Statistical design of REACT (Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment), a multisite community trial with continual data collection

Interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness in community health and hospital settings

BACKGROUND

There is now a rising commitment to acknowledge the role patients and families play in contributing to their safety. This review focuses on one type of involvement in safety - patient and family involvement in escalation of care for serious life-threatening conditions i.e. helping secure a step-up to urgent or emergency care - which has been receiving increasing policy and practice attention. This review was concerned with the negotiation work that patient and family members undertake across the emergency care escalation pathway, once contact has been made with healthcare staff. It includes interventions aiming to improve detection of symptoms, communication of concerns and staff response to these concerns.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness on patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, MEDLINE (OvidSP), Embase (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP) ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform from 1 Jan 2000 to 24 August 2018. The search was updated on 21 October 2019.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-randomised controlled trials where the intervention focused on patients and families working with healthcare professionals to ensure care received for acute deterioration was timely and appropriate. A key criterion was to include an interactive element of rehearsal, role play, modelling, shared language, group work etc. to the intervention to help patients and families have agency in the process of escalation of care. The interventions included components such as enabling patients and families to detect changes in patients' conditions and to speak up about these changes to staff. We also included studies where the intervention included a component targeted at enabling staff response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Seven of the eight authors were involved in screening; two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies, with any disagreements resolved by discussion to reach consensus. Primary outcomes included patient and family outcomes, treatment outcomes, clinical outcomes, patient and family experience and adverse events. Our advisory group (four users and four providers) ensured that the review was of relevance and could inform policy and practice.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies involving 436,684 patients and family members and one ongoing study. The published studies focused on patients with specific conditions such as coronary artery disease, ischaemic stroke, and asthma, as well as pregnant women, inpatients on medical surgical wards, older adults and high-risk patients with a history of poor self-management. While all studies tested interventions versus usual care, for four studies the usual care group also received educational or information strategies. Seven of the interventions involved face-to-face, interactional education/coaching sessions aimed at patients/families while two provided multi-component education programmes which included components targeted at staff as well as patients/families. All of the interventions included: (1) an educational component about the acute condition and preparedness for future events such as stroke or change in fetal movements: (2) an engagement element (self-monitoring, action plans); while two additionally focused on shared language or communication skills. We had concerns about risk of bias for all but one of the included studies in respect of one or more criteria, particularly regarding blinding of participants and personnel. Our confidence in results regarding the effectiveness of interventions was moderate to low. Low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be moderate improvement in patients' knowledge of acute life-threatening conditions, danger signs, appropriate care-seeking responses, and preparedness capacity between interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes and usual care at 12 months (MD 4.20, 95% CI 2.44 to 5.97, 2 studies, 687 participants). Four studies in total assessed knowledge (3,086 participants) but we were unable to include two other studies in the pooled analysis due to differences in the way outcome measures were reported. One found no improvement in knowledge but higher symptom preparedness at 12 months. The other study found an improvement in patients' knowledge about symptoms and appropriate care-seeking responses in the intervention group at 18 months compared with usual care. Low-certainty evidence from two studies, each using a different measure, meant that we were unable to determine the effects of patient-based interventions on self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was higher in the intervention group in one study but there was no difference in the other compared with usual care. We are uncertain whether interactional patient-facing and multi-component programmes improve time from the start of patient symptoms to treatment due to low-certainty evidence for this outcome. We were unable to combine the data due to differences in outcome measures. Three studies found that arrival times or prehospital delay time was no different between groups. One found that delay time was shorter in the intervention group. Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that multi-component interventions probably have little or no impact on mortality rates. Only one study on a pregnant population was eligible for inclusion in the review, which found no difference between groups in rates of stillbirth. In terms of unintended events, we found that interactional patient-facing interventions to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels (moderate-certainty evidence). None of the studies measured or reported patient and family perceptions of involvement in escalation of care or patient and family experience of patient care. Reported outcomes related to healthcare professionals were also not reported in any studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our review identified that interactional patient-facing interventions and multi-component programmes (including staff) to increase patient and family involvement in escalation of care for acute life-threatening illness may improve patient and family knowledge about danger signs and care-seeking responses, and probably have few adverse effects on patient's anxiety levels when compared to usual care. Multi-component interventions probably have little impact on mortality rates. Further high-quality trials are required using multi-component interventions and a focus on relational elements of care. Cognitive and behavioural outcomes should be included at patient and staff level.

Design of a randomized clinical trial to improve rates of amblyopia detection in preschool aged children in primary care settings

PURPOSE

To present the design of a cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based intervention for improving provider knowledge about strabismus and amblyopia (S/A) and preschool vision screening (PVS), increase PVS rates, and improve rates of S/A diagnoses made by eye specialists. This is the first cRCT targeting amblyopia prevention.

METHODS

Participants were Medicaid providers in AL, SC, or IL who had Internet access and had filed at least 8 claims for well child visits (WCV) for children ages 3 or 4 years old during a 12-month period before enrollment. Randomization to the Intervention (vision) or Control (blood pressure) arm occurred at the cluster level, defined as the provider (or group of providers) and his/her patients seen for WCVs.

RESULTS

65 Intervention providers (IPs) with 3547 children aged 3 or 4 years, and 71 Control providers (CPs) with 5053 children enrolled. The study will report measures of knowledge and self-reported vision screening behaviors from web-based data. The primary outcomes will be rates of PVS among PCPs, and rates of diagnosis of S/A by eye specialists among the children belonging to Control and Intervention practices.

CONCLUSIONS

We had the same difficulty recruiting PCPs as reported by others. Baseline rates of PVS were low (14.1%), as were rates that S/A were diagnosed by eye providers (1.4%). Our data show a need to improve both primary outcome measures.

Sizing a trial to alter the trajectory of health behaviours: methods, parameter estimates, and their application

Group-randomized trials often involve repeat observations on the same participants. When there are no more than two observations from each participant, standard mixed-model regression methods for a pretest-posttest design can be used. When there are more than two observations from each participant, random coefficients models may be useful. This paper describes the random coefficients analysis appropriate to data from an extended nested cohort design and presents the methods for power analysis and sample size calculations based on that analysis. We provide estimates for the parameters required for those calculations for a number of adolescent health behaviours. We also show how the estimates can be used to plan a future trial.

Analysis strategies for a community trial to reduce adolescent ATOD use: a comparison of random coefficient and ANOVA/ANCOVA models

The Community Youth Development Study (CYDS) will evaluate the Communities That Care (CTC) operating system for its effects on alcohol, tobacco, drug use, and other outcomes among adolescents resident in the 24 participating communities. The CYDS employs a combination of both cross-sectional and cohort designs. We use data from an earlier study that included the CYDS communities to estimate power for CYDS intervention effects given several analytic models that might be applied to the multiple baseline and follow-up surveys that define the CYDS cross-sectional design. We compare pre-post mixed-model ANCOVA models against random coefficients models, both in one- and two-stage versions. The two-stage pre-post mixed-model ANCOVA offers the best power for the primary outcomes and will provide adequate power for detection of modest but important intervention effects.

The (mis)estimation of neighborhood effects: causal inference for a practicable social epidemiology

The resurgence of interest in the effect of neighborhood contexts on health outcomes, motivated by advances in social epidemiology, multilevel theories and sophisticated statistical models, too often fails to confront the enormous methodological problems associated with causal inference. This paper employs the counterfactual causal framework to illuminate fundamental obstacles in the identification, explanation, and usefulness of multilevel neighborhood effect studies. We show that identifying useful independent neighborhood effect parameters, as currently conceptualized with observational data, to be impossible. Along with the development of a dependency-based methodology and theories of social interaction, randomized community trials are advocated as a superior research strategy, one that may help social epidemiology answer the causal questions necessary for remediating disparities and otherwise improving the public's health.

Use of emergency medical services for suspected acute cardiac ischemia among demographic and clinical patient subgroups: the REACT trial. Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment

OBJECTIVE

Barriers to the use of emergency medical services (EMS) and patient delay in seeking care can limit the receipt or effectiveness of reperfusion therapies and the availability of prehospital emergency cardiac care. The Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) trial was designed to determine the impact of a community intervention on use of EMS among demographic and clinical subgroups of patients with suspected acute cardiac ischemia.

METHODS

A randomized controlled community trial was conducted in 20 pair-matched communities in the United States. One community from each pair received an 18-month, multicomponent community education program. Data were collected at 44 participating hospitals during a four-month baseline period and throughout the 18-month trial, using medical record abstracts to collect information on mode of transport to the hospital and other sociodemographic and clinical variables. Eligible patients were persons aged > or = 30 years presenting with chest pain or discomfort to emergency departments (EDs) who were admitted and discharged with a cardiac-related diagnoses (ICD 410-414, 427-429, 440, 786.9).

RESULTS

The net change in the odds of EMS use was an increase of 34% in intervention compared with control communities [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 1.34, 95% CI 1.07-1.67]. We observed greater increases in the odds of EMS use among patients who had chronic or other cardiac diagnoses (adjusted OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.18-1.99, and adjusted OR 1.52, 95% CI 1.17-1.97, respectively) than in those diagnosed as having acute ischemia (adjusted OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.91-1.44). We observed greater increases in odds of EMS ulse in those who were retired (adjusted OR 1.62, 95% CI 1.29-2.04) or had systolic blood pressure (SBP) at or below 160 mm Hg upon presentation to the ED (adjusted OR 1.55, 95% CI 1.26-1.91 for SBP 100-160 mm Hg; 1.61, 95% CI 0.88-2.97 for SBP <100 mm Hg).

CONCLUSIONS

The REACT trial demonstrated a significant impact on the use of EMS among patients admitted to the hospital for suspected acute myocardial infarction, with greater increases among patients with chronic or other cardiac ICD-9 discharge diagnoses, those presenting with lower SBP, and retired persons.

Statistical models appropriate for designs often used in group-randomized trials

Group-randomized trials are characterised by the allocation of identifiable groups rather than individuals to study conditions; members within those groups are then observed to assess the effect of the intervention. It is convenient to categorize the designs employed in group-randomized trials along two dimensions, each with two levels. The first distinguishes between designs having just one or two time intervals and those having three or more intervals. The second distinguishes between nested cohort and nested cross-sectional designs. Following a brief review of the design and analytic issues common to group-randomized trials, and their general solutions, this paper presents the adaptations of the mixed-model analysis of covariance and random coefficients models that are required for the four combinations that result from this categorization scheme. The assumptions, strengths and weaknesses of each model are discussed.

Factors that influence personal perceptions of the risk of an acute myocardial infarction

Personal risk perceptions of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) affect people's preventive health behaviors as well as their beliefs during a heart attack episode. The authors investigated factors that are associated with personal risk perceptions of having an AMI. A random-digit-dial survey was conducted among 1294 respondents, aged 18 years or older, in 20 communities across the nation as part of the Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) trial. Results of two mixed-model linear regression analyses suggested that worse perceived general health, more risk factors, and greater knowledge were associated with greater perception of AMI risk. The results also showed that women who answered, incorrectly, that heart disease is not the most common cause of death for women in the United States reported significantly lower risk perceptions than women who answered this question correctly. The findings in this study suggest that interventions need to target specific misconceptions regarding AMI risk.

Patient delay in seeking care for heart attack symptoms: findings from focus groups conducted in five U.S. regions

BACKGROUND

Patient delay in seeking health care for heart attack symptoms is a continuuing problem in the United States.

METHODS

Investigators conducted focus groups (N = 34; 207 participants) in major U.S. regions (NE, NW, SE, SW, MW) as formative evaluation to develop a multi-center randomized community trial (the REACT Project). Target groups included adults with previous heart attacks, those at higher risk for heart attack, and bystanders to heart attacks. There were also subgroups reflecting gender and ethnicity (African-American, Hispanic-American, White).

FINDINGS

Patients, bystanders, and those at higher risk expected heart attack symptoms to present as often portrayed in the movies, that is, as sharp, crushing chest pain rather than the more common onset of initially ambiguous but gradually increasing discomfort. Patients and those at higher risk also unrealistically judge their personal risk as low, understand little about the benefits of rapid action, are generally unaware of the benefits of using EMS/9-1-1 over alternative transport, and appear to need the "permission" of health care providers or family to act. Moreover, participants reported rarely discussing heart attack symptoms and appropriate responses in advance with health care providers, spouses, or family members. Women often described heart attack as a "male problem," an important aspect of their underestimation of personal risk. African-American participants were more likely to describe negative feelings about EMS/9-1-1, particularly whether they would be transported to their hospital of choice.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions to reduce patient delay need to address expectations about heart attack symptoms, educate about benefits and appropriate actions, and provide legitimacy for taking specific health care-seeking actions. In addition, strategy development must emphasize the role of health care providers in legitimizing the need and importance of taking rapid action in the first place.

Impact of community intervention to reduce patient delay time on use of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: rapid early action for coronary treatment (REACT) trial. REACT Study Group

BACKGROUND

Reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is a time-dependent intervention that can reduce infarct-related morbidity and mortality. Out-of-hospital patient delay from symptom onset until emergency department (ED) presentation may reduce the expected benefit of reperfusion therapy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of a community educational intervention to reduce patient delay time on the use of reperfusion therapy for AMI.

METHODS

This was a randomized, controlled community-based trial to enhance patient recognition of AMI symptoms and encourage early ED presentation with resultant increased reperfusion therapy rates for AMI. The study took place in 44 hospitals in 20 pair-matched communities in five U.S. geographic regions. Eligible study subjects were non-institutionalized patients without chest injury (aged > or =30 years) who were admitted to participating hospitals and who received a hospital discharge diagnosis of AMI (ICD 410); n = 4,885. For outcome assessment, patients were excluded if they were without survival data (n = 402), enrolled in thrombolytic trials (n = 61), receiving reperfusion therapy >12 hours after ED arrival (n = 628), or missing symptom onset or reperfusion times (n = 781). The applied intervention was an educational program targeting community organizations and the general public, high-risk patients, and health professionals in target communities. The primary outcome was a change in the proportion of AMI patients receiving early reperfusion therapy (i.e., within one hour of ED arrival or within six hours of symptom onset). Trends in reperfusion therapy rates were determined after adjustment for patient demographics, presenting blood pressure, cardiac history, and insurance status. Four-month baseline was compared with the 18-month intervention period.

RESULTS

Of 3,013 selected AMI patients, 40% received reperfusion therapy. Eighteen percent received therapy within one hour of ED arrival (46% of treated patients), and 32% within six hours of symptom onset (80% of treated patients). No significant difference in the trends in reperfusion therapy rates was attributable to the intervention, although increases in early reperfusion therapy rates were noted during the first six months of the intervention. A significant association of early reperfusion therapy use with ambulance use was identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Community-wide educational efforts to enhance patient response to AMI symptoms may not translate into sustained changes in reperfusion practices. However, an increased odds for early reperfusion therapy use during the initiation of the intervention and the association of early therapy with ambulance use suggest that reperfusion therapy rates can be enhanced.

The emergency department experience of chest pain patients and their intention to delay care seeking for acute myocardial infarction

This study investigated how patients' emergency department experience was related to their intention to delay action in response to future symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. A sample of 426 persons admitted to the emergency department with a chief complaint of chest pain and released from the emergency department were contacted by telephone. Patients were queried about their affective response to the emergency department experience, their satisfaction with emergency department staff communication, their intention to delay prompt action for acute myocardial infarction symptoms in the future, the influence of others in the decision to seek care, and medical and demographic status. The results of a mixed model linear regression analysis showed that the less education patients had (p = 0.007), the less sure they felt that going to the emergency department had been "the right thing to do" (p = 0.004), and the greater the degree of embarrassment (p = 0.0001), the greater was the intention to delay action for future symptoms of acute myocardial infarction. The results also showed that those patients who were prompted by health professionals to go to the emergency department were less likely to report intentions to delay for future symptoms (p = 0.036). It is important that emergency department staff reassure chest pain patients who are sent home that they did the right thing by coming to the emergency department for their symptoms. Providers need to be particularly sensitive to feelings of embarrassment.

Demographic, belief, and situational factors influencing the decision to utilize emergency medical services among chest pain patients. Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) study

BACKGROUND

Empirical evidence suggests that people value emergency medical services (EMS) but that they may not use the service when experiencing chest pain. This study evaluates this phenomenon and the factors associated with the failure to use EMS during a potential cardiac event.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Baseline data were gathered from a randomized, controlled community trial (REACT) that was conducted in 20 US communities. A random-digit-dial survey documented bystander intentions to use EMS for cardiac symptoms in each community. An emergency department surveillance system documented the mode of transport among chest pain patients in each community and collected ancillary data, including situational factors surrounding the chest pain event. Logistic regression identified factors associated with failure to use EMS. A total of 962 community members responded to the phone survey, and data were collected on 875 chest pain emergency department arrivals. The mean proportion of community members intending to use EMS during a witnessed cardiac event was 89%; the mean proportion of patients observed using the service was 23%, with significant geographic differences (range, 10% to 48% use). After controlling for covariates, non-EMS users were more likely to try antacids/aspirin and call a doctor and were less likely to subscribe to (or participate in) an EMS prepayment plan.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study indicate that indecision, self-treatment, physician contact, and financial concerns may undermine a chest pain patient's intention to use EMS.

Missed opportunities to impact fast response to AMI symptoms

The potential for reducing cardiovascular disease mortality rates lies both in prevention and treatment. The earlier treatment is administered, the greater the benefit. Thus, duration of time from onset of symptoms of acute myocardial infarction to administration of treatment is important. One major factor contributing to failure to receive efficacious therapy is the delay time from acute myocardial infarction (AMI) symptom onset to hospital arrival. This paper examines the relationship of several factors with regard to intentions to seek care promptly for symptoms of AMI. A random-digit dialed telephone survey (n = 1294) was conducted in 20 communities located in 10 states. People who said they would wait until they were very sure that symptoms were a heart attack were older, reported their insurance did not pay for ambulance services, and reported less confidence in knowing signs and symptoms in themselves. When acknowledging symptoms of a heart attack, African-Americans and people with more than a high school education reported intention to act quickly. No measures of personal health history, nor interaction with primary care physicians or cardiologists were significantly related to intention to act fast. The study confirms the importance of attribution and perceived self-confidence in symptom recognition in care seeking. The lack of significant role of health history (i.e. those with chronic conditions or risk factors) and clinician contact highlights missed opportunities for health care providers to educate and encourage patients about their risk and appropriate action.

Components of variance in a group-randomized trial analysed via a random-coefficients model: the Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) trial

Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) was a multisite trial testing a community intervention to reduce the delay between onset of symptoms of acute myocardial infarction (MI) and patients' arrival at a hospital emergency department. The study employed a group-randomized trial design, with ten communities randomized from within matched pairs to each of two conditions. REACT also employed continuous data collection, based on surveillance of heart attack patients in community emergency departments. They analysed their data by comparing the mean slope for delay time in the ten intervention communities to the mean slope estimated in the ten control communities. Because no estimates of slope variation were available a priori, REACT was sized using approximations based on more traditional designs. In this paper, we present the slope and residual error variances as estimated from the REACT data and examine their influence on the power of the trial post hoc. We also examine the power of the trial as it would have been given a more traditional pretest-post-test design with analysis via a comparison of the net difference in condition means pretest vs post-test.

Prehospital delay in patients hospitalized with heart attack symptoms in the United States: the REACT trial. Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) Study Group

BACKGROUND

The use of thrombolytic therapy for patients with myocardial infarction has been limited by patient delay in seeking care. We sought to characterize prehospital delay in patients hospitalized for evaluation of heart attack symptoms.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (REACT) is a multicenter, randomized community trial designed to reduce patient delay. At baseline, data were abstracted from the medical records of 3783 patients hospitalized for evaluation of heart attack symptoms in 20 communities. The median prehospital delay was 2.0 hours; 25% of patients delayed longer than 5.2 hours. In a multivariable analysis, delay time was longer among non-Hispanic blacks than among non-Hispanic whites, longer at older ages, longer among Medicaid-only recipients and shorter among Medicare recipients than among privately insured patients, and shorter among patients who used an ambulance.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed pattern of differences is consistent with the contention that demographic, cultural, and/or socioeconomic barriers exist that impede rapid care seeking.