SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Cre recombinase delivery”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

129 records · Page 8Linked to original sources

PubMed2026

A Multimethod Evaluation to Assess Feasibility, Acceptability, and Preliminary Efficacy of HPVVaxFacts, a Tailored Mobile Web App, for Parents With Unvaccinated Children: Pilot 2-Arm Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Mobile health (mHealth) interventions may improve provider-parent communication on human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination to reduce concerns, and increase intention and uptake. HPVVaxFacts (233 Analytics) is a novel, mobile web app delivering tailored education based on the Health Belief Model and Theory of Reasoned Action, addressing parental concerns preclinic visit. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy of HPVVaxFacts among parents of adolescents aged 9-17 years. METHODS: We conducted a pilot, randomized controlled trial in 2 urban Tennessee clinics from June to September 2023 comparing 2 groups: tailored education via HPVVaxFacts mobile web app (intervention, n=27), and nutrition education (attention control, n=30). Eligible parents had or were caregivers to a child aged 9 to 17 years unvaccinated against HPV, had a mobile phone, had an upcoming clinic visit, and spoke English. The recruitment strategy was patient intake software-Phreesia (Phreesia, Inc) and eClinicalWorks (eClinicalWorks). Although unblinded, parents could deduce their study arm assignment. Providers were blinded. Feasibility, acceptability, and preliminary efficacy (HPV vaccine knowledge, concerns, intentions, and vaccination rates) were assessed using multimethod evaluation. Parents were assessed at baseline and immediately post intervention via surveys. Vaccination rates were assessed at 12 months post intervention via electronic health records. Nineteen parent interviews were conducted up to 9 months post intervention. A clinic staff consultation (n=6) was 1 month post intervention. RESULTS: Of 57 enrolled parents, most were female (52/57, 91%), non-Hispanic White (44/57, 77%), had ≤US $80,000 household income (32/57, 56%), and had some college or less (27/57, 47%). In total, 81% (29/36) of parents viewed HPVVaxFacts. Post intervention, HPV vaccine initiation was higher in the intervention group compared to the attention control group (48% vs 17%; difference 0.24; 95% CI 0.03-0.46; P=.01). Parents in the HPVVaxFacts arm demonstrated a greater reduction in knowledge (ie, knowledge increase; mean change: -0.6 vs 0.1) and concern scores (mean change: -3.4 vs -1.4) than those in the nutrition education arm. However, between-arm differences were not statistically significant (P=.13 and P=.14, respectively). The majority found the study protocol and HPVVaxFacts acceptable. Benefits of HPVVaxFacts include confirming their decision to vaccinate, supporting parent-child discussion on the vaccine, and answering questions preclinic visit or offering questions for the provider. Study protocol delivery and mobile web app instructions were suggested areas for improvement. Barriers for HPVVaxFacts use include content in English only and digital format. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests HPVVaxFacts was feasible and acceptable among parents to provide previsit, tailored information on HPV vaccination. Outcomes offer a positive trajectory but need more exploration. Next steps include a well-powered efficacy trial to determine the impact of HPVVaxFacts on initiation vaccine rates and parental hesitancy factors, as well as to explore an interaction, effect modification, and mediation among different variables.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Assessment and CommuniCation ExcelLEnce foR sAfe paTient outcomEs (ACCELERATE): A stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial evaluating the effectiveness of a nurse-led assessment and handover communication intervention on patient adverse events.

BACKGROUND: Patients continue to experience harm from undetected deterioration, falls and pressure injuries. We aimed to implement and evaluate an organisational, ward-level nurse-led assessment and communication intervention to proactively reduce patient adverse events. METHODS: A stepped-wedge cluster randomised Trial over 12-months was conducted at three metropolitan hospitals. Our intervention comprised a comprehensive, systematic patient assessment at shift commencement; a structured patient-centred bedside nurse-to-nurse clinical handover; and multidisciplinary communication consisting of nurse participation in medical ward rounds. Evidence-based implementation strategies informed intervention delivery to nine clusters (20-35 bed-wards with ≥70% permanent nurses) over three sequential 14-week steps. Routinely collected patient-level data were used to measure intervention effect. The primary outcome was a composite measure of medical emergency team calls, unplanned intensive care unit admissions, in-hospital falls; and stage 2-4 pressure injuries. Secondary outcomes were: individual measures of the primary outcome; nurse-reported perceptions of safety culture; organisational readiness to change; barriers to physical assessment; staff engagement; and patient-reported experience measures of safety and overall hospital experience. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, hospital, pre/post intervention, and Trial step (fortnight), with random effects for ward and patient. RESULTS: There were 13,753 eligible admissions. No change was observed in the primary composite outcome measure (odds ratio (OR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.99 [0.77, 1.28]; p = 0.95). There was no significant difference in medical emergency team calls (OR [95% CI]: 1.02 [0.75, 1.39]; p = 0.91); unplanned intensive care unit admissions (OR [95% CI]: 1.35 [0.57, 3.20]; p = 0.50) and falls (OR [95% CI]: 1.53 [0.96, 2.45]; p = 0.07). However, stage 2-4 pressure injuries significantly decreased by 41% (OR [95% CI]: 0.59 [0.38, 0.93]; p = 0.02); a significant absolute effect improvement of 0.8% ([95% CI: 0.3%-1.3%], p < 0.01). There were statistically significant improvements in nurses' overall perceptions of Safety Attitudes (Pre: 74.6, Post: 79.7; p = 0.02), and the Organisational Readiness to Change subscales of, leader culture (Pre: 3.73, Post 3.91; p = 0.02), leadership behaviour (Pre: 3.85, Post: 4.11; p = 0.03), and general resources (Pre: 3.06, Post: 3.30; p = 0.03). A statistically significant decrease in Barriers to Physical Assessment (Pre: 2.48, Post: 2.24; p <0.001) and in six of seven sub-scales was observed. Patients' overall Measure of Safety remained high, but unchanged (Pre: 3.94 Post: 3.92; p = 0.07). CONCLUSION: The ACCELERATE Trial demonstrated that nurse-driven initiatives, emphasising structured physical assessments by nurses, patient-centred clinical handovers, and multidisciplinary communication, significantly: reduced pressure injuries; decreased nurses' perceived barriers to performing physical assessments; and improved leadership behaviour, communication, and ward safety culture perceptions. Results highlight the transformative potential of this approach, which now warrants testing at scale for broader implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ID: ACTRN12621000265875.

Humans↗

PubMed2026

Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to mental health services in England (the ODDESSI Trial): a multisite cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Open Dialogue is a person-centred, transdiagnostic model of mental health care that emphasises continuity, therapeutic relationships, and collaboration with the service user's social network. Open Dialogue is a service-wide approach to care involving network meetings with the service user, members of their social network, and usually two practitioners who support the network throughout the duration of care. In this cluster-randomised trial, we aimed to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of Open Dialogue versus treatment as usual for adults presenting in crisis to community mental health services in England. METHODS: This multicentre, parallel two-arm, cluster-randomised, controlled superiority trial was conducted in mental health services in five National Health Service trusts in London and the South of England. Clusters were defined at the level of primary care practices within service catchment areas. Participants were adults aged 18 years or older presenting in crisis to mental health services and registered with a practice within trial clusters. Randomisation was done at the cluster level (1:1), stratified by catchment area, and balanced on average general practice (GP) list size and Index of Multiple Deprivation (2015). The chief investigator, senior statistician, and assessors of the primary outcome were masked in the study. Participants either received Open Dialogue or treatment as usual, which refers to the functional team model currently implemented throughout English mental health services. The primary outcome was time (days) to first relapse following initial recovery from the index crisis censored at the end of the 2-year follow-up period. Participant-reported secondary outcomes were EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale, Social Provisions Scale, Lubben Social Network Scale, Questionnaire about the Process of Recovery, and the Client Satisfaction Questionnaire, measured at five timepoints over 2 years, and clinical measures were extracted from electronic health records. People with relevant lived experience were involved in the design and execution of the study. Fidelity to the model of care in Open Dialogue and treatment as usual, and adherence to the delivery of Open Dialogue, were measured prior to each site starting participant recruitment, then every 6 months thereafter until the final participant follow-up in that site. The trial was retrospectively registered (ISRCTN52653325) and is complete. FINDINGS: 185 general practices associated with six mental health Trusts across England were identified for screening. 105 practices were excluded, and 80 were included in cluster formation, forming 32 clusters that were randomly assigned (16 to treatment as usual and 16 to the Open Dialogue intervention). One mental health trust (two clusters) withdrew, resulting in five mental health trusts (30 clusters) participating in the trial. Between June 25, 2019, and Dec 9, 2021, 494 participants (266 [54%] female gender, 221 [45%] male gender, 341 [69%] White British) with a mean age of 38·1 years (SD 13·4) provided consent for study inclusion (223 in the treatment as usual group and 271 in the Open Dialogue group). Of these, 174 (78%) in the treatment as usual group and 225 (83%) in the Open Dialogue group recovered and had data enabling relapse determination; there was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of time to relapse following initial recovery (marginal hazard ratio 0·95 [95% CI 0·67-1·32]). For secondary outcomes, Open Dialogue was associated with significantly lower probabilities of psychiatric inpatient admission and re-referral to crisis care or secondary mental health services, and with improvements in self-rated recovery, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with services. There were no significant differences in social network quality or size. There were 386 serious adverse events (281 in the treatment as usual group and 105 in the Open Dialogue group); 376 (97%) were deemed to be unrelated to the intervention. INTERPRETATION: Open Dialogue did not reduce time to first relapse compared with treatment as usual, the primary outcome, but it reduced acute inpatient bed use, improved service user reported outcomes and experience, and there were no significant safety concerns. Further investigation is required to determine whether Open Dialogue can enhance the effectiveness and acceptability of crisis care and continuing care in community mental health services. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Humans↗