Comprehensive follow-up care and life-threatening illnesses among high-risk infants: A randomized controlled trial.

CONTEXT: Inner-city high-risk infants often receive limited and fragmented care, a problem that may increase serious illness. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether access to comprehensive care in a follow-up clinic is cost-effective in reducing life-threatening illnesses among high-risk, inner-city infants. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 887 very-low-birth-weight infants born in a Texas county hospital between January 1988 and March 1996 and followed up in a children's hospital clinic. One hundred four infants who became ineligible or died after randomization but before nursery discharge were excluded from the analysis. INTERVENTIONS: Infants were randomly assigned to receive routine follow-up care (well-baby care and care for chronic illnesses; n = 441) or comprehensive care (which included the components of routine care plus care for acute illnesses, with 24-hour access to a primary caregiver; n = 446). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Life-threatening illnesses (ie, causing death or hospital admission for pediatric intensive care) occurring between nursery discharge and age 1 year, assessed by blinded evaluators from inpatient charts and state Medicaid and vital statistics records; and hospital costs (estimated from department-specific cost-to-charge ratios). RESULTS: Comprehensive care resulted in a mean of 3.1 more clinic visits and 6.7 more telephone conversations with clinic staff (P<.001 for both). One-year outcomes were unknown for fewer comprehensive-care infants than routine-care infants (9 vs 28; P =.001). Identified deaths were similar (11 in comprehensive care vs 13 in routine care; P =.68). The comprehensive-care group had 48% fewer life-threatening illnesses (33 vs 63; P<.001), 57% fewer intensive care admissions (23 vs 53; P =.003), and 42% fewer intensive care days (254 vs 440; P =.003). Comprehensive care did not increase the mean estimated cost per infant for all care ($6265 with comprehensive care and $9913 with routine care). CONCLUSION: Comprehensive follow-up care by experienced caregivers can be highly effective in reducing life-threatening illness without increasing costs among high-risk inner-city infants. JAMA. 2000;284:2070-2076.

Conventional consent with opting in versus simplified consent with opting out: an exploratory trial for studies that do not increase patient risk.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess a modified consent procedure allowed under federal regulations and developed for studies, particularly clinical trials, that are judged by the Institutional Review Board to reduce or have no effect on patient risk. STUDY DESIGN: This was a randomized trial of a conventional consent procedure that required parental signature to give consent (opting in) after a comprehensive disclosure of the rights of participants in research versus a modified consent procedure that required parental signature to refuse consent (opting out) after specific disclosures appropriate when risk is not increased. Consent was sought for a trial of primary follow-up care for disadvantaged infants at high risk, a trial judged by our Institutional Review Board to increase access to care for both groups. A blinded assessor interviewed mothers within 24 hours of the consent decision. RESULTS: Among the 44 mothers interviewed, the modified consent group scored higher than the conventional consent group in recall and understanding of study purpose and methods (47% vs 30%; p < 0.02). Other comparisons provided no evidence that the modified consent procedure was less desirable. Virtually all mothers reported satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: The modified approach may improve communication and facilitate studies judged by the Institutional Review Board to be risk-neutral or risk-reducing. Further evaluation of a modified consent procedure for such studies is warranted.