Patient-Centred Innovations for Persons With Multimorbidity - Ontario
PACEinMM-ON
1 other identifier
interventional
175
1 country
9
Brief Summary
The aim of Patient-Centred Innovations for Persons With Multimorbidity (PACE in MM) study is to reorient the health care system from a single disease focus to a multimorbidity focus; centre on not only disease but also the patient in context; and realign the health care system from separate silos to coordinated collaborations in care. PACE in MM will propose multifaceted innovations in Chronic Disease Prevention and Management (CDPM) that will be grounded in current realities (i.e. Chronic Care Models including Self-Management Programs), that are linked to Primary Care (PC) reform efforts. The study will build on this firm foundation, will design and test promising innovations and will achieve transformation by creating structures to sustain relationships among researchers, decision-makers, practitioners, and patients. The Team will conduct inter-jurisdictional comparisons and is mainly a Quebec (QC) - Ontario (ON) collaboration with participation from 4 other provinces: British Columbia (BC); Manitoba (MB); Nova Scotia (NS); and New Brunswick (NB). The Team's objectives are: 1) to identify factors responsible for success or failure of current CDPM programs linked to the PC reform, by conducting a realist synthesis of their quantitative and qualitative evaluations; 2) to transform consenting CDPM programs identified in Objective 1, by aligning them to promising interventions on patient-centred care for multimorbidity patients, and to test these new innovations' in at least two jurisdictions and compare among jurisdictions; and 3) to foster the scaling-up of innovations informed by Objective 1 and tested/proven in Objective 2, and to conduct research on different approaches to scaling-up. This registration for Clinical Trials only pertains to Objective 2 of the study.
Trial Health
Trial Health Score
Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach
participants targeted
Target at P50-P75 for not_applicable hypertension
Started Jan 2016
Longer than P75 for not_applicable hypertension
9 active sites
Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.
Trial Relationships
Click on a node to explore related trials.
Study Timeline
Key milestones and dates
Study Start
First participant enrolled
January 12, 2016
CompletedFirst Submitted
Initial submission to the registry
March 21, 2016
CompletedFirst Posted
Study publicly available on registry
April 19, 2016
CompletedPrimary Completion
Last participant's last visit for primary outcome
April 7, 2019
CompletedStudy Completion
Last participant's last visit for all outcomes
October 19, 2022
CompletedMarch 17, 2023
September 1, 2020
3.2 years
March 21, 2016
March 16, 2023
Conditions
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcomes (4)
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Self-Management outcomes
Health Education Impact Questionnaire (HeiQ). Score: Reliable improvement
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Transitions of Care
Patient Perception of Transitions of Care. Score: Mean
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Self-Efficacy
Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale (SEM-CD). Score: Mean
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Patient-Centredness
Patient Perception of Patient-Centredness (PPPC). Score: Mean
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Secondary Outcomes (7)
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Chronic Diseases
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Health Status
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Quality of Life
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Psychological Well-being
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
Evaluation of Intervention Effectiveness - Change in Lifestyle/Health Behaviours
T1: Initial evaluation; T2: after 4 months; T3: one year after T2;
- +2 more secondary outcomes
Study Arms (4)
Group A
ACTIVE COMPARATORIntervention group (n = 86) Intervention: Participates in Telemedicine Impact Plus (TIP)/ IMPACT Plus Care Coordination meeting
Group B
ACTIVE COMPARATORBefore/After Intervention group (n = 10) Intervention: Participates in TIP / IMPACT Plus Care Coordination meeting
Group C
NO INTERVENTIONControl group (n = 77)
Group D
NO INTERVENTIONHealth Administrative Data Group (n = 430) Number of matched data controls. Not taking part in intervention.
Interventions
The intervention will involve the patient attending an interdisciplinary team meeting, either through the Ontario Telemedicine Network's teleconferencing technology or in person, along with their caregiver(s), the referring practitioner, inter-professional (IP) teams and home care coordinators to discuss and uncover the patient's condition covering a diverse range of medical, functional and psycho-social issues and the development of a patient-centred treatment plan. The care plans are documented, shared, implemented and monitored by an assigned nurse from the program.
Eligibility Criteria
You may qualify if:
- + Chronic Conditions
- to 80 years of age
- Eligible for TIP/IMPACT Plus program
- Must live in catchment area for TIP/IMPACT Plus program (Toronto, Ontario, Canada)
You may not qualify if:
- Unable to reasonably respond to questionnaires or provide informed consent (ie. cognitive impairment or language barrier)
- Deemed by provider to be too fragile
- For Qualitative (Study 2.1):
- Decision Makers: Responsible for policy and financial decisions related to the TIP / IMPACT Plus program
- TIP / IMPACT Providers: Providers that have delivered the TIP / IMPACT Plus intervention to at least one patient, including pharmacist, nurse, nurse practitioner, physiotherapist, social worker, dietitian, occupational therapist, personal care worker / home care coordinator
- Family Physicians / Specialists: Those that take part in the TIP / IMPACT Plus intervention, including internist, psychiatrist, and family physician
- Family and Caregivers: Need to be a family member or caregiver of a TIP / IMPACT Plus patient that has received the intervention a minimum of 4 months prior to the qualitative interview.
- Referral Provider: Emergency Department doctor, nurse practitioner, CCAC coordinator or representative community family doctor that has referred patients to the TIP / IMPACT Plus program.
- Decision Makers that are not knowledgeable about or involved with the TIP / IMPACT Plus program
- Providers/Family Physicians/Specialists that have not ever referred to or taken part in a TIP / IMPACT Plus intervention or have not been active with the program in the last year
- Family and Caregivers of Patients or Patients themselves that haven't yet received the TIP / IMPACT Plus intervention or those that received the intervention within the last 4 months
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Sponsors & Collaborators
- London Health Sciences Centre Research Institute OR Lawson Research Institute of St. Joseph'slead
- Western University, Canadacollaborator
- Université de Sherbrookecollaborator
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)collaborator
- Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centrecollaborator
- Unity Health Torontocollaborator
- University Health Network, Torontocollaborator
- Michael Garron Hospitalcollaborator
- Providence Healthcarecollaborator
- Mount Sinai Hospital, Canadacollaborator
- Toronto Central Community Care Access Centrecollaborator
- Women's College Hospitalcollaborator
Study Sites (9)
Western University
London, Ontario, N6A 3K7, Canada
Mount Sinai Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Providence Healthcare
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
St. Michael's Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Toronto Central Community Care Access Centre
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Toronto East General Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
University Hospital Network
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Women's College Hospital
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Related Publications (21)
Best A, Greenhalgh T, Lewis S, Saul JE, Carroll S, Bitz J. Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q. 2012 Sep;90(3):421-56. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-0009.2012.00670.x.
PMID: 22985277BACKGROUNDPawson, R. and N. Tilley, Realistic evaluation. London: Sage Publications Inc., 1997.
BACKGROUNDPatton, M.Q., Qualitative Research & Evaluation. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 2002.
BACKGROUNDCrabtree, B.F. and W.L. Miller, Doing Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1999.
BACKGROUNDMoher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, Montori V, Gotzsche PC, Devereaux PJ, Elbourne D, Egger M, Altman DG; Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group. CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010 Aug;63(8):e1-37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004. Epub 2010 Mar 25.
PMID: 20346624BACKGROUNDPoitras ME, Fortin M, Hudon C, Haggerty J, Almirall J. Validation of the disease burden morbidity assessment by self-report in a French-speaking population. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012 Feb 14;12:35. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-35.
PMID: 22333434BACKGROUNDStewart M, Brown JB, Donner A, McWhinney IR, Oates J, Weston WW, Jordan J. The impact of patient-centered care on outcomes. J Fam Pract. 2000 Sep;49(9):796-804.
PMID: 11032203BACKGROUNDStewart M, Brown JB, Hammerton J, Donner A, Gavin A, Holliday RL, Whelan T, Leslie K, Cohen I, Weston W, Freeman T. Improving communication between doctors and breast cancer patients. Ann Fam Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;5(5):387-94. doi: 10.1370/afm.721.
PMID: 17893379BACKGROUNDStewart, M., et al., The patient perception of patient-centeredness questionnaire (PPPC). Working Paper Series #04-1, April 2004.
BACKGROUNDColeman EA, Mahoney E, Parry C. Assessing the quality of preparation for posthospital care from the patient's perspective: the care transitions measure. Med Care. 2005 Mar;43(3):246-55. doi: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00007.
PMID: 15725981BACKGROUNDNolte S, Elsworth GR, Sinclair AJ, Osborne RH. The extent and breadth of benefits from participating in chronic disease self-management courses: a national patient-reported outcomes survey. Patient Educ Couns. 2007 Mar;65(3):351-60. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.08.016. Epub 2006 Oct 5.
PMID: 17027221BACKGROUNDSherer, M., et al., The self-efficacy scale: Construction and validation. Psychological Reports. 51: p. 663-671, 1982.
BACKGROUNDRasanen P, Roine E, Sintonen H, Semberg-Konttinen V, Ryynanen OP, Roine R. Use of quality-adjusted life years for the estimation of effectiveness of health care: A systematic literature review. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2006 Spring;22(2):235-41. doi: 10.1017/S0266462306051051.
PMID: 16571199BACKGROUNDKessler RC, Barker PR, Colpe LJ, Epstein JF, Gfroerer JC, Hiripi E, Howes MJ, Normand SL, Manderscheid RW, Walters EE, Zaslavsky AM. Screening for serious mental illness in the general population. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003 Feb;60(2):184-9. doi: 10.1001/archpsyc.60.2.184.
PMID: 12578436BACKGROUNDCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire. 2007, Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
BACKGROUNDVan Breukelen GJ. ANCOVA versus change from baseline: more power in randomized studies, more bias in nonrandomized studies [corrected]. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Sep;59(9):920-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.02.007. Epub 2006 Jun 23.
PMID: 16895814BACKGROUNDDaniel, W.W., Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis in the health sciences. 9th ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2009.
BACKGROUNDCanadian Institute for Health Information. Canadian Hospital Reporting Project (CHRP). 2012; https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/HI2013_Jan30_EN.pdf . Accessed March 14, 2016.
BACKGROUNDWodchis, W.P., et al., Guidelines on Person-Level Costing Using Administrative Databases in Ontario. Toronto: Health System Performance Research Network, 2011.
BACKGROUNDDrummond, M.F., et al., Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
BACKGROUNDStewart M, Fortin M; Patient-Centred Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity Team*. Patient-Centred Innovations for Persons with Multimorbidity: funded evaluation protocol. CMAJ Open. 2017 May 9;5(2):E365-E372. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20160097.
PMID: 28487349DERIVED
Related Links
MeSH Terms
Conditions
Interventions
Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Intervention Hierarchy (Ancestors)
Study Officials
- PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Moira Stewart
Western University
Study Design
- Study Type
- interventional
- Phase
- not applicable
- Allocation
- RANDOMIZED
- Masking
- NONE
- Purpose
- OTHER
- Intervention Model
- PARALLEL
- Sponsor Type
- OTHER
- Responsible Party
- SPONSOR
Study Record Dates
First Submitted
March 21, 2016
First Posted
April 19, 2016
Study Start
January 12, 2016
Primary Completion
April 7, 2019
Study Completion
October 19, 2022
Last Updated
March 17, 2023
Record last verified: 2020-09
Data Sharing
- IPD Sharing
- Will share
- Shared Documents
- STUDY PROTOCOL, CSR
- Time Frame
- Study Protocol: 2017 onward Clinical Study Report: 2020 onward
- Access Criteria
- The study protocol is available in a published paper (CMAJ Open 2017) Clinical Study Report: results published in British Journal of General Practice 2020
De-identified subsets of data will be transferred upon request to healthcare providers at collaborating institutions under separate ethics approvals as/if required. Any transfers will be conducted by secure file transfer between encrypted devices. Any health information transferred will be de-identified.