Facial resurfacing for nonmelanoma skin cancer prophylaxis. Does a 3-day workshop for family medicine trainees improve preventive care? A randomized control trial. Pilot trial of a computerized decision aid for breast cancer prevention. Stage-based expert systems to guide a population of primary care patients to quit smoking, eat healthier, prevent skin cancer, and receive regular mammograms. Randomized controlled trial of interventions designed to reduce the risk of progression to first-episode psychosis in a clinical sample with subthreshold symptoms. Cognitive therapy for the prevention of psychosis in people at ultra-high risk: randomised controlled trial. A randomised controlled trial of preventive spinal manipulation with and without a home exercise program for patients with chronic neck pain. A multifaceted intervention according to the Audit Project Odense method improved secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease: a randomised controlled trial. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients' acceptance of treatment? [Methods of reporting research-results and their influence on decision-making by cardiologists prescribing drugs for primary and secondary prevention].
To determine the effect of facial skin resurfacing for treatment of actinic keratoses (AKs) and prophylaxis against new primary basal and squamous cell carcinomas in individuals with previous nonmelanoma skin cancer (NMSC) or severe photodamage.
                Randomized, prospective 5-year trial.
                Dermatology and otolaryngology clinics of a Veterans Affairs hospital.
                Thirty-four patients with a history of facial or scalp AKs or basal or squamous cell carcinoma were enrolled. Five of 7 eligible patients who declined study-related treatment were used as controls. Twenty-seven patients were randomized to 3 treatment arms; 3 patients were discontinued from the study.
                Carbon dioxide laser resurfacing, 30% trichloroacetic acid peel, or 5% fluorouracil cream applied twice daily for 3 weeks.
                Reduction in the number of AKs was measured 3 months after treatment. The incidence of new NMSC in treated areas was assessed between January 1, 2001, and June 30, 2005. Times from baseline to diagnosis of first skin cancer were compared between the treatment and control groups.
                Treatment with fluorouracil, trichloroacetic acid, or carbon dioxide laser resulted in an 83% to 92% reduction in AKs (P< or =.03), a lower incidence of NMSC compared with the control group (P<.001), and a trend toward longer time to development of new skin cancer compared with the control group (P=.07). However, no significant differences were noted among the treatment groups.
                All 3 modalities demonstrated benefit for AK reduction and skin cancer prophylaxis compared with controls and warrant further study in a larger trial. To evaluate the impact on clinical behavior of a 3-day workshop designed to increase trainees' rates of smoking cessation counseling and reminders about Pap smears in routine consultations.
                Randomized control trial.
                Accredited teaching practices of the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners' Training Program.
                Thirty-four trainees and 1,500 consecutive adult patients ages 16-65 years.
                Trainees randomly allocated to the experimental group participated in a 3-day interactive workshop on disease prevention during their 13-week family medicine term. Audiotapes of consultations with adults conducted by trainees at the beginning and end of the rotation were analyzed blind to compare assessment of patients' smoking status and, for women, date of last Pap smear. A questionnaire mailed to each patient after the consultation also allowed identification of smokers and women overdue for a smear. Consultations with these patients at risk were analyzed for preventive counseling. Inter- and intrarater reliability was calculated for audiotape analysis.
                Preworkshop rates of questions about smoking were low, occurring in 22% of consultations. While trainees allocated to the experimental workshop were more likely to ask a routine question about smoking at the end of the term than those in the control group (P = 0.01), two-thirds of smokers remained undetected irrespective of trainee group and fewer than one in five were advised to stop smoking. Reminders about Pap smears did not change as a result of training and remained low in fewer than 20% of consultations. kappa values demonstrated high reliability of audiotape analysis.
                This direct measurement of clinical behavior revealed that low levels of preventive care provided by trainees are resistant to skills training without reinforcement in clinical practice. In view of the importance of prevention in routine consultations, we recommend continued evaluation of more intensive educational programs. Those withstanding rigorous evaluation could be considered for implementation in similar training contexts seeking to improve the frequency and quality of disease prevention in primary medical care. This study sought to evaluate a shared decision-making aid for breast cancer prevention care designed to help women make appropriate prevention decisions by presenting information about risk in context. The decision aid was implemented in a high-risk breast cancer prevention program and pilot-tested in a randomized clinical trial comparing standard consultations to use of the decision aid. Physicians completed training with the decision aid prior to enrollment. Thirty participants enrolled (15 per group) and completed measures of clinical feasibility and effectiveness prior to, immediately after, and at 9 months after their consultations. The decision aid was feasible to use during the consultations as measured by consultation duration, user satisfaction, patient knowledge, and decisional conflict. The mean consultation duration was not significantly different between groups (24 minutes for intervention group versus 21 minutes for control group, p = 0.42). The majority found the decision aid acceptable and useful and would recommend it to others. Both groups showed an improvement in breast cancer prevention knowledge postvisit, which was significant in the intervention group (p = 0.01) but not the control group (p = 0.13). However, the knowledge scores returned to baseline at follow-up in both groups. Decision preference for patients who chose chemoprevention post consultations remained constant at follow-up for the intervention group, but not for the control group. The decision framework provides access to key information during consultations and facilitates the integration of emerging biomarkers in this setting. Initial results suggest that the decision aid is feasible for use in the consultation room. The tendency for the decision choices and knowledge scores to return to baseline at follow-up suggests the need for initial and ongoing prevention decision support. Treating multiple health behavior risks on a population basis is one of the most promising approaches to enhancing health and reducing health care costs. Previous research demonstrated the efficacy of expert system interventions for three behaviors in a population of parents. The interventions provide individualized feedback that guides participants through the stages of change for each of their risk behaviors. This study extended that research to a more representative population of patients from primary care practice and to targeting of four rather than three behaviors.
                Stage-based expert systems were applied to reduce smoking, improve diet, decrease sun exposure, and prevent relapse from regular mammography. A randomized clinical controlled trial recruited 69.2% of primary care patients (N = 5407) at home via telephone. Three intervention contacts were delivered for each risk factor at 0, 6, and 12 months. The primary outcome measures were the percentages of at-risk patients at baseline who progressed to the action or maintenance stages at 24-month follow-up for each of the risk behaviors.
                Significant treatment effects were found for each of the four behaviors, with 25.4% of intervention patients in action or maintenance for smoking, 28.8% for diet, and 23.4% for sun exposure. The treatment group had less relapse from regular mammography than the control group (6% vs. 10%).
                Proactive, home-based, and stage-matched expert systems can produce relatively high population impacts on multiple behavior risks for cancer and other chronic diseases. Most disability produced by psychotic illnesses, especially schizophrenia, develops during the prepsychotic period, creating a case for intervention during this period. However, only recently has it been possible to engage people in treatment during this phase.
                A randomized controlled trial compared 2 interventions in 59 patients at incipient risk of progression to first-episode psychosis. We termed this group ultra-high risk to emphasize the enhanced risk vs conventional genetic high-risk studies. Needs-based intervention was compared with specific preventive intervention comprising low-dose risperidone therapy (mean dosage, 1.3 mg/d) and cognitive behavior therapy. Treatment was provided for 6 months, after which all patients were offered ongoing needs-based intervention. Assessments were performed at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months.
                By the end of treatment, 10 of 28 people who received needs-based intervention progressed to first-episode psychosis vs 3 of 31 from the specific preventive intervention group (P=.03). After 6-month follow-up, another 3 people in the specific preventive intervention group became psychotic, and with intention-to-treat analysis, the difference was no longer significant (P=.24). However, for risperidone therapy-adherent patients in the specific preventive intervention group, protection against progression extended for 6 months after cessation of risperidone use.
                More specific pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy reduces the risk of early transition to psychosis in young people at ultra-high risk, although their relative contributions could not be determined. This represents at least delay in onset (prevalence reduction), and possibly some reduction in incidence. Advances in the ability to identify people at high risk of developing psychosis have generated interest in the possibility of preventing psychosis.
                To evaluate the efficacy of cognitive therapy for the prevention of transition to psychosis.
                A randomised controlled trial compared cognitive therapy with treatment as usual in 58 patients at ultra-high risk of developing a first episode of psychosis. Therapy was provided over 6 months, and all patients were monitored on a monthly basis for 12 months.
                Logistic regression demonstrated that cognitive therapy significantly reduced the likelihood of making progression to psychosis as defined on the Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale over 12 months. In addition, it significantly reduced the likelihood of being prescribed antipsychotic medication and of meeting criteria for a DSM-IV diagnosis of a psychotic disorder. Analysis of covariance showed that the intervention also significantly improved positive symptoms of psychosis in this population over the 12-month period
                Cognitive therapy appears to be an acceptable and efficacious intervention for people at high risk of developing psychosis. Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.
                Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire.
                Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase.
                This study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.
                ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00566930. No single quality improvement instrument has proved consistently effective, but multifaceted interventions are believed to have the greatest impact. However, only little is known regarding what combinations are likely to be successful.
                To evaluate the impact of a multifaceted intervention strategy combining GP registrations, outreach visits and feedback, targeting secondary prevention of ischemic heart disease in general practice.
                A randomised controlled trial including 28 GPs in Ringkjøbing County, Denmark. Half of the GPs received outreach visits and feedback on their prescribing of heart disease drugs. Evaluation was based on registration of consultations with patients suffering from ischemic heart disease.
                The intervention had a statistically significant impact on prescribing of lipid lowering drugs [odds ratio 1.59; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 2.53] and acetylsalicylic acid (odds ratio 2.54; 95% CI 1.21 to 5.31).
                An intervention strategy combining outreach visits, feedback and GP registrations is a promising way of improving the quality of preventive treatment in general practice. Patients' informed acceptance of chronic medical therapy hinges on communicating the potential benefits of drugs in quantitative terms. In a hypothetical scenario of treatment initiation, the authors assessed how three different formats of the same data affected the willingness of 100 outpatients to take what were implied to be three different lipid-lowering drugs. Side-effects were declared negligible and costs insured. Subjects make a "yes-no" decision about taking such a medication, and graded the decision on a certainty scale. Advised of a relative risk reduction--"34% reduction in heart attacks"--88% of the patients assented to therapy. All other formats elicited significantly more refusals (p < 0.0001): for absolute risk difference--"1.4% fewer patients had heart attacks"--42% assented; for inverted absolute risk--"treat 71 persons for 5 years to prevent one heart attack"--only 31% accepted treatment. When the data were extrapolated to disease-free survival--"average gain of 15 weeks"--40% consented. Similar responses were obtained for descriptions of an antihypertensive drug: 89% assented to therapy when given relative risk reduction but only 46% when given absolute risk reduction. The subjects were confident in both acceptance and refusal: 93% of the decisions were rated "somewhat certain" to "completely certain." The authors conclude that patients' views of medical therapy are shaped by the formats in which potential benefits are presented. Multiple complementary formats may be most appropriate. The results imply that many patients may decline treatment if briefed on the likelihood or extent of benefit. To assess the influence of the form of presentation of the results of clinical trials on the quantitative perceptions of cardiologists regarding the efficacy of drugs for the primary and secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and their likelihood of prescribing them.
                We conducted a survey of 1,408 cardiologists in Spain who were randomly allocated of three questionnaires that used different measurements to evaluate the impact of published clinical trials.
                Five-hundred and fifty-nine questionnaires (40%) were suitable for analysis. On a scale of 0 to 10, the following mean efficacy estimates were obtained from questionnaire items that focused, respectively, on the results of clinical trials in terms of relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction, and number needed to treat: primary prevention with statins: 6.79, 6.38 and 5.43; primary prevention with aspirin: 6.84, 5.06 and 4.25; secondary prevention with statins: 8.16, 7.76 and 7.54; secondary prevention with ACE inhibitors: 7.11, 7.81 and 7.19, and secondary prevention with beta-blockers: 7.22, 7.43 and 6.98. The likelihood that a drug treatment would be prescribed was not influenced very much by the form of presentation of the trial results.
                Presenting the results of clinical trials in the form of relative risk reduction, as compared with presenting results in terms of absolute risk reduction or number needed to treat, led to overestimation of the efficacy of interventions without influencing the likelihood of prescribing a given drug therapy.
Some preventative treatments may benefit people at high risk of developing NMSC, but the ability to draw firm conclusions is limited by small numbers of trials, often with one trial per intervention or with inconsistent results between studies.