Dataset Information

Protocol for the adolescent hayfever trial: cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention for healthcare professionals for the management of school-age children with hayfever.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hayfever) is common and can contribute to a considerable reduction in the quality of life of adolescents. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of standardised allergy training for healthcare professionals in improving disease-specific quality of life in adolescents with hayfever. METHODS/DESIGN:Adolescents with a history of hayfever registered in general practices in Scotland and England were invited to participate in a cluster randomised controlled trial. The unit of randomisation is general practices.The educational intervention for healthcare professionals consists of a short standardised educational course, which focuses on the management of allergic rhinitis. Patients in the intervention arm of this cluster randomised controlled trial will have a clinic appointment with their healthcare professional who has attended the training course. Patients in the control arm will have a clinic appointment with their healthcare professional and will receive usual care. The primary outcome measure is the change in the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire with Standardised Activities (RQLQ(S)) score between baseline and six weeks post-intervention in the patient intervention and control groups. Secondary outcome measures relate to healthcare professionals' understanding and confidence in managing allergic rhinitis, changes in clinical practice, numbers of consultations for hayfever and adolescent exam performance.A minimum of 11 practices in each arm of the trial (10 patients per cluster) will provide at least 80% power to demonstrate a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 in RQLQ(S) score at a significance level of 5% based on an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.02. DISCUSSION:At the time of submission, 24 general practices have been recruited (12 in each arm of the trial) and the interventions have been delivered. Follow-up data collection is complete. 230 children consented to take part in the trial; however complete primary outcome data are only available for 160. Further recruitment of general practices and patients will therefore take place in the summer of 2010. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN95538067.

SUBMITTER: Hammersley VS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2922085 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Protocol for the adolescent hayfever trial: cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention for healthcare professionals for the management of school-age children with hayfever.

Hammersley Victoria S VS Walker Samantha S Elton Rob R Sheikh Aziz A

Trials 20100805

<h4>Background</h4>Seasonal allergic rhinitis (hayfever) is common and can contribute to a considerable reduction in the quality of life of adolescents. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of standardised allergy training for healthcare professionals in improving disease-specific quality of life in adolescents with hayfever.<h4>Methods/design</h4>Adolescents with a history of hayfever registered in general practices in Scotland and England were invited to participate in a cluster random ...[more]

PMID: 20687917

Similar Datasets

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Childhood vaccination programmes have been established in all Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries; however, measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) as well as diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis and polio (Tdap-IPV) vaccination rates are not optimal in adolescents. Education in combination with easy access vaccination may be a promising approach to improve vaccination rates. We aim at improving MMR and Tdap-IPV rates in a school setting in the context of a planned cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT), the present paper describes the detailed protocol of this trial. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a school-based cRCT, where schools will be randomised to either an educational condition addressing knowledge, risk communication and enhancing self-efficacy regarding vaccination or a low-intensity information condition. In both conditions, a bus equipped with medical staff and materials, will be delivering MMR and Tdap-IPV vaccine directly after the intervention. Schools in the city centre of Berlin, Germany, will be stratified by percentage of migration and type of school. Primary outcome is the number of students who receive vaccination in the bus. Secondary outcomes are knowledge and self-efficacy. An estimated sample size of 355 school classes with approximately 25 students per class is required. The planned analyses will take the nested structure of students, classes and schools into account. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The study will be performed according to the principles of Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Approval was obtained by the local ethics committee. Parents of all students will be informed in advance. Their written consent will be obtained, in case students are underage. For dissemination, we will engage with governmental organisations to create potential of our educational unit to be included in future public health prevention schemes. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ISRCTN18026662;Pre-results.

Project description:BACKGROUND:National diabetes audits in the UK show room for improvement in the quality of care delivered to people with type 2 diabetes in primary care. Systematic reviews of quality improvement interventions show that such approaches can be effective but there is wide variability between trials and little understanding concerning what explains this variability. A national cohort study of primary care across 99 UK practices identified modifiable predictors of healthcare professionals' prescribing, advising and foot examination. Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of an implementation intervention to improve six guideline-recommended health professional behaviours in managing type 2 diabetes in primary care: prescribing for blood pressure and glycaemic control, providing physical activity and nutrition advice and providing updated diabetes education and foot examination. METHODS:Two-armed cluster randomised trial involving 44 general practices. Primary outcomes (at 12 months follow-up): from electronic medical records, the proportion of patients receiving additional prescriptions for blood pressure and insulin initiation for glycaemic control and having a foot examination; and from a patient survey of a random sample of 100 patients per practice, reported receipt of updated diabetes education and physical activity and nutrition advice. RESULTS:The implementation intervention did not lead to statistically significant improvement on any of the six clinical behaviours. 1,138,105 prescriptions were assessed. Intervention (29% to 37% patients) and control arms (31% to 35%) increased insulin initiation relative to baseline but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.18, 95%CI 0.95-1.48). Intervention (45% to 53%) and control practices (45% to 50%) increased blood pressure prescription from baseline to follow-up but were not statistically significantly different at follow-up (IRR 1.05, 95%CI 0.96 to 1.16). Intervention (75 to 78%) and control practices (74 to 79%) increased foot examination relative to baseline; control practices increased statistically significantly more (OR 0.84, 95%CI 0.75-0.94). Fewer patients in intervention (33%) than control practices (40%) reported receiving updated diabetes education (OR?=?0.74, 95%CI 0.57-0.97). No statistically significant differences were observed in patient reports of having had a discussion about nutrition (intervention?=?73%; control?=?72%; OR?=?0.98, 95%CI 0.59-1.64) or physical activity (intervention?=?57%; control?=?62%; OR?=?0.79, 95%CI 0.56-1.11). Development and delivery of the intervention cost £1191 per practice. CONCLUSIONS:There was no measurable benefit to practices' participation in this intervention. Despite widespread use of outreach interventions worldwide, there is a need to better understand which techniques at which intensity are optimally suited to address the multiple clinical behaviours involved in improving care for type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN, ISRCTN66498413 . Registered April 4, 2013.

Project description:Test effectiveness of an educational intervention for general practitioners (GPs) on quality of life and depression outcomes for patients.Double-blind, cluster randomised controlled trial.General practices in Australia between 2007 and 2010.General practices were randomly allocated to the waitlist (n=37) or intervention (n=66) group, in a ratio of 1:2. A total of 2030 (1478 intervention; 552 waitlist) community-dwelling participants aged 75 years or older were recruited via 168 GPs (113 intervention; 55 waitlist).A practice-based academic detailing intervention led by a peer educator that included: (1) training in use of the GP assessment of cognition dementia screening instrument; (2) training in diagnosis and management based on Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Dementia Guidelines; (3) addressing GPs' barriers to dementia diagnosis; and (4) a business case outlining a cost-effective dementia assessment approach.Primary outcome measures were patient quality of life and depression; secondary outcome measures were: (1) sensitivity and specificity of GP identification of dementia; (2) referral to medical specialists and/or support services; (3) patient satisfaction with care; and (4) carer quality of life, depression and satisfaction with care.The educational intervention had no significant effect on patient quality of life or depression scores after 12 months. There were however improvements in secondary outcome measures including sensitivity of GP judgement of dementia (p=0.002; OR 6.0, 95%?CI 1.92 to 18.73), satisfaction with GP communication for all patients (p=0.024; mean difference 2.1, 95%?CI 0.27 to 3.93) and for patients with dementia (p=0.007; mean difference 7.44, 95%?CI 2.02 to 12.86) and enablement of carers (p=0.0185; mean difference 24.77, 95%?CI 4.15 to 45.40).Practice-based academic detailing did not improve patient quality of life or depression scores but did improve detection of dementia in primary care and patient satisfaction with GP communication.ACTRN12607000117415; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundStrengthening Evidence base on scHool-based intErventions for pRomoting adolescent health (SEHER) is a multicomponent, whole-school health promotion intervention delivered by a lay counsellor or a teacher in government-run secondary schools in Bihar, India. The objective of this study is to examine the effects of the intervention after two years of follow-up and to evaluate the consistency of the findings observed over time.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cluster randomised trial in which 75 schools were randomised (1:1:1) to receive the SEHER intervention delivered by a lay counsellor (SEHER Mitra [SM]) or a teacher (Teacher as SEHER Mitra [TSM]), respectively, alongside a standardised, classroom-based life skills Adolescence Education Program (AEP), compared to AEP alone (control group). The trial design was a repeat cross-sectional study. Students enrolled in grade 9 (aged 13-15 years) in the 2015-2016 academic year were exposed to the intervention for two years and the outcome assessment was conducted at three time points─at baseline in June 2015; 8-months follow-up in March 2016, when the students were still in grade 9; and endpoint at 17-months follow-up in December 2016 (when the students were in grade 10), the results of which are presented in this paper. The primary outcome, school climate, was measured with the Beyond Blue School Climate Questionnaire (BBSCQ). Intervention effects were estimated using mixed-effects linear or logistic regression, including a random effect to adjust for within-school clustering, minimisation variables, baseline cluster-level score of the outcome, and sociodemographic characteristics. In total, 15,232 students participated in the 17-month survey. Compared with the control group, the participants in the SM intervention group reported improvements in school climate (adjusted mean difference [aMD] = 7.33; 95% CI: 6.60-8.06; p < 0.001) and most secondary outcomes (depression: aMD = -4.64; 95% CI: -5.83-3.45; p < 0.001; attitude towards gender equity: aMD = 1.02; 95% CI: 0.65-1.40; p < 0.001; frequency of bullying: aMD = -2.77; 95% CI: -3.40 to -2.14; p < 0.001; violence victimisation: odds ratio [OR] = 0.08; 95% CI: 0.04-0.14; p < 0.001; and violence perpetration: OR = 0.16; 95% CI: 0.09-0.29; p < 0.001). There was no evidence of an intervention effect in the TSM group compared with control group. The effects of the lay counsellor-delivered intervention were larger for most outcomes at 17-months follow-up compared with those at 8 months: school climate (effect size [ES; 95% CI] = 2.23 [1.97-2.50] versus 1.88 [1.44-2.32], p < 0.001); depression (ES [95% CI] = -1.19 [-1.56 to -0.82] versus -0.27 [-0.44 to -0.11], p < 0.001); attitude towards gender equity (ES [95% CI] = 0.53 [0.27-0.79] versus 0.23 [0.10-0.36], p < 0.001); bullying (ES [95% CI] = -2.22 [-2.84 to -1.60] versus -0.47 [-0.61 to -0.33], p < 0.001); violence victimisation (OR [95% CI] = 0.08 [0.04-0.14] versus 0.62 [0.46-0.84], p < 0.001); and violence perpetration (OR [95% CI] = 0.16 [0.09-0.29] versus 0.68 [0.48-0.96], p < 0.001), suggesting incremental benefits with an extended intervention. A limitation of the study is that 27% of baseline participants did not complete the 17-month outcome assessment.ConclusionsThe trial showed that the second-year outcomes were similar to the first-year outcomes, with no effect of the teacher-led intervention and larger benefits on school climate and adolescent health accruing from extending lay counsellor-delivered intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02907125.

Project description:ObjectivesInterventions addressing the individual and environmental protective factors of adolescents are suggested to have potential for reducing adolescent substance use. While universally delivered school-based substance use prevention interventions are common, previous studies have suggested variable effectiveness by subgroups of students. An exploratory study was undertaken to examine the differential effectiveness of a universal school-based resilience intervention on adolescent substance use and protective factors according to their sociodemographic and previous substance use.DesignSecondary analysis of data from a cluster-randomised controlled trial.Setting32 Australian secondary schools.ParticipantsCohort of grade 7 students (n=3155) followed up in grade 10 (aged 15-16 years; 2014; n=2105).InterventionThree-year universal school-based intervention implemented by school staff that targeted a range of student resilience protective factors (2012-2014).MeasurementsPrimary outcomes included: tobacco (recent, number of cigarettes) and alcohol (recent, 'risk' and number of drinks) use, and secondary outcomes included: marijuana (recent) and other illicit substance (recent) use, and aggregate individual and environmental protective factor scores. Generalised and linear mixed models examined interactions between treatment and student subgroups (gender; socioeconomic disadvantage (low/high); geographic location (major city/inner regional/outer regional-remote); and previous substance use (non-user/user)) at follow-up (36 models).ResultsAnalysis of student follow-up data showed no differential intervention effect for any substance use or protective factor outcome for any subgroup, with the exception of one differential effect found by socioeconomic status for the outcome of mean number of cigarettes smoked by recent smokers (p=0.003). There was no evidence of an intervention effect within the low (mean difference (MD) -12.89, 95%?CI -26.00 to 0.23) or high (MD 16.36, 95%?CI -1.03 to 33.76) socioeconomic subgroups.ConclusionsNo evidence of an intervention effect on substance use and protective factors was found according to student subgroups defined by sociodemographic characteristics or previous substance use.Trial registration numberACTRN12611000606987.

Dataset Information

Protocol for the adolescent hayfever trial: cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention for healthcare professionals for the management of school-age children with hayfever.

Publications

Protocol for the adolescent hayfever trial: cluster randomised controlled trial of an educational intervention for healthcare professionals for the management of school-age children with hayfever.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets