scholarly journals Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): Protocol for a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Shafayat ◽  
Emese Csipke ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Mild Dementia ◽  
Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/Design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at three and six month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at three to six months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial Registration and protocol version ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019 Keywords Dementia, self-management, feasibility trial

scholarly journals Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): Protocol for a Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Shafayat ◽  
Emese Csipke ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Mild Dementia ◽  
Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/Design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at three and six month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at three to six months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial Registration and protocol version ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019 Keywords Dementia, self-management, feasibility trial

scholarly journals Promoting Independence in Dementia (PRIDE): protocol for a feasibility randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha Shafayat ◽  
Emese Csipke ◽  
Lucy Bradshaw ◽  
Georgina Charlesworth ◽  
Florence Day ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Mild Dementia ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Feasibility Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Memory services often see people with early stage dementia who are largely independent and able to participate in community activities but who run the risk of reducing activities and social networks. PRIDE is a self-management intervention designed to promote living well and enhance independence for people with mild dementia. This study aims to examine the feasibility of conducting a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care or with usual care alone. Methods/design PRIDE is a parallel, two-arm, multicentre, feasibility, randomised controlled trial (RCT). Eligible participants aged 18 or over who have mild dementia (defined as a score of 0.5 or 1 on the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale) who can participate in the intervention and provide informed consent will be randomised (1:1) to treatment with the PRIDE intervention delivered in addition to usual care, or usual care only. Participants will be followed-up at 3 and 6 month’s post-randomisation. There will be an option for a supporter to join each participant. Each supporter will be provided with questionnaires at baseline and follow-ups at 3 to 6 months. Embedded qualitative research with both participants and supporters will explore their perspectives on the intervention investigating a range of themes including acceptability and barriers and facilitators to delivery and participation. The feasibility of conducting a full RCT associated with participant recruitment and follow-up of both conditions, intervention delivery including the recruitment, training, retention of PRIDE trained facilitators, clinical outcomes, intervention and resource use costs and the acceptability of the intervention and study related procedures will be examined. Discussion This study will assess whether a definitive randomised trial comparing the clinical and cost-effectiveness of whether the PRIDE intervention offered in addition to usual care is feasible in comparison to usual care alone, and if so, will provide data to inform the design and conduct of a future trial. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN11288961, registered on 23 October 2019, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12345678 Protocol V2.1 dated 19 June 2019.

scholarly journals Usual care and a self-management support programme versus usual care and a relaxation programme for people living with chronic headache disorders: a randomised controlled trial protocol (CHESS)

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e033520 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shilpa Patel ◽  
Felix Achana ◽  
Dawn Carnes ◽  
Sandra Eldridge ◽  
David R Ellard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Chronic Headache ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Management Support ◽  
Support Programme ◽  
Chronic Headaches ◽  
Randomised Controlled

IntroductionChronic headaches are poorly diagnosed and managed and can be exacerbated by medication overuse. There is insufficient evidence on the non-pharmacological approaches to helping people living with chronic headaches.Methods and analysisChronic Headache Education and Self-management Study is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial to test the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management education support programme on top of usual care for patients with chronic headaches against a control of usual care and relaxation. The intervention is a 2-day group course based on education, personal reflection and a cognitive behavioural approach, plus a nurse-led one-to-one consultation and follow-up over 8 weeks. We aim to recruit 689 participants (356 to the intervention arm and 333 to the control) from primary care and self-referral in London and the Midlands. The trial is powered to show a difference of 2.0 points on the Headache Impact Test, a patient-reported outcome measure at 12 months post randomisation. Secondary outcomes include health related quality of life, self-efficacy, social activation and engagement, anxiety and depression and healthcare utilisation. Outcomes are being measured at 4, 8 and 12 months. Cost-effectiveness will be expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained.Ethics and disseminationThis trial will provide data on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a self-management support programme for chronic headaches. The results will inform commissioning of services and clinical practice. North West – Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee have approved the trial. The current protocol version is 3.6 date 7 March 2019.Trial registration numberISRCTN79708100.

scholarly journals Pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer: a research programme including the IMPACCT RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (15) ◽  
pp. 1-92
Author(s):  
Michael I Bennett ◽  
Matthew J Allsop ◽  
Peter Allen ◽  
Christine Allmark ◽  
Bridgette M Bewick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Work Package ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background Each year in England and Wales, 150,000 people die from cancer, of whom 110,000 will suffer from cancer pain. Research highlights that cancer pain remains common, severe and undertreated, and may lead to hospital admissions. Objective To develop and evaluate pain self-management interventions for community-based patients with advanced cancer. Design A programme of mixed-methods intervention development work leading to a pragmatic multicentre randomised controlled trial of a multicomponent intervention for pain management compared with usual care, including an assessment of cost-effectiveness. Participants Patients, including those with metastatic solid cancer (histological, cytological or radiological evidence) and/or those receiving anti-cancer therapy with palliative intent, and health professionals involved in the delivery of community-based palliative care. Setting For the randomised controlled trial, patients were recruited from oncology outpatient clinics and were randomly allocated to intervention or control and followed up at home. Interventions The Supported Self-Management intervention comprised an educational component called Tackling Cancer Pain, and an eHealth component for routine pain assessment and monitoring called PainCheck. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was pain severity (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory). The secondary outcomes included pain interference (measured using the Brief Pain Inventory), participants’ pain knowledge and experience, and cost-effectiveness. We estimated costs and health-related quality-of-life outcomes using decision modelling and a separate within-trial economic analysis. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios per quality-adjusted life-year for the trial period. Results Work package 1 – We found barriers to and variation in the co-ordination of advanced cancer care by oncology and primary care professionals. We identified that the median time between referral to palliative care services and death for 42,758 patients in the UK was 48 days. We identified key components for self-management and developed and tested our Tackling Cancer Pain resource for acceptability. Work package 2 – Patients with advanced cancer and their health professionals recognised the benefits of an electronic system to monitor pain, but had reservations about how such a system might work in practice. We developed and tested a prototype PainCheck system. Work package 3 – We found that strong opioids were prescribed for 48% of patients in the last year of life at a median of 9 weeks before death. We delivered Medicines Use Reviews to patients, in which many medicines-related problems were identified. Work package 4 – A total of 161 oncology outpatients were randomised in our clinical trial, receiving either supported self-management (n = 80) or usual care (n = 81); their median survival from randomisation was 53 weeks. Primary and sensitivity analyses found no significant treatment differences for the primary outcome or for other secondary outcomes of pain severity or health-related quality of life. The literature-based decision modelling indicated that information and feedback interventions similar to the supported self-management intervention could be cost-effective. This model was not used to extrapolate the outcomes of the trial over a longer time horizon because the statistical analysis of the trial data found no difference between the trial arms in terms of the primary outcome measure (pain severity). The within-trial economic evaluation base-case analysis found that supported self-management reduced costs by £587 and yielded marginally higher quality-adjusted life-years (0.0018) than usual care. However, the difference in quality-adjusted life-years between the two trial arms was negligible and this was not in line with the decision model that had been developed. Our process evaluation found low fidelity of the interventions delivered by clinical professionals. Limitations In the randomised controlled trial, the low fidelity of the interventions and the challenge of the study design, which forced the usual-care arm to have earlier access to palliative care services, might explain the lack of observed benefit. Overall, 71% of participants returned outcome data at 6 or 12 weeks and so we used administrative data to estimate costs. Our decision model did not include the negative trial results from our randomised controlled trial and, therefore, may overestimate the likelihood of cost-effectiveness. Conclusions Our programme of research has revealed new insights into how patients with advanced cancer manage their pain and the challenges faced by health professionals in identifying those who need more help. Our clinical trial failed to show an added benefit of our interventions to enhance existing community palliative care support, although both the decision model and the economic evaluation of the trial indicated that supported self-management could result in lower health-care costs. Future work There is a need for further research to (1) understand and facilitate triggers that prompt earlier integration of palliative care and pain management within oncology services; (2) determine the optimal timing of technologies for self-management; and (3) examine prescriber and patient behaviour to achieve the earlier initiation and use of strong opioid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN18281271. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

TeleClinical Care: A randomised controlled trial of a smartphone-based model of care to support cardiac patients transitioning from hospital to the community (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Praveen Indraratna ◽  
Uzzal Biswas ◽  
James McVeigh ◽  
Andrew Mamo ◽  
Joseph Magdy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Medication Adherence ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Cardiac Rehabilitation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Smartphone App ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Intervention Cost ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BACKGROUND This is the first randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a mobile health intervention that combines telemonitoring and educational components for both acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and heart failure (HF) inpatients to prevent readmission. OBJECTIVE Objective: To evaluate the feasibility, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) plus usual care in patients being discharged from hospital after an ACS or HF admission, in comparison to usual care alone. METHODS Methods: In this pilot, 2-centre RCT, a smartphone app-based model of care (TeleClinical Care – TCC) was applied at discharge. The primary endpoint was the incidence of unplanned 30-day readmissions. Secondary endpoints included all-cause readmissions, cardiac readmissions, cardiac rehabilitation completion, medication adherence, cost-effectiveness and user satisfaction. Intervention arm participants received the app and Bluetooth-enabled devices for measuring weight, blood pressure and physical activity daily, plus usual care. The devices automatically transmitted recordings to the patient’s smartphone and then subsequently to a central server. Abnormal readings were flagged by email to a monitoring team. Control participants received usual care. RESULTS Results: 164 hospital inpatients were randomised at the time of discharge (TCC n=81, control n = 83, mean age 61.5 years, 79% male, 78% admitted with ACS). There were 11 unplanned 30-day readmissions in both groups (P = .97). Over a mean follow-up of 193 days, the intervention was associated with a significant reduction in unplanned hospital readmissions (21 vs. 41 readmissions, P = 0.015), including cardiac readmissions (11 vs. 25, P = .025), and higher rates of cardiac rehabilitation completion (39% vs. 18%, P = .025) and medication adherence (75% vs. 50%, P = .002). The average usability rating of the app was 4.5/5. The intervention cost AUD $6,028 per cardiac readmission saved. When modelled in a mainstream clinical setting, however, enrolment of 237 patients was projected to have the same healthcare expenditure compared to usual care, and enrolment of 500 patients was projected to save approximately AUD $100,000. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: TCC was feasible and safe for ACS and HF inpatients. The incidence of 30-day readmissions was similar, however long-term benefits were demonstrated including fewer total readmissions over 6 months, improved medication adherence and improved cardiac rehabilitation completion. CLINICALTRIAL The study was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001547235).

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of habit-based advice for weight control versus usual care in general practice in the Ten Top Tips (10TT) trial: economic evaluation based on a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e017511 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nishma Patel ◽  
Rebecca J Beeken ◽  
Baptiste Leurent ◽  
Rumana Z Omar ◽  
Irwin Nazareth ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTen Top Tips (10TT) is a primary care-led behavioural intervention which aims to help adults reduce and manage their weight by following 10 weight loss tips. The intervention promotes habit formation to encourage long-term behavioural changes. The aim of this study was to estimate the cost-effectiveness of 10TT in general practice from the perspective of the UK National Health Service.DesignAn economic evaluation was conducted alongside an individually randomised controlled trial.Setting14 general practitioner practices in England.ParticipantsAll patients were aged ≥18 years, with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2. A total of 537 patients were recruited; 270 received the usual care offered by their practices and 267 received the 10TT intervention.Outcomes measuresHealth service use and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were measured over 2 years. Analysis was conducted in terms of incremental net monetary benefits (NMBs), using non-parametric bootstrapping and multiple imputation.ResultsOver a 2-year time horizon, the mean costs and QALYs per patient in the 10TT group were £1889 (95% CI £1522 to £2566) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.44 to 1.58). The mean costs and QALYs for usual care were £1925 (95% CI £1599 to £2251) and 1.51 (95% CI 1.45 to 1.57), respectively. This generated a mean cost difference of −£36 (95% CI −£512 to £441) and a mean QALY difference of 0.001 (95% CI −0.080 to 0.082). The incremental NMB for 10TT versus usual care was £49 (95% CI −£1709 to £1800) at a maximum willingness to pay for a QALY of £20 000. 10TT had a 52% probability of being cost-effective at this threshold.ConclusionsCosts and QALYs for 10TT were not significantly different from usual care and therefore 10TT is as cost-effective as usual care. There was no evidence to recommend nor advice against offering 10TT to obese patients in general practices based on cost-effectiveness considerations.Trial registration numberISRCTN16347068; Post-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document