Search

BackgroundClinicalTrials.gov is one of the largest trials’ registries in the world.ObjectiveTo leverage the ClinicalTrials.gov database to define the portfolio of clinical trials of neurointervention.MethodsWe restricted our extraction to interventional clinical trials submitted between 2007 and 2018, and included MeSH terms that are part of the nervous system (n=19 344) or cardiovascular disease (n=19 234) categories and included a list of neurointerventional terms. The characteristics of trials, geographic distribution, dissemination, and funding sources were explored using descriptive and regression models.ResultsA total of 206 neurointerventional clinical trials across 1691 medical centers were identified. Acute stroke was the most studied conditions (68, 33%), followed by aneurysms (63, 31%), carotid stenosis (48, 24%), intracranial atherosclerotic disease (7, 3.5%), cerebral venous thrombosis (6, 3%), arteriovenous malformation (4, 2%), idiopathic intracranial hypertension (3, 1.5%), and others (6, 3%). Overall, 59 (29%) trials were completed, 79 (37%) were active trials (28% recruiting), and 22 (11%) were terminated or suspended. Academic centers and industry were the most common primary funding source (63% and 29%, respectively), with no funding source reported in 16 (7.7%) trials. Among 77 completed or terminated trials, only 9 (11.7%) trials reported findings within 12 months. Median time to publication for trials funded by academia was 1.66 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.7–2.1) versus 2.1 years (IQR 1.2–3.25) for industry-funded studies.ConclusionsA low dissemination rate for results and a high rate of study non-completion, as well as lack of geographic dispersion of trials appear to be major challenges in the field.

Advances in predictive analytics and machine learning supported by an ever-increasing wealth of data and processing power are transforming almost every industry. Accuracy and precision of predictive analytics have significantly increased over the past few years and are evolving at an exponential pace. There have been significant breakthroughs in using Predictive Analytics in healthcare where it is held as the foundation of precision medicine. Yet, although the research in the field is expanding with the profuse volume of papers applying machine learning algorithms to medical data, very few have contributed meaningfully to clinical care. This lack of impact stands in stark contrast to the enormous relevance of machine learning to many other industries. Regardless of the status of its current contribution, the field of predictive analytics is expected to fundamentally change the way we diagnose and treat diseases, as well as the conduct of biomedical science research. In this review, we describe the main tools and techniques in predictive analytics and will analyze the trends in application of these techniques over the recent years. We will also provide examples of its application in medicine and more specifically in stroke and neurovascular research and outline current limitations.

BACKGROUND: Patient contextual data (PCD) are often missing from electronic health records, limiting the opportunity to incorporate preferences and life circumstances into care. Engaging patients through tools that collect and summarize such data may improve communication and patient activation. However, differential tool adoption by race might widen health care disparities. OBJECTIVE: Determine if a digital tool designed to collect and present PCD improves communication and patient activation; secondarily, evaluate if use impacts outcomes by race. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A pragmatic, two-armed, non-blinded, randomized controlled trial conducted during 2019 in a primary care setting. INTERVENTION: The PCD tool (PatientWisdom) invited patients to identify preferences, values, goals, and barriers to care. Patients were randomized to a standard pre-visit email or facilitated enrollment with dedicated outreach to encourage use of the tool. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes of interest were post-visit patient communication and patient activation measured by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) and Patient Activation Measure (PAM), respectively. Outcomes were evaluated using treatment-on-the-treated (TOT) and intention-to-treat (ITT) principles. KEY RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were enrolled. Facilitated enrollment resulted in a five-fold increase in uptake of the PCD tool. TOT analysis indicated that the PCD tool was associated with notable increases in specific CAT items rated as excellent: “treated me with respect” (+ 13 percentage points; p = 0.04), “showed interest in my ideas” (+ 14 percentage points; p = 0.03), “showed care and concern” (+ 16 percentage points; p = 0.02), and “spent about the right amount of time with me” (+ 11 percentage points; p = 0.05). There were no significant pre/post-visit differences in PAM scores between arms (− 4.41 percentage points; p = 0.58). ITT results were similar. We saw no evidence of the treatment effect varying by race in ITT or TOT analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The inclusion of PCD enhanced essential aspects of patient-provider communication but did not affect patient activation. Outcomes did not differ by race. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clincaltrials.gov identifier: NCT03766841 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11606-020-06583-7.

Depression and anxiety disorders are prevalent mental health conditions; yet they are often unrecognized, under-addressed and/or under-treated, and specialty treatment for these conditions is oftentimes difficult to access. By acting either as a bridge to therapy or as a form of therapy, digital tools, such as those that provide internet-based cognitive behavioral therapy (iCBT), may help clinicians support their patients' mental health needs. At one academic health system, a digital mental health program was deployed in primary care and outpatient behavioral health programs to help patients meet needs identified through screening or clinical visits. Over the first two years of operation, 138 clinicians (40% of eligible clinicians) prescribed the program to 2,228 unique patients, from which 1,117 (48.9%) enrolled. Patients who enrolled tended to be younger and healthier than non-enrollees. On average, enrolled patients spent 114.6 minutes within the iCBT program. Clinical improvement was assessed using pre- and post PHQ-9 and GAD-7 scores for depression and anxiety, respectively. Pre/Post scores were compared using Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. Patients with at least moderate depression had an average 23% reduction in PHQ-9 scores (median change -3(interquartile range 7), p

Background Patients and physicians engaging together in the electronic health record (EHR) during clinical visits may provide opportunities to both improve patient understanding and reduce medical errors. Objective To assess the potential impact of a patient EHR display intervention on patient quality and safety. We hypothesized that if patients had a dedicated display with an explicit invitation to follow clinicians in the EHR that this would identify several opportunities to engage patients in their care quality and safety. Material and methods Physician-patient outpatient encounters (24 patients and 8 physicians) were videotaped. Encounters took place in a hospital-based general internal medicine outpatient clinic where physicians and patients had their respective EHR monitors. Following the visits, each patient and physician was interviewed for 30 min to understand their perception of the mirrored-screen setting. Results The following 7 themes were identified (a) curiosity, (b) opportunity to ask questions, (c) error identification, (d) control over medications, (e) awareness, (f) shared understanding & decision-making, (g) data privacy. These themes collectively comprised a conceptual model for how patient engagement in electronic health record use, through a dedicated second screen or an explicitly shared screen, relates to safety and quality opportunities. Therefore, the double EHR screen provides an explicit invitation for patients to join the process to influence safety. Conclusion Desired outcomes include real-time error identification and better-shared understanding and decision-making, leading to better downstream follow-through with care plans.

The UK is one of the largest funders of health research in the world, but little is known about how health funding is spent. Our study explores whether major UK public and charitable health research funders support the research of UK-based scientists producing the most highly-cited research. To address this question, we searched for UK-based authors of peer-reviewed papers that were published between January 2006 and February 2018 and received over 1000 citations in Scopus. We explored whether these authors have held a grant from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the Wellcome Trust and compared the results with UK-based researchers who serve currently on the boards of these bodies. From the 1,370 papers relevant to medical, biomedical, life and health sciences with more than 1000 citations in the period examined, we identified 223 individuals from a UK institution at the time of publication who were either first/last or single authors. Of those, 164 are still in UK academic institutions, while 59 are not currently in UK academia (have left the country, are retired, or work in other sectors). Of the 164 individuals, only 59 (36%; 95% CI: 29-43%) currently hold an active grant from one of the three funders. Only 79 (48%; 95% CI: 41-56%) have held an active grant from any of the three funders between 2006-2017. Conversely, 457 of the 664 board members of MRC, Wellcome Trust, and NIHR (69%; 95% CI: 65-72%) have held an active grant in the same period by any of these funders. Only 7 out of 655 board members (1.1%) were first, last or single authors of an extremely highly-cited paper.\ud \ud There are many reasons why the majority of the most influential UK authors do not hold a grant from the country’s major public and charitable funding bodies. Nevertheless, the results are worrisome and subscribe to similar patterns shown in the US. We discuss possible implications and suggest ways forward.

Background Patient-centered care is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values. To provide patient-centered care, clinicians need to know and incorporate patients’ context into their communication and care with patients. Patient contextual data (PCD) encompass social determinants of health and patients’ needs, values, goals, and preferences relevant to their care. PCD can be challenging to collect as a routine component of the time-limited primary care visit. Objective This study aims to determine if patient-provider communication and patient activation are different for patient users and patient nonusers of an electronic health record (EHR)–integrated PCD tool and assess if the impact of using PCD on patient-provider communication and patient activation differs for Black and White patients. Methods We describe a randomized controlled trial of a prospective cohort of non-Hispanic White and Black patients who receive primary care services at a midwestern academic health care system in the United States. We will evaluate whether providing PCD through a consumer informatics tool enhances patient-provider communication, as measured by the Communication Assessment Tool, and we will evaluate patient activation, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure for PCD tool users and nonusers. Furthermore, owing to racial disparities in care and communication, we seek to determine if the adoption and use of the tool might narrow the differences between patient groups. Results The trial was funded in November 2017 and received local ethics review approval in February 2019. The study began recruitment in April 2019 and enrollment concluded in October 2019 with 301 participants. The analysis was completed in May 2020, and trial results are expected to be published in winter 2020. Conclusions Recently, there has been increased attention to the role of health information technology tools to enable patients to collaborate with providers through the sharing of PCD. The adoption of such tools may overcome the barriers of current EHRs by directly engaging patients to submit their contextual data. Effectively, these tools would support the EHR in providing a more holistic understanding of the patient. Research further supports that individuals who have robust digital engagement using consumer informatics tools have higher participation in treatment follow-up and self-care across populations. Therefore, it is critical to investigate interventions that elicit and share patients’ social risks and care preferences with the health care team as a mechanism to improve individualized care and reduce the gap in health outcomes. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03766841; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03766841 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR1-10.2196/20309

This cross-sectional study examines the association of patient use of a free online symptom checker tool with patient plans for seeking medical care.