6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares

      To submit your manuscript, please click here

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Engaging Caregivers and Providers of Children With Sickle Cell Anemia in Shared Decision Making for Hydroxyurea: Protocol for a Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

      research-article
      , BA, MA, PhD 1 , , , PhD 2 , , BA 3 , , MS 2 , , PhD 2 , , PhD 2 , , DHPE, MCHES 4 , 5 , , MD 4 , 6 , , MD 4 , 6 , , MD 4 , 6 , , BS 7 , , MD 8 , 9 , , MD 8 , 9 , , MD 10 , , MD 11 , , MD 12 , 13 , , MD 14 , 15 , , MD 15 , , MD 16 , , MD 17 , , PhD 18 , 19 , , PhD 18 , 19 , , MD 20 , 21 , 22 , , MD 23 , , MD 24 , , MD 25 , , MD 4 , 26 , 27 , , MD 28 , , PhD 29 , , MD 4 , 30 , , MD 4 , 5 , , PsyD 2 , 4 , 27
      JMIR Research Protocols
      JMIR Publications
      dissemination, decisional uncertainty, quality of care, child health, NHLBI guidelines

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Sickle cell anemia (SCA) is a genetic blood disorder that puts children at a risk of serious medical complications, early morbidity and mortality, and high health care utilization. Until recently, hydroxyurea was the only disease-modifying treatment for this life-threatening disease and has remained the only option for children younger than 5 years. Evidence-based guidelines recommend using a shared decision-making (SDM) approach for offering hydroxyurea to children with SCA (HbSS or HbS/β0 thalassemia) aged as early as 9 months. However, the uptake remains suboptimal, likely because caregivers lack information about hydroxyurea and have concerns about its safety and potential long-term side effects. Moreover, clinicians do not routinely receive training or tools, especially those that provide medical evidence and consider caregivers’ preferences and values, to facilitate a shared discussion with caregivers.

          Objective

          The aim of this study is to understand how best to help parents of young children with sickle cell disease and their clinicians have a shared discussion about hydroxyurea (one that considers medical evidence and parent values and preferences).

          Methods

          We designed our study to compare the effectiveness of two methods for disseminating hydroxyurea guidelines to facilitate SDM: a clinician pocket guide (ie, usual care) and a clinician hydroxyurea SDM toolkit (H-SDM toolkit). Our primary outcomes are caregiver reports of decisional uncertainty and knowledge of hydroxyurea. The study also assesses the number of children (aged 0-5 years) who were offered and prescribed hydroxyurea and the resultant health outcomes.

          Results

          The Ethics Committee of the Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center approved this study in November 2017. As of February 2021, we have enrolled 120 caregiver participants.

          Conclusions

          The long-term objective of this study is to improve the quality of care for children with SCA. Using multicomponent dissemination methods developed in partnership with key stakeholders and designed to address barriers to high-quality care, caregivers of patients with SCA can make informed and shared decisions about their health.

          Trial Registration

          ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03442114; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03442114

          International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

          DERR1-10.2196/27650

          Related collections

          Most cited references53

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

            Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework.

              Progress in public health and community-based interventions has been hampered by the lack of a comprehensive evaluation framework appropriate to such programs. Multilevel interventions that incorporate policy, environmental, and individual components should be evaluated with measurements suited to their settings, goals, and purpose. In this commentary, the authors propose a model (termed the RE-AIM model) for evaluating public health interventions that assesses 5 dimensions: reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. These dimensions occur at multiple levels (e.g., individual, clinic or organization, community) and interact to determine the public health or population-based impact of a program or policy. The authors discuss issues in evaluating each of these dimensions and combining them to determine overall public health impact. Failure to adequately evaluate programs on all 5 dimensions can lead to a waste of resources, discontinuities between stages of research, and failure to improve public health to the limits of our capacity. The authors summarize strengths and limitations of the RE-AIM model and recommend areas for future research and application.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                JMIR Res Protoc
                JMIR Res Protoc
                ResProt
                JMIR Research Protocols
                JMIR Publications (Toronto, Canada )
                1929-0748
                May 2021
                21 May 2021
                : 10
                : 5
                : e27650
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Developmental Neurosciences Institute of Child Health University College London London United Kingdom
                [2 ] Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH United States
                [3 ] Department of Psychology Oklahoma State University Stillwater, OK United States
                [4 ] Department of Pediatrics University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati, OH United States
                [5 ] Division of Hematology Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH United States
                [6 ] Division of General and Community Pediatrics Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center University of Cincinnati College of Medicine Cincinnati, OH United States
                [7 ] Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center Partner Cincinnati, OH United States
                [8 ] Department of Pediatrics Feinberg School of Medicine Northwestern University Chicago, IL United States
                [9 ] Division of Hematology, Oncology and Stem Cell Transplant Ann & Robert Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago Chicago, IL United States
                [10 ] Center for Child Health Policy and Advocacy Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX United States
                [11 ] Department of Pediatrics Division of Hematology/Oncology Baylor College of Medicine Houston, TX United States
                [12 ] Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia Philadelphia, PA United States
                [13 ] Perelman School of Medicine Philadelphia, PA United States
                [14 ] Program in Occupational Therapy and Pediatrics Division of Hematology and Oncology Washington University School of Medicine and St. Louis Children’s Hospital St. Louis, MO United States
                [15 ] Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Washington University School of Medicine St. Louis, MO United States
                [16 ] Center for Innovation in Pediatric Practice Division of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology/BMT Nationwide Children's Hospital Columbus, OH United States
                [17 ] University Hospitals Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital Cleveland, OH United States
                [18 ] Center for Healthcare Delivery Science Nemours Children’s Health System Wilmington, DE United States
                [19 ] Division of Behavioral Health Nemours/ Alfred I duPont Hospital for Children Wilmington, DE United States
                [20 ] Department of Hematology/Oncology Children's Hospital Oakland Oakland, CA United States
                [21 ] AbbVie North Chicago, IL United States
                [22 ] University of California San Francisco San Francisco, CA United States
                [23 ] Pediatrics, Pediatric Hematology/Oncology Indiana Hemophilia and Thrombosis Center Indianapolis, IN United States
                [24 ] Pediatric Hematology and Oncology Boston Medical Center Boston, MA United States
                [25 ] Pediatrics and Child Health College of Medicine Howard University Washington, DC United States
                [26 ] Adolescent and Transition Medicine Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH United States
                [27 ] James M. Anderson Center for Health Systems Excellence Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH United States
                [28 ] Department of Pediatrics University of Illinois College of Medicine Peoria, IL United States
                [29 ] Department of Hematology/Oncology University of California San Francisco Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland, CA United States
                [30 ] Cancer and Blood Diseases Institute Division of Hematology Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center Cincinnati, OH United States
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Anna M Hood a.hood@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7213-1179
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2685-8318
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1144-9300
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5407-6487
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1134-5667
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6776-8060
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9860-5467
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3336-7637
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7980-3185
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6802-1954
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2648-335X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4739-265X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4961-8103
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8612-1705
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9273-0470
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2790-411X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1951-6176
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4997-1532
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4730-8139
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7435-2346
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0147-3232
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2676-774X
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1579-5865
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7837-9239
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3979-7435
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6745-7900
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8169-7521
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2876-3889
                https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0521-1846
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2372-2175
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9582-0594
                https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6656-7745
                Article
                v10i5e27650
                10.2196/27650
                8178738
                34018965
                3ae9f9b3-0806-4378-a91e-d8636e76e9ac
                ©Anna M Hood, Heather Strong, Cara Nwankwo, Yolanda Johnson, James Peugh, Constance A Mara, Lisa M Shook, William B Brinkman, Francis J Real, Melissa D Klein, Rogelle Hackworth, Sherif M Badawy, Alexis A Thompson, Jean L Raphael, Amber M Yates, Kim Smith-Whitley, Allison A King, Cecelia Calhoun, Susan E Creary, Connie M Piccone, Aimee K Hildenbrand, Steven K Reader, Lynne Neumayr, Emily R Meier, Amy E Sobota, Sohail Rana, Maria Britto, Kay L Saving, Marsha Treadwell, Charles T Quinn, Russell E Ware, Lori E Crosby. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 21.05.2021.

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Research Protocols, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.researchprotocols.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

                History
                : 4 February 2021
                : 5 February 2021
                : 17 February 2021
                : 22 February 2021
                Categories
                Protocol
                Protocol
                Custom metadata
                This paper was peer reviewed by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). See the Multimedia Appendix for the peer-review report;

                dissemination,decisional uncertainty,quality of care,child health,nhlbi guidelines

                Comments

                Comment on this article