Dataset Information

Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Wallace P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5722079 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website.

Wallace Paul P Struzzo Pierliugi P Della Vedova Roberto R Scafuri Francesca F Tersar Costanza C Lygidakis Charilaos C McGregor Richard R Scafato Emanuele E Hunter Rachael R Freemantle Nick N

BMJ open 20171103 11

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>Primary care-based, non-inferiority, randomised controlled trial comparing general practitioner (GP) facilitated access to an interactive alcohol reduction website (FA) with face- ...[more]

PMID: 29102982

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

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:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of different brief intervention strategies at reducing hazardous or harmful drinking in primary care. The hypothesis was that more intensive intervention would result in a greater reduction in hazardous or harmful drinking.DesignPragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingPrimary care practices in the north east and south east of England and in London.Participants3562 patients aged 18 or more routinely presenting in primary care, of whom 2991 (84.0%) were eligible to enter the trial: 900 (30.1%) screened positive for hazardous or harmful drinking and 756 (84.0%) received a brief intervention. The sample was predominantly male (62%) and white (92%), and 34% were current smokers.InterventionsPractices were randomised to three interventions, each of which built on the previous one: a patient information leaflet control group, five minutes of structured brief advice, and 20 minutes of brief lifestyle counselling. Delivery of the patient leaflet and brief advice occurred directly after screening and brief lifestyle counselling in a subsequent consultation.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was patients' self reported hazardous or harmful drinking status as measured by the alcohol use disorders identification test (AUDIT) at six months. A negative AUDIT result (score <8) indicated non-hazardous or non-harmful drinking. Secondary outcomes were a negative AUDIT result at 12 months, experience of alcohol related problems (alcohol problems questionnaire), health utility (EQ-5D), service utilisation, and patients' motivation to change drinking behaviour (readiness to change) as measured by a modified readiness ruler.ResultsPatient follow-up rates were 83% at six months (n=644) and 79% at 12 months (n=617). At both time points an intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in AUDIT negative status between the three interventions. Compared with the patient information leaflet group, the odds ratio of having a negative AUDIT result for brief advice was 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.52 to 1.39) and for brief lifestyle counselling was 0.78 (0.48 to 1.25). A per protocol analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsAll patients received simple feedback on their screening outcome. Beyond this input, however, evidence that brief advice or brief lifestyle counselling provided important additional benefit in reducing hazardous or harmful drinking compared with the patient information leaflet was lacking.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN06145674.

Project description:BackgroundMany patients with IBS suffer on-going symptoms. The evidence base is poor for IBS drugs but they are widely prescribed and advised in Guidelines. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) can be helpful, but availability is poor in the NHS. We developed a web-based CBT self-management programme (Regul8) in partnership with patients and trialled it and common IBS medications in an exploratory factorial RCT to test trial procedures and provide information for a larger trial.MethodsPatients, 16 to 60 years, with IBS symptoms fulfilling Rome III criteria were recruited via GP practices and randomised to over-encapsulated mebeverine, methylcellulose or placebo for 6 weeks and to 1 of 3 website conditions: Regul8 with a nurse telephone session and email support, Regul8 with minimal email support, or no website.Results135 patients recruited from 26 GP practices. Mean IBS SSS score 241.9 (sd 87.7), IBS-QOL 64 (sd 20) at baseline. 91% follow-up at 12 weeks. Mean IBS SSS decreased by 35 points from baseline to 12 weeks. There was no significant difference in IBS SSS or IBS-QOL score between medication or website groups at 12 weeks, or in medication groups at 6 weeks, or IBS-QOL in website groups at 6 weeks. However, IBS SSS at 6 weeks was lower in the No website group than the website groups (IBS SSS no website =162.8 (95% CI 137.4-188.3), website 197.0 (172.4 - 221.7), Website + telephone support 208.0 (183.1-233.0) p = 0.037).ConclusionsThis exploratory study demonstrates feasibility and high follow-up rates and provides information for a larger trial. Primary outcomes (IBS SS and IBS QOL) did not reach significance at 6 or 12 weeks, apart from IBS SSS being lower in the no-website group at 6 weeks - this disappeared by 12 weeks. Improved Enablement suggests patients with access to the Regul8 website felt better able to cope with their symptoms than the non-website group. Improved SGA score in the Regul8 groups may indicate some overall improvement not captured on other measures.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier (NCT number): NCT00934973.

Project description:IntroductionEpilepsy is a chronic condition requiring consistent follow-up aimed at seizure control, and monitoring of anti-seizure medication (ASM) levels and side effects. Telemedicine (TM) offers invaluable support to patient follow-up, guaranteeing the prompt availability of a team of experts for persons with epilepsy (PWE) widely distributed across the country. Although many health institutions have endorsed the use of TM, robust data on effectiveness, safety and costs of TM applied to epilepsy are lacking. TELEmedicine for EPIlepsy Care (TELE-EPIC) will evaluate the effectiveness of video consultation (VC) via TM compared with usual care (UC) for the monitoring of PWE (TELE-EPIC_RCT). Moreover, TELE-EPIC will apply an innovative Volumetric Absorptive Microsampling (VAMS) device for quantitation of ASM through finger prick blood sampling as an alternative to venipuncture sampling (TELE-EPIC_VAMS).Methods and analysisTELE-EPIC_RCT is a multicentre, open, pragmatic two-arm randomised controlled trial prospectively including adult and paediatric outpatients with established diagnosis of epilepsy consecutively attending the Epilepsy Centres of Bologna and Rome, respectively. The primary outcome is the non-inferiority of VC on seizure control compared with UC after an 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes are adherence to treatment, ASM-related adverse events, quality of life, mood disorders, patient and caregiver satisfaction, safety and costs. TELE-EPIC_VAMS is a cross-validation study for blood ASM quantitation through a novel, VAMS-based device, comparing (1) VAMS versus plasma samples (reference standard method); and (2) nurse-collected versus self-collected blood by VAMS device.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the local ethics committee (349-2019-SPER-AUSLBO). Complete information about the state of project, relevant events and results will be regularly updated on the project's webpage on ClinicalTrials.gov. The project's results and data on the potential impact of TM in epilepsy will be disseminated on social media. A closeout meeting will be convened for the communication and dissemination of the project, highlighting its main achievements and impacts.Trial registration numberNCT04496310.

Dataset Information

Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website.

Publications

Randomised controlled non-inferiority trial of primary care-based facilitated access to an alcohol reduction website.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets