scholarly journals Examining the effectiveness of general practitioner and nurse promotion of electronic cigarettes versus standard care for smoking reduction and abstinence in hardcore smokers with smoking-related chronic disease: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachna Begh ◽  
Tim Coleman ◽  
Lucy Yardley ◽  
Rebecca Barnes ◽  
Felix Naughton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Chronic Diseases ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Electronic Cigarettes ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Smoking Reduction ◽  
Stop Smoking ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Brief Advice ◽  
Point Prevalence Abstinence

Abstract Background Despite the clear harm associated with smoking tobacco, many people with smoking-related chronic diseases or serious mental illnesses (SMI) are unwilling or unable to stop smoking. In many cases, these smokers have tried and exhausted all methods to stop smoking and yet clinicians are repeatedly mandated to offer them during routine consultations. Providing nicotine through electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) may reduce the adverse health consequences associated with tobacco smoking, but these are not currently offered. The aim of this study is to examine the feasibility, acceptability and effectiveness of general practitioners (GPs) and nurses delivering a brief advice intervention on e-cigarettes and offering an e-cigarette starter pack and patient support resources compared with standard care in smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI who are unwilling to stop smoking. Methods/design This is an individually randomised, blinded, two-arm trial. Smokers with a smoking-related chronic condition or SMI with no intention of stopping smoking will be recruited through primary care registers. Eligible participants will be randomised to one of two groups if they decline standard care for stopping smoking: a control group who will receive no additional support beyond standard care; or an intervention group who will receive GP or nurse-led brief advice about e-cigarettes, an e-cigarette starter pack with accompanying practical support booklet, and telephone support from experienced vapers and online video tutorials. The primary outcome measures will be smoking reduction, measured through changes in cigarettes per day and 7-day point-prevalence abstinence at 2 months. Secondary outcomes include smoking reduction, 7-day point-prevalence abstinence and prolonged abstinence at 8 months. Other outcomes include patient recruitment and follow-up, patient uptake and use of e-cigarettes, nicotine intake, contamination of randomisation and practitioner adherence to the delivery of the intervention. Qualitative interviews will be conducted in a subsample of practitioners, patients and the vape team to garner their reactions to the programme. Discussion This is the first randomised controlled trial to investigate whether e-cigarette provision alongside a brief intervention delivered by practitioners leads to reduced smoking and abstinence among smokers with smoking-related chronic diseases or SMI. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN59404712. Registered 28/11/17.

A randomised controlled trial of intrapleural balloon intercostal chest drains to prevent drain displacement

2021 ◽  
pp. 2101753
Author(s):  
Rachel M Mercer ◽  
Eleanor Mishra ◽  
Radhika Banka ◽  
John P Corcoran ◽  
Cyrus Daneshvar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Clinical Problem ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Chest Drain ◽  
Drain Removal ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundChest drain displacement is a common clinical problem, occurring in 9–42% of cases and results in treatment failure or additional pleural procedures conferring unnecessary risk. A novel chest drain with an integrated intrapleural balloon may reduce the risk of displacement.MethodsProspective randomised controlled trial comparing the balloon drain to standard care (12 F chest drain with no balloon) with the primary outcome of objectively-defined unintentional or accidental chest drain displacement.Results267 patients were randomised (primary outcome data available in 257, 96.2%). Displacement occurred less frequently using the balloon drain (displacement 5/128, 3.9%; standard care displacement 13/129, 10.1%) but this was not statistically significant (Odds Ratio (OR) for drain displacement 0.36, 95% CI 0.13 to 1.0, χ2 1df=2.87, p=0.09). Adjusted analysis to account for minimisation factors and use of drain sutures demonstrated balloon drains were independently associated with reduced drain fall out rate (adjusted OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.87, p=0.028). Adverse events were higher in the balloon arm than the standard care arm (balloon drain 59/131, 45.0%; standard care 18/132, 13.6%; χ2 1df=31.3, p<0.0001).ConclusionBalloon drains reduce displacement compared with standard drains independent of the use of sutures but are associated with increased adverse events specifically during drain removal. The potential benefits of the novel drain should be weighed against the risks, but may be considered in practices where sutures are not routinely used.

The Nature stroke study; NASTRU - A randomised controlled trial of nature-based post-stroke fatigue rehabilitation

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna María Pálsdóttir ◽  
Kjerstin Stigmar ◽  
Bo Norrving ◽  
Patrik Grahn ◽  
Ingemar F Petersson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Perceived Value ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Fatigue is common after stroke and contributes to disability and impaired quality of life. Currently, there is insufficient evidence on the efficacy of any intervention for post-stroke fatigue. The aim of the study was to examine whether 10 weeks Nature-based rehabilitation (NRB) as add-on to standard care may improve post-stroke fatigue, perceived value of everyday occupations, function, activity and participation compared to standard care only (Clinical Trial.gov Identifier: NCT02435043, 2012/352, 05-06-2015). The study was carried out as a single blinded two-armed randomised controlled trial. Stroke survivors identified through routine 3-month follow-up visit (sub-acute) or medical records (chronic stroke > 1 year earlier) were randomised to Standard care + NBR or Standard care only. Blinded evaluations were conducted at follow-up 8 and 14 months after randomisation. The primary outcomes were post-stroke fatigue (Mental Fatigue Scale, total score) and perceived value of everyday occupations (Oval-pd) 8 months after randomisation. About a quarter of the screened patients were eligible; half accepted to participate and 101 were randomised, mean age 67 years, 60% female. The patients with sub-acute stroke were highly compliant with the intervention. Fatigue decreased to a value below the suggested cut-off for mental fatigue (<10.5) in the intervention group but not in the control group; no statistically significant differences were found though between the groups. Conclusion: NASTRU is the first randomised study on NBR for patients with post stroke fatigue. NBR was feasible and well tolerated. The study was underpowered due to difficulties in recruiting participants. No significant differences were detected between intervention and control group. A larger RCT is warranted. Keywords: clinical trial, enriched environment, everyday occupations, horticulture therapy, quality of life.

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 The effectiveness of peroneal nerve functional electrical simulation for the reduction of bradykinesia in Parkinson’s disease: A feasibility study for a randomised control trial

2020 ◽  
pp. 026921552097251
Author(s):  
Paul N Taylor ◽  
Trish Sampson ◽  
Ben Beare ◽  
Maggie Donavon-Hall ◽  
Peter W Thomas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Parkinson’S Disease ◽  
Parkinson's Disease ◽  
Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Functional Electrical Stimulation ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Peroneal Nerve ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Objectives: To assess the feasibility of a multi-site randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effect of functional electrical stimulation on bradykinesia in people with Parkinson’s disease. Design: A two-arm assessor blinded randomised controlled trial with an 18 weeks intervention period and 4 weeks post-intervention follow-up. Setting: Two UK hospitals; a therapy outpatient department in a district general hospital and a specialist neuroscience centre. Participants: A total of 64 participants with idiopathic Parkinson’s disease and slow gait <1.25 ms−1. Interventions: Functional electrical stimulation delivered to the common peroneal nerve while walking in addition to standard care compared with standard care alone. Main measures: Feasibility aims included the determination of sample size, recruitment and retention rates, acceptability of the protocol and confirmation of the primary outcome measure. The outcome measures were 10 m walking speed, Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS), Mini Balance Evaluation Systems Test, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39, EuroQol 5-dimension 5-level, New Freezing of Gait questionnaire, Falls Efficacy Score International and falls diary. Participants opinion on the study design and relevance of outcome measures were evaluated using an embedded qualitative study. Results: There was a mean difference between groups of 0.14 ms−1 (CI 0.03, 0.26) at week 18 in favour of the treatment group, which was maintained at week 22, 0.10 ms−1 (CI –0.05, 0.25). There was a mean difference in UPDRS motor examination score of –3.65 (CI –4.35, 0.54) at week 18 which was lost at week 22 –0.91 (CI –2.19, 2.26). Conclusion: The study design and intervention were feasible and supportive for a definitive trial. While both the study protocol and intervention were acceptable, recommendations for modifications are made.

scholarly journals Effects of accelerated versus standard care surgery on the risk of acute kidney injury in patients with a hip fracture: a substudy protocol of the hip fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) international randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (9) ◽  
pp. e033150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Flavia K Borges ◽  
P J Devereaux ◽  
Meaghan Cuerden ◽  
Mohit Bhandari ◽  
Ernesto Guerra-Farfán ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Surgical Treatment ◽  
Hip Fracture ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Standard Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Care Surgery

IntroductionInflammation, dehydration, hypotension and bleeding may all contribute to the development of acute kidney injury (AKI). Accelerated surgery after a hip fracture can decrease the exposure time to such contributors and may reduce the risk of AKI.Methods and analysisHip fracture Accelerated surgical TreaTment And Care tracK (HIP ATTACK) is a multicentre, international, parallel-group randomised controlled trial (RCT). Patients who suffer a hip fracture are randomly allocated to either accelerated medical assessment and surgical repair with a goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis or standard care where a repair typically occurs 24 to 48 hours after diagnosis. The primary outcome of this substudy is the development of AKI within 7 days of randomisation. We anticipate at least 1998 patients will participate in this substudy.Ethics and disseminationWe obtained ethics approval for additional serum creatinine recordings in consecutive patients enrolled at 70 participating centres. All patients provide consent before randomisation. We anticipate reporting substudy results by 2021.Trial registration numberNCT02027896; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document