21
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Effect of an Early Palliative Care Telehealth Intervention vs Usual Care on Patients With Heart Failure : The ENABLE CHF-PC Randomized Clinical Trial

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

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

          Index for rating diagnostic tests.

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

            Early Versus Delayed Initiation of Concurrent Palliative Oncology Care: Patient Outcomes in the ENABLE III Randomized Controlled Trial.

            Randomized controlled trials have supported integrated oncology and palliative care (PC); however, optimal timing has not been evaluated. We investigated the effect of early versus delayed PC on quality of life (QOL), symptom impact, mood, 1-year survival, and resource use.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The minimal important difference of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

              Background Interpretation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), commonly used to assess anxiety and depression in COPD patients, is unclear. Since its minimal important difference has never been established, our aim was to determine it using several approaches. Methods 88 COPD patients with FEV1 ≤ 50% predicted completed the HADS and other patient-important outcome measures before and after an inpatient respiratory rehabilitation. For the anchor-based approach we determined the correlation between the HADS and the anchors that have an established minimal important difference (Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire [CRQ] and Feeling Thermometer). If correlations were ≥ 0.5 we performed linear regression analyses to predict the minimal important difference from the anchors. As distribution-based approach we used the Effect Size approach. Results Based on CRQ emotional function and mastery domain as well as on total scores, the minimal important difference was 1.41 (95% CI 1.18–1.63) and 1.57 (1.37–1.76) for the HADS anxiety score and 1.68 (1.48–1.87) and 1.60 (1.38–1.82) for the HADS total score. Correlations of the HADS depression score and CRQ domain and Feeling Thermometer scores were < 0.5. Based on the Effect Size approach the MID of the HADS anxiety and depression score was 1.32 and 1.40, respectively. Conclusion The minimal important difference of the HADS is around 1.5 in COPD patients corresponding to a change from baseline of around 20%. It can be used for the planning and interpretation of trials.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Internal Medicine
                JAMA Intern Med
                American Medical Association (AMA)
                2168-6106
                July 27 2020
                Affiliations
                [1 ]School of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
                [2 ]Division of Gerontology, Geriatrics and Palliative Care, UAB Center for Palliative and Supportive Care, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
                [3 ]Division of Preventive Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
                [4 ]Center for Innovation, Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
                [5 ]Department of Population Health Sciences, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
                [6 ]Department of Medicine, Division of General Internal Medicine, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
                [7 ]Department of Medicine, Dell Medical School, University of Texas at Austin, Austin
                [8 ]Geriatric Research, Education, and Clinical Center, Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Birmingham, Alabama
                [9 ]Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham
                Article
                10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2861
                32730613
                e2b5e7cc-422f-4e78-b61d-b73ba51ff57d
                © 2020
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article