Dataset Information

Clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness in primary care: single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of booklet based vestibular rehabilitation with and without telephone support for chronic dizziness, compared with routine care.

Design

Single blind, parallel group, pragmatic, randomised controlled trial.

Setting

35 general practices across southern England between October 2008 and January 2011.

Participants

Patients aged 18 years or over with chronic dizziness (mean duration >five years) not attributable to non-vestibular causes (confirmed by general practitioner) and that could be aggravated by head movement (confirmed by patient).

Interventions

Participants randomly allocated to receive routine medical care, booklet based vestibular rehabilitation only, or booklet based vestibular rehabilitation with telephone support. For the booklet approach, participants received self management booklets providing comprehensive advice on undertaking vestibular rehabilitation exercises at home daily for up to 12 weeks and using cognitive behavioural techniques to promote positive beliefs and treatment adherence. Participants receiving telephone support were offered up to three brief sessions of structured support from a vestibular therapist.

Main outcome measures

Vertigo symptom scale-short form and total healthcare costs related to dizziness per quality adjusted life year (QALY).

Results

Of 337 randomised participants, 276 (82%) completed all clinical measures at the primary endpoint, 12 weeks, and 263 (78%) at one year follow-up. We analysed clinical effectiveness by intention to treat, using analysis of covariance to compare groups after intervention, controlling for baseline symptom scores. At 12 weeks, scores on the vertigo symptom scale in the telephone support group did not differ significantly from those in the routine care group (adjusted mean difference -1.79 (95% confidence interval -3.69 to 0.11), P=0.064). At one year, both intervention groups improved significantly relative to routine care (telephone support -2.52 (-4.52 to -0.51), P=0.014; booklet only -2.43 (-4.27 to -0.60), P=0.010). Analysis of cost effectiveness acceptability curves showed that both interventions were highly cost effective; at very low QALY values, the booklet only approach was most likely to be cost effective, but the approach with additional telephone support was most likely to be cost effective at QALY values more than £1200 (€1488; $1932). Using the booklet approach with telephone support, five (three to 12) patients would need to be treated for one patient to report subjective improvement at one year.

Conclusions

Booklet based vestibular rehabilitation for chronic dizziness is a simple and cost effective means of improving patient reported outcomes in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00732797.

SUBMITTER: Yardley L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3368486 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDizziness is a common complaint that often persists and leads to disability and distress. Several cognitive and behavioural responses may contribute to the neurobiological adaptations that maintain persistent vestibular symptoms. This paper will present the protocol of a two-arm parallel group feasibility randomised controlled trial designed to determine whether a fully powered efficacy trial is achievable by examining the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability and potential benefits of an integrated cognitive behavioural therapy and vestibular rehabilitation (CBT-VR) treatment for people with persistent dizziness.MethodsForty adult patients will be recruited from a tertiary vestibular clinic with persistent movement-triggered dizziness for 3 months or longer who have moderate-high levels of dizziness handicap. Participants will be 1:1 randomised, using a minimisation procedure, to six sessions of either CBT-VR (intervention arm) or VR only (control arm). Measures will be collected at baseline and 4 months post randomisation. The primary feasibility outcomes include descriptive data on numbers meeting eligibility criteria, rates of recruitment, numbers retained post randomisation, treatment adherence and an acceptability questionnaire. Treatment effects on self-report outcomes will be estimated to determine that 95% confidence intervals for the effects are consistent with anticipated effects and minimum clinically important differences, and to provide information needed for the power calculation of an efficacy trial. A nested qualitative study will be conducted post-intervention (intervention group only) to explore the acceptability of the intervention and identify any areas in need of improvement.DiscussionIf a trial of CBT-VR is feasible, acceptability data will be used to enhance the intervention if needed and refine the multicentre RCT protocol. Future studies will need to consider the training required for other physiotherapists to deliver the intervention.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN 10420559.

Project description:BackgroundManual therapy is an intervention commonly advocated in the management of dizziness of a suspected cervical origin. Vestibular rehabilitation exercises have been shown to be effective in the treatment of unilateral peripheral vestibular disorders, and have also been suggested in the literature as an adjunct in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness. The purpose of this systematic review is to evaluate the evidence for manual therapy, in conjunction with or without vestibular rehabilitation, in the management of cervicogenic dizziness.MethodsA comprehensive search was conducted in the databases Scopus, Mantis, CINHAL and the Cochrane Library for terms related to manual therapy, vestibular rehabilitation and cervicogenic dizziness. Included studies were assessed using the Maastricht-Amsterdam criteria.ResultsA total of fifteen articles reporting findings from thirteen unique investigations, including five randomised controlled trials and eight prospective, non-controlled cohort studies were included in this review. The methodological quality of the included studies was generally poor to moderate. All but one study reported improvement in dizziness following either unimodal or multimodal manual therapy interventions. Some studies reported improvements in postural stability, joint positioning, range of motion, muscle tenderness, neck pain and vertebrobasilar artery blood flow velocity.DiscussionAlthough it has been argued that manual therapy combined with vestibular rehabilitation may be superior in the treatment of cervicogenic dizziness, there are currently no observational and experimental studies demonstrating such effects. A rationale for combining manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation in the management of cervicogenic dizziness is presented.ConclusionThere is moderate evidence to support the use of manual therapy, in particular spinal mobilisation and manipulation, for cervicogenic dizziness. The evidence for combining manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation in the management of cervicogenic dizziness is lacking. Further research to elucidate potential synergistic effects of manual therapy and vestibular rehabilitation is strongly recommended.

Project description:BackgroundSymptoms arising from vestibular system dysfunction are observed in 49-59% of people with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Symptoms may include vertigo, dizziness and/or imbalance. These impact on functional ability, contribute to falls and significant health and social care costs. In people with MS, vestibular dysfunction can be due to peripheral pathology that may include Benign Paroxysmal Positional Vertigo (BPPV), as well as central or combined pathology. Vestibular symptoms may be treated with vestibular rehabilitation (VR), and with repositioning manoeuvres in the case of BPPV. However, there is a paucity of evidence about the rate and degree of symptom recovery with VR for people with MS and vestibulopathy. In addition, given the multiplicity of symptoms and underpinning vestibular pathologies often seen in people with MS, a customised VR approach may be more clinically appropriate and cost effective than generic booklet-based approaches. Likewise, BPPV should be identified and treated appropriately.Methods/ designPeople with MS and symptoms of vertigo, dizziness and/or imbalance will be screened for central and/or peripheral vestibulopathy and/or BPPV. Following consent, people with BPPV will be treated with re-positioning manoeuvres over 1-3 sessions and followed up at 6 and 12 months to assess for any re-occurrence of BPPV. People with central and/or peripheral vestibulopathy will be entered into a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Trial participants will be randomly allocated (1:1) to either a 12-week generic booklet-based home programme with telephone support or a 12-week VR programme consisting of customised treatment including 12 face-to-face sessions and a home exercise programme. Customised or booklet-based interventions will start 2 weeks after randomisation and all trial participants will be followed up 14 and 26 weeks from randomisation. The primary clinical outcome is the Dizziness Handicap Inventory at 26 weeks and the primary economic endpoint is quality-adjusted life-years. A range of secondary outcomes associated with vestibular function will be used.DiscussionIf customised VR is demonstrated to be clinically and cost-effective compared to generic booklet-based VR this will inform practice guidelines and the development of training packages for therapists in the diagnosis and treatment of vestibulopathy in people with MS.Trial registrationISRCTN Number: 27374299 Date of Registration 24/09/2018 Protocol Version 15 25/09/2019.

Project description:Background: Dizziness is a non-specific term used by patients to describe several symptoms ranging from true vertigo, light headedness, disorientation or sense of imbalance. Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is a specific form of exercise-based therapy programme aimed at alleviating the primary and secondary problems of a vestibular pathology. The aim of this study was to investigate the effectiveness of exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation in adult patients with chronic dizziness. Methods: The following five databases were searched: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, PubMed, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) and Scopus (Elsevier). Two investigators independently reviewed all articles and a systematic review of literature was performed using the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). The articles were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) randomised controlled trial, (2) people with chronic dizziness, (3) adults aged 18 or over, (4) exercise-based VR, (5) VR exercises compared with sham or usual care, non-treatment or placebo and (6) only studies published full text in English. Results: The initial search identified 304 articles, four of which met the criteria for analysis. All studies involved some form of vestibular rehabilitation, including vestibular compensation, vestibular adaptation and substitution exercises. These exercises were compared with usual medical care (three studies) or placebo eye exercise (one study). The Vertigo Symptom Scale was the most commonly used outcome measure to assess subjective perception of symptoms of dizziness (three studies). According to the PEDro scale, three studies were considered to be of high quality, and one was rated as fair. Conclusions: This review suggests that exercise-based vestibular rehabilitation shows benefits for adult patients with chronic dizziness with regard to improvement in the vertigo symptom scale, fall risk, balance and emotional status.

Project description:Introduction: The present study aimed to determine whether supervised vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) by physical therapists (PTs) affects subjective dizziness in patients with chronic vestibular disorders, and whether supervised VRT-induced changes in subjective dizziness are related to the changes in physical activity levels in daily life. Methods: Patients (n = 47) with chronic peripheral vestibular disorders were randomly divided into the VRT group (n = 25) and control group (n = 22). Patients in the VRT group received weekly supervised visits from PTs for a period of 6 months. Every other month, both groups were advised by neuro-otologists to increase the amount of activity in their daily life. All patients wore an accelerometer device, which recorded their physical activity for seven successive days before the end of the intervention. Patients also completed the dizziness and unsteadiness questionnaires before and after the intervention. Results: Subjective dizziness decreased significantly regardless of whether supervised VRT was administered; however, dizziness evoked by social activity and head and body movements improved more significantly in the VRT group than in the control group. In the VRT group, there was a significant negative correlation between the increase in sedentary behavior and improvement in subjective dizziness, and a significant positive correlation between the increase in light physical activity and improvement in subjective dizziness at the second month of intervention. The VRT group showed a significantly higher rate of increase in light physical activity than the control group, after 6 months of intervention. Conclusion: Supervised VRT could be highly effective in treating subjective dizziness in patients with chronic peripheral vestibular disorders. We believe frequent (weekly) and medium-term (6 months) PT-guided interventions may be highly effective in enhancing physical activity in daily life, and may subsequently improve subjective dizziness in these patients. Trial registration: This clinical study was registered with University hospital Medical Information Network (identification number: 000028832). https://www.umin.ac.jp/.