A randomised feasibility trial of an employer-based intervention for enhancing successful return to work of cancer survivors (MiLES intervention)

Abstract Background Employers express a need for support during sickness absence and return to work (RTW) of cancer survivors. Therefore, a web-based intervention (MiLES) targeted at employers with the objective of enhancing cancer survivors’ successful RTW has been developed. This study aimed to assess feasibility of a future definitive randomised controlled trial (RCT) on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Also preliminary results on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention were obtained. Methods A randomised feasibility trial of 6 months was undertaken with cancer survivors aged 18–63 years, diagnosed with cancer < 2 years earlier, currently in paid employment, and sick-listed < 1 year. Participants were randomised to an intervention group, with their employer receiving the MiLES intervention, or to a waiting-list control group (2:1). Feasibility of a future definitive RCT was determined on the basis of predefined criteria related to method and protocol-related uncertainties (e.g. reach, retention, appropriateness). The primary effect measure (i.e. successful RTW) and secondary effect measures (e.g. quality of working life) were assessed at baseline and 3 and 6 months thereafter. Results Thirty-five cancer survivors were included via medical specialists (4% of the initially invited group) and open invitations, and thereafter randomised to the intervention (n = 24) or control group (n = 11). Most participants were female (97%) with breast cancer (80%) and a permanent employment contract (94%). All predefined criteria for feasibility of a future definitive RCT were achieved, except that concerning the study’s reach (90 participants). After 6 months, 92% of the intervention group and 100% of the control group returned to work (RR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.81–1.03); no difference were found with regard to secondary effect measures. Conclusions With the current design a future definitive RCT on the effectiveness of the MiLES intervention on successful RTW of cancer survivors is not feasible, since recruitment of survivors fell short of the predefined minimum for feasibility. There was selection bias towards survivors at low risk of adverse work outcomes, which reduced generalisability of the outcomes. An alternative study design is needed to study effectiveness of the MiLES intervention. Trial registration The study has been registered in the Dutch Trial Register (NL6758/NTR7627).

Download Full-text

Study protocol for the ‘HelpMeDoIt!’ randomised controlled feasibility trial: an app, web and social support-based weight loss intervention for adults with obesity

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017159 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 7 (10) ◽

pp. e017159 ◽

Cited By ~ 11

Author(s):

Lynsay Matthews ◽

Juliana Pugmire ◽

Laurence Moore ◽

Mark Kelson ◽

Alex McConnachie ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Support ◽

Weight Loss ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Qualitative Interviews ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Ethics Committee ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Weight Loss Intervention ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionHelpMeDoIt! will test the feasibility of an innovative weight loss intervention using a smartphone app and website. Goal setting, self-monitoring and social support are three key facilitators of behaviour change. HelpMeDoIt! incorporates these features and encourages participants to invite ‘helpers’ from their social circle to help them achieve their goal(s).AimTo test the feasibility of the intervention in supporting adults with obesity to achieve weight loss goals.Methods and analysis12-month feasibility randomised controlled trial and accompanying process evaluation. Participants (n=120) will be adults interested in losing weight, body mass index (BMI)>30 kg/m2and smartphone users. The intervention group will use the app/website for 12 months. Participants will nominate one or more helpers to support them. Helpers have access to the app/website. The control group will receive a leaflet on healthy lifestyle and will have access to HelpMeDoIt! after follow-up. The key outcome of the study is whether prespecified progression criteria have been met in order to progress to a larger randomised controlled effectiveness trial. Data will be collected at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Outcomes focus on exploring the feasibility of delivering the intervention and include: (i) assessing three primary outcomes (BMI, physical activity and diet); (ii) secondary outcomes of waist/hip circumference, health-related quality of life, social support, self-efficacy, motivation and mental health; (iii) recruitment and retention; (iv) National Health Service (NHS) resource use and participant borne costs; (v) usability and acceptability of the app/website; and (vi) qualitative interviews with up to 50 participants and 20 helpers on their experiences of the intervention. Statistical analyses will focus on feasibility outcomes and provide initial estimates of intervention effects. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews will assess implementation, acceptability, mechanisms of effect and contextual factors influencing the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the West of Scotland NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 15/WS/0288) and the University of Glasgow MVLS College Ethics Committee (Ref: 200140108). Findings will be disseminated widely through peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.Trial registration numberISRCTN85615983.

Download Full-text

A multicentre, pragmatic, cluster randomised, controlled feasibility trial of the POD system of care

Age and Ageing ◽

10.1093/ageing/afaa044 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 49 (4) ◽

pp. 640-647

Author(s):

John Young ◽

John Green ◽

Amanda Farrin ◽

Michelle Collinson ◽

Suzanne Hartley ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Group Versus ◽

Assessment Method ◽

System Of Care ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Cluster Randomised ◽

Randomised Controlled ◽

New Onset

Abstract Objective to provide a preliminary estimate of the effectiveness of the prevention of delirium (POD) system of care in reducing incident delirium in acute hospital wards and gather data for a future definitive randomised controlled trial. Design cluster randomised and controlled feasibility trial. Setting sixteen acute care of older people and orthopaedic trauma wards in eight hospitals in England and Wales. Participants patients 65 years and over admitted to participating wards during the trial period. Interventions participating wards were randomly assigned to either the POD programme or usual care, determined by existing local policies and practices. The POD programme is a manualised multicomponent delirium prevention intervention that targets 10 risk factors for delirium. The intervention wards underwent a 6-month implementation period before trial recruitment commenced. Main outcome measure incidence of new-onset delirium measured using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) measured daily for up to 10 days post consent. Results out of 4449, 3274 patients admitted to the wards were eligible. In total, 714 patients consented (713 registered) to the trial, thirty-three participants (4.6%) withdrew. Adherence to the intervention was classified as at least medium for seven wards. Rates of new-onset delirium were lower than expected and did not differ between groups (24 (7.0%) of participants in the intervention group versus 33 (8.9%) in the control group; odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 0.68 (0.37–1.26); P = 0.2225). Conclusions based on these findings, a definitive trial is achievable and would need to recruit 5220 patients in 26 two-ward hospital clusters. Trial registration: ISRCTN01187372. Registered 13 March 2014.

Download Full-text

Rehabilitation coordinator intervention versus control in psychiatric specialist care for return to work and reduced sick leave: study protocol of a randomised controlled trial

BMC Public Health ◽

10.1186/s12889-020-8238-3 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Åsa Andersén ◽

Erik Berglund ◽

Ingrid Anderzén

Keyword(s):

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Mental Disorders ◽

Sick Leave ◽

Return To Work ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Economic Benefits ◽

Control Group ◽

Link Type ◽

Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Mental disorders are the most common reason for sick leave in Sweden. Knowledge about effective methods to help these individuals to return to work (RTW)/entry into work or studies is limited. Rehabilitation coordinators (RC’s) have been introduced within healthcare with the purpose to promote cooperation, streamline the sick leave and rehabilitation process, and facilitate RTW for sick-listed patients. The function of RC’s has shown positive results by reducing sick leave within primary healthcare. However, the function has not been evaluated in terms of specialist psychiatry. This paper describes the design of a study to evaluate effects of a RC intervention on sick leave and RTW/entry in work or studies in patients with moderate to severe affective and/or moderate to severe anxiety disorders within specialist psychiatric care. Methods A randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing an intervention group receiving support from a RC with a control group receiving treatment as usual (TAU). The target group is patients on sick leave, treated for affective and/or anxiety disorder, aged 25–64, with or without employment. Discussion This study gives the possibility to evaluate a RC intervention for individuals with mental disorders. If the study has promising vocational outcomes, it may be of importance for the participants in many ways, e.g. increase participation in society, provide economic benefits and improve health and wellbeing. This would be valuable for the individual as well as for the society. Trial registration The study is registered at the Clinicaltrials.gov Register Platform (ID NCT03729050) in 2 November 2018.

Download Full-text

Tailored digital behaviour change intervention with e-referral system to increase attendance at NHS stop smoking services (the MyWay project): study protocol for a randomised controlled feasibility trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-028721 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (4) ◽

pp. e028721

Author(s):

Emily Fulton ◽

Katie Newby ◽

Kajal Gokal ◽

Kayleigh Kwah ◽

Lauren Schumacher ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Behaviour Change ◽

Service Management ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Behaviour Change Intervention ◽

Stop Smoking ◽

Stop Smoking Services ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionIn the UK, smokers who use stop smoking services (SSSs) are four times more likely to stop smoking than smokers who do not. Attendance has declined, warranting the development of interventions to address this. StopApp is a novel, brief online behaviour change intervention designed to address common barriers to SSS attendance. It links to widely commissioned service management software that enables instant appointment booking at a user’s location and time of choice.Methods and analysisA two-arm parallel group, individual participant feasibility randomised controlled trial of StopApp (intervention) compared with the standard promotion of and referral to SSSs (control). The study includes a nested qualitative process evaluation to assess the acceptability of the research processes, with a subsample of participants. Smokers aged over 16 years will be recruited via three routes: General Practice (GP), community settings and online. After consenting and the collection of baseline data, participants will be randomised to control or intervention groups. Participants in the intervention group receive a link to StopApp and those in the control group receive standard web-based information about the SSSs. All participants are told they can book a SSS appointment but are under no obligation to do so. Online follow-up 2 months post randomisation includes data on SSS use and carbon monoxide verified 4-week quit rates. The study aims to recruit 162 smokers.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the West Midlands—Edgbaston NHS Research Ethics Committee. The findings will be reported in conferences and peer-reviewed publications; and will be used to design the parameters necessary for a definitive trial to ascertain the effectiveness of StopApp at increasing booking and attendance at SSSs compared with existing methods for encouraging uptake.

Download Full-text

Preventing blood-borne virus infection in people who inject drugs in the UK: systematic review, stakeholder interviews, psychosocial intervention development and feasibility randomised controlled trial

Health Technology Assessment ◽

10.3310/hta21720 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 21 (72) ◽

pp. 1-312 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Gail Gilchrist ◽

Davina Swan ◽

April Shaw ◽

Ada Keding ◽

Sarah Towers ◽

...

Keyword(s):

People Who Inject Drugs ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Health Technology ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Risk Behaviours ◽

Post Intervention ◽

Information Booklet ◽

Randomised Controlled

Background Opioid substitution therapy and needle exchanges have reduced blood-borne viruses (BBVs) among people who inject drugs (PWID). Some PWID continue to share injecting equipment. Objectives To develop an evidence-based psychosocial intervention to reduce BBV risk behaviours and increase transmission knowledge among PWID, and conduct a feasibility trial among PWID comparing the intervention with a control. Design A pragmatic, two-armed randomised controlled, open feasibility trial. Service users were Steering Group members and co-developed the intervention. Peer educators co-delivered the intervention in London. Setting NHS or third-sector drug treatment or needle exchanges in Glasgow, London, Wrexham and York, recruiting January and February 2016. Participants Current PWID, aged ≥ 18 years. Interventions A remote, web-based computer randomisation system allocated participants to a three-session, manualised, psychosocial, gender-specific group intervention delivered by trained facilitators and BBV transmission information booklet plus treatment as usual (TAU) (intervention), or information booklet plus TAU (control). Main outcome measures Recruitment, retention and follow-up rates measured feasibility. Feedback questionnaires, focus groups with participants who attended at least one intervention session and facilitators assessed the intervention’s acceptability. Results A systematic review of what works to reduce BBV risk behaviours among PWID; in-depth interviews with PWID; and stakeholder and expert consultation informed the intervention. Sessions covered improving injecting technique and good vein care; planning for risky situations; and understanding BBV transmission. Fifty-six per cent (99/176) of eligible PWID were randomised: 52 to the intervention group and 47 to the control group. Only 24% (8/34) of male and 11% (2/18) of female participants attended all three intervention sessions. Overall, 50% (17/34) of men and 33% (6/18) of women randomised to the intervention group and 47% (14/30) of men and 53% (9/17) of women randomised to the control group were followed up 1 month post intervention. Variations were reported by location. The intervention was acceptable to both participants and facilitators. At 1 month post intervention, no increase in injecting in ‘risky’ sites (e.g. groin, neck) was reported by participants who attended at least one session. PWID who attended at least one session showed a trend towards greater reduction in injecting risk behaviours, a greater increase in withdrawal planning and were more confident about finding a vein. A mean cost of £58.17 per participant was calculated for those attending one session, £148.54 for those attending two sessions and £270.67 for those attending all three sessions, compared with £0.86 in the control group. Treatment costs across the centres vary as a result of the different levels of attendance, as total session costs are divided by attendees to obtain a cost per attendee. The economic analysis suggests that a cost-effectiveness study would be feasible given the response rates and completeness of data. However, we have identified aspects where the service use questionnaire could be abbreviated given the low numbers reported in several care domains. No adverse events were reported. Conclusions As only 19% of participants attended all three intervention sessions and 47% were followed up 1 month post intervention, a future definitive randomised controlled trial of the intervention is not feasible. Exposure to information on improving injecting techniques did not encourage riskier injecting practices or injecting frequency, and benefits were reported among attendees. The intervention has the potential to positively influence BBV prevention. Harm reduction services should ensure that the intervention content is routinely delivered to PWID to improve vein care and prevent BBVs. Future work The intervention did not meet the complex needs of some PWID, more tailoring may be needed to reach PWID who are more frequent injectors, who are homeless and female. Limitations Intervention delivery proved more feasible in London than other locations. Non-attendance at the York trial site substantially influenced the results. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN66453696 and PROSPERO 014:CRD42014012969. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 72. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Download Full-text

INSoles To Ease Pressure (INSTEP) Study: a multicentre, randomised controlled feasibility study to compare the effectiveness of a novel instant optimised insole with a standard insole for people with diabetic neuropathy: a study protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029185 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. e029185

Author(s):

Richard Collings ◽

Jennifer A Freeman ◽

Jos Latour ◽

Patricia Jane Vickery ◽

Sam Glasser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Randomised Controlled Trial ◽

Diabetic Neuropathy ◽

Usual Care ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Retention Rates ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Foot Ulceration ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionFoot ulceration is a multifactorial complication of diabetes. Therapeutic insoles and footwear are frequently used to reduce elevated tissue pressures associated with risk of foot ulceration. A novel protocol using in-shoe pressure measurement technology to provide an instant optimised insole and house shoe solution has been developed, with the aim of reducing foot ulceration.AimThis study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a multicentre randomised controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of a novel instant optimised insole with a standard insole for people with diabetic neuropathy.Methods and analysisThis study is a participant and assessor blinded, randomised, multicentre parallel group feasibility trial with embedded qualitative study. Seventy-six participants will be recruited from three podiatry clinics and randomised to an optimised insole plus usual care (intervention group) or standard insole plus usual care (control group) using a minimisation by randomisation procedure by study centre and previous ulcer status. Assessment visits and data collection will be at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. Feasibility and acceptability of the trial procedures will be determined in terms of recruitment and retention rates, data completion rates, intervention adherence and effectiveness of the blinding.Assessment of the appropriateness and performance of outcome measures will inform selection of the primary and secondary outcomes and sample size estimate for the anticipated definitive randomised controlled trial. Clinical outcomes include incidence of plantar foot ulceration and change in peak plantar pressure. Twelve participants (four from each centre) and three treating podiatrists (one from each centre) will be interviewed to explore their experiences of receiving and delivering the intervention.Ethics and disseminationThe study was approved by the South-West Exeter Research Ethics Committee. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations, public platforms and academic publications.Trials registration numberISRCTN16011830; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Can an online exercise prescription tool improve adherence to home exercise programmes in children with cerebral palsy and other neurodevelopmental disabilities? A randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040108 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 10 (12) ◽

pp. e040108

Author(s):

Rowan W Johnson ◽

Sian A Williams ◽

Daniel F Gucciardi ◽

Natasha Bear ◽

Noula Gibson

Keyword(s):

Exercise Prescription ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Exercise Programme ◽

Home Exercise ◽

Control Group ◽

Neurodevelopmental Disabilities ◽

Home Exercise Programme ◽

Exercise Programmes ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveDetermine the adherence to and effectiveness of an 8-week home exercise programme for children with disabilities delivered using Physitrack, an online exercise prescription tool, compared with traditional paper-based methods.DesignSingle-blinded, parallel-groups, randomised controlled trial (RCT).SettingIntervention took place in participants’ homes in Western Australia.ParticipantsChildren aged 6 to 17 years, with neurodevelopmental disabilities including cerebral palsy (CP), receiving community therapy services.InterventionAll participants completed an individualised home exercise programme, which was delivered to the intervention group using Physitrack and conventional paper-based methods for the control group.Primary outcome measuresAdherence to exercise programme, goal achievement and exercise performance.Secondary outcome measuresEnjoyment, confidence and usability of Physitrack.ResultsFifty-four participants with CP (n=37) or other neurodevelopmental disabilities (n=17) were recruited. Fifty-three were randomised after one early withdrawal. Forty-six completed the 8-week programme, with 24 in the intervention group and 22 in the control group. There was no difference between the two groups for percentage of exercises completed (intervention (n=22): 62.8% (SD 27.7), control (n=22): 55.8% (SD 19.4), between group mean difference −7.0% (95% CI: −21.6 to 7.5, p=0.34)). Both groups showed significant improvement in their self-rated performance of individualised goal activities, however there was no statistically significant difference between groups for goal achievement, quality of exercise performance, enjoyment, confidence or preferred method of delivery. There were no adverse events.ConclusionPhysitrack provides a therapist with a new means of providing an exercise programme with online tools such as exercise videos, but our preliminary findings indicate that it may be no better than a traditional paper-based method for improving exercise adherence or the other outcomes measured. Exercise programmes remain an intervention supported by evidence, but a larger RCT is required to fully evaluate online delivery methods.Trial registration detailsAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; ACTRN12616000743460.

Download Full-text

Randomised controlled feasibility trial of an active communication education programme plus hearing aid provision versus hearing aid provision alone (ACE To HEAR)

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-043364 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (4) ◽

pp. e043364

Author(s):

Judith Watson ◽

Elizabeth Coleman ◽

Cath Jackson ◽

Kerry Bell ◽

Christina Maynard ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Outcome Measures ◽

Hearing Aids ◽

Hearing Aid ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Feasibility Trial ◽

Control Group ◽

Communication Education ◽

Treatment As Usual ◽

Active Communication ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo establish the acceptability and feasibility of delivering the Active Communication Education (ACE) programme to increase quality of life through improving communication and hearing aid use in the UK National Health Service.DesignRandomised controlled, open feasibility trial with embedded economic and process evaluations.SettingAudiology departments in two hospitals in two UK cities.ParticipantsTwelve hearing aid users aged 18 years or over who reported moderate or less than moderate benefit from their new hearing aid.InterventionsConsenting participants (along with a significant other) were to be randomised by a remote, centralised randomisation service in groups to ACE plus treatment-as-usual (intervention group) or treatment-as-usual only (control group).Primary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were related to feasibility: recruitment, retention, treatment adherence and acceptability to participants and fidelity of treatment delivery.Secondary outcome measuresInternational Outcomes Inventory for Hearing Aids, Self-Assessment of Communication, EQ-5D-5L and Short-Form 36. Blinding of the participants and facilitator was not possible.ResultsTwelve hearing aid users and six significant others consented to take part. Eight hearing aid users were randomised: four to the intervention group; and four to treatment-as-usual only. Four significant others participated alongside the randomised participants. Recruitment to the study was very low and centres only screened 466 hearing aid users over the 15-month recruitment period, compared with the approximately 3500 anticipated. Only one ACE group and one control group were formed. ACE could be delivered and appeared acceptable to participants. We were unable to robustly assess attrition and attendance rates due to the low sample size.ConclusionsWhile ACE appeared acceptable to hearing aid users and feasible to deliver, it was not feasible to identify and recruit participants struggling with their hearing aids at the 3-month posthearing aid fitting point.Trial registration numberISRCTN28090877.

Download Full-text

Randomised controlled trial of a financial incentive for increasing the number of daily walking steps: study protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026086 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (6) ◽

pp. e026086

Author(s):

Yasutake Tomata ◽

Fumiya Tanji ◽

Dieta Nurrika ◽

Yingxu Liu ◽

Saho Abe ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Financial Incentives ◽

Primary Outcome ◽

Financial Incentive ◽

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Sample Size Calculation ◽

Community Dwelling ◽

Control Group ◽

Modifiable Factors ◽

Randomised Controlled

IntroductionPhysical activity is one of the major modifiable factors for promotion of public health. Although it has been reported that financial incentives would be effective for promoting health behaviours such as smoking cessation or attendance for cancer screening, few randomised controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the effect of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among individuals in a community setting. The aim of this study is to investigate the effects of financial incentives for increasing the number of daily steps among community-dwelling adults in Japan.Methods and analysisThis study will be a two-arm, parallel-group RCT. We will recruit community-dwelling adults who are physically inactive in a suburban area (Nakayama) of Sendai city, Japan, using leaflets and posters. Participants that meet the inclusion criteria will be randomly allocated to an intervention group or a waitlist control group. The intervention group will be offered a financial incentive (a chance to get shopping points) if participants increase their daily steps from their baseline. The primary outcome will be the average increase in the number of daily steps (at 4–6 weeks and 7–9 weeks) relative to the average number of daily steps at the baseline (1–3 weeks). For the sample size calculation, we assumed that the difference of primary outcome would be 1302 steps.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been ethically approved by the research ethics committee of Tohoku University Graduate School of Medicine, Japan (No. 2018-1-171). The results will be submitted and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.Trial registration numberUMIN000033276; Pre-results.

Download Full-text

Effect of Engaging Trainees by Assessing Peer Performance: A Randomised Controlled Trial Using Simulated Patient Scenarios

BioMed Research International ◽

10.1155/2014/610591 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 2014 ◽

pp. 1-7 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Charlotte Loumann Krogh ◽

Charlotte Ringsted ◽

Charles B. Kromann ◽

Maria Birkvad Rasmussen ◽

Tobias Todsen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Controlled Trial ◽

Intervention Group ◽

Control Group ◽

Global Rating ◽

Training Performance ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Training Format ◽

Peer Performance ◽

And Performance ◽

Randomised Controlled

Introduction. The aim of this study was to explore the learning effect of engaging trainees by assessing peer performance during simulation-based training.Methods. Eighty-four final year medical students participated in the study. The intervention involved trainees assessing peer performance during training. Outcome measures were in-training performance and performance, both of which were measured two weeks after the course. Trainees’ performances were videotaped and assessed by two expert raters using a checklist that included a global rating. Trainees’ satisfaction with the training was also evaluated.Results. The intervention group obtained a significantly higher overall in-training performance score than the control group: mean checklist score 20.87 (SD 2.51) versus 19.14 (SD 2.65)P=0.003and mean global rating 3.25 SD (0.99) versus 2.95 (SD 1.09)P=0.014. Postcourse performance did not show any significant difference between the two groups. Trainees who assessed peer performance were more satisfied with the training than those who did not: mean 6.36 (SD 1.00) versus 5.74 (SD 1.33)P=0.025.Conclusion. Engaging trainees in the assessment of peer performance had an immediate effect on in-training performance, but not on the learning outcome measured two weeks later. Trainees had a positive attitude towards the training format.

Download Full-text