Dataset Information

Randomised controlled trial of the effect, cost and acceptability of a bronchiectasis self-management intervention

ABSTRACT:

Background:

Patient self-management plans (PSMP) are advised for bronchiectasis but their efficacy is not established. We aimed to determine whether, in people with bronchiectasis, the use of our bronchiectasis PSMP – Bronchiectasis Empowerment Tool (BET), compared to standard care, would improve self-efficacy.

Methods:

In a multi-centre mixed-methods randomised controlled parallel study, 220 patients with bronchiectasis were randomised to receive standard care with or without the addition of our BET plus education sessions explaining its use. BET comprised an action plan, indicating when to seek medical help based on pictorial represented indications for antibiotic therapy, and four educational support sections. At baseline and after 12 months, patients completed the Self-Efficacy to Manage Chronic Disease Scale (SEMCD), St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), EQ-5D-3 L (to calculate Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) and cost questionnaires. Qualitative data were obtained by focus groups.

Results:

The recruitment to the study was high (63% of eligible patients agreeing to participate) however completion rate was low (57%). BET had no effect on SEMCD (mean difference (0.14 (95% confidence interval (95%CI) ?0.37 to 0.64), p = 0.59) or SGRQ, exacerbation rates, overall cost to the NHS or QALYs. Most had developed their own techniques for monitoring their condition and they did not find BET useful as it was difficult to complete. Participant knowledge was good in both groups.

Conclusion:

The demand for patient support in bronchiectasis was high suggesting a clinical need. However, the BET did not improve self-efficacy, health related quality of life, costs or clinically relevant outcome measures. BET needs to be modified to be less onerous for users and implemented within a wider package of care. Further studies, particularly those evaluating people newly diagnosed with bronchiectasis, are required and should allow for 50% withdrawal rate or utilise less burdensome outcome measures.

Clinical trials registration:

ISRCTN ISRCTN 18400127. Registered 24 June 2015. Retrospectively Registered

SUBMITTER: Brockwell C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7716069 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:To investigate the effects after twelve months related to patient activation and a range of secondary outcomes on persons with chronic pain of a chronic pain self-management course compared to a low-impact outdoor physical activity, delivered in an easily accessible healthcare service in public primary care. METHODS:An open, pragmatic, parallel group randomised controlled trial was conducted. The intervention group was offered a group-based chronic pain self-management course with 2.5-h weekly sessions for a period of six weeks comprising education that included cognitive and behavioural strategies for pain management, movement exercises, group discussions and sharing of experiences among participants. The control group was offered a drop-in, low-impact, outdoor physical activity in groups in one-hour weekly sessions that included walking and simple strength exercises for a period of six weeks. The primary outcome was patient activation assessed using the Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). Secondary outcomes included assessments of pain, anxiety and depression, pain self-efficacy, sense of coherence, health-related quality of life, well-being and the 30-s Chair to Stand Test. Analyses were performed using a linear mixed model. RESULTS:After twelve months, there were no statistically significant differences between the intervention group (n?=?60) and the control group (n?=?61) for the primary or the secondary outcomes. The estimated mean difference between the groups for the primary outcome PAM was 4.0 (CI 95% -0.6 to 8.6, p?=?0.085). Within both of the groups, there were statistically significant improvements in pain experienced during the previous week, the global self-rated health measure and the 30-s Chair to Stand Test. CONCLUSIONS:No long-term effect of the chronic pain self-management course was found in comparison with a low-impact physical activity intervention for the primary outcome patient activation or for any secondary outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02531282 . Registered on August 212,015.

Project description:BackgroundA three-arm parallel group, randomised controlled trial set in general dental practices in England, Scotland, and Wales was undertaken to evaluate three strategies to manage dental caries in primary teeth. Children, with at least one primary molar with caries into dentine, were randomised to receive Conventional with best practice prevention (C?+?P), Biological with best practice prevention (B?+?P), or best practice Prevention Alone (PA).MethodsData on costs were collected via case report forms completed by clinical staff at every visit. The co-primary outcomes were incidence of, and number of episodes of, dental pain and/or infection avoided. The three strategies were ranked in order of mean cost and a more costly strategy was compared with a less costly strategy in terms of incremental cost-effectiveness. Costs and outcomes were discounted at 3.5%.ResultsA total of 1144 children were randomised with data on 1058 children (C?+?P n?=?352, B?+?P n?=?352, PA n?=?354) used in the analysis. On average, it costs £230 to manage dental caries in primary teeth over a period of up to 36?months. Managing children in PA was, on average, £19 (97.5% CI: -£18 to £55) less costly than managing those in B?+?P. In terms of effectiveness, on average, there were fewer incidences of, (-?0.06; 97.5% CI: -?0.14 to 0.02) and fewer episodes of dental pain and/or infection (-?0.14; 97.5% CI: -?0.29 to 0.71) in B?+?P compared to PA. C?+?P was unlikely to be considered cost-effective, as it was more costly and less effective than B?+?P.ConclusionsThe mean cost of a child avoiding any dental pain and/or infection (incidence) was £330 and the mean cost per episode of dental pain and/or infection avoided was £130. At these thresholds B?+?P has the highest probability of being considered cost-effective. Over the willingness to pay thresholds considered, the probability of B?+?P being considered cost-effective never exceeded 75%.Trial registrationThe trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN (reference number ISRCTN77044005) on the 26th January 2009 and East of Scotland Research Ethics Committee provided ethical approved (REC reference: 12/ES/0047).

Project description:BACKGROUND:There has been comparatively little patient information about bronchiectasis, a chronic lung disease with rising prevalence. Patients want more information, which could improve their understanding and self-management. A novel information resource meeting identified needs has been co-developed in prior work. We sought to establish the feasibility of conducting a multi-centre randomised controlled trial to determine effect of the information resource on understanding, self-management and health outcomes. METHODS/DESIGN:We conducted an unblinded, single-centre, randomised controlled feasibility trial with two parallel groups (1:1 ratio), comparing a novel patient information resource with usual care in adults with bronchiectasis. Integrated qualitative methods allowed further evaluation of the intervention and trial process. The setting was two teaching hospitals in North East England. Participants randomised to the intervention group received the information resource (website and booklet) and instructions on its use. Feasibility outcome measures included willingness to enter the trial, in addition to recruitment and retention rates. Secondary outcome measures (resource use and satisfaction, quality of life, unscheduled healthcare presentations, exacerbation frequency, bronchiectasis knowledge and lung function) were recorded at baseline, 2?weeks and 12?weeks. RESULTS:Sixty-two participants were randomised (control group = 30; intervention group = 32). Thirty-eight (61%) were female, and the participants' median age was 65 years (range 15-81). Median forced expiratory volume in 1 s percent predicted was 68% (range 10-120). Sixty-two of 124 (50%; 95% CI, 41-59%) of potentially eligible participants approached were recruited. Sixty (97%) of 62 participants completed the study (control group, 29 of 30 [97%]; 95% CI, 83-99%; 1 unrelated death; intervention group, 31 [97%] of 32; 95% CI, 84-99%; 1 withdrawal). In the intervention group, 27 (84%) of 32 reported using the information provided, and 25 (93%) of 27 of users found it useful, particularly the video content. Qualitative data analysis revealed acceptability of the trial and intervention. Web analytics recorded over 20,000 page views during the 16-month study period. CONCLUSION:The successful recruitment process, high retention rate and study form completion rates indicate that it appears feasible to conduct a full trial based on this study design. Worldwide demand for online access to the information resource was high. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN84229105. Registered on 25 July 2014.

Project description:Chlamydia retesting three months after treatment is recommended to detect reinfections, but retesting rates are typically low. The REACT (retest after Chlamydia trachomatis) randomised trial demonstrated that home-based retesting using postal home-collection kits and SMS reminders, resulted in substantial improvements in retesting rates in women, heterosexual men and men who have sex with men (MSM), with detection of more repeat positive tests compared with SMS reminder alone. In the context of this trial, the acceptability of the home-based strategy was evaluated and the costs of the two strategies were compared.REACT participants (200 women, 200 heterosexual men, 200 MSM) were asked to complete an online survey that included home-testing acceptability and preferred methods of retesting. The demographics, sexual behaviour and acceptability of home collection were compared between those preferring home-testing versus clinic-based retesting or no preference, using a chi-square test. The costs to the health system of the clinic-based and home retesting strategies and the cost per infection for each were also compared.Overall 445/600 (74 %) participants completed the survey; 236/445 from the home-testing arm, and 141 of these (60 %) retested at home. The majority of home arm retesters were comfortable having the kit posted to their home (86 %); found it easy to follow the instructions and collect the specimens (96 %); were confident they had collected the specimens correctly (90 %); and reported no problems (70 %). Most (65 %) preferred home retesting, 21 % had no preference and 14 % preferred clinic retesting. Comparing those with a preference for home testing to those who didn't, there were significant differences in being comfortable having a kit sent to their home (p = 0.045); not having been diagnosed with chlamydia previously (p = 0.030); and living with friends (p = 0.034). The overall cost for the home retest pathway was $154 (AUD), compared to $169 for the clinic-based retesting pathway and the cost per repeat infection detected was $1409 vs $3133.Among individuals initially diagnosed with chlamydia in a sexual health clinic setting, home-based retesting was shown to be highly acceptable, preferred by most participants, and cost-efficient. However some clients preferred clinic-based testing, often due to confidentiality concerns in their home environment. Both options should be provided to maximise retesting rates.The trial was registered with the Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on September 9, 2011: ACTRN12611000968976.

Project description:To evaluate the feasibility of a phase 3 randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a website (Living Well with Asthma) to support self-management.Phase 2, parallel group, RCT, participants recruited from 20 general practices across Glasgow, UK. Randomisation through automated voice response, after baseline data collection, to website access for minimum 12 weeks or usual care.Adults (age≥16 years) with physician diagnosed, symptomatic asthma (Asthma Control Questionnaire (ACQ) score ≥1). People with unstable asthma or other lung disease were excluded.'Living Well with Asthma' is a desktop/laptop compatible interactive website designed with input from asthma/ behaviour change specialists, and adults with asthma. It aims to support optimal medication management, promote use of action plans, encourage attendance at asthma reviews and increase physical activity.Primary outcomes were recruitment/retention, website use, ACQ and mini-Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ). Secondary outcomes included patient activation, prescribing, adherence, spirometry, lung inflammation and health service contacts after 12 weeks. Blinding postrandomisation was not possible.Recruitment target met. 51 participants randomised (25 intervention group). Age range 16-78 years; 75% female; 28% from most deprived quintile. 45/51 (88%; 20 intervention group) followed up. 19 (76% of the intervention group) used the website, for a mean of 18 min (range 0-49). 17 went beyond the 2 'core' modules. Median number of logins was 1 (IQR 1-2, range 0-7). No significant difference in the prespecified primary efficacy measures of ACQ scores (-0.36; 95% CI -0.96 to 0.23; p=0.225), and mini-AQLQ scores (0.38; -0.13 to 0.89; p=0.136). No adverse events.Recruitment and retention confirmed feasibility; trends to improved outcomes suggest use of Living Well with Asthma may improve self-management in adults with asthma and merits further development followed by investigation in a phase 3 trial.ISRCTN78556552; Results.

Project description:Knee pain is common with obesity and weight gain being important risk factors. Previous clinical trials have focused on overweight or obese adults with knee pain and osteoarthritis and demonstrated modest effects of intense weight loss programs on reducing knee pain despite very significant weight loss. There has been no lifestyle intervention that targets community-based adults to test its effect on prevention of knee pain. We aimed to determine the effect of a simple low-intensity self-management lifestyle intervention (HeLP-her), proven in randomised controlled trials to improve lifestyle and prevent weight gain, on knee pain in community-based young to middle-aged rural women.A 1-year pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial was conducted in 649 community-based women (aged 18-50 years) to receive either the HeLP-her program (consisting of one group session, monthly SMS text messages, one phone coaching session, and a program manual) or one general women's health education session. Secondary analyses were performed in 390 women who had knee pain measured using the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) at baseline and 12-month follow-up. "Any knee pain" was defined as a WOMAC pain score???1. Knee pain worsening was defined as an increase in WOMAC pain score over 12 months.Thirty-five percent of women had "any knee pain" at baseline. The risk of knee pain worsening did not differ between the intervention and control groups over 12 months. For women with any knee pain at baseline, those in the intervention arm had a lower risk of knee pain worsening compared with those in the control arm (OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14-1.01, p?=?0.05), with a stronger effect observed in women with body mass index ??25 kg/m2 (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09-0.87, p?=?0.03).In community-based young to middle-aged women, a simple low-intensity lifestyle program reduced the risk of knee pain worsening in those with any knee pain at baseline, particularly in those overweight or obese. Pragmatic lifestyle programs such as HeLP-her may represent a feasible lifestyle intervention to reduce the burden of knee pain in the community.ACTRN12612000115831 , registered 24 January 2012.