scholarly journals Update to the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training programme in schools compared with normal school provision (MYRIAD): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jesus Montero-Marin ◽  
◽  
Elizabeth Nuthall ◽  
Sarah Byford ◽  
Catherine Crane ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Mindfulness Training ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background MYRIAD (My Resilience in Adolescence) is a superiority, parallel group, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to examine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a mindfulness training (MT) programme, compared with normal social and emotional learning (SEL) school provision to enhance mental health, social-emotional-behavioural functioning and well-being in adolescence. The original trial protocol was published in Trials (accessible at 10.1186/s13063-017-1917-4). This included recruitment in two cohorts, enabling the learning from the smaller first cohort to be incorporated in the second cohort. Here we describe final amendments to the study protocol and discuss their underlying rationale. Methods Four major changes were introduced into the study protocol: (1) there were changes in eligibility criteria, including a clearer operational definition to assess the degree of SEL implementation in schools, and also new criteria to avoid experimental contamination; (2) the number of schools and pupils that had to be recruited was increased based on what we learned in the first cohort; (3) some changes were made to the secondary outcome measures to improve their validity and ability to measure constructs of interest and to reduce the burden on school staff; and (4) the current Coronavirus Disease 2019 (SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19) pandemic both influences and makes it difficult to interpret the 2-year follow-up primary endpoint results, so we changed our primary endpoint to 1-year follow-up. Discussion These changes to the study protocol were approved by the Trial Management Group, Trial Steering Committee and Data and Ethics Monitoring Committees and improved the enrolment of participants and quality of measures. Furthermore, the change in the primary endpoint will give a more reliable answer to our primary question because it was collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in both cohort 1 and cohort 2. Nevertheless, the longer 2-year follow-up data will still be acquired, although this time-point will be now framed as a second major investigation to answer some new important questions presented by the combination of the pandemic and our study design. Trial registration International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials ISRCTN86619085. Registered on 3 June 2016.

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 Nurse-based secondary preventive follow-up by telephone reduced recurrence of cardiovascular events: a randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna-Lotta Irewall ◽  
Anders Ulvenstam ◽  
Anna Graipe ◽  
Joachim Ögren ◽  
Thomas Mooe
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Endpoint ◽  
Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Secondary Endpoints ◽  
Randomised Controlled

AbstractEnhanced follow-up is needed to improve the results of secondary preventive care in patients with established cardiovascular disease. We examined the effect of long-term, nurse-based, secondary preventive follow-up by telephone on the recurrence of cardiovascular events. Open, randomised, controlled trial with two parallel groups. Between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014, consecutive patients (n = 1890) admitted to hospital due to stroke, transient ischaemic attack (TIA), or acute coronary syndrome (ACS) were included. Participants were randomised (1:1) to nurse-based telephone follow-up (intervention, n = 944) or usual care (control, n = 946) and followed until 31 December 2017. The primary endpoint was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, cardiac revascularisation, and cardiovascular death. The individual components of the primary endpoint, TIA, and all-cause mortality were analysed as secondary endpoints. The assessment of outcome events was blinded to study group assignment. After a mean follow-up of 4.5 years, 22.7% (n = 214) of patients in the intervention group and 27.1% (n = 256) in the control group reached the primary composite endpoint (HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.68–0.97; ARR 4.4%, 95% CI 0.5–8.3). Secondary endpoints did not differ significantly between groups. Nurse-based secondary preventive follow-up by telephone reduced the recurrence of cardiovascular events during long-term follow-up.

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)

scholarly journals Optimising medication management in children and young people with ADHD using a computerised test (QbTest): a feasibility randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Williams ◽  
Charlotte L. Hall ◽  
Sue Brown ◽  
Boliang Guo ◽  
Marilyn James ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Young People ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Medication Management ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Global Functioning ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Medication for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) should be closely monitored to ensure optimisation. There is growing interest in using computerised assessments of ADHD symptoms to support medication monitoring. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of one such computerised assessment, the Quantified Behavior (Qb) Test, as part of medication management for ADHD. Methods This feasibility multi-site RCT conducted in child and adolescent mental health and community paediatric settings recruited participants aged 6–15 years diagnosed with ADHD starting stimulant medication. Participants were randomised into one of two arms: experimental (QbTest protocol) where participants completed a QbTest at baseline and two follow-up QbTests on medication (2–4 weeks and 8–10 weeks later) and control where participants received treatment as usual, including at least two follow-up consultations. Measures of parent, teacher, and clinician-rated symptoms and global functioning were completed at each time point. Clinicians recorded treatment decision-making and health economic measures were obtained. Data were analysed using multi-level modelling and participants (children and parents) and clinicians were interviewed about their experiences, resulting data were thematically analysed. Results Forty-four children and young people were randomised. Completion of study outcome measures by care-givers and teachers ranged from 52 to 78% at baseline to 47–65% at follow-up. Participants reported the questionnaires to be useful to complete. SNAP-IV inattention scores showed greater reduction in the intervention than the control group (− 5.85, 95% CI − 10.33, − 1.36,). Engagement with the intervention ranged from 100% at baseline, to 78% follow-up 1 and 57% follow-up 2. However, only 37% of QbTests were conducted in the correct time period. Interview data highlighted that the objectivity of the QbTest was appreciated by clinicians and parents. Clinicians commented that the additional time and resources required meant that it is not feasible to use QbTest for all cases. Conclusion The trial design and protocol appear to be feasible and acceptable but could be improved by modifying QbTest time periods and the method of data collection. With these changes, the protocol may be appropriate for a full trial. Adding QbTest may improve symptom outcome as measured by SNAP-IV. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03368573, prospectively registered, 11th December 2017, and ISRCTN, ISRCTN69461593, retrospectively registered, 10th April 2018

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 A randomised controlled trial exploring the impact of a dedicated Health and Social Care Professionals team in the Emergency Department on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older adults: Study Protocol

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marica Cassarino ◽  
Katie Robinson ◽  
Íde O’Shaughnessy ◽  
Eimear Smalle ◽  
Stephen White ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Older Adults ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Effectiveness Of Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background : Older people are frequent Emergency Department (ED) users who present with complex issues that are linked to poorer health outcomes post-index visit, often have increased ED length of stay and tend to have raised healthcare costs. Encouraging evidence suggests that ED teams involving health and social care professionals (HSCPs) can contribute to enhanced patient flow and improved patient experience by improving care decision-making and thus promoting timely and effective care. However, the evidence supporting the impact of HSCPs teams assessing and intervening with older adults in the ED is limited and identifies important methodological limitations, highlighting the need for more robust and comprehensive investigations of this model of care. This study aims to evaluate the impact of a dedicated ED-based HSCP team on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care of older adults when compared to usual care. Methods : The study is a single-site randomised controlled trial whereby patients aged ≥65 years who present to the ED of a large Irish hospital will be randomised to the experimental group (ED-based HSCP assessment and intervention) or the control group (usual ED care). The recruitment target is 320 participants. The HSCP team will provide a comprehensive functional assessment as well as interventions to promote a safe discharge for the patient. The primary outcome is ED length of stay (from arrival to discharge). Secondary outcomes include: rates of hospital admissions from the ED, ED re-visits, unplanned hospital admissions and healthcare utilisation at 30-days, four and six-month follow-up; patient functional status and quality of life (at baseline and follow-up); patient satisfaction; costs-effectiveness in terms of costs associated with ED-based HSCP compared to usual care; and perceptions on implementation by ED staff members. Discussion : This is the first randomised controlled trial testing the impact of HSCPs working in teams in the ED on the quality, safety, clinical and cost-effectiveness of care for older patients. The findings of the study will provide important information on the effectiveness of this model of care for future implementation. Trial registration : ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03739515; registered on 12 th November 2018. Protocol version 1. URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03739515

scholarly journals SUGAR-DIP trial: oral medication strategy versus insulin for diabetes in pregnancy, study protocol for a multicentre, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029808 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leon de Wit ◽  
Doortje Rademaker ◽  
Daphne N Voormolen ◽  
Bettina M C Akerboom ◽  
Rosalie M Kiewiet-Kemper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Glycaemic Control ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Treatment Protocol ◽  
Large For Gestational Age ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Oral Glucose ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionIn women with gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) requiring pharmacotherapy, insulin was the established first-line treatment. More recently, oral glucose lowering drugs (OGLDs) have gained popularity as a patient-friendly, less expensive and safe alternative. Monotherapy with metformin or glibenclamide (glyburide) is incorporated in several international guidelines. In women who do not reach sufficient glucose control with OGLD monotherapy, usually insulin is added, either with or without continuation of OGLDs. No reliable data from clinical trials, however, are available on the effectiveness of a treatment strategy using all three agents, metformin, glibenclamide and insulin, in a stepwise approach, compared with insulin-only therapy for improving pregnancy outcomes. In this trial, we aim to assess the clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and patient experience of a stepwise combined OGLD treatment protocol, compared with conventional insulin-based therapy for GDM.MethodsThe SUGAR-DIP trial is an open-label, multicentre randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Participants are women with GDM who do not reach target glycaemic control with modification of diet, between 16 and 34 weeks of gestation. Participants will be randomised to either treatment with OGLDs, starting with metformin and supplemented as needed with glibenclamide, or randomised to treatment with insulin. In women who do not reach target glycaemic control with combined metformin and glibenclamide, glibenclamide will be substituted with insulin, while continuing metformin. The primary outcome will be the incidence of large-for-gestational-age infants (birth weight >90th percentile). Secondary outcome measures are maternal diabetes-related endpoints, obstetric complications, neonatal complications and cost-effectiveness analysis. Outcomes will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Utrecht University Medical Centre. Approval by the boards of management for all participating hospitals will be obtained. Trial results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNTR6134; Pre-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document