The goal of improving the health status of people living in developing countries has received increasing priority in recent years. To achieve this goal, evidence is needed regarding methods for optimal allocation of expenditure within particular program areas. Among several competing programs, a commitment has been made to improve maternal health as part of the Millennium Development Goal targets. While there is a growing body of cost-effectiveness evidence relating to maternal healthcare programs, underutilization of services is still pervasive, especially among poorer groups of the population. A major reason for such underutilization lies in underlying adverse socioeconomic factors, or barriers, which impede healthcare use. This article reviews the evidence from studies that have conducted multivariate analyses to quantify the effects of education, economic status and distance barriers on service use. It is concluded that it is not possible to state categorically whether one particular barrier is more important than others and that efforts should continue to consider demand-side barriers more fully, along with supply-side barriers.
Loss of arm function is a common problem after stroke. Robot-assisted training might improve arm function and activities of daily living. We compared the clinical effectiveness of robot-assisted training using the MIT-Manus robotic gym with an enhanced upper limb therapy (EULT) programme based on repetitive functional task practice and with usual care.RATULS was a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done at four UK centres. Stroke patients aged at least 18 years with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation, between 1 week and 5 years after their first stroke, were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive robot-assisted training, EULT, or usual care. Robot-assisted training and EULT were provided for 45 min, three times per week for 12 weeks. Randomisation was internet-based using permuted block sequences. Treatment allocation was masked from outcome assessors but not from participants or therapists. The primary outcome was upper limb function success (defined using the Action Research Arm Test [ARAT]) at 3 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN69371850.Between April 14, 2014, and April 30, 2018, 770 participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to either robot-assisted training (n=257), EULT (n=259), or usual care (n=254). The primary outcome of ARAT success was achieved by 103 (44%) of 232 patients in the robot-assisted training group, 118 (50%) of 234 in the EULT group, and 85 (42%) of 203 in the usual care group. Compared with usual care, robot-assisted training (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·17 [98·3% CI 0·70-1·96]) and EULT (aOR 1·51 [0·90-2·51]) did not improve upper limb function; the effects of robot-assisted training did not differ from EULT (aOR 0·78 [0·48-1·27]). More participants in the robot-assisted training group (39 [15%] of 257) and EULT group (33 [13%] of 259) had serious adverse events than in the usual care group (20 [8%] of 254), but none were attributable to the intervention.Robot-assisted training and EULT did not improve upper limb function after stroke compared with usual care for patients with moderate or severe upper limb functional limitation. These results do not support the use of robot-assisted training as provided in this trial in routine clinical practice.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.
Background A new NHS dental practice contract is being tested using a traffic light (TL) system that categorises patients as being at red (high), amber (medium) or green (low) risk of poor oral health. This is intended to increase the emphasis on preventative dentistry, including giving advice on ways patients can improve their oral health. Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence (QLF™) cameras (Inspektor Research Systems BV, Amsterdam, the Netherlands) also potentially offer a vivid portrayal of information on patients’ oral health. Methods Systematic review – objective: to investigate how patients value and respond to different forms of information on health risks. Methods: electronic searches of nine databases, hand-searching of eight specialist journals and backwards and forwards citation-chasing followed by duplicate title, abstract- and paper-screening and data-extraction. Inclusion criteria limited studies to personalised information on risk given to patients as part of their health care. Randomised controlled trial (RCT) – setting: NHS dental practice. Objective: to investigate patients’ preferences for and response to different forms of information about risk given at check-ups. Design: a pragmatic, multicentred, three-arm, parallel-group, patient RCT. Participants: adults with a high/medium risk of poor oral health attending NHS dental practices. Interventions: (1) information given verbally supported by a card showing the patient’s TL risk category; (2) information given verbally supported by a QLF photograph of the patient’s mouth. The control was verbal information only (usual care). Main outcome measures: primary outcome – median valuation for the three forms of information measured by willingness to pay (WTP). Secondary outcomes included toothbrushing frequency and duration, dietary sugar intake, smoking status, self-rated oral health, a basic periodontal examination, Plaque Percentage Index and the number of tooth surfaces affected by caries (as measured by QLF). Qualitative study – an ethnography involving observations of 368 dental appointments and interviews with patients and dental teams. Results Systematic review – the review identified 12 papers (nine of which were RCTs). Eight studies involved the use of computerised risk assessments in primary care. Intervention effects were generally modest, even with respect to modifying risk perceptions rather than altering behaviour or clinical outcomes. RCT – the trial found that 51% of patients identified verbal information as their most preferred form, 35% identified QLF as most preferred and 14% identified TL information as most preferred. The median WTP for TL was about half that for verbal information alone. Although at 6 and 12 months patients reported taking less sugar in drinks, and at 12 months patients reported longer toothbrushing, there was no difference by information group. Qualitative study – there was very little explicit risk talk. Lifestyle discussions were often cursory to avoid causing shame or embarrassment to patients. Limitations Only 45% of patients were retained in the trial at 6 months and 31% were retained at 12 months. The trial was conducted in four dental practices, and five dental practices were involved in the qualitative work. Conclusions Patients prefer personal, detailed verbal advice on oral health at their check-up. A new NHS dental practice contract using TL categorisation might make this less likely. Future work Research on how to deliver, within time constraints, effective advice to patients on preventing poor oral health. More research on ‘risk work’ in wider clinical settings is also needed. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71242343. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research ; Vol. 8, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Methods Prospective multi-level, mixed-methods (qual+quant) case studies were used to model an intervention (‘Good Goals’) to improve shared goal-setting in occupational therapy. Cases were purposively sampled (n=3 services, n=46 clinicians within these, and n=588 of their patients). Good Goals was delivered to clinicians over 25 weeks; data were collected before, during, and after delivery using interviews, focus group, case note analysis, routine data, document analysis and researchers’ observations. Results were synthesised within each case, then compared across cases.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)