scholarly journals Multicentre cluster randomised trial comparing a community group exercise programme and home-based exercise with usual care for people aged 65 years and over in primary care

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (49) ◽  
pp. 1-106 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steve Iliffe ◽  
Denise Kendrick ◽  
Richard Morris ◽  
Tahir Masud ◽  
Heather Gage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Exercise Programme ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Home Based ◽  
General Practices ◽  
Secondary Outcomes

BackgroundRegular physical activity (PA) reduces the risk of falls and hip fractures, and mortality from all causes. However, PA levels are low in the older population and previous intervention studies have demonstrated only modest, short-term improvements.ObjectiveTo evaluate the impact of two exercise promotion programmes on PA in people aged ≥ 65 years.DesignThe ProAct65+ study was a pragmatic, three-arm parallel design, cluster randomised controlled trial of class-based exercise [Falls Management Exercise (FaME) programme], home-based exercise [Otago Exercise Programme (OEP)] and usual care among older people (aged ≥ 65 years) in primary care.SettingForty-three UK-based general practices in London and Nottingham/Derby.ParticipantsA total of 1256 people ≥ 65 years were recruited through their general practices to take part in the trial.InterventionsThe FaME programme and OEP. FaME included weekly classes plus home exercises for 24 weeks and encouraged walking. OEP included home exercises supported by peer mentors (PMs) for 24 weeks, and encouraged walking.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the proportion that reported reaching the recommended PA target of 150 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity (MVPA) per week, 12 months after cessation of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included functional assessments of balance and falls risk, the incidence of falls, fear of falling, quality of life, social networks and self-efficacy. An economic evaluation including participant and NHS costs was embedded in the clinical trial.ResultsIn total, 20,507 patients from 43 general practices were invited to participate. Expressions of interest were received from 2752 (13%) and 1256 (6%) consented to join the trial; 387 were allocated to the FaME arm, 411 to the OEP arm and 458 to usual care. Primary outcome data were available at 12 months after the end of the intervention period for 830 (66%) of the study participants.The proportions reporting at least 150 minutes of MVPA per week rose between baseline and 12 months after the intervention from 40% to 49% in the FaME arm, from 41% to 43% in the OEP arm and from 37.5% to 38.0% in the usual-care arm. A significantly higher proportion in the FaME arm than in the usual-care arm reported at least 150 minutes of MVPA per week at 12 months after the intervention [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.11 to 2.87;p = 0.02]. There was no significant difference in MVPA between OEP and usual care (AOR 1.17, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.92;p = 0.52). Participants in the FaME arm added around 15 minutes of MVPA per day to their baseline physical activity level. In the 12 months after the close of the intervention phase, there was a statistically significant reduction in falls rate in the FaME arm compared with the usual-care arm (incidence rate ratio 0.74, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.99;p = 0.042). Scores on the Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly showed a small but statistically significant benefit for FaME compared with usual care, as did perceptions of benefits from exercise. Balance confidence was significantly improved at 12 months post intervention in both arms compared with the usual-care arm. There were no statistically significant differences between intervention arms and the usual-care arm in other secondary outcomes, including quality-adjusted life-years. FaME is more expensive than OEP delivered with PMs (£269 vs. £88 per participant in London; £218 vs. £117 in Nottingham). The cost per extra person exercising at, or above, target was £1919.64 in London and £1560.21 in Nottingham (mean £1739.93).ConclusionThe FaME intervention increased self-reported PA levels among community-dwelling older adults 12 months after the intervention, and significantly reduced falls. Both the FaME and OEP interventions appeared to be safe, with no significant differences in adverse reactions between study arms.Trial registrationThis trial is registered as ISRCTN43453770.FundingThis project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention, a peer led physical activity program for adolescent girls: results of a cluster randomised controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Russell Jago ◽  
Byron Tibbitts ◽  
Kathryn Willis ◽  
Emily Sanderson ◽  
Rebecca Kandiyali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Physical activity is associated with improved health. Girls are less active than boys. Pilot work showed that a peer-led physical activity intervention called PLAN-A was a promising method of increasing physical activity in secondary school age girls. This study examined the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the PLAN-A intervention. Methods We conducted a cluster randomised controlled trial with Year 9 (13–14 year old) girls recruited from 20 secondary schools. Schools were randomly assigned to the PLAN-A intervention or a non-intervention control group after baseline data collection. Girls nominated students to be peer leaders. The top 18 % of girls nominated by their peers in intervention schools received three days of training designed to prepare them to support physical activity. Data were collected at two time points, baseline (T0) and 5–6 months post-intervention (T1). Participants wore an accelerometer for seven days to assess the primary outcome of mean weekday minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA). Multivariable mixed effects linear regression was used to estimate differences in the primary outcome between the two arms on an Intention-to-Treat (ITT) basis. Resource use and quality of life were measured and a within trial economic evaluation from a public sector perspective was conducted. Results A total of 1558 girls were recruited to the study. At T0, girls in both arms engaged in an average of 51 min of MVPA per weekday. The adjusted mean difference in weekday MVPA at T1 was − 2.84 min per day (95 % CI = -5.94 to 0.25) indicating a slightly larger decline in weekday MVPA in the intervention group. Results were broadly consistent when repeated using a multiple imputation approach and for pre-specified secondary outcomes and sub-groups. The mean cost of the PLAN-A intervention was £2817 per school, equivalent to £31 per girl. Economic analyses indicated that PLAN-A did not lead to demonstrable cost-effectiveness in terms of cost per unit change in QALY. Conclusions This study has shown that the PLAN-A intervention did not result in higher levels of weekday MVPA or associated secondary outcomes among Year 9 girls. The PLAN-A intervention should not be disseminated as a public health strategy. Trial registration ISRCTN14539759–31 May, 2018.

scholarly journals Combining mirtazapine with SSRIs or SNRIs for treatment-resistant depression: the MIR RCT

2018 ◽  
Vol 22 (63) ◽  
pp. 1-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kessler ◽  
Alison Burns ◽  
Debbie Tallon ◽  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Stephanie MacNeill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Reuptake Inhibitor ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Treatment Resistant Depression ◽  
Treatment Resistant ◽  
Resistant Depression

Background Depression is usually managed in primary care and antidepressants are often the first-line treatment, but only half of those treated respond to a single antidepressant. Objectives To investigate whether or not combining mirtazapine with serotonin–noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor (SNRI) or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressants results in better patient outcomes and more efficient NHS care than SNRI or SSRI therapy alone in treatment-resistant depression (TRD). Design The MIR trial was a two-parallel-group, multicentre, pragmatic, placebo-controlled randomised trial with allocation at the level of the individual. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care in Bristol, Exeter, Hull/York and Manchester/Keele. Participants Eligible participants were aged ≥ 18 years; were taking a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant for at least 6 weeks at an adequate dose; scored ≥ 14 points on the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II); were adherent to medication; and met the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision, criteria for depression. Interventions Participants were randomised using a computer-generated code to either oral mirtazapine or a matched placebo, starting at a dose of 15 mg daily for 2 weeks and increasing to 30 mg daily for up to 12 months, in addition to their usual antidepressant. Participants, their general practitioners (GPs) and the research team were blind to the allocation. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was depression symptoms at 12 weeks post randomisation compared with baseline, measured as a continuous variable using the BDI-II. Secondary outcomes (at 12, 24 and 52 weeks) included response, remission of depression, change in anxiety symptoms, adverse events (AEs), quality of life, adherence to medication, health and social care use and cost-effectiveness. Outcomes were analysed on an intention-to-treat basis. A qualitative study explored patients’ views and experiences of managing depression and GPs’ views on prescribing a second antidepressant. Results There were 480 patients randomised to the trial (mirtazapine and usual care, n = 241; placebo and usual care, n = 239), of whom 431 patients (89.8%) were followed up at 12 weeks. BDI-II scores at 12 weeks were lower in the mirtazapine group than the placebo group after adjustment for baseline BDI-II score and minimisation and stratification variables [difference –1.83 points, 95% confidence interval (CI) –3.92 to 0.27 points; p = 0.087]. This was smaller than the minimum clinically important difference and the CI included the null. The difference became smaller at subsequent time points (24 weeks: –0.85 points, 95% CI –3.12 to 1.43 points; 12 months: 0.17 points, 95% CI –2.13 to 2.46 points). More participants in the mirtazapine group withdrew from the trial medication, citing mild AEs (46 vs. 9 participants). Conclusions This study did not find convincing evidence of a clinically important benefit for mirtazapine in addition to a SSRI or a SNRI antidepressant over placebo in primary care patients with TRD. There was no evidence that the addition of mirtazapine was a cost-effective use of NHS resources. GPs and patients were concerned about adding an additional antidepressant. Limitations Voluntary unblinding for participants after the primary outcome at 12 weeks made interpretation of longer-term outcomes more difficult. Future work Treatment-resistant depression remains an area of important, unmet need, with limited evidence of effective treatments. Promising interventions include augmentation with atypical antipsychotics and treatment using transcranial magnetic stimulation. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06653773; EudraCT number 2012-000090-23. Funding This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 22, No. 63. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Home-based rehabilitation programme compared with traditional physiotherapy for patients at risk of poor outcome after knee arthroplasty: the CORKA randomised controlled trial

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (8) ◽  
pp. e052598
Author(s):  
Karen L Barker ◽  
Jonathan Room ◽  
Ruth Knight ◽  
Susan Dutton ◽  
Francine Toye ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Knee Arthroplasty ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Rehabilitation Programme ◽  
Poor Outcome ◽  
Home Based ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ObjectivesTo evaluate whether a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty offers superior outcomes to traditional outpatient physiotherapy.DesignA prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled superiority trial.Setting14 National Health Service physiotherapy departments in the UK.Participants621 participants identified at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty using a bespoke screening tool.InterventionsA multicomponent home-based rehabilitation programme delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists versus usual care outpatient physiotherapy.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life subscale, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, 5 dimension, 5 level version of Euroqol (EQ-5D-5L) and physical function assessed using the Figure of 8 Walk test, 30 s Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance.Results621 participants were randomised between March 2015 and January 2018. 309 were assigned to CORKA (Community Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty) home-based rehabilitation, receiving a median five treatment sessions (IQR 4–7). 312 were assigned to usual care, receiving a median 4 sessions (IQR 2–6). The primary outcome, LLFDI function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference=0.49 points; 95% CI −0.89 to 1.88; p=0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months.There were 18 participants in the intervention group reporting a serious adverse event (5.8%), only one directly related to the intervention, all other adverse events recorded throughout the trial related to underlying chronic medical conditions.ConclusionsThe CORKA intervention was not superior to usual care. The trial detected no significant differences, clinical or statistical, between the two groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CORKA offers an evaluation of an intervention utilising a different service delivery model for this patient group.Trial registration numberISRCTN13517704.

scholarly journals Stratified versus usual care for the management of primary care patients with sciatica: the SCOPiC RCT

2020 ◽  
Vol 24 (49) ◽  
pp. 1-130
Author(s):  
Nadine E Foster ◽  
Kika Konstantinou ◽  
Martyn Lewis ◽  
Reuben Ogollah ◽  
Benjamin Saunders ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Health Technology Assessment ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Technology Assessment ◽  
Fast Track ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Care Pathways ◽  
Care Model ◽  
Stratified Care

Background Sciatica has a substantial impact on patients and society. Current care is ‘stepped’, comprising an initial period of simple measures of advice and analgesia, for most patients, commonly followed by physiotherapy, and then by more intensive interventions if symptoms fail to resolve. No study has yet tested a model of stratified care in which patients are subgrouped and matched to different care pathways based on their prognosis and clinical characteristics. Objectives The objectives were to investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a stratified care model compared with usual, non-stratified care. Design This was a two-parallel group, multicentre, pragmatic, 1 : 1 randomised controlled trial. Setting Participants were recruited from primary care (42 general practices) in North Staffordshire, North Shropshire/Wales and Cheshire in the UK. Participants Eligible patients were aged ≥ 18 years, had suspected sciatica, had access to a mobile phone/landline, were not pregnant, were not receiving treatment for the same problem and had not had previous spinal surgery. Interventions In stratified care, a combination of prognostic and clinical criteria associated with referral to spinal specialist services was used to allocate patients to one of three groups for matched care pathways. Group 1 received advice and up to two sessions of physiotherapy, group 2 received up to six sessions of physiotherapy, and group 3 was fast-tracked to magnetic resonance imaging and spinal specialist opinion. Usual care was based on the stepped-care approach without the use of any stratification tools/algorithms. Patients were randomised using a remote web-based randomisation service. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was time to first resolution of sciatica symptoms (six point ordinal scale, collected via text messages). Secondary outcomes (at 4 and 12 months) included pain, function, psychological health, days lost from work, work productivity, satisfaction with care and health-care use. A cost–utility analysis was undertaken over 12 months. A qualitative study explored patients’ and clinicians’ views of the fast-track care pathway to a spinal specialist. Results A total of 476 patients were randomised (238 in each arm). For the primary outcome, the overall response rate was 89.3% (88.3% and 90.3% in the stratified and usual care arms, respectively). Relief from symptoms was slightly faster (2 weeks median difference) in the stratified care arm, but this difference was not statistically significant (hazard ratio 1.14, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.46; p = 0.288). On average, participants in both arms reported good improvement from baseline, on most outcomes, over time. Following the assessment at the research clinic, most participants in the usual care arm were referred to physiotherapy. Conclusions The stratified care model tested in this trial was not more clinically effective than usual care, and was not likely to be a cost-effective option. The fast-track pathway was felt to be acceptable to both patients and clinicians; however, clinicians expressed reluctance to consider invasive procedures if symptoms were of short duration. Limitations Participants in the usual care arm, on average, reported good outcomes, making it challenging to demonstrate superiority of stratified care. The performance of the algorithm used to allocate patients to treatment pathways may have influenced results. Future work Other approaches to stratified care may provide superior outcomes for sciatica. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN75449581. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 49. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

scholarly journals Healthy eating and lifestyle in pregnancy (HELP): a cluster randomised trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a weight management intervention for pregnant women with obesity on weight at 12 months postpartum

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon A. Simpson ◽  
Elinor Coulman ◽  
Dunla Gallagher ◽  
Karen Jewell ◽  
David Cohen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Weight Management ◽  
Healthy Eating ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Intervention Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Risky Drinking ◽  
Management Intervention ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Secondary Outcomes ◽  
Weight Management Intervention

Abstract Objective To assess whether a weight management intervention for pregnant women with obesity was effective in reducing body mass index (BMI) 12 months after giving birth. Methods Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) with embedded cost-effectiveness analysis. 598 women with a BMI of ≥30 kg/m2 (between 12 and 20 weeks gestation) were recruited from 20 secondary care maternity units in England and Wales. BMI at 12 months postpartum was the primary outcome. A range of clinical and behavioural secondary outcomes were examined. Interventions Women attending maternity units randomised to intervention were invited to a weekly weight management group, which combined expertise from a commercial weight loss programme with clinical advice from midwives. Both intervention and control participants received usual care and leaflets on diet and physical activity in pregnancy. Results Mean (SD) BMI at 12 months postpartum was 36.0 kg/m2 (5.2) in the control group, and 37.5 kg/m2 (6.7) in the intervention group. After adjustment for baseline BMI, the intervention effect was −0.02 (95% CI −0.04 to 0.01). The intervention group had an improved healthy eating score (3.08, 95% CI 0.16 to 6.00, p < 0.04), improved fibre score (3.22, 1.07 to 5.37, p < 0.01) and lower levels of risky drinking at 12 months postpartum compared to the control group (OR 0.45, 0.27 to 0.74, p < 0.002). The net incremental monetary benefit was not statistically significantly different between arms, although the probability of the intervention being cost-effective was above 60%, at policy-relevant thresholds. Conclusions There was no significant difference between groups on the primary outcome of BMI at 12 months. Analyses of secondary outcomes indicated improved healthy eating and lower levels of risky drinking. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN25260464.

scholarly journals An external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial of a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care (PolyPrime): study protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Audrey Rankin ◽  
◽  
Cathal A. Cadogan ◽  
Heather E. Barry ◽  
Evie Gardner ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Older People ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial ◽  
Online Video ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background The use of multiple medications (polypharmacy) is a concern in older people (≥65 years) and is associated with negative health outcomes. For older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy is the reality and the key challenge is ensuring appropriate polypharmacy (as opposed to inappropriate polypharmacy). This external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aims to further test a theory-based intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care in two jurisdictions, Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI). Methods Twelve GP practices across NI (n=6) and the six counties in the ROI that border NI will be randomised to either the intervention or usual care group. Members of the research team have developed an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. The intervention consists of two components: (1) an online video which demonstrates how a GP may prescribe appropriate polypharmacy during a consultation with an older patient and (2) a patient recall process, whereby patients are invited to scheduled medication review consultations with GPs. Ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥4 medications) will be recruited per GP practice (n=120). GP practices allocated to the intervention arm will be asked to watch the online video and schedule medication reviews with patients on two occasions; an initial and a 6-month follow-up appointment. GP practices allocated to the control arm will continue to provide usual care to patients. The study will assess the feasibility of recruitment, retention and study procedures including collecting data on medication appropriateness (from GP records), quality of life and health service use (i.e. hospitalisations). An embedded process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity (i.e. was the intervention delivered as intended), acceptability of the intervention and potential mechanisms of action. Discussion This pilot cRCT will provide evidence of the feasibility of a range of study parameters such as recruitment and retention, data collection procedures and the acceptability of the intervention. Pre-specified progression criteria will also be used to determine whether or not to proceed to a definitive cRCT. Trial registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897. Registered 19 November 2019. ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04181879. Registered 02 December 2019.

scholarly journals Understanding usual care for patients with multimorbidity: baseline data from a cluster-randomised trial of the 3D intervention in primary care

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. e019845 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Chaplin ◽  
Peter Bower ◽  
Mei-See Man ◽  
Sara T Brookes ◽  
Daisy Gaunt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Usual Care ◽  
External Validity ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Baseline Data ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Treatment Burden ◽  
Practice Staff ◽  
Illness Burden ◽  
Cluster Randomised

ObjectivesRecent evidence has highlighted the high prevalence and impact of multimorbidity, but the evidence base for improving management is limited. We have tested a new complex intervention for multimorbidity (the 3D model). The paper describes the baseline characteristics of practices and patients in order to establish the external validity of trial participants. It also explores current ‘usual primary care’ for multimorbidity, against which the 3D intervention was tested.DesignAnalysis of baseline data from patients in a cluster-randomised controlled trial and additional data from practice staff.SettingPrimary care in the UK.ParticipantsPatients with multimorbidity (n=5253) and 154 practice staff.Primary and secondary outcome measuresUsing surveys and routinely available data, we compared the characteristics of participating and non-participating practices and participating and non-participating eligible patients.Baseline questionnaire data from patient participants was used to examine participant illness burden, treatment burden and perceptions of receiving patient-centred care. We obtained data about usual care preintervention from practice staff using questionnaires and a structured pro forma.ResultsParticipating practices were slightly larger, in less deprived areas, and with slightly higher scores for patient satisfaction compared with non-participating practices. Patients with dementia or learning difficulties were likely to be excluded by their general practitioners, but comparison of participants with non-participants identified only minor differences in characteristics, suggesting that the sample was otherwise representative. Patients reported substantial illness burden, and an important minority reported high treatment burden. Although patients reported relatively high levels of satisfaction with care, many reported not having received potentially important components of care.ConclusionThis trial achieved good levels of external validity. Although patients were generally satisfied with primary care services, there was significant room for improvement in important aspects of care for multimorbidity that are targeted by the 3D intervention.Trial registration numberISRCTN06180958; Post-results.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document