scholarly journals Evaluating the effectiveness of the smartphone app, Drink Less, compared with the NHS alcohol advice webpage, for the reduction of alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful adult drinkers in the UK at six-month follow-up: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Garnett ◽  
Melissa Oldham ◽  
Colin Angus ◽  
Emma Beard ◽  
Robyn Burton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Alcohol Consumption ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

AbstractBackground and AimsDigital interventions are effective for reducing alcohol consumption but evidence is limited regarding smartphone apps. Drink Less is a theory- and evidence-informed app to help people reduce their alcohol consumption that has been refined in terms of its content and design for usability across the socio-demographic spectrum. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of recommending Drink Less at reducing alcohol consumption compared with usual digital care.DesignTwo-arm individually randomised controlled trial.SettingOnline trial in the UK.ParticipantsHazardous or harmful drinkers (Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test score >=8) aged 18+, and want to drink less alcohol (n=5,562). Participants will be recruited from July 2020 to May 2022 using multiple strategies with a focus on remote digital methods.Intervention and comparatorParticipants will be randomised to receive either an email recommending that they use Drink Less (intervention) or view the NHS webpage on alcohol advice (comparator).MeasurementsThe primary outcome is change in self-reported weekly alcohol consumption between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes include the proportion of hazardous drinkers; alcohol-related problems and injury; health-related quality of life, and use of health services assessed at 6-month follow-up. Effectiveness will be examined with one-way ANCOVAs, adjusting for baseline alcohol consumption, and using an intention-to-treat approach. A mixed-methods process evaluation will assess engagement, acceptability and mechanism of action. Economic evaluations will be conducted using both a short- and longer-term time horizon.CommentsThis study will establish the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Drink Less app at reducing alcohol consumption among hazardous and harmful adult drinkers and will be the first RCT of an alcohol reduction app for the general population in the UK. This study will inform the decision on whether it is worth investing resources in large-scale implementation.

scholarly journals Individualised screening for diabetic retinopathy: the ISDR study—rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial comparing annual and individualised risk-based variable-interval screening

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e025788 ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah M Broadbent ◽  
Christopher J Sampson ◽  
Amu Wang ◽  
Lola Howard ◽  
Abigail E Williams ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Diabetic Retinopathy ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Screening Programme ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Variable Interval ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk

IntroductionCurrently, all people with diabetes (PWD) aged 12 years and over in the UK are invited for screening for diabetic retinopathy (DR) annually. Resources are not increasing despite a 5% increase in the numbers of PWD nationwide each year. We describe the rationale, design and methodology for a randomised controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the safety, acceptability and cost-effectiveness of personalised variable-interval risk-based screening for DR. This is the first randomised trial of personalised screening for DR and the largest ophthalmic RCT in the UK.Methods and analysisPWD attending seven screening clinics in the Liverpool Diabetic Eye Screening Programme were recruited into a single site RCT with a 1:1 allocation to individualised risk-based variable-interval or annual screening intervals. A risk calculation engine developed for the trial estimates the probability that an individual will develop referable disease (screen positive DR) within the next 6, 12 or 24 months using demographic, retinopathy and systemic risk factor data from primary care and screening programme records. Dynamic, secure, real-time data connections have been developed. The primary outcome is attendance for follow-up screening. We will test for equivalence in attendance rates between the two arms. Secondary outcomes are rates and severity of DR, visual outcomes, cost-effectiveness and health-related quality of life. The required sample size was 4460 PWD. Recruitment is complete, and the trial is in follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval was obtained from National Research Ethics Service Committee North West – Preston, reference 14/NW/0034. Results will be presented at international meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. This pragmatic RCT will inform screening policy in the UK and elsewhere.Trial registration numberISRCTN87561257; Pre-results.

Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial comparing cognitive functional therapy with usual physiotherapy care in people with persistent low back pain

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-14
Author(s):  
Christopher Newton ◽  
Gurpreet Singh ◽  
David Nolan ◽  
Vicky Booth ◽  
Claire Diver ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Functional Therapy ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Feasibility Rct

BACKGROUND: Combined physical and psychological programmes (CPPP) are recommended for people with disabling low back pain (LBP). Cognitive Functional Therapy (CFT) is a physiotherapist-led low intensity CPPP with positive effects in previous studies. The clinical and cost effectiveness of CFT has not previously been evaluated in a randomised controlled trial (RCT) in the United Kingdom (UK) National Health Service (NHS). Before a definitive RCT can be completed it is necessary to determine if completing such a study is possible. PURPOSE: To determine the feasibility of completing a definitive RCT, that will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of CFT in comparison to usual physiotherapy care for people with persistent LBP in the UK NHS. METHODS: A pragmatic two-arm parallel feasibility RCT comparing CFT with usual physiotherapy care for people with persistent LBP will be completed. Sixty participants will be randomly allocated to receive CFT or usual physiotherapy care. The primary outcome will be feasibility of completing a definitive RCT. Participant reported outcome measures will be recorded at baseline, three, six and twelve-month follow-up, including disability, pain intensity, quality of life and psychosocial function. Data will be analysed descriptively. A qualitative process evaluation will explore the acceptability of the research processes and interventions. DISCUSSION: The rationale and methodological design of a mixed methods feasibility RCT is presented. This study aims to inform the planning, design and completion of a future definitive RCT in the UK NHS. The results will be disseminated through peer reviewed open access journal publication.

scholarly journals Relative effectiveness of a full versus reduced version of the ‘Smoke Free’ mobile application for smoking cessation: a randomised controlled trial

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Crane ◽  
Harveen Kaur Ubhi ◽  
Jamie Brown ◽  
Robert West
Keyword(s):  
Smoking Cessation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Relative Effectiveness ◽  
Behaviour Change Techniques ◽  
Full Version ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
Support Programmes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background: Smartphone applications (apps) are popular aids for smoking cessation. Smoke Free is an app that delivers behaviour change techniques used in effective face-to-face behavioural support programmes. The aim of this study was to assess whether the full version of Smoke Free is more effective than the reduced version. Methods:  This was a two-arm randomised controlled trial. Smokers who downloaded Smoke Free were randomly offered the full or reduced version; 28,112 smokers aged 18+ years who set a quit date were included. The full version provided updates on benefits of abstinence, progress (days smoke free), virtual ‘badges’ and daily ‘missions’ with push notifications aimed at preventing and managing cravings. The reduced version did not include the missions. At baseline the app recorded users’: device type (iPhone or Android), age, sex, daily cigarette consumption, time to first cigarette of the day, and educational level. The primary outcome was self-reported complete abstinence from the quit date in a 3-month follow-up questionnaire delivered via the app. Analyses conducted included logistic regressions of outcome on to app version (full versus reduced) with adjustment for baseline variables using both intention-to-treat/missing-equals smoking (MES) and follow-up-only (FUO) analyses. Results: The 3-month follow-up rate was 8.5% (n=1,213) for the intervention and 6.5% (n=901) for the control. A total of 234 participants reported not smoking in the intervention versus 124 in the control, representing 1.6% versus 0.9% in the MES analysis and 19.3% versus 13.8% in the FUO analysis. Adjusted odds ratios were 1.90, 95%CI=1.53-2.37 (p<0.001) and 1.50, 95%CI=1.18-1.91 (p<0.001) in the MES and FUO analyses respectively. Conclusions: Despite very low follow-up rates using in-app follow up, both intention-to-treat/missing equals smoking and follow-up only analyses showed the full version of the Smoke Free app to result in higher self-reported 3-month continuous smoking abstinence rates than the reduced version.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a dedicated Health and Social Care Professionals team in the Emergency Department on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older adults: Study Protocol

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Eimear Smalle ◽  
Stephen White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Effectiveness Of Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background : Older people are frequent Emergency Department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes post-index visit, often have increased ED length of stay and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCPs teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared to usual care. Methods : The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30-days, four and six-month follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; costs-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared to usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. Discussion : This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of the study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12 th November 2018. Protocol version 1. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515

scholarly journals Community-based rehabilitation training after stroke: results of a pilot randomised controlled trial (ReTrain) investigating acceptability and feasibility

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. e018409 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah G Dean ◽  
Leon Poltawski ◽  
Anne Forster ◽  
Rod S Taylor ◽  
Anne Spencer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Rehabilitation Training ◽  
One To One ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo assess acceptability and feasibility of trial processes and the Rehabilitation Training (ReTrain) intervention including an assessment of intervention fidelity.DesignA two-group, assessor-blinded, randomised controlled trial with parallel mixed methods process and economic evaluations.SettingCommunity settings across two sites in Devon.ParticipantsEligible participants were: 18 years old or over, with a diagnosis of stroke and with self-reported mobility issues, no contraindications to physical activity, discharged from National Health Service or any other formal rehabilitation programme at least 1 month before, willing to be randomised to either control or ReTrain and attend the training venue, possessing cognitive capacity and communication ability sufficient to participate. Participants were individually randomised (1:1) via a computer-generated randomisation sequence minimised for time since stroke and level of functional disability. Only outcome assessors independent of the research team were blinded to group allocation.InterventionsReTrain comprised (1) an introductory one-to-one session; (2) ten, twice-weekly group classes with up to two trainers and eight clients; (3) a closing one-to-one session, followed by three drop-in sessions over the subsequent 3 months. Participants received a bespoke home-based training programme. All participants received treatment as usual. The control group received an exercise after stroke advice booklet.Outcome measuresCandidate primary outcomes included functional mobility and physical activity.ResultsForty-five participants were randomised (ReTrain=23; Control=22); data were available from 40 participants at 6 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=19) and 41 at 9 months of follow-up (ReTrain=21; Control=20). We demonstrated ability to recruit and retain participants. Participants were not burdened by the requirements of the study. We were able to calculate sample estimates for candidate primary outcomes and test procedures for process and health economic evaluations.ConclusionsAll objectives were fulfilled and indicated that a definitive trial of ReTrain is feasible and acceptable.Trial registration numberNCT02429180; Results.

scholarly journals Group antenatal care (Pregnancy Circles) for diverse and disadvantaged women: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial with integral process and economic evaluations

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Meg Wiggins ◽  
Mary Sawtell ◽  
Octavia Wiseman ◽  
Christine McCourt ◽  
Sandra Eldridge ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Antenatal Care ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Trial Registration ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
The World ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Group antenatal care has been successfully implemented around the world with suggestions of improved outcomes, including for disadvantaged groups, but it has not been formally tested in the UK in the context of the NHS. To address this the REACH Pregnancy Circles intervention was developed and a randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress. Methods The RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, individually randomised, parallel group RCT designed to test clinical and cost-effectiveness of REACH Pregnancy Circles compared with standard care. Recruitment will be through NHS services. The sample size is 1732 (866 randomised to the intervention and 866 to standard care). The primary outcome measure is a ‘healthy baby’ composite measured at 1 month postnatal using routine maternity data. Secondary outcome measures will be assessed using participant questionnaires completed at recruitment (baseline), 35 weeks gestation (follow-up 1) and 3 months postnatal (follow-up 2). An integrated process evaluation, to include exploration of fidelity, will be conducted using mixed methods. Analyses will be on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analysis will compare the number of babies born “healthy” in the control and intervention arms and provide an odds ratio. A cost-effectiveness analysis will compare the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years and per additional ‘healthy and positive birth’ of the intervention with standard care. Qualitative data will be analysed thematically. Discussion This multi-site randomised trial in England is planned to be the largest trial of group antenatal care in the world to date; as well as the first rigorous test within the NHS of this maternity service change. It has a recruitment focus on ethnically, culturally and linguistically diverse and disadvantaged participants, including non-English speakers. Trial registration Trial registration; ISRCTN, ISRCTN91977441. Registered 11 February 2019 - retrospectively registered. The current protocol is Version 4; 28/01/2020.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document