scholarly journals Self-Management education for adults with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)]: a randomised controlled trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (21) ◽  
pp. 1-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leone Ridsdale ◽  
Alison McKinlay ◽  
Gabriella Wojewodka ◽  
Emily J Robinson ◽  
Iris Mosweu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Management Education ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Controlled

BackgroundEpilepsy is a common neurological condition resulting in recurrent seizures. Research evidence in long-term conditions suggests that patients benefit from self-management education and that this may improve quality of life (QoL). Epilepsy self-management education has yet to be tested in a UK setting.ObjectivesTo determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of Self-Management education for people with poorly controlled epILEpsy [SMILE (UK)].DesignA parallel pragmatic randomised controlled trial.SettingParticipants were recruited from eight hospitals in London and south-east England.ParticipantsAdults aged ≥ 16 years with epilepsy and two or more epileptic seizures in the past year, who were currently being prescribed antiepileptic drugs.InterventionA 2-day group self-management course alongside treatment as usual (TAU). The control group received TAU.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome is QoL in people with epilepsy at 12-month follow-up using the Quality Of Life In Epilepsy 31-P (QOLIE-31-P) scale. Other outcomes were seizure control, impact of epilepsy, medication adverse effects, psychological distress, perceived stigma, self-mastery and medication adherence. Cost-effectiveness analyses and a process evaluation were undertaken.RandomisationA 1 : 1 ratio between trial arms using fixed block sizes of two.BlindingParticipants were not blinded to their group allocation because of the nature of the study. Researchers involved in data collection and analysis remained blinded throughout.ResultsThe trial completed successfully. A total of 404 participants were enrolled in the study [SMILE (UK),n = 205; TAU,n = 199] with 331 completing the final follow-up at 12 months [SMILE (UK),n = 163; TAU,n = 168]. In the intervention group, 61.5% completed all sessions of the course. No adverse events were found to be related to the intervention. At baseline, participants had a mean age of 41.7 years [standard deviation (SD) 14.1 years], and had epilepsy for a median of 18 years. The mean QOLIE-31-P score for the whole group at baseline was 66.0 out of 100.0 (SD 14.2). Clinically relevant levels of anxiety symptoms were reported in 53.6% of the group and depression symptoms in 28.0%. The results following an intention-to-treat analysis showed no change in any measures at the 12-month follow-up [QOLIE-31-P: SMILE (UK) mean: 67.4, SD 13.5; TAU mean: 69.5, SD 14.8]. The cost-effectiveness study showed that SMILE (UK) was possibly cost-effective but was also associated with lower QoL. The process evaluation with 20 participants revealed that a group course increased confidence by sharing with others and improved self-management behaviours.ConclusionsFor people with epilepsy and persistent seizures, a 2-day self-management education course is cost-saving, but does not improve QoL after 12-months or reduce anxiety or depression symptoms. A psychological intervention may help with anxiety and depression. Interviewed participants reported attending a group course increased their confidence and helped them improve their self-management.Future workMore research is needed on self-management courses, with psychological components and integration with routine monitoring.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN57937389.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. 22, No. 21. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals A randomised controlled trial of Outpatient versus inpatient Polyp Treatment (OPT) for abnormal uterine bleeding

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (61) ◽  
pp. 1-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
T Justin Clark ◽  
Lee J Middleton ◽  
Natalie AM Cooper ◽  
Lavanya Diwakar ◽  
Elaine Denny ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Inpatient Treatment ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Abnormal Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Uterine Bleeding ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Uterine Polyps

BackgroundUterine polyps cause abnormal bleeding in women and conventional practice is to remove them in hospital under general anaesthetic. Advances in technology make it possible to perform polypectomy in an outpatient setting, yet evidence of effectiveness is limited.ObjectivesTo test the hypothesis that in women with abnormal uterine bleeding (AUB) associated with benign uterine polyp(s), outpatient polyp treatment achieved as good, or no more than 25% worse, alleviation of bleeding symptoms at 6 months compared with standard inpatient treatment. The hypothesis that response to uterine polyp treatment differed according to the pattern of AUB, menopausal status and longer-term follow-up was tested. The cost-effectiveness and acceptability of outpatient polypectomy was examined.DesignA multicentre, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial, incorporating a cost-effectiveness analysis and supplemented by a parallel patient preference study. Patient acceptability was evaluated by interview in a qualitative study.SettingOutpatient hysteroscopy clinics and inpatient gynaecology departments within UK NHS hospitals.ParticipantsWomen with AUB – defined as heavy menstrual bleeding (formerly known as menorrhagia) (HMB), intermenstrual bleeding or postmenopausal bleeding – and hysteroscopically diagnosed uterine polyps.InterventionsWe randomly assigned 507 women, using a minimisation algorithm, to outpatient polypectomy compared with conventional inpatient polypectomy as a day case in hospital under general anaesthesia.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was successful treatment at 6 months, determined by the woman’s assessment of her bleeding. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, procedure feasibility, acceptability and cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained.ResultsAt 6 months, 73% (166/228) of women who underwent outpatient polypectomy were successfully treated compared with 80% (168/211) following inpatient polypectomy [relative risk (RR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82 to 1.02]. The lower end of the CIs showed that outpatient polypectomy was at most 18% worse, in relative terms, than inpatient treatment, within the 25% margin of non-inferiority set at the outset of the study. By 1 and 2 years the corresponding proportions were similar producing RRs close to unity. There was no evidence that the treatment effect differed according to any of the predefined subgroups when treatments by variable interaction parameters were examined. Failure to completely remove polyps was higher (19% vs. 7%; RR 2.5, 95% CI 1.5 to 4.1) with outpatient polypectomy. Procedure acceptability was reduced with outpatient compared with inpatient polyp treatment (83% vs. 92%; RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.97). There were no significant differences in quality of life. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratios at 6 and 12 months for inpatient treatment were £1,099,167 and £668,800 per additional QALY, respectively.ConclusionsWhen treating women with AUB associated with uterine polyps, outpatient polypectomy was non-inferior to inpatient polypectomy at 6 and 12 months, and relatively cost-effective. However, patients need to be aware that failure to remove a polyp is more likely with outpatient polypectomy and procedure acceptability lower.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 65868569.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 61. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Clinical and cost-effectiveness of vaginal pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care for pelvic organ prolapse: protocol for the TOPSY randomised controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Hagen ◽  
Rohna Kearney ◽  
Kirsteen Goodman ◽  
Lynn Melone ◽  
Andrew Elders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Pelvic Organ Prolapse ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pelvic Organ ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Vaginal Pessary ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Post Randomisation

Abstract Background Pelvic organ prolapse (or prolapse) is a common condition in women where the pelvic organs (bladder, bowel or womb) descend into the vagina and cause distressing symptoms that adversely affect quality of life. Many women will use a vaginal pessary to treat their prolapse symptoms. Clinic-based care usually consists of having a pessary fitted in a primary or secondary care setting, and returning approximately every 6 months for healthcare professional review and pessary change. However, it is possible that women could remove, clean and re-insert their pessary themselves; this is called self-management. This trial aims to assess if self-management of a vaginal pessary is associated with better quality of life for women with prolapse when compared to clinic-based care. Methods This is a multicentre randomised controlled trial in at least 17 UK centres. The intervention group will receive pessary self-management teaching, a self-management information leaflet, a follow-up phone call and access to a local telephone number for clinical support. The control group will receive the clinic-based pessary care which is standard at their centre. Demographic and medical history data will be collected from both groups at baseline. The primary outcome is condition-specific quality of life at 18 months’ post-randomisation. Several secondary outcomes will also be assessed using participant-completed questionnaires. Questionnaires will be administered at baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months’ post-randomisation. An economic evaluation will be carried out alongside the trial to evaluate cost-effectiveness. A process evaluation will run parallel to the trial, the protocol for which is reported in a companion paper. Discussion The results of the trial will provide robust evidence of the effectiveness of pessary self-management compared to clinic-based care in terms of improving women’s quality of life, and of its cost-effectiveness. Trial registration ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN62510577. Registered on June 10, 2017.

scholarly journals The Ankle Injury Management (AIM) trial: a pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation comparing close contact casting with open surgical reduction and internal fixation in the treatment of unstable ankle fractures in patients aged over 60 years

2016 ◽  
Vol 20 (75) ◽  
pp. 1-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Keene ◽  
Dipesh Mistry ◽  
Julian Nam ◽  
Elizabeth Tutton ◽  
Robert Handley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Close Contact ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Ankle Fractures ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Ankle Function

BackgroundClose contact casting (CCC) may offer an alternative to open reduction and internal fixation (ORIF) surgery for unstable ankle fractures in older adults.ObjectivesWe aimed to (1) determine if CCC for unstable ankle fractures in adults aged over 60 years resulted in equivalent clinical outcome compared with ORIF, (2) estimate cost-effectiveness to the NHS and society and (3) explore participant experiences.DesignA pragmatic, multicentre, equivalence randomised controlled trial incorporating health economic evaluation and qualitative study.SettingTrauma and orthopaedic departments of 24 NHS hospitals.ParticipantsAdults aged over 60 years with unstable ankle fracture. Those with serious limb or concomitant disease or substantial cognitive impairment were excluded.InterventionsCCC was conducted under anaesthetic in theatre by surgeons who attended training. ORIF was as per local practice. Participants were randomised in 1 : 1 allocation via remote telephone randomisation. Sequence generation was by random block size, with stratification by centre and fracture pattern.Main outcome measuresFollow-up was conducted at 6 weeks and, by blinded outcome assessors, at 6 months after randomisation. The primary outcome was the Olerud–Molander Ankle Score (OMAS), a patient-reported assessment of ankle function, at 6 months. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (as measured by the European Quality of Life 5-Dimensions, Short Form questionnaire-12 items), pain, ankle range of motion and mobility (as measured by the timed up and go test), patient satisfaction and radiological measures. In accordance with equivalence trial US Food and Drug Administration guidance, primary analysis was per protocol.ResultsWe recruited 620 participants, 95 from the pilot and 525 from the multicentre phase, between June 2010 and November 2013. The majority of participants, 579 out of 620 (93%), received the allocated treatment; 52 out of 275 (19%) who received CCC later converted to ORIF because of loss of fracture reduction. CCC resulted in equivalent ankle function compared with ORIF at 6 months {OMAS 64.5 points [standard deviation (SD) 22.4 points] vs. OMAS 66.0 points (SD 21.1 points); mean difference –0.65 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.98 to 2.68 points; standardised effect size –0.04, 95% CI –0.23 to 0.15}. There were no differences in quality of life, ankle motion, pain, mobility and patient satisfaction. Infection and/or wound problems were more common with ORIF [29/298 (10%) vs. 4/275 (1%)], as were additional operating theatre procedures [17/298 (6%) vs. 3/275 (1%)]. Malunion was more common with CCC [38/249 (15%) vs. 8/274 (3%);p < 0.001]. Malleolar non-union was lower in the ORIF group [lateral: 0/274 (0%) vs. 8/248 (3%);p = 0.002; medial: 3/274 (1%) vs. 18/248 (7%);p < 0.001]. During the trial, CCC showed modest mean cost savings [NHS mean difference –£644 (95% CI –£1390 to £76); society mean difference –£683 (95% CI –£1851 to £536)]. Estimates showed some imprecision. Incremental quality-adjusted life-years following CCC were no different from ORIF. Over common willingness-to-pay thresholds, the probability that CCC was cost-effective was very high (> 95% from NHS perspective and 85% from societal perspective). Experiences of treatments were similar; both groups endured the impact of fracture, uncertainty regarding future function and the need for further interventions.LimitationsAssessors at 6 weeks were necessarily not blinded. The learning-effect analysis was inconclusive because of limited CCC applications per surgeon.ConclusionsCCC provides a clinically equivalent outcome to ORIF at reduced cost to the NHS and to society at 6 months.Future workLonger-term follow-up of trial participants is under way to address concerns over potential later complications or additional procedures and their potential to impact on ankle function. Further study of the patient factors, radiological fracture patterns and outcomes, treatment responses and prognosis would also contribute to understanding the treatment pathway.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN04180738.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information. This report was developed in association with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Unit funding scheme. The pilot phase was funded by the AO Research Foundation.

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 Evaluation of a positive psychotherapy group intervention for people with psychosis: pilot randomised controlled trial

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 235-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Beate Schrank ◽  
Tamsin Brownell ◽  
Zivile Jakaite ◽  
Charley Larkin ◽  
Francesca Pesola ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Group Intervention ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Self Esteem ◽  
Positive Psychotherapy ◽  
Main Effect ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Aims.Third-wave psychological interventions have gained relevance in mental health service provision but their application to people with psychosis is in its infancy and interventions targeting wellbeing in psychosis are scarce. This study tested the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of positive psychotherapy adapted for people with psychosis (WELLFOCUS PPT) to improve wellbeing.Methods.WELLFOCUS PPT was tested as an 11-week group intervention in a convenience sample of people with psychosis in a single centre randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN04199273) involving 94 people with psychosis. Patients were individually randomised in blocks to receive either WELLFOCUS PPT in addition to treatment as usual (TAU), or TAU only. Assessments took place before randomisation and after the therapy. The primary outcome was wellbeing (Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale, WEMWBS). Secondary outcomes included symptoms (Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale), depression (Short Depression-Happiness Scale), self-esteem, empowerment, hope, sense of coherence, savouring beliefs and functioning, as well as two alternative measures of wellbeing (the Positive Psychotherapy Inventory and Quality of Life). Intention-to-treat analysis was performed. This involved calculating crude changes and paired-sample t-tests for all variables, as well as ANCOVA and Complier Average Causal Effect (CACE) Analysis to estimate the main effect of group on all outcomes.Results.The intervention and trial procedures proved feasible and well accepted. Crude changes between baseline and follow-up showed a significant improvement in the intervention group for wellbeing according to all three concepts assessed (i.e., WEMWBS, Positive Psychotherapy Inventory and Quality of Life), as well as for symptoms, depression, hope, self-esteem and sense of coherence. No significant changes were observed in the control group. ANCOVA showed no main effect on wellbeing according to the primary outcome scale (WEMWBS) but significant effects on symptoms (p = 0.006, ES = 0.42), depression (p = 0.03, ES = 0.38) and wellbeing according to the Positive Psychotherapy Inventory (p = 0.02, ES = 0.30). Secondary analysis adapting for therapy group further improved the results for symptom reduction (p = 0.004, ES = 0.43) and depression (p = 0.03, ES = 0.41) but did not lead to any more outcomes falling below the p = 0.05 significance level. CACE analysis showed a non-significant positive association between the intervention and WEMWBS scores at follow-up (b = 0.21, z = 0.9, p = 0.4).Conclusions.This study provides initial evidence on the feasibility of WELLFOCUS PPT in people with psychosis, positively affecting symptoms and depression. However, more work is needed to optimise its effectiveness. Future research might evaluate positive psychotherapy as a treatment for comorbid depression in psychosis, and consider alternative measurements of wellbeing.

scholarly journals (Cost-)effectiveness of lower extremity nerve decompression surgery in subjects with diabetes: the DeCompression (DECO) trial—study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e035644
Author(s):  
Willem D Rinkel ◽  
Tirzah M Fakkel ◽  
Manuel Castro Cabezas ◽  
Erwin Birnie ◽  
J Henk Coert
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Lower Extremity ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Surgical Care ◽  
Life Questionnaire ◽  
Productivity Cost ◽  
Nerve Decompression

IntroductionThe peripheral nerves of patients with diabetes are often pathologically swollen, which results in entrapment at places of anatomical narrowing. This results in nerve dysfunction. Surgical treatment of compression neuropathies in the lower extremities (lower extremity nerve decompression (LEND)) results in relief of symptoms and gain in peripheral nerve function, which may lead to less sensory loss (short term) and less associated detrimental effects including foot ulceration and amputations, and lower costs (long term). The aim of the DeCompression trial is to evaluate the effectiveness and (cost-)effectiveness of surgical decompression of compressed lower extremity nerves (LEND surgery) compared with patients treated with conventional (non-surgical) care.Methods and analysisA stratified randomised (1 to 1) controlled trial comparing LEND surgery (intervention) with conventional non-surgical care (control strategy) in subjects with diabetes with problems of neuropathy due to compression neuropathies in the lower extremity. Randomisation is stratified for participating hospital (n=11) and gender. Patients and controls have the same follow-up at 1.5, 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24 and 48 months. Participants (n=344) will be recruited in 12 months and enrolled in all affiliated hospitals in which they receive both the intervention or conventional non-surgical care and follow-up. Outcome assessors are blinded to group assignment. Primary outcome: disease-specific quality of life (Norfolk Quality of Life Questionnaire—Diabetic Neuropathy). Secondary outcomes: health-related quality of life (EuroQoL 5-dimension 5-level (EQ-5D5L), 36-item Short Form (SF-36)), plantar sensation (Rotterdam Diabetic Foot Test Battery), incidence of ulcerations/amputations, resource use and productivity loss (Medical Cost Questionnaire, Productivity Cost Questionnaire) during follow-up. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio will be estimated on the basis of the collected empirical data and a cost-utility model.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of Utrecht University Medical Center (reference: NL68312.041.19v5, protocol number: 19-335/M). Dissemination of results will be via journal articles and presentations at national and international conferences.Trial registration numberNetherlandsTrial Registry NL7664.

scholarly journals SOMA-trial: surgery or medication for women with an endometrioma? Study protocol for a randomised controlled trial and cohort study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
E van Barneveld ◽  
V B Veth ◽  
J M Sampat ◽  
A M F Schreurs ◽  
M van Wely ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Cohort Study ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Pain Reduction ◽  
Deep Endometriosis ◽  
Ovarian Endometrioma ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract STUDY QUESTIONS The objective of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of surgical treatment of women suffering from pain due to an ovarian endometrioma when compared to treatment with medication (analgesia and/or hormones). The primary outcome is defined as successful pain reduction (−30% reduction of pain) measured by the numeric rating scale (NRS) after 6 months. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life, affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness, recurrence rate, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve, adjuvant surgery and budget impact. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Evidence suggests that both medication and surgical treatment of an ovarian endometrioma are effective in reducing pain and improving quality of life. However, there are no randomised studies that compare surgery to treatment with medication. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This study will be performed in a research network of university and teaching hospitals in the Netherlands. A multicentre randomised controlled trial and parallel prospective cohort study in patients with an ovarian endometrioma, with the exclusion of patients with deep endometriosis, will be conducted. After obtaining informed consent, eligible patients will be randomly allocated to either treatment arm (medication or surgery) by using web-based block randomisation stratified per centre. A successful pain reduction is set at a 30% decrease on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Based on a power of 80% and an alpha of 5% and using a continuity correction, a sample size of 69 patients in each treatment arm is needed. Accounting for a drop-out rate of 25% (i.e. loss to follow up), we need to include 92 patients in each treatment arm, i.e. 184 in total. Simultaneously, a cohort study will be performed for eligible patients who are not willing to be randomised because of a distinct preference for one of the two treatment arms. We intend to include 100 women in each treatment arm to enable standardization by inverse probability weighting, which means 200 patients in total. The expected inclusion period is 24 months with a follow-up of 18 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Premenopausal women (age ≥ 18 years) with pain (dysmenorrhoea, pelvic pain or dyspareunia) and an ovarian endometrioma (cyst diameter ≥ 3 cm) who visit the outpatient clinic will make up the study population. Patients with signs of deep endometriosis will be excluded. The primary outcome is successful pain reduction, which is defined as a 30% decrease of pain on the NRS at 6 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes include successful pain reduction after 12 and 18 months, quality of life and affective symptoms, cost-effectiveness (from a healthcare and societal perspective), number of participants needing additional surgery, need of adjuvant medication after surgery, ovarian reserve and recurrence rate of endometriomas. Measurements will be performed at baseline, 6 weeks and 6, 12 and 18 months after randomisation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study is funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development, project number 80-85200-98-91041. The Department of Reproductive Medicine of the Amsterdam UMC location VUmc has received several research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck KGaA and Ferring not related to the submitted work. B.W.J. Mol is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck KGaA and Guerbet. V. Mijatovic reports grants from Guerbet, grants from Merck and grants from Ferring outside the submitted work. All authors declare that they have no competing interests concerning this publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Dutch Trial Register (NTR 7447, http://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 2 January 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT First inclusion in randomised controlled trial October 4, 2019. First inclusion in cohort May 22, 2019.

scholarly journals Randomised controlled feasibility trial of real versus sham repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment in adults with severe and enduring anorexia nervosa: the TIARA study

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e021531 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bethan Dalton ◽  
Savani Bartholdy ◽  
Jessica McClelland ◽  
Maria Kekic ◽  
Samantha J Rennalls ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Anorexia Nervosa ◽  
Eating Disorder ◽  
Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Eating Disorder Symptoms ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTreatment options for severe, enduring anorexia nervosa (SE-AN) are limited. Non-invasive neuromodulation is a promising emerging intervention. Our study is a feasibility randomised controlled trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) in individuals with SE-AN, which aims to inform the design of a future large-scale trial.DesignDouble-blind, parallel group, two-arm, sham-controlled trial.SettingSpecialist eating disorders centre.ParticipantsCommunity-dwelling people with anorexia nervosa, an illness duration of ≥3 years and at least one previous completed treatment.InterventionsParticipants received 20 sessions (administered over 4 weeks) of MRI-guided real or sham high-frequency rTMS to the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in addition to treatment-as-usual.OutcomesPrimary outcomes were recruitment, attendance and retention rates. Secondary outcomes included body mass index (BMI), eating disorder symptoms, mood, quality of life and rTMS safety and tolerability. Assessments were conducted at baseline, post-treatment and follow-up (ie, at 0 month, 1 month and 4 months post-randomisation).ResultsThirty-four participants (17 per group) were randomly allocated to real or sham rTMS. One participant per group was withdrawn prior to the intervention due to safety concerns. Two participants (both receiving sham) did not complete the treatment. rTMS was safe and well tolerated. Between-group effect sizes of change scores (baseline to follow-up) were small for BMI (d=0.2, 95% CI −0.49 to 0.90) and eating disorder symptoms (d=0.1, 95% CI −0.60 to 0.79), medium for quality of life and moderate to large (d=0.61 to 1.0) for mood outcomes, all favouring rTMS over sham.ConclusionsThe treatment protocol is feasible and acceptable to participants. Outcomes provide preliminary evidence for the therapeutic potential of rTMS in SE-AN. Largest effects were observed on variables assessing mood. This study supports the need for a larger confirmatory trial to evaluate the effectiveness of multi-session rTMS in SE-AN. Future studies should include a longer follow-up period and an assessment of cost-effectiveness.Trial registration numberISRCTN14329415; Pre-results.

A co-produced self-management programme improves psychosocial outcomes for people living with depression

2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 242-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andy Turner ◽  
Alba X. Realpe ◽  
Louise M. Wallace ◽  
Joanna Kosmala-Anderson
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Management Programme ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Depression Symptoms ◽  
Management Skills ◽  
Content Type

Purpose – There is growing interest in self-management support for people living with mental health problems. The purpose of this paper is to describe the evaluation of a co-designed and co-delivered self-management programme (SMP) for people living with depression delivered as part of large scale National Health Service quality improvement programme, which was grounded in the principles of co-production. The authors investigated whether participants became more activated, were less psychologically distressed enjoyed better health status, and quality of life, and improved their self-management skills after attending the seven-week SMP. Design/methodology/approach – The authors conducted a longitudinal study of 114 people living with depression who attended the SMP. Participants completed self-reported measures before attending the SMP and at six months follow up. Findings – Patient activation significantly improved six months after the SMP (baseline M=49.6, SD=12.3, follow up M=57.2, SD=15.0, t(113)=4.83, p < 0.001; d=0.61). Participants’ experience of depression symptoms as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 significantly reduced (baseline M=15.5, SD=6.8, follow up M=10.6, SD=6.9, t(106)=7.22, p < 0.001, d=−0.72). Participants’ anxiety and depression as measured by the Hospital Anxiety Depression Scale also decreased significantly (baseline anxiety: M=13.1, SD=4.2, follow up M=10.2, SD=4.4, t(79)=6.29, p < 0.001, d=−0.69); (baseline depression: M=10.3, SD=4.6, follow up M=7.7, SD=4.5, t(79)=5.32, p < 0.001, d=−0.56). The authors also observed significant improvement in participants’ health status (baseline M=0.5, SD=0.3, follow up M=0.6, SD=0.3, t(97)=−3.86, p < 0.001, d=0.33), and health-related quality of life (baseline M=45.4, SD=20.5, follow up M=60.8, SD=22.8, t(91)=−2.71, p=0.008, d=0.75). About 35 per cent of participant showed substantial improvements of self-management skills. Originality/value – The co-produced depression SMP is innovative in a UK mental health setting. Improvements in activation, depression, anxiety, quality of life and self-management skills suggest that the SMP could make a useful contribution to the recovery services in mental health.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document