Dataset Information

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a complex, nurse-led intervention to improve hypertension management in India.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:India has high prevalence of hypertension but low awareness, treatment and control rate. A cluster randomised trial entitled 'm-Power Heart Project' is being implemented to test the effectiveness of a nurse care coordinator (NCC) led complex intervention to address uncontrolled hypertension in the community health centres (CHCs). The trial's process evaluation will assess the fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify the causal mechanisms and identify the contextual factors associated with variation in the outcomes. The trial will use a theory-based mixed-methods process evaluation, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:The process evaluation will be conducted in the CHCs of Visakhapatnam (southern India). The key stakeholders involved in the intervention development and implementation will be included as participants. In-depth interviews will be conducted with intervention developers, doctors, NCCs and health department officials and focus groups with patients and their caregivers. NCC training will be evaluated using Kirkpatrick's model for training evaluation. Key process evaluation indicators (number of patients recruited and retained; concordance between the treatment plans generated by the electronic decision support system and treatment prescribed by the doctor and so on) will be assessed. Fidelity will be assessed using Borrelli et al's framework. Qualitative data will be analysed using the template analysis technique. Quantitative data will be summarised as medians (IQR), means (SD) and proportions as appropriate. Mixed-methods analysis will be conducted to assess if the variation in the mean reduction of systolic blood pressure between the intervention CHCs is influenced by patient satisfaction, training outcome, attitude of doctors, patients and NCCs about the intervention, process indicators etc. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the ethics committees at Public Health Foundation of India and Deakin University. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publications, national and international conference presentations. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03164317; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6530308 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a complex, nurse-led intervention to improve hypertension management in India.

Srinivasapura Venkateshmurthy Nikhil N Mc Namara Kevin K Koorts Harriet H Mohan Sailesh S S Ajay Vamadevan V Jindal Devraj D Malipeddi Bhaskara Rao BR Roy Ambuj A Tandon Nikhil N Prabhakaran Dorairaj D Worsley Tony T Maddison Ralph R O'Reilly Sharleen S

BMJ open 20190519 5

<h4>Introduction</h4>India has high prevalence of hypertension but low awareness, treatment and control rate. A cluster randomised trial entitled 'm-Power Heart Project' is being implemented to test the effectiveness of a nurse care coordinator (NCC) led complex intervention to address uncontrolled hypertension in the community health centres (CHCs). The trial's process evaluation will assess the fidelity and quality of implementation, clarify the causal mechanisms and identify the contextual fa ...[more]

PMID: 31110103

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:The proportion of patients with controlled hypertension (<?140/90 mmHg) is very low in India. Thus, there is a need to improve blood pressure management among patients with uncontrolled hypertension through innovative strategies directed at health system strengthening. METHODS:We designed an intervention consisting of two important components - an electronic decision support system (EDSS) used by a trained nurse care coordinator (NCC). Based on preliminary data, we hypothesized that this intervention will be able to reduce mean systolic blood pressure by 6.5 mmHg among those with uncontrolled blood pressure in the intervention arm compared to the standard treatment arm (paper-based hypertension treatment guidelines). The study will adopt a cluster randomized trial design with the community health center (CHC) as the unit of randomization. The trial will be conducted in Visakhapatnam district (southern India). A total of 1876 participants aged ?30 years with high blood pressure - systolic blood pressure (SBP)???160 mmHg or diastolic blood pressure (DBP)???90 mmHg will be enrolled from 12 CHCs. The intervention consists of trained NCCs equipped with an evidence-based hypertension treatment algorithm in the form of the EDSS with regular SMSs to patients with hypertension to promote hypertension treatment and blood pressure control for 12 months. The primary outcome will be difference in the mean change of SBP, from baseline to 12 months, between the intervention and the standard treatment arm. The secondary outcomes are the difference in mean change of DBP; difference in the proportion of patients with controlled blood pressure (<?140/90 mmHg); difference in mean change of fasting blood sugar, HbA1C, eGFR, and albumin to creatinine ratio; difference in the proportion of patients visiting the CHC regularly (number of actual visits to the CHC/number of visits suggested by the EDSS >?80%); difference in proportion of patients compliant to anti-hypertensive medication/s; cost-effectiveness of intervention versus enhanced care. All the outcomes will be assessed at 12 months. DISCUSSION:The study is expected to provide evidence on the effectiveness of NCC-led, EDSS-based hypertension management in India and can likely offer an exemplar for improving cardiovascular disease (CVD) management in India within the resource-constrained public healthcare system. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03164317 ). Registered retrospectively on 23 May 2017 (first patient enrolled on 6 April 2017) because the authors did not receive a response to their original registration submission (5 January 2017) to the Clinical Trial Registry - India (CTRI).

Project description:IntroductionIn India about 95% of individuals who need treatment for common mental disorders like depression, stress and anxiety and substance use are unable to access care. Stigma associated with help seeking and lack of trained mental health professionals are important barriers in accessing mental healthcare. Systematic Medical Appraisal, Referral and Treatment (SMART) Mental Health integrates a community-level stigma reduction campaign and task sharing with the help of a mobile-enabled electronic decision support system (EDSS)-to reduce psychiatric morbidity due to stress, depression and self-harm in high-risk individuals. This paper presents and discusses the protocol for process evaluation of SMART Mental Health.Methods and analysisThe process evaluation will use mixed quantitative and qualitative methods to evaluate implementation fidelity and identify facilitators of and barriers to implementation of the intervention. Case studies of six intervention and two control clusters will be used. Quantitative data sources will include usage analytics extracted from the mHealth platform for the trial. Qualitative data sources will include focus group discussions and interviews with recruited participants, primary health centre doctors, community health workers (Accredited Social Health Activits) who participated in the project and local community leaders. The design and analysis will be guided by Medical Research Council framework for process evaluations, the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, and the normalisation process theory.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the ethics committee of the George Institute for Global Health, India and the Institutional Ethics Committee, All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi. Findings of the study will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, stakeholder meetings, digital and social media platforms.Trial registration numberCTRI/2018/08/015355.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Limited evidence exists on effective interventions to improve knowledge of preventive medications in patients with chronic diseases, such as stroke. We investigated the effectiveness of a nurse-led intervention, where a component was to improve knowledge of prevention medications, in patients with stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). METHODS:Prospective sub-study of the Shared Team Approach between Nurses and Doctors for Improved Risk Factor Management, a randomized controlled trial of risk factor management. We recruited patients aged ?18?years and hospitalized for stroke/TIA. The intervention comprised an individualized management program, involving nurse-led education, and management plan with medical specialist oversight. The outcome, participants' knowledge of secondary prevention medications at 12?months, was assessed using questionnaires. A score of ?5 was considered as good knowledge. Effectiveness of the intervention on knowledge of medications was determined using logistic regression. RESULTS:Between May 2014 and January 2015, 142 consecutive participants from the main trial were included in this sub-study, 64 to usual care and 78 to the intervention (median age 68.9?years, 68% males, and 79% ischemic stroke). In multivariable analyses, we found no significant difference between intervention groups in knowledge of medications. Factors independently associated with good knowledge (score ?5) at 12?months included higher socioeconomic position (OR 4.79, 95% CI 1.76, 13.07), greater functional ability (OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.17, 2.45), being married/living with a partner (OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.10, 8.87), and using instructions on pill bottle/package as an administration aid (OR 4.82, 95% CI 1.76, 13.22). Being aged ?65?years was associated with poorer knowledge of medications (OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.08, 0.71), while knowledge was worse among those taking three medications (OR 0.15, 95% CI 0.03, 0.66) or ?4 medications (OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.02, 0.44), when compared to participants taking fewer (?2) prevention medications. CONCLUSION:There was no evidence that the nurse-led intervention was effective for improving knowledge of secondary prevention medications in patients with stroke/TIA at 12?months. However, older patients and those taking more medications should be particularly targeted for more intensive education. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12688000166370).

Project description:Several trials have demonstrated the efficacy of nurse telephone case management for diabetes (DM) and hypertension (HTN) in academic or vertically integrated systems. Little is known about the real-world potency of these interventions.To assess the effectiveness of nurse behavioral management of DM and HTN in community practices among patients with both diseases.The study was designed as a patient-level randomized controlled trial.Participants included adult patients with both type 2 DM and HTN who were receiving care at one of nine community fee-for-service practices. Subjects were required to have inadequately controlled DM (hemoglobin A1c [A1c] ? 7.5%) but could have well-controlled HTN.All patients received a call from a nurse experienced in DM and HTN management once every two months over a period of two years, for a total of 12 calls. Intervention patients received tailored DM- and HTN- focused behavioral content; control patients received non-tailored, non-interactive information regarding health issues unrelated to DM and HTN (e.g., skin cancer prevention).Systolic blood pressure (SBP) and A1c were co-primary outcomes, measured at 6, 12, and 24 months; 24 months was the primary time point.Three hundred seventy-seven subjects were enrolled; 193 were randomized to intervention, 184 to control. Subjects were 55% female and 50% white; the mean baseline A1c was 9.1% (SD = 1%) and mean SBP was 142 mmHg (SD = 20). Eighty-two percent of scheduled interviews were conducted; 69% of intervention patients and 70% of control patients reached the 24-month time point. Expressing model estimated differences as (intervention--control), at 24 months, intervention patients had similar A1c [diff = 0.1 %, 95 % CI (-0.3, 0.5), p = 0.51] and SBP [diff =?-0.9 mmHg, 95% CI (-5.4, 3.5), p = 0.68] values compared to control patients. Likewise, DBP (diff = 0.4 mmHg, p = 0.76), weight (diff = 0.3 kg, p = 0.80), and physical activity levels (diff = 153 MET-min/week, p = 0.41) were similar between control and intervention patients. Results were also similar at the 6- and 12-month time points.In nine community fee-for-service practices, telephonic nurse case management did not lead to improvement in A1c or SBP. Gains seen in telephonic behavioral self-management interventions in optimal settings may not translate to the wider range of primary care settings.

Project description:IntroductionAcute psychological stress, as well as unusual experiences including hallucinations and delusions, are common in critical care unit patients and have been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anxiety. Little high-quality research has been conducted to evaluate psychological interventions that could alleviate longer-term psychological morbidity in the critical care unit setting. Our research team developed and piloted a nurse-led psychological intervention, aimed at reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other adverse psychological outcomes at 6 months, for evaluation in the POPPI trial.Methods and analysisThis is a multicentre, parallel group, cluster-randomised clinical trial with a staggered roll-out of the intervention. The trial is being carried out at 24 (12 intervention, 12 control) NHS adult, general, critical care units in the UK and is evaluating the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a nurse-led preventative psychological intervention in reducing patient-reported PTSD symptom severity and other psychological morbidity at 6 months. All sites deliver usual care for 5 months (baseline period). Intervention group sites are then trained to carry out the POPPI intervention, and transition to delivering the intervention for the rest of the recruitment period. Control group sites deliver usual care for the duration of the recruitment period. The trial also includes a process evaluation conducted independently of the trial team.Ethics and disseminationThis protocol was reviewed and approved by the National Research Ethics Service South Central - Oxford B Research Ethics Committee (reference: 15/SC/0287). The first patient was recruited in September 2015 and results will be disseminated in 2018. The results will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer reviewed medical journals.Trial registration numberISRCTN53448131; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundTo understand better the success of self-management interventions and to enable tailoring of such interventions at specific subgroups of patients, the nurse-led Activate intervention is developed targeting one component of self-management (physical activity) in a heterogeneous subgroup (patients at risk of cardiovascular disease) in Dutch primary care.AimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention and identifying which patient-related characteristics modify the effect.MethodsA two-armed cluster-randomised controlled trial was conducted comparing the intervention with care as usual. The intervention consisted of four nurse-led behaviour change consultations within a 3-month period. Data were collected at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. Primary outcome was the daily amount of moderate to vigorous physical activity at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included sedentary behaviour, self-efficacy for physical activity, patient activation for self-management and health status. Prespecified effect modifiers were age, body mass index, level of education, social support, depression, patient provider relationship and baseline physical activity.ResultsThirty-one general practices (n?=?195 patients) were included (intervention group n?=?93; control group n?=?102). No significant between-group difference was found for physical activity (mean difference 2.49 minutes; 95% confidence interval -2.1; 7.1; P?=?0.28) and secondary outcomes. Patients with low perceived social support (P?=?0.01) and patients with a low baseline activity level (P?=?0.02) benefitted more from the intervention.ConclusionThe Activate intervention did not improve patients' physical activity and secondary outcomes in primary care patients at risk of cardiovascular disease. To understand the results, the intervention fidelity and active components for effective self-management require further investigation.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02725203.

Project description:ObjectivesTo study the implementation of a cluster randomised controlled effectiveness-implementation hybrid trial testing the effectiveness of a medication review at hospital discharge combined with a communication stimulus between hospital physicians (HPs) and general practitioners (GPs) on rehospitalisation of multimorbid older patients.DesignExtension of Grant's mixed method process evaluation framework to trials with multilevel clustering.SettingGeneral internal medicine wards in Swiss hospitals.ParticipantsConvenience samples of 15 chief physicians (of 21 hospitals participating in the effectiveness trial), 60 (74) senior HPs, 65 (164) junior HPs and 187 (411) GPs.Implementation strategyTwo-hour teaching sessions for senior HPs on a patient-centred, checklist-guided discharge routine.Process evaluation componentsData collection on recruitment, delivery and response from chief physicians (semistructured interviews), senior HPs, junior HPs, GPs (surveys) and patients (via HPs). Quantitative data were summarised using descriptive statistics, and interviews analysed using thematic analysis.Outcome measuresIntervention dose (quantitative), implementation fidelity (qualitative), feasibility and acceptability, facilitators and barriers, implementation support strategies.ResultsRecruitment of hospitals was laborious but successful, with 21 hospitals recruited. Minimal workload and a perceived benefit for the clinic were crucial factors for participation. Intervention dose was high (95% of checklist activities carried out), but intervention fidelity was limited (discharge letters) or unknown (medication review). Recruitment and retention of patients was challenging, partly due to patient characteristics (old, frail) and the COVID-19 pandemic: Only 612 of the anticipated 2100 patients were recruited, and 31% were lost to follow-up within the first month after discharge. The intervention was deemed feasible and helpful by HPs, and the relevance of the topic appreciated by both HPs and GPs.ConclusionsThe results from this evaluation will support interpretation of the findings of the effectiveness study and may inform researchers and policy makers who aim at improving hospital discharge.Trial registration numberISRCTN18427377.

Project description:BackgroundBronchiolitis is the most common reason for hospitalisation in infants. All international bronchiolitis guidelines recommend supportive care, yet considerable variation in practice continues with infants receiving non-evidence based therapies. We developed six targeted, theory-informed interventions; clinical leads, stakeholder meeting, train-the-trainer, education delivery, other educational materials, and audit and feedback. A cluster randomised controlled trial (cRCT) found the interventions to be effective in reducing use of five non-evidence based therapies in infants with bronchiolitis. This process evaluation paper aims to determine whether the interventions were implemented as planned (fidelity), explore end-users' perceptions of the interventions and evaluate cRCT outcome data with intervention fidelity data.MethodsA pre-specified mixed-methods process evaluation was conducted alongside the cRCT, guided by frameworks for process evaluation of cRCTs and complex interventions. Quantitative data on the fidelity, dose and reach of interventions were collected from the 13 intervention hospitals during the study and analysed using descriptive statistics. Qualitative data identifying perception and acceptability of interventions were collected from 42 intervention hospital clinical leads on study completion and analysed using thematic analysis.ResultsThe cRCT found targeted, theory-informed interventions improved bronchiolitis management by 14.1%. The process evaluation data found variability in how the intervention was delivered at the cluster and individual level. Total fidelity scores ranged from 55 to 98% across intervention hospitals (mean = 78%; SD = 13%). Fidelity scores were highest for use of clinical leads (mean = 98%; SD = 7%), and lowest for use of other educational materials (mean = 65%; SD = 19%) and audit and feedback (mean = 65%; SD = 20%). Clinical leads reflected positively about the interventions, with time constraints being the greatest barrier to their use.ConclusionOur targeted, theory-informed interventions were delivered with moderate fidelity, and were well received by clinical leads. Despite clinical leads experiencing challenges of time constraints, the level of fidelity had a positive effect on successfully de-implementing non-evidence-based care in infants with bronchiolitis. These findings will inform widespread rollout of our bronchiolitis interventions, and guide future practice change in acute care settings.Trial registrationAustralian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12616001567415 .

Dataset Information

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a complex, nurse-led intervention to improve hypertension management in India.

Publications

Process evaluation protocol for a cluster randomised trial of a complex, nurse-led intervention to improve hypertension management in India.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure