The Use of eHealth for Pharmacotherapy Management With Patients With Respiratory Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, or Diabetes: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: eHealth is increasingly considered an important tool for supporting pharmacotherapy management. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the (1) use of eHealth in pharmacotherapy management with patients with asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), diabetes, or cardiovascular disease (CVD); (2) effectiveness of these interventions on pharmacotherapy management and clinical outcomes; and (3) key factors contributing to the success of eHealth interventions for pharmacotherapy management. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping review) statement. Databases searched included Embase, MEDLINE (PubMed), and Cochrane Library. Screening was conducted by 2 independent researchers. Eligible articles were randomized controlled trials and cohort studies assessing the effect of an eHealth intervention for pharmacotherapy management compared with usual care on pharmacotherapy management or clinical outcomes in patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, or diabetes. The interventions were categorized by the type of device, pharmacotherapy management, mode of delivery, features, and domains described in the conceptual model for eHealth by Shaw at al (Health in our Hands, Interacting for Health, Data Enabling Health). The effectiveness on pharmacotherapy management outcomes and patient- and clinician-reported clinical outcomes was analyzed per type of intervention categorized by number of domains and features to identify trends. RESULTS: Of 63 studies, 16 (25%), 31 (49%), 13 (21%), and 3 (5%) included patients with asthma or COPD, CVD, diabetes, or CVD and diabetes, respectively. Most (38/63, 60%) interventions targeted improving medication adherence, often combined for treatment plan optimization. Of the 16 asthma or COPD interventions, 6 aimed to improve inhaled medication use. The majority (48/63, 76%) of the studies provided an option for patient feedback. Most (20/63, 32%) eHealth interventions combined all 3 domains by Shaw et al, while 25% (16/63) combined Interacting for Health with Data Enabling Health. Two-thirds (42/63, 67%) of the studies showed a positive overall effect. Respectively, 48% (23/48), 57% (28/49), and 39% (12/31) reported a positive effect on pharmacotherapy management and clinician- and patient-reported clinical outcomes. Pharmacotherapy management and patient-reported clinical outcomes, but not clinician-reported clinical outcomes, were more often positive in interventions with ≥3 features. There was a trend toward more studies reporting a positive effect on all 3 outcomes with more domains by Shaw et al. Of the studies with interventions providing patient feedback, more showed a positive clinical outcome, compared with studies with interventions without feedback. This effect was not seen for pharmacotherapy management outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: There is a wide variety of eHealth interventions combining various domains and features to target pharmacotherapy management in asthma or COPD, CVD, and diabetes. Results suggest feedback is key for a positive effect on clinician-reported clinical outcomes. eHealth interventions become more impactful when combining domains.

Publishing interim results of randomised clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals.

BACKGROUND: Interim analyses of randomised controlled trials are sometimes published before the final results are available. In several cases, the treatment effects were noticeably different after patient recruitment and follow-up completed. We therefore conducted a literature review of peer-reviewed journals to compare the reported treatment effects between interim and final publications and to examine the magnitude of the difference. METHODS: We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE from 1990 to 2014 (keywords: 'clinical trial' OR 'clinical study' AND 'random*' AND 'interim' OR 'preliminary'), and we manually identified the corresponding final publication. Where the electronic search produced a final report in which the abstract cited interim results, we found the interim publication. We also manually searched every randomised controlled trial in eight journals, covering a range of impact factors and general medical and specialist publications (1996-2014). All paired articles were checked to ensure that the same comparison between interventions was available in both. RESULTS: In all, 63 studies are included in our review, and the same quantitative comparison was available in 58 of these. The final treatment effects were smaller than the interim ones in 39 (67%) trials and the same size or larger in 19 (33%). There was a marked reduction, defined as a ≥20% decrease in the size of the treatment effect from interim to final analysis, in 11 (19%) trials compared to a marked increase in 3 (5%), p = 0.057. The magnitude of percentage change was larger in trials where commercial support was reported, and increased as the proportion of final events at the interim report decreased in trials where commercial support was reported (interaction p = 0.023). There was no evidence of a difference between trials that stopped recruitment at the interim analysis where this was reported as being pre-specified versus those that were not pre-specified (interaction p = 0.87). CONCLUSION: Published interim trial results were more likely to be associated with larger treatment effects than those based on the final report. Publishing interim results should be discouraged, in order to have reliable estimates of treatment effects for clinical decision-making, regulatory authority reviews and health economic analyses. Our work should be expanded to include conference publications and manual searches of additional journal publications.

Rethinking the relationship between science and society: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement and Public Engagement in Science in the United Kingdom?

BACKGROUND: The policy imperative to engage the public and patients in research can be seen as part of a wider shift in the research environment. This study addresses the question: Has there been a shift in attitudes to Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and Public Engagement in Science (PES) amongst researchers? METHODS: Attitudes to PPI and PES within a cluster of three NIHR supported Biomedical Research Centres were explored through in-depth interviews with 19 researchers. RESULTS: Participants distinguished PPI (as an activity involving patients and carers in research projects and programmes) from PES (as an activity that aims to communicate research findings to the public, engage the public with broader issues of science policy or promote a greater understanding of the role of science in society). While participants demonstrated a range of attitudes to these practices, they shared a resistance to sharing power and control of the research process with the public and patients. CONCLUSION: While researchers were prepared to engage with the public and patients and listed the advantages of engagement, the study revealed few differences in their underlying attitudes towards the role of society in science (and science in society) to those reported in previous studies. To the participants science remains the preserve of scientists, with patients and the public invited to 'tinker at the edges'.