Dataset Information

Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL): aerobic exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity-study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised trial.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:Physical exercise after stroke is essential for improving recovery and general health, and reducing future stroke risk. However, people with stroke are not sufficiently active on return to the community after rehabilitation. We developed the Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL) programme, which combines exercise with self-management strategies within rehabilitation to promote ongoing physical activity in the community after rehabilitation. This study aims to evaluate the effect of PROPEL on long-term participation in exercise after discharge from stroke rehabilitation. We hypothesise that individuals who complete PROPEL will be more likely to meet recommended frequency, duration and intensity of exercise compared with individuals who do not complete the programme up to 6?months post discharge from stroke rehabilitation. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:Individuals undergoing outpatient stroke rehabilitation at one of six hospitals will be recruited (target n=192?total). A stepped-wedge design will be employed; that is, the PROPEL intervention (group exercise plus self-management) will be 'rolled out' to each site at a random time within the study period. Prior to roll-out of the PROPEL intervention, sites will complete the control intervention (group aerobic exercise only). Participation in physical activity for 6?months post discharge will be measured via activity and heart rate monitors, and standardised physical activity questionnaire. Adherence to exercise guidelines will be evaluated by (1) number of 'active minutes' per week (from the activity monitor), (2) amount of time per week when heart rate is within a target range (ie, 55%-80% of age-predicted maximum) and (3) amount of time per week completing 'moderate' or 'strenuous' physical activities (from the questionnaire). We will compare the proportion of active and inactive individuals at 6 months post intervention using mixed-model logistic regression, with fixed effects of time and phase and random effect of cluster (site). ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:To date, research ethics approval has been received from five of the six sites, with conditional approval granted by the sixth site. Results will be disseminated directly to study participants at the end of the trial, and to other stake holders via publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02951338; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Mansfield A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5726051 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL): aerobic exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity-study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised trial.

Mansfield Avril A Brooks Dina D Tang Ada A Taylor Denise D Inness Elizabeth L EL Kiss Alex A Middleton Laura L Biasin Louis L Fleck Rebecca R French Esmé E LeBlanc Kathryn K Aqui Anthony A Danells Cynthia C

BMJ open 20170630 6

<h4>Introduction</h4>Physical exercise after stroke is essential for improving recovery and general health, and reducing future stroke risk. However, people with stroke are not sufficiently active on return to the community after rehabilitation. We developed the Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL) programme, which combines exercise with self-management strategies within rehabilitation to promote ongoing physical activity in the community after rehabilitation. This study aims to ...[more]

PMID: 28667222

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCompared to in-centre, home hemodialysis is associated with superior outcomes. The impact on patient experience and clinical outcomes of consistently providing the choice and training to undertake hemodialysis-related treatment tasks in the in-centre setting is unknown.MethodsA stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial in 12 UK renal centres recruited prevalent in-centre hemodialysis patients with sites randomised into early and late participation in a 12-month breakthrough series collaborative that included data collection, learning events, Plan-Study-Do-Act cycles, and teleconferences repeated every 6 weeks, underpinned by a faculty, co-production, materials and a nursing course. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients undertaking five or more hemodialysis-related tasks or home hemodialysis. Secondary outcomes included independent hemodialysis, quality of life, symptoms, patient activation and hospitalisation. ISRCTN Registration Number 93999549.Results586 hemodialysis patients were recruited. The proportion performing 5 or more tasks or home hemodialysis increased from 45.6% to 52.3% (205 to 244/449, difference 6.2%, 95% CI 1.4 to 11%), however after analysis by step the adjusted odds ratio for the intervention was 1.63 (95% CI 0.94 to 2.81, P = 0.08). 28.3% of patients doing less than 5 tasks at baseline performed 5 or more at the end of the study (69/244, 95% CI 22.2-34.3%, adjusted odds ratio 3.71, 95% CI 1.66-8.31). Independent or home hemodialysis increased from 7.5% to 11.6% (32 to 49/423, difference 4.0%, 95% CI 1.0-7.0), but the remaining secondary endpoints were unaffected.ConclusionsOur intervention did not increase dialysis related tasks being performed by a prevalent population of centre based patients, but there was an increase in home hemodialysis as well as an increase in tasks among patients who were doing fewer than 5 at baseline. Further studies are required that examine interventions to engage people who dialyse at centres in their own care.

Project description:Background/Aims We sought to optimise the design of stepped wedge trials with an equal allocation of clusters to sequences and explored sample size comparisons with alternative trial designs. Methods We developed a new expression for the design effect for a stepped wedge trial, assuming that observations are equally correlated within clusters and an equal number of observations in each period between sequences switching to the intervention. We minimised the design effect with respect to (1) the fraction of observations before the first and after the final sequence switches (the periods with all clusters in the control or intervention condition, respectively) and (2) the number of sequences. We compared the design effect of this optimised stepped wedge trial to the design effects of a parallel cluster-randomised trial, a cluster-randomised trial with baseline observations, and a hybrid trial design (a mixture of cluster-randomised trial and stepped wedge trial) with the same total cluster size for all designs. Results We found that a stepped wedge trial with an equal allocation to sequences is optimised by obtaining all observations after the first sequence switches and before the final sequence switches to the intervention; this means that the first sequence remains in the control condition and the last sequence remains in the intervention condition for the duration of the trial. With this design, the optimal number of sequences is [Formula: see text], where [Formula: see text] is the cluster-mean correlation, [Formula: see text] is the intracluster correlation coefficient, and m is the total cluster size. The optimal number of sequences is small when the intracluster correlation coefficient and cluster size are small and large when the intracluster correlation coefficient or cluster size is large. A cluster-randomised trial remains more efficient than the optimised stepped wedge trial when the intracluster correlation coefficient or cluster size is small. A cluster-randomised trial with baseline observations always requires a larger sample size than the optimised stepped wedge trial. The hybrid design can always give an equally or more efficient design, but will be at most 5% more efficient. We provide a strategy for selecting a design if the optimal number of sequences is unfeasible. For a non-optimal number of sequences, the sample size may be reduced by allowing a proportion of observations before the first or after the final sequence has switched. Conclusion The standard stepped wedge trial is inefficient. To reduce sample sizes when a hybrid design is unfeasible, stepped wedge trial designs should have no observations before the first sequence switches or after the final sequence switches.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In 2013, the stillbirth rate in the UK was 4.2 per 1000 live births, ranking 24th out of 49 high-income countries, with an annual rate of reduction of only 1.4% per year. The majority of stillbirths occur in normally formed infants, with (retrospective) evidence of placental insufficiency the most common clinical finding. Maternal perception of reduced fetal movements (RFM) is associated with placental insufficiency and increased risk of subsequent stillbirth.This study will test the hypothesis that the introduction of a package of care to increase women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and standardised management to identify fetal compromise with timely delivery in confirmed cases, will reduce the rate of stillbirth. Following the introduction of a similar intervention in Norway the odds of stillbirth fell by 30%, but the efficacy of this intervention (and possible adverse effects and implications for service delivery) has not been tested in a randomised trial. METHODS:We describe a stepped-wedge cluster trial design, in which participating hospitals in the UK and Ireland will be randomised to the timing of introduction of the care package. Outcomes (including the primary outcome of stillbirth) will be derived from detailed routinely collected maternity data, allowing us to robustly test our hypothesis. The degree of implementation of the intervention will be assessed in each site. A nested qualitative study will examine the acceptability of the intervention to women and healthcare providers and identify process issues including barriers to implementation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval was obtained from the Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (Ref 13/SS/0001) and from Research and Development offices in participating maternity units. The study started in February 2014 and delivery of the intervention completed in December 2016. Results of the study will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated to local investigating sites to inform education and care of women presenting with RFM. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01777022. VERSION:Protocol Version 4.2, 3 February 2017.

Project description:BackgroundClinical guidelines recommend anticoagulation for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk of stroke; however, studies report 40% of this population is not anticoagulated.ObjectiveTo evaluate a population health intervention to increase anticoagulation use in high-risk patients with AF.MethodsWe used machine learning algorithms to identify patients with AF from electronic health records at high risk of stroke (CHA2DS2-VASc risk score ≥2), and no anticoagulant prescriptions within 12 months. A clinical pharmacist in the anticoagulation service reviewed charts for algorithm-identified patients to assess appropriateness of initiating an anticoagulant. The pharmacist then contacted primary care providers of potentially undertreated patients and offered assistance with anticoagulation management. We used a stepped-wedge design, evaluating the proportion of potentially undertreated patients with AF started on anticoagulant therapy within 28 days for clinics randomised to intervention versus usual care.ResultsOf 1727 algorithm-identified high-risk patients with AF in clinics at the time of randomisation to intervention, 432 (25%) lacked evidence of anticoagulant prescriptions in the prior year. After pharmacist review, only 17% (75 of 432) of algorithm-identified patients were considered potentially undertreated at the time their clinic was randomised to intervention. Over a third (155 of 432) were excluded because they had a single prior AF episode (transient or provoked by serious illness); 36 (8%) had documented refusal of anticoagulation, the remainder had other reasons for exclusion. The intervention did not increase new anticoagulant prescriptions (intervention: 4.1% vs usual care: 4.0%, p=0.86).ConclusionsAlgorithms to identify underuse of anticoagulation among patients with AF in healthcare databases may not capture clinical subtleties or patient preferences and may overestimate the extent of undertreatment. Changing clinician behaviour remains challenging.

Project description:BackgroundStepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.MethodsComprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis.ResultsThe 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete.ConclusionWhile the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the known benefits of early, specialized intervention for toddlers with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), access to such intervention remains limited. This pragmatic trial examines a novel healthcare delivery model (Screen-Refer-Treat [SRT]), which capitalizes upon existing health care and early intervention (EI) infrastructure to increase community capacity for ASD detection and treatment before age 3, when it is likely to have the greatest impact. This model comprises three components: (1) universal use of Stage 1 ASD screening by primary care providers (PCPs) at 18-month well-child visits (i.e., Screen); (2) immediate referral of positive screens to a community-based EI program (i.e., Refer); and (3) provision of an inexpensive, evidence-based ASD-specialized treatment by EI providers, after verifying ASD risk with a Stage 2 screen (i.e., Treat). This paper describes our research design and the initial successes, challenges, and adaptations made during the early implementation phase.Method/designA stepped-wedge cluster RCT was used to implement the SRT model sequentially in four diverse Washington State counties ("clusters"). Counties are randomly assigned to the time of receipt of the SRT intervention, which comprises training workshops and technical assistance focused on the use of evidence-based ASD screening and intervention tools. Separate cohorts of families with toddlers (16-35 months old) with and without ASD concerns are recruited before and after the SRT intervention from participating PCP practices and EI programs. PCPs and EI providers complete measures on their screening, referral, and intervention practices before and after the SRT intervention. Each family cohort completes surveys about their well-being, parenting efficacy, health care satisfaction, and toddler's social-communicative behaviors.ConclusionThis trial is the first of its kind to work simultaneously with two service delivery systems with the goal of improving early detection and treatment for ASD. Our approach was successful in attaining buy-in from PCPs and EI providers, building and maintaining partnerships with providers, and achieving high levels of retention and survey completion. Fostering provider engagement and problem-solving issues together as partners were integral to overcoming the main challenges. Numerous lessons have been learned thus far, which have applicability for implementation researchers in ASD and those in other fields.Trial registrationThe registration number for this trial is NCT02409303 and it was posted on ClinicalTrials.gov on April 6, 2015.

Dataset Information

Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL): aerobic exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity-study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised trial.

Publications

Promoting Optimal Physical Exercise for Life (PROPEL): aerobic exercise and self-management early after stroke to increase daily physical activity-study protocol for a stepped-wedge randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets