Dataset Information

Stepped Care Versus Standard Care for Children After Trauma: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) is an evidence-based therapist-led treatment for children after trauma. Parents often experience barriers to treatment engagement, including cost. Stepped care TF-CBT (SC-TF-CBT) was developed as an alternative delivery system. Step One is a parent-led therapist-assisted treatment. Step Two provides therapist-led TF-CBT for children who did not benefit from Step One and require more intensive treatment. This study compared SC-TF-CBT to standard TF-CBT in a community-based non-inferiority trial.

Method

A total of 183 children (aged 4-12 years) experiencing posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS) and their caregivers were randomly assigned to SC-TF-CBT or standard TF-CBT within 6 community clinics. Assessments occurred at baseline, mid- and posttreatment, and 6 and 12 months. Primary outcomes included PTSS and impairment. Secondary outcomes included severity, diagnostic status, remission, and response. Treatment cost, acceptability, and satisfaction were measured. Difference and non-inferiority tests were applied.

Results

SC-TF-CBT participants changed at rates comparable to participants in TF-CBT for primary and secondary measures. SC-TF-CBT was non-inferior to TF-CBT for PTSS, impairment, and severity at all time points except for impairment at the 6-month assessment. Attrition did not differ between treatment arms (132 participants were completers). Baseline treatment acceptability was lower for SC-TF-CBT parents, although there was no difference in expected treatment improvements or treatment satisfaction at posttreatment. Based on regression estimates, total costs were 38.4% lower for SC-TF-CBT compared to TF-CBT, whereas recurring costs were 53.7% lower.

Conclusion

Stepped Care TF-CBT provides an alternative way to deliver treatment for some children and parents, with reduced cost for providers and parents.

Clinical trial registration information

Stepped Care for Children after Trauma: Optimizing Treatment; https://clinicaltrials.gov; NCT02537678.

SUBMITTER: Salloum A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9273807 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Stepped Care Versus Standard Care for Children After Trauma: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.

Salloum Alison A Lu Yuanyuan Y Chen Henian H Quast Troy T Cohen Judith A JA Scheeringa Michael S MS Salomon Kristen K Storch Eric A EA

Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 20220112 8

<h4>Objective</h4>Trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy (TF-CBT) is an evidence-based therapist-led treatment for children after trauma. Parents often experience barriers to treatment engagement, including cost. Stepped care TF-CBT (SC-TF-CBT) was developed as an alternative delivery system. Step One is a parent-led therapist-assisted treatment. Step Two provides therapist-led TF-CBT for children who did not benefit from Step One and require more intensive treatment. This study compared SC ...[more]

PMID: 35032578

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe current standard of care in the treatment of children with physical trauma presenting to non-designated pediatric trauma centers is consultation with a pediatric trauma center by telephone. This includes contacting a pediatric trauma specialist and transferring any child with a potentially serious injury to a regionalized level I pediatric trauma center. This approach to care frequently results in medically unnecessary transfers and may place undue burdens on families. A newer model of care, the "Virtual Pediatric Trauma Center" (VPTC), uses telemedicine to make the expertise of a level I pediatric trauma center virtually available to any hospital. While the use of the VPTC model of care is increasing, there have been no studies comparing the VPTC to standard care of injured children at non-designated trauma centers with respect to patient- and family-centered outcomes. The goal of this study is to compare the current standard of care to the VPTC with respect to family-centered outcomes developed by parents and community advisory boards.MethodsWe will use a stepped-wedge trial design to enroll children with physical trauma presenting to ten hospitals, including level II, level III, and non-designated trauma centers. The primary outcome measures are parent/family experience of care and distress 3 days following injury. Secondary aims include 30-day healthcare utilization, parent/family out-of-pocket costs at 3 days and 30 days after injury, transfer rates, and parent/family distress 30 days following injury. We expect at least 380 parents/families of children will be eligible for the study following an emergency department physician's request for a level I pediatric trauma center consultation. We will evaluate parent/family experience of care and distress using previously validated instruments, healthcare utilization by family recollection and medical record abstraction, and out-of-pocket costs using standard economic analyses.DiscussionWe expect that the findings from this study will inform other level I pediatric trauma centers and non-pediatric trauma centers on how to improve their systems of care for injured children. The results will help to optimize communication, confidence, and shared decision-making between parents/families and clinical staff from both the transferring and receiving hospitals.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04469036. Registered July 13, 2020 before start of inclusion.

Project description:IntroductionIntegrating palliative care (PC) early in the illness course for patients with serious cancers improves their outcomes and is recommended by national organisations such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology. However, monthly visits with PC clinicians from the time of diagnosis can be challenging to implement due to the lack of specialty-trained PC clinicians and resources. Therefore, we developed a stepped care model to triage PC service based on patients' needs.Methods and analysisWe are conducting a non-blinded, randomised trial to evaluate the non-inferiority of a stepped PC model compared with an early integrated PC model for improving patients' quality of life (QOL) at 24 weeks (primary outcome). Patients assigned to early integrated PC meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout their illness. Patients assigned to stepped PC have PC visits only at clinically significant points in their illness (eg, cancer progression) unless their QOL decreases, at which time they are 'stepped up' and meet with PC every 4 weeks throughout the remainder of their illness. Secondary aims include assessing whether stepped PC is non-inferior to early integrated PC regarding patient-clinician communication about end of life care and length of stay on hospice as well as comparing resource utilisation. Patients are recruited from the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Duke Cancer Center, Durham, North Carolina and University of Pennsylvania Abramson Cancer Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The target sample size is 510 patients.Ethics and disseminationThe study is funded by the National Cancer Institute, approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. We will disseminate results through professional society meetings, peer-reviewed publications and presentations to patient organisations.Trial registration numberNCT03337399.

Project description:BackgroundIn the US, an unacceptably high percentage of pregnant women do not undergo prenatal HIV testing. Previous studies have found increased uptake of prenatal HIV testing with abbreviated pre-test counseling, however little is known about patient decision making, testing satisfaction and knowledge in this setting.Methodology/findingsA randomized-controlled, non-inferiority trial was conducted from October 2006 through February 2008 at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH), the public teaching hospital of the City and County of San Francisco. A total of 278 English- and Spanish-speaking pregnant women were randomized to receive either abbreviated or standard nurse-performed HIV test counseling at the initial prenatal visit. Patient decision making experience was compared between abbreviated versus standard HIV counseling strategies among a sample of low-income, urban, ethnically diverse prenatal patients. The primary outcome was the decisional conflict score (DCS) using O'Connor low-literacy scale and secondary outcomes included satisfaction with test decision, basic HIV knowledge and HIV testing uptake. We conducted an intention-to-treat analysis of 278 women--134 (48.2%) in the abbreviated arm (AA) and 144 (51.8%) in the standard arm (SA). There was no significant difference in the proportion of women with low decisional conflict (71.6% in AA vs. 76.4% in SA, p = .37), and the observed mean difference between the groups of 3.88 (95% CI: -0.65, 8.41) did not exceed the non-inferiority margin. HIV testing uptake was very high (97. 8%) and did not differ significantly between the 2 groups (99.3% in AA vs. 96.5% in SA, p = .12). Likewise, there was no difference in satisfaction with testing decision (97.8% in AA vs. 99.3% in SA, p = .36). However, women in AA had significantly lower mean HIV knowledge scores (78.4%) compared to women in SA (83.7%, p<0.01).Conclusions/significanceThis study suggests that streamlining the pre-test counseling process, while associated with slightly lower knowledge, does not compromise patient decision making or satisfaction regarding HIV testing.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT00503308.

Project description:BackgroundMalnutrition underlies 3 million child deaths worldwide. Current treatments differentiate severe acute malnutrition (SAM) from moderate acute malnutrition (MAM) with different products and programs. This differentiation is complex and costly. The Combined Protocol for Acute Malnutrition Study (ComPAS) assessed the effectiveness of a simplified, unified SAM/MAM protocol for children aged 6-59 months. Eliminating the need for separate products and protocols could improve the impact of programs by treating children more easily and cost-effectively, reaching more children globally.Methods and findingsA cluster-randomized non-inferiority trial compared a combined protocol against standard care in Kenya and South Sudan. Randomization was stratified by country. Combined protocol clinics treated children using 2 sachets of ready-to-use therapeutic food (RUTF) per day for those with mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC) < 11.5 cm and/or edema, and 1 sachet of RUTF per day for those with MUAC 11.5 to <12.5 cm. Standard care clinics treated SAM with weight-based RUTF rations, and MAM with ready-to-use supplementary food (RUSF). The primary outcome was nutritional recovery. Secondary outcomes included cost-effectiveness, coverage, defaulting, death, length of stay, and average daily weight and MUAC gains. Main analyses were per-protocol, with intention-to-treat analyses also conducted. The non-inferiority margin was 10%. From 8 May 2017 to 31 March 2018, 2,071 children were enrolled in 12 combined protocol clinics (mean age 17.4 months, 41% male), and 2,039 in 12 standard care clinics (mean age 16.7 months, 41% male). In total, 1,286 (62.1%) and 1,202 (59.0%), respectively, completed treatment; 981 (76.3%) on the combined protocol and 884 (73.5%) on the standard protocol recovered, yielding a risk difference of 0.03 (95% CI -0.05 to 0.10, p = 0.52; per-protocol analysis, adjusted for country, age, and sex). The amount of ready-to-use food (RUTF or RUSF) required for a child with SAM to reach full recovery was less in the combined protocol (122 versus 193 sachets), and the combined protocol cost US$123 less per child recovered (US$918 versus US$1,041). There were 23 (1.8%) deaths in the combined protocol arm and 21 (1.8%) deaths in the standard protocol arm (adjusted risk difference 95% CI -0.01 to 0.01, p = 0.87). There was no evidence of a difference between the protocols for any of the other secondary outcomes. Study limitations included contextual factors leading to defaulting, a combined multi-country power estimate, and operational constraints.ConclusionsCombined treatment for SAM and MAM is non-inferior to standard care. Further research should focus on operational implications, cost-effectiveness, and context (Asia versus Africa; emergency versus food-secure settings). This trial is complete and registered at ISRCTN (ISRCTN30393230).Trial registrationThe trial is registered at ISRCTN, trial number ISRCTN30393230.

Project description:BackgroundGSK’s varicella vaccine contains human serum albumin (HSA) which is used to stabilize the virus and prevent immunogens from adhering to the injection vial walls. However, because HSA is derived from human blood, there is a theoretical risk that it might contain infectious agents which could be unsafe for humans. Given this concern, a study was undertaken to compare the immunogenicity and safety of a new formulation without HSA with the currently licensed varicella vaccine in the Czech Republic and Hungary.MethodsHealthy children aged 11–21 months received two doses of the varicella vaccine either with or without HSA. Antibody titres against varicella-zoster virus (anti-VZV) were measured 42 days after each dose, using an immunofluorescence assay (IFA, cut-off = 4dilution−1) and enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA, cut-off = 25 mIU/ml). Solicited local symptoms were recorded during a 4-day post-vaccination follow-up period; solicited general and unsolicited symptoms were recorded during a 43-day post-vaccination follow-up period and serious adverse event (SAEs) were recorded throughout the study.ResultsOf 244 children (mean age = 15.2 months [SD = 3.2]) vaccinated in the study, 233 (vaccine without HSA N = 117; vaccine containing HSA N = 116) formed the according-to-protocol immunogenicity cohort. Observed seroconversion/seroresponse rates were >98 and 100 %, 42 days after doses 1 and 2, respectively. The rates were within the same range in both groups, irrespective of the testing assay. The varicella vaccine without HSA was non-inferior to the licensed vaccine in terms of anti-VZV antibody Geometric Mean Titre/Concentration ratio (1.12 [95 % CI:0.86–1.46] by IFA; 1.12 [95 % CI:0.93–1.33] by ELISA) approximately six weeks after the first dose of the 2-dose vaccination course. The incidence of solicited and unsolicited symptoms was similar after both vaccines; low-grade fever was numerically higher after the first dose of the varicella vaccine without HSA. Seven SAEs were reported, none of which were fatal or considered to be vaccine-related.ConclusionsThe first dose of a new varicella vaccine without HSA was immunologically non-inferior to the licensed varicella vaccine. After two doses, both vaccines had acceptable safety profiles in children aged 11–21 months in the Czech Republic and Hungary.Trial registrationNCT00568334, registered on 5 December 2007 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Dataset Information

Stepped Care Versus Standard Care for Children After Trauma: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.

Objective

Method

Results

Conclusion

Clinical trial registration information

Publications

Stepped Care Versus Standard Care for Children After Trauma: A Randomized Non-Inferiority Clinical Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets