Dataset Information

A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website (EFAR Spain): the study protocol.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Early identification (EI) and brief interventions (BIs) for risky drinkers are effective tools in primary care. Lack of time in daily practice has been identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of BI. There is growing evidence that facilitated access by primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs) to a web-based BI can be a time-saving alternative to standard face-to-face BIs, but there is as yet no evidence about the effectiveness of this approach relative to conventional BI. The main aim of this study is to test non-inferiority of facilitation to a web-based BI for risky drinkers delivered by PHCP against face-to-face BI. METHOD AND ANALYSIS:A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial comparing both interventions will be performed in primary care health centres in Catalonia, Spain. Unselected adult patients attending participating centres will be given a leaflet inviting them to log on to a website to complete the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) alcohol screening questionnaire. Participants with positive results will be requested online to complete a trial module including consent, baseline assessment and randomisation to either face-to-face BI by the practitioner or BI via the alcohol reduction website. Follow-up assessment of risky drinking will be undertaken online at 3 months and 1 year using the full AUDIT and D5-EQD5 scale. Proportions of risky drinkers in each group will be calculated and non-inferiority assessed against a specified margin of 10%. Assuming reduction of 30% of risky drinkers receiving standard intervention, 1000 patients will be required to give 90% power to reject the null hypothesis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:The protocol was approved by the Ethics Commmittee of IDIAP Jordi Gol i Gurina P14/028. The findings of the trial will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02082990.

SUBMITTER: Lopez-Pelayo H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4281557 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website (EFAR Spain): the study protocol.

López-Pelayo Hugo H Wallace Paul P Segura Lidia L Segura Lidia L Miquel Laia L Díaz Estela E Teixidó Lidia L Baena Begoña B Struzzo Pierliugio P Palacio-Vieira Jorge J Casajuana Cristina C Colom Joan J Gual Antoni A

BMJ open 20141231 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>Early identification (EI) and brief interventions (BIs) for risky drinkers are effective tools in primary care. Lack of time in daily practice has been identified as one of the main barriers to implementation of BI. There is growing evidence that facilitated access by primary healthcare professionals (PHCPs) to a web-based BI can be a time-saving alternative to standard face-to-face BIs, but there is as yet no evidence about the effectiveness of this approach relative to con ...[more]

PMID: 25552616

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Brief interventions (BIs) delivered in primary care have been shown to be effective in reducing risky drinking, but implementation is limited. Facilitated access to a digital application offers a novel alternative to face-to-face intervention, but its relative effectiveness is unknown. METHODS:Primary care-based, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner (GP) facilitated access to an interactive alcohol reduction website (FA) with face-to-face BI for risky drinking. Patients screening positive on the short Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT-C) were invited to participate in the trial. Assessment at baseline, 3 months and 12 months was carried out using AUDIT and EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. FINDINGS:58 participating GPs approached 9080 patients of whom 4529 (49.9%) logged on, 3841 (84.8%) undertook screening, 822 (21.4%) screened positive and 763 (19·9%) were recruited. 347 (45.5%) were allocated to FA and 416 (54.5%) to BI. At 3 months, subjects in FA group with an AUDIT score of ?8 reduced from 95 (27.5%) to 85 (26.8%) while those in BI group increased from 123 (20.6%) to 141 (37%). Differences between groups were principally due to responses to AUDIT question 10. Analysis of primary outcome indicated non-inferiority of FA compared with BI, and prespecified subgroup analysis indicated benefits for older patients and those with higher levels of computer literacy and lower baseline severity. Additional analyses undertaken to take account of bias in response to AUDIT question 10 failed to support non-inferiority within the prespecified 10% boundary. INTERPRETATION:Prespecified protocol-driven analyses of the trial indicate that FA is non-inferior to BI; however, identified bias in the outcome measure and further supportive analyses question the robustness of this finding. It is therefore not possible to draw firm conclusions from this trial, and further research is needed to determine whether the findings can be replicated using more robust outcome measures. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01638338; Results.

Project description:BackgroundBrief interventions (BI) for risky drinkers in primary healthcare have been demonstrated to be cost-effective but they are still poorly implemented. Digital BI seems to be a complementary strategy to overcome some barriers to implementation but there is a scarcity of studies in clinical environments. We present the results of a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial which tests the non-inferiority of facilitated access to a digital intervention (experimental condition) for risky drinkers against a face-to-face BI (control condition) provided by primary healthcare professionals.MethodIn a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial, unselected primary healthcare patients (≥ 18 years old) were given a brief introduction and asked to log on to the study website to fill in the 3-item version of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test. Positively screened patients (4+ for women and 5+ for men) received further online assessment (AUDIT, socio-demographic characteristics and EQ-5D-5L) and were automatically randomized to either face-to-face or digital BI (1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of patients classified as risky drinkers by the digitally administered AUDIT at month 3. A multiple imputation approach for the missing data was performed.ResultsOf the 4499 patients approached by 115 healthcare professionals, 1521 completed the AUDIT-C. Of the 368 positively screened patients, 320 agreed to participate and were randomized to either intervention. At month 3, there were more risky drinkers in the experimental group (59.8%) than in the control group (52%), which was similar to the distribution at baseline and less than the pre-specified margin of 10%. The difference was not significant when accounting for possible confounders.ConclusionDigital BI was not inferior to face-to-face BI, in line with previous findings and the a priori hypothesis. However, the low power of the final sample, due to the low recruitment and loss to follow-up, limits the interpretation of the findings. New approaches in this field are required to ensure the effective implementation of digital interventions in actual practice.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Type 2 diabetes mellitus is one of the most common long-term conditions, and costs health services approximately 10% of their total budget. Active self-management by patients improves outcomes and reduces health service costs. While the existing evidence suggested that uptake of self-management education was low, the development of internet-based technology might improve the situation. OBJECTIVE:To establish the cost-effectiveness of a Web-based self-management program for people with type 2 diabetes (HeLP-Diabetes) compared to usual care. METHODS:An incremental cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted, from a National Health Service and personal and social services perspective, based on data collected from a multi-center, two-arm individually randomized controlled trial over 12 months. Adults aged 18 or over with a diagnosis of type 2 diabetes and registered with the 21 participating general practices (primary care) in England, UK, were approached. People who were unable to provide informed consent or to use the intervention, terminally ill, or currently participating in a trial of an alternative self-management intervention, were excluded. The participants were then randomized to either usual care plus HeLP-Diabetes, an interactive, theoretically-informed Web-based self-management program, or to usual care plus access to a comparator website containing basic information only. The participants' intervention costs and wider health care resource use were collected as well as two health-related quality of life measures: the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) Scale and EQ-5D-3L. EQ-5D-3L was then used to calculate quality-adjusted life years (QALYs). The primary analysis was based on intention-to-treat, using multiple imputation to handle the missing data. RESULTS:In total, 374 participants were randomized, with 185 in the intervention group and 189 in the control group. The primary analysis showed incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £58 (95% CI -411 to 587) per unit improvement on PAID scale and £5550 (95% CI -21,077 to 52,356) per QALY gained by HeLP-Diabetes, compared to the control. The complete case analysis showed less cost-effectiveness and higher uncertainty with incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of £116 (95% CI -1299 to 1690) per unit improvement on PAID scale and £18,500 (95% CI -203,949 to 190,267) per QALY. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve showed an 87% probability of cost-effectiveness at £20,000 per QALY willingness-to-pay threshold. The one-way sensitivity analyses estimated 363 users would be needed to use the intervention for it to become less costly than usual care. CONCLUSIONS:Facilitated access to HeLP-Diabetes is cost-effective, compared to usual care, under the recommended threshold of £20,000 to £30,000 per QALY by National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. TRIAL REGISTRATION:International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) 02123133; http://www.controlled-trials.com/ISRCTN02123133 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6zqjhmn00).

Project description:BackgroundData from primary health care in Spain show a high prevalence of the major depressive disorder. Blended treatment (combination of face-to-face and online components) seems to be a very promising tool for the optimization and dissemination of psychological treatments in a cost-effective form. Although there is growing data that confirm the advantages of blended therapies, few studies have analyzed their application in regular clinical practice. The objective of the present paper is to describe the protocol for a clinical study aimed at exploring the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a blended cognitive behavioral therapy (b-CBT) for depression, compared to treatment as usual (TAU) in a primary health care setting.MethodsA two-arm randomised controlled non-inferiority trial will be carried out, with repeated measures (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months) under two conditions: b-CBT and TAU. The b-CBT program will consist in three face-to-face sessions and eight online sessions. The TAU is defined as the routine care delivered by the general practitioner for the treatment of depression in primary care. The primary outcome is a symptomatic change of depressive symptoms on the patient-health questionnaire (PHQ-9). Other secondary outcomes will be considered (e.g., quality of life, treatment preference). All participants must be 18 years of age or older and meet the diagnostic criteria for major depressive disorder according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental disorders 4th edition. 156 participants will be recruited (78 per arm).DiscussionIt is expected that b-CBT is clinically non-inferior when compared to TAU. This is the first study in Spain to use a b-CBT format in primary and specialized care, and this format could be an efficacious and cost-effective therapeutic strategy for the treatment of depression.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02361684. Registered on 8 January 2015. Currently recruiting participants.

Dataset Information

A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website (EFAR Spain): the study protocol.

Publications

A randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website (EFAR Spain): the study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets