Search

Abstract Introduction People with severe mental illness (SMI) face a higher risk of premature mortality due to physical morbidity compared to the general population. Establishing regular contact with a general practitioner (GP) can mitigate this risk, yet barriers to healthcare access persist. Population initiatives to overcome these barriers require efficient identification of those persons in need. Objective To develop a predictive model to identify persons with SMI not attending a GP regularly. Method For individuals with psychotic disorder, bipolar disorder, or severe depression between 2011 and 2016 (n = 48,804), GP contacts from 2016 to 2018 were retrieved. Two logistic regression models using demographic and clinical data from Danish national registers predicted severe mental illness without GP contact. Model 1 retained significant main effect variables, while Model 2 included significant bivariate interactions. Goodness-of-fit and discriminating ability were evaluated using Hosmer-Lemeshow (HL) test and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), respectively, via cross-validation. Results The simple model retained 11 main effects, while the expanded model included 13 main effects and 10 bivariate interactions after backward elimination. HL tests were non-significant for both models (p = 0.50 for the simple model and p = 0.68 for the extended model). Their respective AUC values were 0.789 and 0.790. Conclusion Leveraging Danish national register data, we developed two predictive models to identify SMI individuals without GP contact. The extended model had slightly better model performance than the simple model. Our study may help to identify persons with SMI not engaging with primary care which could enhance health and treatment outcomes in this group.

Abstract Background Rotator cuff (RC) tendinopathy is the most reported shoulder disorder in the general population with highest prevalence in overhead athletes and adult working-age population. A growing body of evidence support exercise therapy as an effective intervention, but to date there are no prospective randomized controlled trials addressing pain as an intervention variable. Methods A single-site, prospective, pragmatic, assessor-blinded randomized controlled superiority trial. Eighty-four patients aged 18–55 years with chronic (symptom duration over 3 months) RC tendinopathy are randomized 1:1 to receive shoulder exercise during which pain is either allowed or avoided. The intervention period lasts 26 weeks. During that period, participants in both groups are offered 8 individual on-site sessions with an assigned sports physiotherapist. Participants perform home exercises and are provided with a pain and exercise logbook and asked to report completed home-based exercise sessions and reasons for not completing sessions (pain or other reasons). Patients are also asked to report load and the number of sets and repetitions per sets for each exercise session. The logbooks are collected continuously throughout the intervention period. The primary and secondary outcomes are obtained at baseline, 6 weeks, 26 weeks, and 1 year after baseline. The primary outcome is patient-reported pain and disability using the Shoulder PAin and Disability Index (SPADI). Secondary outcomes are patient-reported pain and disability using Disability Arm Shoulder and Hand short-form (Quick DASH), and shoulder pain using Numeric Pain Rating Scale. Objective outcomes are shoulder range of motion, isometric shoulder muscle strength, pain sensitivity, working ability, and structural changes in the supraspinatus tendon and muscle using ultrasound. Discussion The results of this study will contribute knowledge about the treatment strategies for patients with RC tendinopathy and help physiotherapists in clinical decision-making. This is the first randomized controlled trial comparing the effects of allowing pain versus avoiding pain during shoulder exercises in patients with chronic RC tendinopathy. If tolerating pain during and after exercise proves to be effective, it will potentially expand our understanding of “exercising into pain” for this patient group, as there is currently no consensus. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05124769. Registered on August 11, 2021.

Abstract Background Evaluation of psychosocial consequences of lung cancer screening with LDCT in high-risk populations has generally been performed using generic psychometric instruments. Such generic instruments have low coverage and low power to detect screening impacts. This study aims to validate an established lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire, Consequences Of Screening Lung Cancer (COS-LC), in Australian-English and describe early results from the baseline LDCT round of the International Lung Screen Trial (ILST). Methods The Danish-version COS-LC was translated to Australian-English using the double panel method and field tested in Australian-ILST participants to examine content validity. A random sample of 200 participants were used to assess construct validity using Rasch item response theory models. Reliability was assessed using classical test theory. The COS-LC was administered to ILST participants at prespecified timepoints including at enrolment, dependent of screening results. Results Minor linguistic alterations were made after initial translation of COS-LC to English. The COS-LC demonstrated good content validity and adequate construct validity using psychometric analysis. The four core scales fit the Rasch model, with only minor issues in five non-core scales which resolved with modification. 1129 Australian-ILST participants were included in the analysis, with minimal psychosocial impact observed shortly after baseline LDCT results. Conclusion COS-LC is the first lung cancer screening-specific questionnaire to be validated in Australia and has demonstrated excellent psychometric properties. Early results did not demonstrate significant psychosocial impacts of screening. Longer-term follow-up is awaited and will be particularly pertinent given the announcement of an Australian National Lung Cancer Screening Program. Trial registration NCT02871856.

Introduction Patients with complex multimorbidity face a high treatment burden and frequently have low quality of life. General practice is the key organisational setting in terms of offering people with complex multimorbidity integrated, longitudinal, patient-centred care. This protocol describes a pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of an adaptive, multifaceted intervention in general practice for patients with complex multimorbidity.Methods and analysis In this study, 250 recruited general practices will be randomly assigned 1:1 to either the intervention or control group. The eligible population are adult patients with two or more chronic conditions, at least one contact with secondary care within the last year, taking at least five repeat prescription drugs, living independently, who experience significant problems with their life and health due to their multimorbidity. During 2023 and 2024, intervention practices are financially incentivised to provide an extended consultation based on a patient-centred framework to eligible patients. Control practices continue care as usual. The primary outcome is need-based quality of life. Outcomes will be evaluated using linear and logistic regression models, with clustering considered. The analysis will be performed as intention to treat. In addition, a process evaluation will be carried out and reported elsewhere.Ethics and dissemination The trial will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the Helsinki Declaration in its most recent form and good clinical practice recommendations, as well as the regulation for informed consent. The study was submitted to the Danish Capital Region Ethical Committee (ref: H-22041229). As defined by Section 2 of the Danish Act on Research Ethics in Research Projects, this project does not constitute a health research project but is considered a quality improvement project that does not require formal ethical approval. All results from the study (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) will be published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT05676541.