scholarly journals Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial assessing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention compared to usual care

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e029207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica Wright ◽  
Alexis Foster ◽  
Cindy Cooper ◽  
Kirsty Sprange ◽  
Stephen Walters ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Fidelity Assessment ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionServices are being encouraged to provide postdiagnostic treatment to those with dementia but the availability of evidence-based interventions following diagnosis has not kept pace with increase in demand. To address this need, the Journeying through Dementia (JtD) intervention was created. A randomised controlled trial (RCT), based on a pilot study, is in progress.Methods and analysisThe RCT is a pragmatic, two-arm, parallel group trial designed to test the clinical and cost-effectiveness of JtD compared with usual care. Recruitment will be through NHS services, third sector organisations and Join Dementia Research. The sample size is 486 randomised (243 to usual care and 243 to the intervention usual care). Participants can choose to ask a friend or relative (supporter) to become involved in the study. The primary outcome measure for participants is Dementia-Related Quality of Life (DEMQOL), collected at baseline and at 8 months’ postrandomisation. Secondary outcome measures will be collected from participants and supporters at those visits. Participants will also be followed up at 12 months’ postrandomisation with a reduced set of measures. A process evaluation will be conducted through qualitative and fidelity substudies. Analyses will compare the two arms of the trial on an intention to treat as allocated basis. The primary analyses will compare the mean DEMQOL scores of the participants at 8 months between the two study arms. A cost-effectiveness analysis will consider the incremental cost per Quality Adjusted Life Years of the intervention compared with usual care. Qualitative and fidelity substudies will be analysed through framework analysis and fidelity assessment tools respectively.Ethics and disseminationREC and HRA approval were obtained. A Data Monitoring and Ethics Committee has been constituted. Dissemination will be via publications, conferences and social media. Intervention materials will be made open access.Trial registration numberISRCTN17993825.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of therapist-delivered online cognitive–behavioural therapy for depression: randomised controlled trial

2010 ◽  
Vol 197 (4) ◽  
pp. 297-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sandra Hollinghurst ◽  
Tim J. Peters ◽  
Surinder Kaur ◽  
Nicola Wiles ◽  
Glyn Lewisand ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Qaly Gain ◽  
Cognitive Behavioural ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundTherapist-delivered online cognitive–behavioural therapy (CBT) has been found to be effective for depression in primary care.AimsTo determine the cost-effectiveness of online CBT compared with usual care.MethodEconomic evaluation at 8 months alongside a randomised controlled trial. Cost to the National Health Service (NHS), personal costs, and the value of lost productivity, each compared with outcomes based on the Beck Depression Inventory and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Incremental analysis indicated the NHS cost per QALY gain.ResultsOnline CBT was more expensive than usual care, although the outcomes for the CBT group were better. Cost per QALY gain based on complete case data was £17 173, and £10 083 when missing data were imputed.ConclusionsOnline CBT delivered by a therapist in real time is likely to be cost-effective compared with usual care if society is willing to pay at least £20 000 per QALY; it could be a useful alternative to face-to-face CBT.

scholarly journals PEP-CoV protocol: a PEP flute-self-care randomised controlled trial to prevent respiratory deterioration and hospitalisation in early COVID-19

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e050582
Author(s):  
Annette Mollerup ◽  
Sofus Christian Larsen ◽  
Anita Selmer Bennetzen ◽  
Marius Henriksen ◽  
Mette Kildevaeld Simonsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admission ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Pulmonary Disease ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Care ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
At Home

IntroductionInfection with SARS-CoV-2 may progress to severe pulmonary disease, COVID-19. Currently, patients admitted to hospital because of COVID-19 have better prognosis than during the first period of the pandemic due to improved treatment. However, the overall societal susceptibility of being infected makes it pivotal to prevent severe courses of disease to avoid high mortality rates and collapse of the healthcare systems. Positive expiratory pressure (PEP) self-care is used in chronic pulmonary disease and has been shown to prevent pneumonia in a high-risk cohort of patients with leukaemia. PEP flute self-care to prevent respiratory deterioration and hospitalisation in early COVID-19: a randomised trial (The PEP-CoV trial) examines the effectiveness on respiratory symptoms and need of hospital admission by regular PEP flute use among non-hospitalised individuals with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms.Methods and analysisIn this randomised controlled trial, we hypothesise that daily PEP flute usage as add-on to usual care is superior to usual care as regards symptom severity measured by the COPD Assessment Test (CAT) at 30-day follow-up (primary outcome) and hospital admission through register data (secondary outcome). We expect to recruit 400 individuals for the trial. Participants in the intervention group receive a kit of 2 PEP flutes and adequate resistances and access to instruction videos. A telephone hotline offers possible contact to a nurse. The eight-item CAT score measures cough, phlegm, chest tightness, dyspnoea, activities of daily living at home, feeling safe at home despite symptoms, sleep quality and vigour. The CAT score is measured daily in both intervention and control arms by surveys prompted through text messages.Ethics and disseminationThe study was registered prospectively at www.clinicaltrials.gov on 27 August 2020 (NCT04530435). Ethical approval was granted by the local health research ethics committee (Journal number: H-20035929) on 23 July 2020. Enrolment of participants began on 6 October 2020. Results will be published in scientific journals.Trial registration numberNCT04530435; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness analysis of an intimate partner violence prevention intervention targeting men, women and couples in rural Ethiopia: evidence from the Unite for a Better Life randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e042365
Author(s):  
Jessica Leight ◽  
Negussie Deyessa ◽  
Vandana Sharma
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Community Level ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

ObjectivesExperience of intimate partner violence (IPV) is associated with adverse health and psychosocial outcomes for women. However, rigorous economic evaluations of interventions targeting IPV prevention are rare. This paper analyses the cost-effectiveness of Unite for a Better Life (UBL), a gender-transformative intervention designed to prevent IPV and HIV risk behaviours among men, women and couples.DesignWe use an economic evaluation nested within a large-scale cluster randomised controlled trial, analysing financial and economic costs tracked contemporaneously.SettingUBL was implemented in rural southern Ethiopia between 2013 and 2015.ParticipantsThe randomised controlled trial included 6770 households in 64 villages.InterventionsUBL is an intervention delivered within the context of the Ethiopian coffee ceremony, a culturally established forum for community discussion, and designed to assist participants to build skills for healthy, non-violent, equitable relationships.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThis paper reports on the unit cost and cost-effectiveness of the interventions implemented. Cost-effectiveness is measured as the cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted.ResultsThe estimated annualised cost of developing and implementing UBL was 2015 US$296 772, or approximately 2015 US$74 per individual directly participating in the intervention and 2015 US$5 per person annually for each community-level beneficiary (woman of reproductive age in intervention communities). The estimated cost per case of past-year physical and/or sexual IPV averted was 2015 US$2726 for the sample of direct beneficiaries, and 2015 US$194 for the sample of all community-level beneficiaries.ConclusionsUBL is an effective and cost-effective intervention for the prevention of IPV in a low and middle-income country setting. Further research should explore strategies to quantify the positive effects of the intervention across other domains.Trial registration numberNCT02311699 (ClinicalTrials.gov); AEARCTR-0000211 (AEA Registry)

TeleClinical Care: A randomised controlled trial of a smartphone-based model of care to support cardiac patients transitioning from hospital to the community (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen Indraratna ◽  
Uzzal Biswas ◽  
James McVeigh ◽  
Andrew Mamo ◽  
Joseph Magdy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Intervention Cost ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and educational components for both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) inpatients to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) plus usual care in patients being discharged from hospital after an ACS or HF admission, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS Methods: In this pilot, 2-centre RCT, a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) was applied at discharge. The primary endpoint was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure and physical activity daily, plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patient’s smartphone and then subsequently to a central server. Abnormal readings were flagged by email to a monitoring team. Control participants received usual care. RESULTS Results: 164 hospital inpatients were randomised at the time of discharge (TCC n=81, control n = 83, mean age 61.5 years, 79% male, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P = .97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 vs. 41 readmissions, P = 0.015), including cardiac readmissions (11 vs. 25, P = .025), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (39% vs. 18%, P = .025) and medication adherence (75% vs. 50%, P = .002). The average usability rating of the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost AUD $6,028 per cardiac readmission saved. When modelled in a mainstream clinical setting, however, enrolment of 237 patients was projected to have the same healthcare expenditure compared to usual care, and enrolment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately AUD $100,000. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: TCC was feasible and safe for ACS and HF inpatients. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar, however long-term benefits were demonstrated including fewer total readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. CLINICALTRIAL The study was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001547235).

scholarly journals Protocol for an economic evaluation of the randomised controlled trial of culprit lesion only PCI versus immediate multivessel PCI in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: CULPRIT-SHOCK trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. e014849 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zahidul Quayyum ◽  
Andrew Briggs ◽  
Jose Robles-Zurita ◽  
Keith Oldroyd ◽  
Uwe Zeymer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiogenic Shock ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Culprit Lesion ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Trial Analysis ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionEmergency percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of the culprit lesion for patients with acute myocardial infarctions is an accepted practice. A majority of patients present with multivessel disease with additional relevant stenoses apart from the culprit lesion. In haemodynamically stable patients, there is increasing evidence from randomised trials to support the practice of immediate complete revascularisation. However, in the presence of cardiogenic shock, the optimal management strategy for additional non-culprit lesions is unknown. A multicentre randomised controlled trial, CULPRIT-SHOCK, is examining whether culprit vessel only PCI with potentially subsequent staged revascularisation is more effective than immediate multivessel PCI. This paper describes the intended economic evaluation of the trial.Methods and analysisThe economic evaluation will be conducted using a pre-trial decision model and within-trial analysis. The modelling-based analysis will provide expected costs and health outcomes, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio over the lifetime for the cohort of patients included in the trial. The within-trial analysis will provide estimates of cost per life saved at 30 days and in 1 year, and estimates of health-related quality of life. Bootstrapping and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves will be used to address any uncertainty around these estimates. Different types of regression models within a generalised estimating equation framework will be used to examine how the total cost and quality-adjusted life years are explained by patients’ characteristics, revascularisation strategy, country and centre. The cost-effectiveness analysis will be from the perspective of each country’s national health services, where costs will be expressed in euros adjusted for purchasing power parity.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval for the study was granted by the local Ethics Committee at each recruiting centre. The economic evaluation analyses will be published in peer-reviewed journals of the concerned literature and communicated through the profiles of the authors atwww.twitter.comandwww.researchgate.net.Trial registration numberNCT01927549; Pre-results.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e017511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishma Patel ◽  
Rebecca J Beeken ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Rumana Z Omar ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-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.

scholarly journals Protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial of a musculoskeletal exercise intervention versus usual care for children with haemophilia

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ferhana Hashem ◽  
Melanie Bladen ◽  
Liz Carroll ◽  
Charlene Dodd ◽  
Wendy I Drechsler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Exercise Intervention ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Small Scale ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Muscle Strengthening ◽  
Training Requirements ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionHaemophilia is a rare, inherited disorder in which blood does not clot normally, resulting in bleeding into joints and muscles. Long-term consequence is disabling joint pain, stiffness, muscle weakness, atrophy and reduced mobility. The purpose of this proposed feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is to test the feasibility of an age-appropriate physiotherapy intervention designed to improve muscle strength, posture and the way boys use their joints during walking and everyday activities.Methods and analysisA small-scale two-centre RCT of a 12-week muscle strengthening exercise intervention versus usual care for young children with haemophilia will be conducted. Primary outcomes will be safety and adherence to the exercise intervention. Secondary outcomes will include recruitment, retention and adverse event rates, clinical data, muscle strength, joint biomechanics and foot loading patterns during walking, 6 min timed walk, timed-up-and-down-stairs, EQ-5D-Y, participants’ perceptions of the study, training requirements and relevant costs. Recruitment, follow-up, safety and adherence rates will be described as percentages. Participant diary and interview data will be analysed using a framework analysis. Demographic and disease variable distributions will be analysed for descriptive purposes and covariant analysis. Estimates of differences between treatment arms (adjusted for baseline) and 75% and 95% CIs will be calculated.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval from the London—Fulham Research Ethics Committee (17/LO/2043) as well as Health Research Authority approval. As well as informing the design of the definitive trial, results of this study will be presented at local, national and international physiotherapy and haemophilia meetings as well as manuscripts submitted to peer-reviewed journals. We will also share the main findings of the study to all participants and the Haemophilia Society.

scholarly journals Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Shafayat ◽  
Emese Csipke ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Mild Dementia ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document