Examining the "usual" in usual care: a critical review and recommendations for usual care conditions in psycho-oncology

Defining usual care comparators when designing pragmatic trials of complex health interventions: a methodology review

BACKGROUND

Pragmatic trials evaluating complex health interventions often compare them to usual care. This comparator should resemble care as provided in everyday practice. However, usual care can differ for the same condition, between patients and practitioners, across clinical sites and over time. Heterogeneity within a usual care arm can raise methodological and ethical issues. To address these it may be necessary to standardise what usual care entails, although doing so may compromise a trial's external validity. Currently, there is no guidance detailing how researchers should decide the content of their usual care comparators. We conducted a methodology review to summarise current thinking about what should inform this decision.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2022. Articles and book chapters that discussed how to identify or develop usual care comparators were included. Experts in the field were also contacted. Reference lists and forward citation searches of included articles were screened. Data were analysed using a narrative synthesis approach.

RESULTS

One thousand nine hundred thirty records were identified, 1611 titles and abstracts screened, 112 full texts screened, and 16 articles included in the review. Results indicated that the content of a usual care comparator should be informed by the aims of the trial, existing care practices, clinical guidelines, and characteristics of the target population. Its content should also be driven by the trial's requirements to protect participants, inform practice, and be methodologically robust, efficient, feasible and acceptable to stakeholders. When deciding the content of usual care, researchers will need to gather information about these drivers, balance tensions that might occur when responding to different trial objectives, and decide how usual care will be described and monitored in the trial.

DISCUSSION

When deciding the content of a usual care arm, researchers need to understand the context in which a trial will be implemented and what the trial needs to achieve to address its aim and remain ethical. This is a complex decision-making process and trade-offs might need to be made. It also requires research and engagement with stakeholders, and therefore time and funding during the trial's design phase.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42022307324.

Study protocol for NeuroCARE: a randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumours

INTRODUCTION

Caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumours experience substantial psychological distress while caring for someone with a progressive, life-limiting neurological illness. However, there are few interventions aimed at addressing the psychosocial needs of this population. We developed and are testing a population-specific, evidence-based, telehealth intervention (NeuroCARE) to reduce anxiety symptoms and improve psychosocial functioning in this caregiver population.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study is a non-blinded, randomised controlled trial of a psychological intervention for caregivers of patients with primary malignant brain tumours receiving care at the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center or Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. We will enrol 120 caregivers who screen positive for heightened anxiety. Participants will be randomised 1:1 to the NeuroCARE intervention or a usual care control condition. Caregivers assigned to NeuroCARE will complete six individual telehealth sessions with a trained behavioural health specialist over 12 weeks. Caregivers randomised to the control condition will receive usual care, including possible referral to social work or other appropriate resources. Participants will complete self-report questionnaires at baseline and 11 weeks and 16 weeks postrandomisation. The primary outcome is anxiety symptoms at 11 weeks among NeuroCARE participants, compared with usual care. Secondary outcomes include caregiver-reported depressive symptoms, quality of life, caregiver burden, caregiving self-efficacy, perceived coping skills and post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms. We also will explore potential mediators of the NeuroCARE effect on caregiver anxiety symptoms.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is funded by a Career Development Award from Conquer Cancer, the American Society of Clinical Oncology Foundation (award number 2019CDA-7743456038) and approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board (Protocol #19-250 V.10.1). The study will be reported in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. Results will be presented at scientific meetings and in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04109209.

Dry mouth in patients with a life-limiting condition or frailty: a study protocol for two intervention studies and a nested qualitative sub-study (the Dry mOuth Project, DROP)

BACKGROUND

Despite its prevalent and impactful nature, dry mouth remains an underexposed and undertreated symptom in patients with a life-limiting condition or frailty. The main contributing factors are a lack of awareness and knowledge amongst both healthcare professionals and patients, and a scarcity of effective, evidence-based interventions. In the DRy mOuth Project (DROP), we address these factors by investigating both a non-pharmacological and a pharmacological intervention: a nurse-led patient education program and locally applied pilocarpine.

METHODS

This intervention-based research project consists of two parallel studies. The non-pharmacological study is a cluster non-randomized controlled trial in 228 palliative nursing home and hospital patients, investigating the effect of structured use of guidelines and of patient education on dry mouth symptoms. This intervention, a nurse-led patient education program (the Mouth Education Program, MEP), will be compared to care as usual, the control. The pharmacological study is a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial that examines the effect of locally applied pilocarpine drops in 120 patients with dry mouth symptoms. Both studies use the same mixed-methods study design, in which the primary outcome is the clinical response to the intervention at 4 weeks, as measured by a dry mouth severity score (numeric rating scale from 0 to 10). Other outcomes, as measured by questionnaires over a 12-week follow-up period, include durability of the effect, impact on quality of life and, adherence and acceptability of the intervention. In addition, the feasibility and cost-effectiveness are evaluated by means of questionnaires and focus groups with healthcare professionals, and interviews with patients.

DISCUSSION

This study investigates the effectiveness and feasibility of two interventions for dry mouth symptoms in patients with life-limiting conditions or frailty. Due to the large-scale and mixed-method nature of the study, this study will also improve our understanding of dry mouth and its relating factors and of the patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences with symptoms, care and guidelines of dry mouth, including any perceived barriers and facilitators.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05964959 & NCT05506137.

Examining the description of the concept "treatment as usual" for patients with depression, anxiety and stress-related mental disorders in primary health care research - A systematic review

BACKGROUND

In randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within medical research, applied interventions are compared to treatment-as-usual (TAU) as the control condition. The aim of the current study was to examine how the concept of TAU is described when used as control condition in RCTs evaluating treatments for depression, anxiety syndromes, and stress-related mental disorders in primary care.

METHOD

A systematic review of RCTs utilizing TAU as control group in the RCT in accordance with PRISMA standards was conducted. We used one multidisciplinary database (Scopus), one database focused on nursing (Cinahl), and one medical database (PubMed). The searches were conducted in November 2021 and May 2022.

RESULTS

The included 32 studies comprised of 7803 participants. The content of TAU was classified as follows: 1) Basic descriptions of TAU lacking a detailed account as well as reference to local or national guidelines, 2) Moderate description of TAU including reference to national or local guidelines or a detailed description 3) Advanced description of TAU including references to national guidelines and a detailed description containing five key concepts: early assessment, accessibility, psychological treatment, medication, somatic examination. 18 studies had basic, 11 moderate, and 3 advanced descriptions of TAU.

LIMITATIONS

The limitations were that only studies published in English were included.

CONCLUSIONS

The current study provides an assessment tool with three classification levels for TAU. The description of TAU is still insufficient in RCT studies conducted in primary care, which may affect the interpretation of results. In future research a detailed description of TAU is recommended.

The Project ENABLE Cornerstone randomized controlled trial: study protocol for a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for African American and rural-dwelling advanced cancer family caregivers

Background

Family caregivers play a vital, yet stressful role in managing the healthcare needs and optimizing the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer, from the time they are newly diagnosed until end of life. While early telehealth palliative care has been found to effectively support family caregivers, little work has focused on historically under-resourced populations, particularly African American and rural-dwelling individuals. To address this need, we developed and are currently testing Project ENABLE (Educate, Nurture, Advise, Before Life Ends) Cornerstone, a lay navigator-led, early palliative care coaching intervention for family caregivers of African American and rural-dwelling patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer.

Methods

This is a 2-site, single-blind, hybrid type I implementation-effectiveness trial of the Cornerstone intervention versus usual care. Cornerstone is a multicomponent intervention based on Pearlin’s Stress-Health Process Model where African American and/or rural-dwelling family caregivers of patients with newly diagnosed advanced cancer (target sample size = 294 dyads) are paired with a lay navigator coach and receive a series of six, brief 20–60-min telehealth sessions focused on stress management and coping, caregiving skills, getting help, self-care, and preparing for the future/advance care planning. Subsequent to core sessions, caregivers receive monthly follow-up indefinitely until the patient’s death. Caregiver and patient outcomes are collected at baseline and every 12 weeks until the patient’s death (primary outcome: caregiver distress at 24 weeks; secondary outcomes: caregiver: quality of life and burden; patient: distress, quality of life, and healthcare utilization). Implementation costs and the intervention cost effectiveness are also being evaluated.

Discussion

Should this intervention demonstrate efficacy, it would yield an implementation-ready model of early palliative care support for under-resourced family caregivers. A key design principle that has centrally informed the Cornerstone intervention is that every caregiving situation is unique and each caregiver faces distinct challenges that cannot be addressed using a one-size-fits all approach. Hence, Cornerstone employs culturally savvy lay navigator coaches who are trained to establish a strong, therapeutic alliance with participants and tailor their coaching to a diverse range of individual circumstances.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04318886. Registered on 20 March, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06305-w.

The evolution of mean arterial pressure in critically ill patients on vasopressors before and during a trial comparing a specific mean arterial pressure target to usual care

Background

In randomized clinical controlled trials, the choice of usual care as the comparator may be associated with better clinician uptake of the study protocol and lead to more generalizable results. However, if care processes evolve to resemble the intervention during the course of a trial, differences between the intervention group and usual care control group may narrow. We evaluated the effect on mean arterial pressure of an unblinded trial comparing a lower mean arterial pressure target to reduce vasopressor exposure, vs. a clinician-selected mean arterial pressure target, in critically ill patients at least 65 years old.

Methods

For this multicenter observational study using data collected both prospectively and retrospectively, patients were recruited from five of the seven trial sites. We compared the mean arterial pressure of patients receiving vasopressors, who met or would have met trial eligibility criteria, from two periods: [1] at least 1 month before the trial started, and [2] during the trial period and randomized to usual care, or not enrolled in the trial.

Results

We included 200 patients treated before and 229 after trial initiation. There were no differences in age (mean 74.5 vs. 75.2 years; p = 0.28), baseline Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score (median 26 vs. 26; p = 0.47) or history of chronic hypertension (n = 126 [63.0%] vs. n = 153 [66.8%]; p = 0.41). Mean of the mean arterial pressure was similar between the two periods (72.5 vs. 72.4 mmHg; p = 0.76).

Conclusions

The initiation of a trial of a prescribed lower mean arterial pressure target, compared to a usual clinician-selected target, was not associated with a change in mean arterial pressure, reflecting stability in the net effect of usual clinician practices over time. Comparing prior and concurrent control groups may alleviate concerns regarding drift in usual practices over the course of a trial or permit quantification of any change.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-021-01529-w.

Perceived study-induced influence on the control group in a randomized controlled trial evaluating a complex intervention to promote psychosocial well-being after stroke: a process evaluation

BACKGROUND

A commonly applied control condition in trials evaluating complex interventions in rehabilitation research is "usual care." The main challenge is to ensure that the control group receives genuine usual care as delivered in everyday clinical practice. The assessment interviews and dialogues with the data collectors may influence the control group participants' reflections on their condition and adjustments. This represents a threat to the internal validity of the trial. Thus, the aim of this study was to explore the perceived study-induced influence of assessment interviews on the adjustment of the members of a control group in a randomized clinical trial. The aim of the trial was to test a dialogue-based psychosocial intervention aiming at promoting the psychosocial well-being and adjustment of stroke survivors.

METHODS

Fifteen participants in the control group of a multicenter stroke rehabilitation trial participated in narrative semi-structured interviews. Ricoeur's interpretation theory guided the analysis.

RESULTS

The perceived study-induced influence of the assessment interviews on the adjustment process of members of the control group varied considerably. The results demonstrated that the assessment interviews facilitated some participants' feelings of control and their ability to cope. Other participants' statements indicate that they relied on their existing personal capacity to cope and adjust and that the assessment interviews did not make any difference either on their coping ability or on their process of adjustment. Five themes were identified that described the perceived study-induced influence of the assessment interviews in the control group. The themes illustrated that the assessments served as a safety net, enhanced awareness and understanding, encouraged seeking support, allowed the opportunity to vent disappointment, or did not make any difference either way.

CONCLUSIONS

RCT assessment interviews may influence the adjustment process and represent a serious problem in measuring interventions over time in trials of complex interventions in rehabilitation research. To uphold rigor and stringency, the usual care control conditions should be thoroughly assessed and described. Informing participants only about the treatment they were allocated to receive might counteract the potential to dilute the difference between the two arms of the trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02338869. Registered on October 4, 2014.

What conservative interventions can improve the long-term quality of life, depression, and anxiety of individuals with stable COPD? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Many conservative interventions are used in the management of stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). It could be helpful for the prescribers to know what the evidence suggests about the effects of these interventions on the long-term quality of life (QoL), depression, and anxiety. This study aimed to summarize the rationale for the use of conservative interventions to improve the long-term QoL, depression, and anxiety in patients with stable COPD.

METHODS

The MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases were searched from database inception to December 2019. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) investigating the long-term effects of conservative interventions on three parameters, including QoL, depression, and anxiety in patients with COPD were eligible for further analysis. To improve methodological rigor, only RCTs examining these parameters as primary outcomes were included. The standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using random effects models. Quality of evidence was rated using the updated version of Van Tulder's criteria.

RESULTS

Thirty-eight RCTs were identified. Regarding long-term depression, there was moderate evidence supporting cognitive behavioral therapy compared with usual care in patients with COPD; regarding the long-term QoL of patients with COPD, there was limited evidence supporting walking programs, supplementary sugarcane bagasse dietary fiber, roflumilast, and tiotropium.

CONCLUSIONS

Cognitive behavioral therapy is effective in alleviating the long-term depression of patients with COPD. Evidence for other interventions was insufficient, making it difficult to draw conclusions in terms of their effectiveness on the long-term QoL, depression, and anxiety.

A review and definition of 'usual care' in genetic counseling trials to standardize use in research

The descriptor 'usual care' refers to standard or routine care. Yet, no formal definition exists. The need to define what constitutes usual care arises in clinical research. Often one arm in a trial represents usual care in comparison with a novel intervention. Accordingly, usual care in genetic counseling research appears predominantly in randomized controlled trials. Recent standards for reporting genetic counseling research call for standardization, but do not address usual care. We (1) inventoried all seven studies in the Clinical Sequencing Evidence-Generating Consortium (CSER) about how genetic counseling was conceptualized, conducted, and whether a usual care arm was involved; (2) conducted a review of published randomized control trials in genetic counseling, comparing how researchers describe usual care groups; and (3) reviewed existing professionally endorsed definitions and practice descriptions of genetic counseling. We found wide variation in the content and delivery of usual care. Descriptions frequently detailed the content of usual care, most often noting assessment of genetic risk factors, collecting family histories, and offering testing. A minority included addressing psychological concerns or the risks versus benefits of testing. Descriptions of how care was delivered were vague except for mode and type of clinician, which varied. This significant variation, beyond differences expected among subspecialties, reduces the validity and generalizability of genetic counseling research. Ideally, research reflects clinical practice so that evidence generated can be used to improve clinical outcomes. To address this objective, we propose a definition of usual care in genetic counseling research that merges common elements from the National Society of Genetic Counselors' practice definition, the Reciprocal Engagement Model, and the Accreditation Council for Genetic Counselors' practice-based competencies. Promoting consistent execution of usual care in the design of genetic counseling trials can lead to more consistency in representing clinical care and facilitate the generation of evidence to improve it.