scholarly journals An individually randomised controlled multi-centre pragmatic trial with embedded economic and process evaluations of early vocational rehabilitation compared with usual care for stroke survivors: study protocol for the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) trial

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Radford ◽  
Kristelle King ◽  
Vicki McLellan ◽  
Tracey Sach ◽  
Richard Brindle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Vocational Rehabilitation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Economic Forecast ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Abstract Background: Return to work (RTW) is achieved by less than 50% of stroke survivors. The rising incidence of stroke among younger people, the UK economic forecast, and clinical drivers highlight the need for stroke survivors to receive support with RTW. However, evidence for this type of support is lacking. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will investigate whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e., usual NHS rehabilitation) is more clinically and cost effective for supporting post-stroke RTW, than UC alone.Methods: 760 stroke survivors and their carers will be recruited from approximately 20 NHS stroke services. A 5:4 allocation ratio will be employed to randomise participants to receive ESSVR plus UC, or UC alone. The individually tailored ESSVR intervention will commence within 12 weeks of stroke onset and be delivered for up to 12 months as necessary by trained RETAKE occupational therapists in the community, participants’ homes or workplaces, outpatient/inpatient therapy settings, via telephone, email or SMS text message. Outcome data will be collected via self-report questionnaires administered by post or online at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome will be self-reported RTW and job retention at 12 months (minimum 2 hours/week). Secondary outcomes will include: mood; function; participation; health-related quality of life; confidence; intervention compliance; health and social care resource use; and mortality. An embedded economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspectives. An embedded process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach to explore ESSVR implementation, contextual factors linked to outcome variation, and factors affecting NHS roll-out.Discussion: This article describes the protocol for a multi-centre RCT evaluating the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an early vocational rehabilitation intervention aimed at supporting adults to return to work following a stroke. Evidence favouring the ESSVR intervention would support its roll-out in NHS settings.Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275.Registered on 26th February 2018, http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12464275.

scholarly journals An individually randomised controlled multi-centre pragmatic trial with embedded economic and process evaluations of early vocational rehabilitation compared with usual care for stroke survivors: study protocol for the RETurn to work After stroKE (RETAKE) trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn A. Radford ◽  
Kristelle Craven ◽  
Vicki McLellan ◽  
Tracey H. Sach ◽  
Richard Brindle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Vocational Rehabilitation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Economic Forecast ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Roll Out

Abstract Background Return to work (RTW) is achieved by less than 50% of stroke survivors. The rising incidence of stroke among younger people, the UK economic forecast, and clinical drivers highlight the need for stroke survivors to receive support with RTW. However, evidence for this type of support is lacking. This randomised controlled trial (RCT) will investigate whether Early Stroke Specialist Vocational Rehabilitation (ESSVR) plus usual care (UC) (i.e. usual NHS rehabilitation) is more clinically and cost-effective for supporting post-stroke RTW, than UC alone. Methods Seven hundred sixty stroke survivors and their carers will be recruited from approximately 20 NHS stroke services. A 5:4 allocation ratio will be employed to randomise participants to receive ESSVR plus UC, or UC alone. The individually tailored ESSVR intervention will commence within 12 weeks of stroke onset and be delivered for up to 12 months as necessary by trained RETAKE occupational therapists in the community, participants’ homes or workplaces, and outpatient/inpatient therapy settings, via telephone, email, or SMS text message. Outcome data will be collected via self-report questionnaires administered by post or online at 3, 6, and 12 months follow-up. The primary outcome will be self-reported RTW and job retention at 12 months (minimum 2 h/week). Secondary outcomes will include mood, function, participation, health-related quality of life, confidence, intervention compliance, health and social care resource use, and mortality. An embedded economic evaluation will estimate cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses from National Health Service (NHS) and Personal Social Services (PSS) perspectives. An embedded process evaluation will employ a mixed methods approach to explore ESSVR implementation, contextual factors linked to outcome variation, and factors affecting NHS roll-out. Discussion This article describes the protocol for a multi-centre RCT evaluating the clinical- and cost-effectiveness of an early vocational rehabilitation intervention aimed at supporting adults to return to work following a stroke. Evidence favouring the ESSVR intervention would support its roll-out in NHS settings. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN12464275. Registered on 26 February 2018.

scholarly journals Longer-term health and social care strategies for stroke survivors and their carers: the LoTS2Care research programme including cluster feasibility RCT

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-268
Author(s):  
Anne Forster ◽  
Seline Ozer ◽  
Thomas F Crocker ◽  
Allan House ◽  
Jenny Hewison ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Usual Care ◽  
Unmet Needs ◽  
Social Care ◽  
Feasibility Trial ◽  
Stroke Survivors ◽  
Post Stroke ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Health And Social Care ◽  
Stroke Services ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Background It is reported that the longer-term outcomes for stroke survivors are poor, with a range of unmet needs identified. Objectives The aims were to develop and test a longer-term stroke care strategy focused on improving the quality of life of stroke survivors and their carers by addressing unmet needs, and maintenance and enhancement of participation (i.e. involvement in life situations). Design Five overlapping workstreams were undertaken – (1) refinement of content by semistructured interviews with stroke survivors and their carers and by a review of the literature to inform content and delivery of the care strategy; (2) exploration of service models by national survey and focus groups with purposely selected services; (3) intervention development by interaction with a reference group of stroke survivors, carers, and health and social care professionals; (4) refinement and pilot implementation of the developed intervention in three stroke services (case studies); and (5) a cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial in 10 stroke services across England and Wales. Setting The intervention development work and feasibility trial were in stroke services (inclusive of primary, secondary, community and social care provision) across England and Wales. Participants Participants were stroke survivors resident in the community and their carers, and health and social care professionals in the included stroke services. Data sources Interviews with 28 stroke survivors and their carers at least 9 months post stroke ascertained their needs and the barriers to and facilitators of addressing those needs. Additional literature reviews identified 23 needs. No evidence-based interventions to address these needs were reported; self-management was highlighted as a possible delivery mechanism. In workstream 2, a national survey revealed that the most common model of stroke service provision was care up to 12 months post stroke, reported by 46 (40%) services. Thirty-five (30%) services provided care up to 6 months post stroke and 35 (30%) provided care beyond 12 months, thus identifying 6 months post stroke as an appropriate delivery point for a new intervention. Through focus groups in a range of services, stroke survivors’ perceived unmet needs and the barriers to and enablers of service provision were identified. Intervention Using information obtained in workstreams 1 and 2 and working closely with a stakeholder reference group, we developed an intervention based on the unmet needs prioritised by stroke survivors and their carers (workstream 3). In workstream 4, action groups (clinicians, stroke survivors and researchers) were established in three stroke services that led implementation in their service and contributed to the iterative refinement of the intervention, associated training programme and implementation materials. The intervention (called New Start) was delivered at 6 months post stroke. Key components were problem-solving self-management with survivors and carers, help with obtaining usable information, and helping survivors and their carers build sustainable, flexible support networks. Results A cluster randomised feasibility trial (workstream 5) was successfully implemented in 10 stroke services across England and Wales, with associated process and health economic evaluations. Five services were randomised to provide New Start, while five continued with usual care; 269 participants were recruited. Progression criteria – in terms of our pre-determined (red, amber, green) criteria for progress to a full trial: target stroke survivor recruitment rates were achieved, on average, across sites (24.1 per site over 6 months, green); 216 (80.3%) registered stroke survivors returned follow-up questionnaires at 9 months (84.1% in the intervention arm and 75.8% in the usual care arm, green); according to data reported by sites, overall, 95.2% of registered stroke survivors were offered at least one session of the intervention (green); all five intervention sites had at least two facilitators deemed competent, delivered the New Start intervention and provided it to stroke survivors (green). However, at some sites, there were concerns regarding the number of stroke survivors being offered, accepting and receiving the intervention. Only small differences in outcomes and costs were observed between the New Start and usual care groups, and considerable uncertainty around the cost-effectiveness remains. Conclusions We report a complex programme of work that has described the longer-term needs of stroke survivors and highlighted evidence and service gaps. Working closely with stroke survivors, an intervention was developed that has been refined in three services and feasibility tested in a cluster randomised controlled trial. Further refinement of the target population and optimisation of the intervention materials is required prior to a full randomised controlled trial evaluation. Future work Optimisation of the intervention, and clearer specification of recipients, are required prior to a full trial evaluation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN38920246. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full in Programme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 9, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Cost-effectiveness of telehealth for patients with depression: evidence from the Healthlines randomised controlled trial

BJPsych Open ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Padraig Dixon ◽  
Sandra Hollinghurst ◽  
Louisa Edwards ◽  
Clare Thomas ◽  
Alexis Foster ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Monetary Benefit ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Net Monetary Benefit ◽  
To Receive

BackgroundDepression is a prevalent long-term condition that is associated with substantial resource use. Telehealth may offer a cost-effective means of supporting the management of people with depression.AimsTo investigate the cost-effectiveness of a telehealth intervention (‘Healthlines’) for patients with depression.MethodA prospective patient-level economic evaluation conducted alongside a randomised controlled trial. Patients were recruited through primary care, and the intervention was delivered via a telehealth service. Participants with a confirmed diagnosis of depression and PHQ-9 score ≥10 were recruited from 43 English general practices. A series of up to 10 scripted, theory-led, telephone encounters with health information advisers supported participants to effect a behaviour change, use online resources, optimise medication and improve adherence. The intervention was delivered alongside usual care and was designed to support rather than duplicate primary care. Cost-effectiveness from a combined health and social care perspective was measured by net monetary benefit at the end of 12 months of follow-up, calculated from incremental cost and incremental quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). Cost–consequence analysis included cost of lost productivity, participant out-of-pocket expenditure and the clinical outcome.ResultsA total of 609 participants were randomised – 307 to receive the Healthlines intervention plus usual care and 302 to receive usual care alone. Forty-five per cent of participants had missing quality of life data, 41% had missing cost data and 51% of participants had missing data on either cost or utility, or both. Multiple imputation was used for the base-case analysis. The intervention was associated with incremental mean per-patient National Health Service/personal social services cost of £168 (95% CI £43 to £294) and an incremental QALY gain of 0.001 (95% CI −0.023 to 0.026). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was £132 630. Net monetary benefit at a cost-effectiveness threshold of £20 000 was –£143 (95% CI –£164 to –£122) and the probability of the intervention being cost-effective at this threshold value was 0.30. Productivity costs were higher in the intervention arm, but out-of-pocket expenses were lower.ConclusionsThe Healthlines service was acceptable to patients as a means of condition management, and response to treatment after 4 months was higher for participants randomised to the intervention. However, the positive average intervention effect size was modest, and incremental costs were high relative to a small incremental QALY gain at 12 months. The intervention is not likely to be cost-effective in its current form.

scholarly journals Feasibility randomised controlled trial of a guided workbook intervention to support work-related goals among cancer survivors in the UK

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. e022746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A Grunfeld ◽  
Lauren Schumacher ◽  
Maria Armaou ◽  
Pernille L Woods ◽  
Pauline Rolf ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Data Collection ◽  
Return To Work ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Full Time ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesEmployment following illness is associated with better physical and psychological functioning. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a theoretically led workbook intervention designed to support patients with cancer returning to work.DesignParallel-group randomised controlled trial with embedded qualitative interviews.SettingOncology clinics within four English National Health Service Trusts.ParticipantsPatients who had received a diagnosis of breast, gynaecological, prostate or colorectal cancer and who had been receiving treatment for a minimum of two weeks.InterventionA self-guided WorkPlan workbook designed to support patients with cancer to return to work with fortnightly telephone support calls to discuss progress. The control group received treatment as usual and was offered the workbook at the end of their 12-month follow-up.Outcome measuresWe assessed aspects of feasibility including eligibility, recruitment, data collection, attrition, feasibility of the methodology, acceptability of the intervention and potential to calculate cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe recruitment rate of eligible patients was 44%; 68 participants consented and 58 (85%) completed baseline measures. Randomisation procedures were acceptable, data collection methods (including cost-effectiveness data) were feasible and the intervention was acceptable to participants. Retention rates at 6-month and 12-month follow-up were 72% and 69%, respectively. At 6-month follow-up, 30% of the usual care group had returned to full-time or part-time work (including phased return to work) compared with 43% of the intervention group. At 12 months, the percentages were 47% (usual care) and 68% (intervention).ConclusionsThe findings confirm the feasibility of a definitive trial, although further consideration needs to be given to increasing the participation rates among men and black and ethnic minority patients diagnosed with cancer.Trial registration numberISRCTN56342476; Pre-results.

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Analyses Alongside Randomised Controlled Trials of Acupuncture

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 273-285 ◽  
Author(s):  
Song-Yi Kim ◽  
Hyangsook Lee ◽  
Younbyoung Chae ◽  
Hi-Joon Park ◽  
Hyejung Lee
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trials ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
German Studies ◽  
Life Years ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
The Cost

Objective To summarise the evidence on the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Methods We identified full economic evaluations such as cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA), cost-utility analysis (CUA) and cost-benefit analysis (CBA) alongside randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assessed the consequences and costs of acupuncture for any medical condition. Eleven electronic databases were searched up to March 2011 without language restrictions. Eligible RCTs were assessed using the Cochrane criteria for risk of bias and a modified version of the checklist for economic evaluation. The general characteristics and the results of each economic analysis such as incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) were extracted. Results Of 17 included studies, nine were CUAs that measured quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) and eight were CEAs that assessed effectiveness of acupuncture based on improvements in clinical symptoms. All CUAs showed that acupuncture with or without usual care was cost-effective compared with waiting list control or usual care alone, with ICERs ranging from ¢3011/QALY (dysmenorrhoea) to ¢22 298/QALY (allergic rhinitis) in German studies, and from £3855/QALY (osteoarthritis) to £9951/QALY (headache) in UK studies. In the CEAs, acupuncture was beneficial at a relatively low cost in six European and Asian studies. All CUAs were well-designed with a low risk of bias, but this was not the case for CEAs. Conclusions Overall, this review demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of acupuncture. Despite such promising results, any generalisation of these results needs to be made with caution given the diversity of diseases and the different status of acupuncture in the various countries.

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 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 Aspirin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised, controlled, open-label, platform trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter W Horby ◽  
Guilherme Pessoa-Amorim ◽  
Natalie Staplin ◽  
Jonathan R Emberson ◽  
Enti Spata ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Rate Ratio ◽  
Invasive Mechanical Ventilation ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Absolute Increase ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
To Receive

Background: Aspirin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its antithrombotic properties. Methods: In this randomised, controlled, open-label trial, several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Eligible and consenting adults were randomly allocated in a 1:1 ratio to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus 150mg aspirin once daily until discharge using web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. The trial is registered with ISRCTN (50189673) and clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04381936). Findings: Between 01 November 2020 and 21 March 2021, 7351 patients were randomly allocated to receive aspirin and 7541 patients to receive usual care alone. Overall, 1222 (17%) patients allocated to aspirin and 1299 (17%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days (rate ratio 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-1.04; p=0.35). Consistent results were seen in all pre-specified subgroups of patients. Patients allocated to aspirin had a slightly shorter duration of hospitalisation (median 8 days vs. 9 days) and a higher proportion were discharged from hospital alive within 28 days (75% vs. 74%; rate ratio 1.06; 95% CI 1.02-1.10; p=0.0062). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, there was no significant difference in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilation or death (21% vs. 22%; risk ratio 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.03; p=0.23). Aspirin use was associated with an absolute reduction in thrombotic events of 0.6% (SE 0.4%) and an absolute increase in clinically significant bleeding of 0.6% (SE 0.2%). Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19, aspirin was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality or in the risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death but was associated with a small increase in the rate of being discharged alive.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial)

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (24) ◽  
pp. 1-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah Cockayne ◽  
Sara Rodgers ◽  
Lorraine Green ◽  
Caroline Fairhurst ◽  
Joy Adamson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Incidence Rate ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Falls Prevention ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundFalls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.ObjectivesTo determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care.DesignA pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingNine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland.ParticipantsIn total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention,n = 493; usual care,n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible.InterventionsAll participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness.ResultsThe primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05;p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00;p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI –£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants.LimitationsOwing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care.ConclusionsThe intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective.Future workFurther research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document