited 1546 patients from 33 practices and randomly assigned them to receive the intervention (n=797) or usual care (n=749). In our intention-to-treat analysis, there was no difference between trial groups in the primary outcome of quality of life (adjusted difference in mean EQ-5D-5L 0·00, 95% CI -0·02 to 0·02; p=0·93). 78 patients died, and the deaths were not considered as related to the intervention.InterpretationTo our knowledge, this trial is the largest investigation of the international consensus about optimal management of multimorbidity. The 3D intervention did not improve patients' quality of life.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

Dataset Information

Primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing to improve health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): Pilot study for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Primary care-based link workers providing social prescribing to improve health and social care outcomes for people with multimorbidity in socially deprived areas (the LinkMM trial): Pilot study for a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets