Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older people in primary care: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Dizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.

Design

Cluster randomized controlled trial.

Setting

45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.

Participants

168 participants aged ?65y who consulted their general practitioner for dizziness and experienced significant dizziness-related impairment (Dizziness Handicap Inventory (DHI) ?30). Participants were part of to the intervention group (n = 83) or control group (n = 85), depending on whether they were enlisted in an intervention practice or in a control practice.

Interventions

The multifactorial intervention consisted of: medication adjustment in case of ?3 prescribed fall-risk-increasing drugs (FRIDs) and/or stepped mental health care in case of anxiety disorder and/or depression and/or exercise therapy in case of impaired functional mobility. The intervention was compared to usual care.

Outcome measures

The primary outcome was dizziness-related impairment. Secondary outcomes were quality of life (QoL), dizziness frequency, fall frequency, anxiety and depression, use of FRIDs.

Results

Intention-to-treat analysis showed no significant intervention effect on dizziness-related impairment (DHI score difference -0.69 [95% CI -5.66;4.28]; p = 0.79). The intervention proved effective in reducing the number of FRIDs (FRID difference -0.48 [95% CI -0.89;-0.06]; p = 0.02). No significant intervention effects were found on other secondary outcomes. The uptake of and adherence to the interventions was significantly lower in patients eligible for ?2 interventions compared to patients eligible for one intervention (p<0.001).

Conclusions

The multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older patients showed no significant intervention effect on most outcomes and adherence to the multifactorial intervention was low. Although multifactorial treatment for older dizzy people seems promising in theory, we question its feasibility in daily practice. Future research could focus on a sequential treatment for dizziness, e.g. measuring effectiveness of various evidence-based therapies in a stepwise approach.

SUBMITTER: Stam H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6178383 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older people in primary care: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Stam Hanneke H van der Wouden Johannes C JC Hugtenburg Jacqueline G JG Twisk Jos W R JWR van der Horst Henriëtte E HE Maarsingh Otto R OR

PloS one 20181009 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>Dizziness is common in older people. Physicians are often unable to identify a specific cause for dizziness in older people, even after an extensive diagnostic work-up. A prognosis-oriented approach, i.e. treating modifiable risk factors for an unfavourable course of dizziness, may reduce dizziness-related impairment in older people in primary care.<h4>Design</h4>Cluster randomized controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>45 primary care practices in The Netherlands.<h4>Participants</ ...[more]

PMID: 30300371

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the clinical and cost effectiveness of a multifactorial fall prevention programme compared with usual care in long term care homes.DesignMulticentre, parallel, cluster randomised controlled trial.SettingLong term care homes in the UK, registered to care for older people or those with dementia.Participants1657 consenting residents and 84 care homes. 39 were randomised to the intervention group and 45 were randomised to usual care.InterventionsGuide to Action for Care Homes (GtACH): a multifactorial fall prevention programme or usual care.Main outcome measuresPrimary outcome measure was fall rate at 91-180 days after randomisation. The economic evaluation measured health related quality of life using quality adjusted life years (QALYs) derived from the five domain five level version of the EuroQoL index (EQ-5D-5L) or proxy version (EQ-5D-5L-P) and the Dementia Quality of Life utility measure (DEMQOL-U), which were self-completed by competent residents and by a care home staff member proxy (DEMQOL-P-U) for all residents (in case the ability to complete changed during the study) until 12 months after randomisation. Secondary outcome measures were falls at 1-90, 181-270, and 271-360 days after randomisation, Barthel index score, and the Physical Activity Measure-Residential Care Homes (PAM-RC) score at 91, 180, 270, and 360 days after randomisation.ResultsMean age of residents was 85 years. 32% were men. GtACH training was delivered to 1051/1480 staff (71%). Primary outcome data were available for 630 participants in the GtACH group and 712 in the usual care group. The unadjusted incidence rate ratio for falls between 91 and 180 days was 0.57 (95% confidence interval 0.45 to 0.71, P<0.001) in favour of the GtACH programme (GtACH: six falls/1000 residents v usual care: 10 falls/1000). Barthel activities of daily living indices and PAM-RC scores were similar between groups at all time points. The incremental cost was £108 (95% confidence interval -£271.06 to 487.58), incremental QALYs gained for EQ-5D-5L-P was 0.024 (95% confidence interval 0.004 to 0.044) and for DEMQOL-P-U was 0.005 (-0.019 to 0.03). The incremental costs per EQ-5D-5L-P and DEMQOL-P-U based QALY were £4544 and £20 889, respectively.ConclusionsThe GtACH programme was associated with a reduction in fall rate and cost effectiveness, without a decrease in activity or increase in dependency.Trial registrationISRCTN34353836.

Project description:ObjectiveCompassionate care continues to be a focus for national and international attention, but the existing evidence base lacks the experimental methodology necessary to guide the selection of effective interventions for practice. This study aimed to evaluate the Creating Learning Environments for Compassionate Care (CLECC) intervention in improving compassionate care.SettingWard nursing teams (clusters) in two English National Health Service hospitals randomised to intervention (n=4) or control (n=2). Intervention wards comprised two medicines for older people (MOPs) wards and two medical/surgical wards. Control wards were both MOPs.ParticipantsData collected from 627 patients and 178 staff.Exclusion criteriareverse barrier nursed, critically ill, palliative or non-English speaking. All other patients and all nursing staff and Health Care Assistant HCAs were invited to participant, agency and bank staff were excluded.InterventionCLECC, a workplace intervention focused on developing sustainable leadership and work-team practices to support the delivery of compassionate care.ControlNo educational activity.Primary and secondary outcome measuresPrimary-Quality of Interaction Schedule (QuIS) for observed staff-patient interactions. Secondary-patient-reported evaluations of emotional care in hospital (PEECH); nurse-reported empathy (Jefferson Scale of Empathy).ResultsTrial proceeded as per protocol, randomisation was acceptable. Some but not all blinding strategies were successful. QuIS observations achieved 93% recruitment rate with 25% of patient sample cognitively impaired. At follow-up there were more total positive (78% vs 74%) and less total negative (8% vs 11%) QuIS ratings for intervention wards versus control wards. Sixty-three per cent of intervention ward patients scored lowest (ie, more negative) scores on PEECH connection subscale, versus 79% of control. This was not a statistically significant difference. No statistically significant differences in nursing empathy were observed.ConclusionsUse of experimental methods is feasible. The use of structured observation of staff-patient interaction quality is a promising outcome measure inclusive of hard to reach groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN16789770.

Project description:BackgroundFor older populations with multimorbidity, polypharmacy (use of multiple medications) is a standard practice. PolyPrime is a theory-based intervention developed to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care. This pilot study aims to assess the feasibility of the PolyPrime intervention in primary care in Northern Ireland (NI) and the Republic of Ireland (ROI).MethodsThis external pilot cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) aimed to recruit 12 general practitioner (GP) practices (six in NI; six in the ROI counties that border NI) and ten older patients receiving polypharmacy (≥ 4 medications) per GP practice (n = 120). Practices allocated to the intervention arm watched an online video and scheduled medication reviews with patients on two occasions. We assessed the feasibility of collecting GP record (medication appropriateness, health service use) and patient self-reported data [health-related quality of life (HRQoL), health service use)] at baseline, 6 and 9 months. HRQoL was measured using the EuroQol-5 dimension-5 level questionnaire (EQ-5D-5L) and medication-related burden quality-of-life (MRB-QoL) tool. An embedded process evaluation and health economics analysis were also undertaken. Pre-specified progression criteria were used to determine whether to proceed to a definitive cRCT.ResultsTwelve GP practices were recruited and randomised. Three GP practices withdrew from the study due to COVID-related factors. Sixty-eight patients were recruited, with 47 (69.1%) being retained until the end of the study. GP record data were available for 47 patients for medication appropriateness analysis at 9 months. EQ-5D-5L and MRB-QoL data were available for 46 and 41 patients, respectively, at 9 months. GP record and patient self-reported health service use data were available for 47 patients at 9 months. Health service use was comparable in terms of overall cost estimated from GP record versus patient self-reported data. The intervention was successfully delivered as intended; it was acceptable to GPs, practice staff, and patients; and potential mechanisms of action have been identified. All five progression criteria were met (two 'Go', three 'Amend').ConclusionDespite challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic, this study has demonstrated that it may be feasible to conduct an intervention to improve appropriate polypharmacy in older people in primary care across two healthcare jurisdictions.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN41009897 . Registered 19 November 2019.Clinicaltrialsgov, NCT04181879 . Registered 02 December 2019.

Project description:There is a considerable body of evidence on the effectiveness of specific interventions in individuals who wish to quit smoking. However, there are no large-scale studies testing the whole range of interventions currently recommended for helping people to give up smoking; specifically those interventions that include motivational interviews for individuals who are not interested in quitting smoking in the immediate to short term. Furthermore, many of the published studies were undertaken in specialized units or by a small group of motivated primary care centres. The objective of the study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a stepped smoking cessation intervention based on a trans-theoretical model of change, applied to an extensive group of Primary Care Centres (PCC).Cluster randomised clinical trial. Unit of randomization: basic unit of care consisting of a family physician and a nurse, both of whom care for the same population (aprox. 2000 people). Intention to treat analysis.Smokers (n = 3024) aged 14 to 75 years consulting for any reason to PCC and who provided written informed consent to participate in the trial.6-month implementation of recommendations of a Clinical Practice Guideline which includes brief motivational interviews for smokers at the precontemplation - contemplation stage, brief intervention for smokers in preparation-action who do not want help, intensive intervention with pharmacotherapy for smokers in preparation-action who want help, and reinforcing intervention in the maintenance stage.usual care.Self-reported abstinence confirmed by exhaled air carbon monoxide concentration of <or= 10 parts per million. Points of assessment: end of intervention period and 1 and 2 years post-intervention; continuous abstinence rate for 1 year; change in smoking cessation stage; health status measured by SF-36.The application of a stepped intervention based on the stages of a change model is possible under real and diverse clinical practice conditions, and improves the smoking cessation success rate in smokers, besides of their intention or not to give up smoking at baseline.

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.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older people in primary care: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Interventions

Outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Effectiveness of a multifactorial intervention for dizziness in older people in primary care: A cluster randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets