scholarly journals Antenatal telephone support intervention with and without uterine artery Doppler screening for low risk nulliparous women: a randomised controlled trial

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vikki J Snaith ◽  
Jenny Hewison ◽  
Ian N Steen ◽  
Stephen C Robson
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Uterine Artery ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Telephone Support ◽  
Uterine Artery Doppler ◽  
Support Intervention ◽  
Nulliparous Women ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Trial of feasibility and acceptability of routine low-dose aspirin versusEarlyScreeningTest indicated aspirin for pre-eclampsia prevention (TESTstudy): a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e022056 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fionnuala Mone ◽  
Cecilia Mulcahy ◽  
Peter McParland ◽  
Fionnuala Breathnach ◽  
Paul Downey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Dose ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Uterine Artery Doppler ◽  
Dose Aspirin ◽  
Nulliparous Women ◽  
Low Dose Aspirin ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Screening Result

ObjectiveEvaluate the feasibility and acceptability of routine aspirin in low-risk women, compared with screening-test indicated aspirin for the prevention of pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction.DesignMulticentre open-label feasibility randomised controlled trial.SettingTwo tertiary maternity hospitals in Dublin, Ireland.Participants546 low-risk nulliparous women completed the study.InterventionsWomen underwent computerised randomisation to: Group 1—routine aspirin 75 mg from 11 until 36 weeks; Group 2—no aspirin and; Group 3—aspirin based on the Fetal Medicine Foundation screening test.Primary and secondary outcome measures(1) Proportion agreeing to participate; (2) compliance with protocol; (3) proportion where first trimester uterine artery Doppler was obtainable and; (4) time taken to issue a screening result. Secondary outcomes included rates of pre-eclampsia and small-for-gestational-age fetuses.Results546 were included in the routine aspirin (n=179), no aspirin (n=183) and screen and treat (n=184) groups. 546 of 1054 were approached (51.8%) and enrolled. Average aspirin adherence was 90%. The uterine artery Doppler was obtained in 98.4% (181/184) and the average time to obtain a screening result was 7.6 (0–26) days. Of those taking aspirin, vaginal spotting was greater; n=29 (15.1%), non-aspirin n=28 (7.9%), OR 2.1 (95% CI 1.2 to 3.6). Postpartum haemorrhage >500 mL was also greater; aspirin n=26 (13.5%), no aspirin n=20 (5.6%), OR 2.6 (95% CI 1.4 to 4.8).ConclusionLow-risk nulliparous women are open to taking aspirin in pregnancy and had high levels of adherence. Aspirin use was associated with greater rates of vaginal bleeding. An appropriately powered randomised controlled trial is now required to address the efficacy and safety of universal low-dose aspirin in low-risk pregnancy compared with a screening approach.Trial registration numberISRCTN (15191778); Post-results.

A Randomised Controlled Trial of a Social Support Intervention

2011 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul R. Martin ◽  
John Reece ◽  
Sue Lauder ◽  
Andrew McClelland
Keyword(s):  
Social Support ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Support Intervention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Effectiveness of a Hospital-Based Work Support Intervention for Female Cancer Patients – A Multi-Centre Randomised Controlled Trial

PLoS ONE ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (5) ◽  
pp. e63271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sietske J. Tamminga ◽  
Jos H. A. M. Verbeek ◽  
Monique M. E. M. Bos ◽  
Guus Fons ◽  
Jos J. E. M. Kitzen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Support Intervention ◽  
Work Support ◽  
Female Cancer Patients ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Supporting self-management of low back pain with an internet intervention in primary care: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial of clinical and cost-effectiveness (SupportBack 2)

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. e040543
Author(s):  
Adam W A Geraghty ◽  
Lisa Roberts ◽  
Jonathan Hill ◽  
Nadine E Foster ◽  
Lucy Yardley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Internet Intervention ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Telephone Support ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionSelf-management and remaining physically active are first-line recommendations for the care of patients with low back pain (LBP). With a lifetime prevalence of up to 85%, novel approaches to support behavioural self-management are needed. Internet interventions may provide accessible support for self-management of LBP in primary care. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to determine the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the ‘SupportBack’ internet intervention, with or without physiotherapist telephone support in reducing LBP-related disability in primary care patients.Methods and analysisA three-parallel arm, multicentre randomised controlled trial will compare three arms: (1) usual primary care for LBP; (2) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention; (3) usual primary care for LBP and an internet intervention with additional physiotherapist telephone support. Patients with current LBP and no indicators of serious spinal pathology are identified and invited via general practice list searches and mailouts or opportunistic recruitment following LBP consultations. Participants undergo a secondary screen for possible serious spinal pathology and are then asked to complete baseline measures online after which they are randomised to an intervention arm. Follow-ups occur at 6 weeks, 3, 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is physical function (using the Roland and Morris Disability Questionnaire) over 12 months (repeated measures design). Secondary outcomes include pain intensity, troublesome days in pain over the last month, pain self-efficacy, catastrophising, kinesophobia, health-related quality of life and cost-related measures for a full health economic analysis. A full mixed-methods process evaluation will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationThis trial has been approved by a National Health Service Research Ethics Committee (REC Ref: 18/SC/0388). Results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences, communication with practices and patient groups. Patient representatives will support the implementation of our full dissemination strategy.Trial registration numberISRCTN14736486.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document