Randomised controlled trial of a telephone support 'help card' versus usual care for self harm (SH) patients: effects on repetition

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Blewett
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Telephone Support ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Randomised Controlled

scholarly journals Problem-solving therapy for people who present to hospital with self-harm: Zelen randomised controlled trial

2011 ◽  
Vol 199 (4) ◽  
pp. 310-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Hatcher ◽  
Cynthia Sharon ◽  
Varsha Parag ◽  
Nicola Collins
Keyword(s):  
Problem Solving ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Effective Intervention ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Problem Solving Therapy ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundPresentations to hospital with self-harm are common, associated with suicide and have an increased mortality, yet there is no accepted effective intervention.AimsTo investigate whether problem-solving therapy would improve outcomes in adults presenting to hospital with self-harm, compared with usual care.MethodA Zelen randomised controlled trial was conducted in four district health boards in New Zealand. A second hospital presentation with self-harm at 1 year for all episodes, plus separate comparisons of first-time and repeat presentations at the index episode, were the a priori primary outcomes. The trial registration number was ACTRN12605000337673.ResultsIn an intention-to-treat analysis of all randomised patients (n = 1094) there was no significant difference at 12 months in the proportion of people who had presented again with self-harm when comparing all episodes (intervention 13.4%, usual care 14.1%; relative risk reduction RR = 0.05, 95% CI −0.28 to 0.30, P = 0.79) or where the index episode was the first episode (intervention 13.4%, usual care 9.4%, RR =–0.42, 95% CI −1.17 to 0.08, P = 0.37). Where the index episode was repeated self-harm, those who received therapy were less likely to present again with self-harm (intervention 13.5%, usual care 22.1%, RR = 0.39, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.60, number needed to treat 12, P = 0.03).ConclusionsProblem-solving therapy is not recommended for everyone who presents to hospital with self-harm. Among adults with a history of self-harm it may be an effective intervention.

scholarly journals Beating Adolescent Self-Harm (BASH): a randomised controlled trial comparing usual care versus usual care plus a smartphone self-harm prevention app (BlueIce) in young adolescents aged 12–17 who self-harm: study protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. e049859
Author(s):  
Isobel Greenhalgh ◽  
Jessica Tingley ◽  
Gordon Taylor ◽  
Antonieta Medina-Lara ◽  
Shelley Rhodes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Young People ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
South Central ◽  
History Of ◽  
Self Harm ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Utilisation Data

IntroductionA mobile app, BlueIce, was codesigned with young people with a history of self-harm to provide them with more accessible and available evidence-based support at times of distress. A preliminary evaluation found that BlueIce was acceptable, safe and used by young people and helped to reduce self-harm. The present study is designed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of adding BlueIce to usual Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service (CAMHS).Methods and analysisThis study is a single-blind, randomised controlled trial comparing usual CAMHS care with usual care plus BlueIce. A total of 138 adolescents aged 12–17 with current or a history of self-harm will be recruited through the Oxford Health National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust via their CAMHS clinician. The primary outcome is self-harm at 12 weeks assessed using the Risk Taking and Self-Harm Inventory for Adolescents. Secondary outcomes include mood, anxiety, hopelessness, general behaviour, sleep and impact on everyday life at 12 weeks and 6 months. Health-related quality of life and healthcare resource utilisation data will be collected at baseline, 12 weeks and 6 months. Postuse interviews at 12 weeks will determine the acceptability, safety and usability of BlueIce.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the NHS South Central—Oxford B NHS Research Ethics Committee (19/SC/0212) and by the Health Research Authority (HRA) and Health and Care Research Wales. Findings will be disseminated in peer review open-access journals and at academic conferences.Trial registration numberISRCTN10541045.

scholarly journals An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.

scholarly journals Evaluating the provision of Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) for informal caregivers of older adults discharged home from hospital: protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e046600
Author(s):  
Anne-Marie Hill ◽  
Rachael Moorin ◽  
Susan Slatyer ◽  
Christina Bryant ◽  
Keith Hill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Informal Caregivers ◽  
Care Recipient ◽  
Care At Home ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionThere are personal and societal benefits from caregiving; however, caregiving can jeopardise caregivers’ health. The Further Enabling Care at Home (FECH+) programme provides structured nurse support, through telephone outreach, to informal caregivers of older adults following discharge from acute hospital care to home. The trial aims to evaluate the efficacy of the FECH+ programme on caregivers’ health-related quality of life (HRQOL) after care recipients’ hospital discharge.Methods and analysisA multisite, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial with blinded baseline and outcome assessment and intention-to-treat analysis, adhering to Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines will be conducted. Participants (N=925 dyads) comprising informal home caregiver (18 years or older) and care recipient (70 years or older) will be recruited when the care recipient is discharged from hospital. Caregivers of patients discharged from wards in three hospitals in Australia (one in Western Australia and two in Queensland) are eligible for inclusion. Participants will be randomly assigned to one of the two groups. The intervention group receive the FECH+ programme, which provides structured support and problem-solving for the caregiver after the care recipient’s discharge, in addition to usual care. The control group receives usual care. The programme is delivered by a registered nurse and comprises six 30–45 min telephone support sessions over 6 months. The primary outcome is caregivers’ HRQOL measured using the Assessment of Quality of Life—eight dimensions. Secondary outcomes include caregiver preparedness, strain and distress and use of healthcare services. Changes in HRQOL between groups will be compared using a mixed regression model that accounts for the correlation between repeated measurements.Ethics and disseminationParticipants will provide written informed consent. Ethics approvals have been obtained from Sir Charles Gairdner and Osborne Park Health Care Group, Curtin University, Griffith University, Gold Coast Health Service and government health data linkage services. Findings will be disseminated through presentations, peer-reviewed journals and conferences.Trial registration numberACTRN12620000060943.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document