Dataset Information

Effectiveness of the nurse-led Activate intervention in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

To 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.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention and identifying which patient-related characteristics modify the effect.

Methods

A 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.

Results

Thirty-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.

Conclusion

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Westland H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7817988 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of the nurse-led Activate intervention in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Westland Heleen H Schuurmans Marieke J MJ Bos-Touwen Irene D ID de Bruin-van Leersum Marjolein A MA Monninkhof Evelyn M EM Schröder Carin D CD de Vette Daphne A DA Trappenburg Jaap Ca JC

European journal of cardiovascular nursing 20200506 8

<h4>Background</h4>To 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.<h4>Aim</h4>The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention and identifying which patient- ...[more]

PMID: 32375491

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundSelf-management interventions are considered effective in patients with chronic disease, but trials have shown inconsistent results, and it is unknown which patients benefit most. Adequate self-management requires behaviour change in both patients and health care providers. Therefore, the Activate intervention was developed with a focus on behaviour change in both patients and nurses. The intervention aims for change in a single self-management behaviour, namely physical activity, in primary care patients at risk for cardiovascular disease. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Activate intervention.Methods/designA two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial will be conducted to compare the Activate intervention with care as usual at 31 general practices in the Netherlands. Approximately 279 patients at risk for cardiovascular disease will participate. The Activate intervention is developed using the Behaviour Change Wheel and consists of 4 nurse-led consultations in a 3-month period, integrating 17 behaviour change techniques. The Behaviour Change Wheel was also applied to analyse what behaviour change is needed in nurses to deliver the intervention adequately. This resulted in 1-day training and coaching sessions (including 21 behaviour change techniques). The primary outcome is physical activity, measured as the number of minutes of moderate to vigorous physical activity using an accelerometer. Potential effect modifiers are age, body mass index, level of education, social support, depression, patient-provider relationship and baseline number of minutes of physical activity. Data will be collected at baseline and at 3 months and 6 months of follow-up. A process evaluation will be conducted to evaluate the training of nurses, treatment fidelity, and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation as well as to assess participants' satisfaction.DiscussionTo increase physical activity in patients and to support nurses in delivering the intervention, behaviour change techniques are applied to change behaviours of the patients and nurses. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the intervention, exploration of which patients benefit most, and evaluation of our theory-based training for primary care nurses will enhance understanding of what works and for whom, which is essential for further implementation of self-management in clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02725203 . Registered on 25 March 2016.

Project description:IntroductionIn children with asthma, daily symptoms and exacerbations have a significant impact on the quality of life of both children and parents. More effective use of asthma medication and, consequently, better asthma control is advocated, since both overtreatment and undertreatment are reported in primary care. Trials in adults suggest that asthma control is better when patients receive a regular medical review. Therefore, protocolled care by the general practitioner may also lead to better asthma control in children. However, such protocolled care by the general practitioner may be time consuming and less feasible. Therefore, this study aims to determine whether protocolled practice nurse-led asthma care for children in primary care provides more effective asthma control than usual care.Methods and analysisThe study will be a cluster-randomised open-label trial with an 18-month follow-up. Practice nurses will be the units of randomisation and children with asthma the units of analysis. It is planned to include 180 children aged 6-12 years. Primary outcome will be average asthma control during the 18-month follow-up measured by the Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT). Secondary outcomes include C-ACT scores at t=3, t=6, t=12 and t=18 months; the frequency and severity of exacerbations; cost-effectiveness; quality of life; satisfaction with delivered care; forced expiratory volume in 1 s and forced expiratory flow at 75% and the association of high symptoms scores at baseline and baseline characteristics. Besides, we will conduct identical measurements in a non-randomised sample of children.Ethics and disseminationThis will be the first trial to evaluate the effectiveness of protocolled practice nurse-led care for children with asthma in primary care. The results may lead to improvements in asthma care for children and can be directly implemented in revisions of asthma guidelines.The study protocol was approved by the Medical Research Ethics Committee of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam.Trial registrationNTR6847.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines recommend early specialty palliative care for all patients with advanced cancer, but most patients lack access to such services.ObjectiveTo assess the effect of CONNECT (Care Management by Oncology Nurses to Address Supportive Care Needs), a primary palliative care intervention delivered by oncology nurses, on patient outcomes.Design, setting, and participantsThis cluster randomized clinical trial of the CONNECT intervention vs standard care was conducted from July 25, 2016, to October 6, 2020. Participants were adult patients with metastatic solid tumors who were undergoing oncological care and for whom an oncologist would agree with the statement "would not be surprised if the patient died in the next year." The trial was conducted at 17 community oncology practices in western Pennsylvania. Data analyses adhered to the intention-to-treat principle.InterventionsThe CONNECT intervention included 3 monthly visits with an existing infusion room nurse who was trained to address symptoms, provide emotional support, engage in advance care planning, and coordinate care.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was quality of life. At baseline and 3 months, participants completed assessments of quality of life (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative care: score range, 0-184, with higher scores indicating better quality of life), symptom burden (Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: score range, 0-90, with higher scores indicating greater symptom burden), and mood symptoms (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]: score range, 0-21, with higher scores indicating substantial anxiety and depression). Linear mixed-effects models were used to estimate adjusted mean differences in 3-month outcomes. Preplanned, intensity-adjusted analyses were conducted.ResultsA total of 672 patients were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 69.3 [10.2] years; 360 women [53.6%]). The mean (SD) number of CONNECT visits completed was 2.2 (1.0). At 3 months, no difference in mean (SD) quality-of-life score was found between the CONNECT and standard care groups (130.7 [28.2] vs 134.1 [28.1]; adjusted mean difference, 1.20; 95% CI, -2.75 to 5.15; P = .55). Similarly, there was no difference between groups in 3-month mean (SD) symptom burden (23.2 [16.6] vs 24.0 [16.1]; adjusted mean difference, -2.64; 95% CI, -5.85 to 0.58; P = .11) or mood symptoms (HADS depression subscale score: 5.1 [3.4] vs 4.8 [3.7], adjusted mean difference, -0.08 [95% CI, -0.71 to 0.57], P = .82; HADS anxiety subscale score: 5.7 [3.9] vs 5.4 [4.2], adjusted mean difference, -0.31 [95% CI, -0.96 to 0.33], P = .34). Intensity-adjusted analyses revealed a larger estimated treatment effect for patients who received a full dose (3 visits) of the CONNECT intervention.Conclusions and relevanceThis cluster randomized clinical trial found that a primary palliative care intervention that was delivered by oncology nurses did not improve patient-reported outcomes at 3 months. Primary palliative care interventions with a higher dose intensity may be beneficial for most patients with advanced cancer who lack access to palliative care specialists.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02712229.

Project description:IntroductionOlder patients raise therapeutic challenges, because they constitute a heterogeneous population with multimorbidity. To appraise this complexity, geriatricians have developed a multidimensional comprehensive geriatric assessment (CGA), which may be difficult to apply in primary care settings. Our primary objective was to compare the effect on morbimortality of usual care compared with two complex interventions combining educational seminars about CGA: a dedicated geriatric hotline for general practitioners (GPs) and CGA by trained nurses or GPs.Methods and analysisThe Clinical Epidemiology and Ageing study is an open-label, pragmatic, multicentre, three-arm, cluster randomised controlled trial comparing two intervention groups and one control group. Patients must be 70 years or older with a long-term illness or with unscheduled hospitalisation in the past 3 months (750 patients planned). This study involves volunteering GPs practising in French primary care centres, with randomisation at the practice level. The multifaceted interventions for interventional arms comprise an educational interactive multiprofessional seminar for GPs and nurses, a geriatric hotline dedicated to GPs in case of difficulties and the performance of a CGA updated to primary care. The CGA is systematically performed by a nurse in arm 1 but is GP-led on a case-by-case basis in arm 2. The primary endpoint is a composite criterion comprising overall death, unscheduled hospitalisations, emergency admissions and institutionalisation within 12 months after inclusion. Intention-to-treat analysis will be performed using mixed-effects logistic regression models, with adjustment for potential confounders.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol was approved by an appropriate ethics committee (CPP Ile-de-France IV, Paris, France, approval April 2015;15 664). This study is conducted according to principles of good clinical practice in the context of current care and will provide useful knowledge on the clinical benefits achievable by CGA in primary care.Trial registration numberNCT02664454; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundDepression and anxiety disorders are common mental disorders worldwide. The MANAS trial aimed to test the effectiveness of an intervention led by lay health counsellors in primary care settings to improve outcomes of people with these disorders.MethodsIn this cluster randomised trial, primary care facilities in Goa, India, were assigned (1:1) by computer-generated randomised sequence to intervention or control (enhanced usual care) groups. All adults who screened positive for common mental disorders were eligible. The collaborative stepped-care intervention offered case management and psychosocial interventions, provided by a trained lay health counsellor, supplemented by antidepressant drugs by the primary care physician and supervision by a mental health specialist. The research assessor was masked. The primary outcome was recovery from common mental disorders as defined by the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems-10th revision (ICD-10) at 6 months. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00446407.Findings24 study clusters, with an equal proportion of public and private facilities, were randomised equally between groups. 1160 of 1360 (85%) patients in the intervention group and 1269 of 1436 (88%) in the control group completed the outcome assessment. Patients with ICD-10-confirmed common mental disorders in the intervention group were more likely to have recovered at 6 months than were those in the control group (n=620 [65·0%] vs 553 [52·9%]; risk ratio 1·22, 95% CI 1·00-1·47; risk difference=12·1%, 95% CI 1·6%-22·5%). The intervention had strong evidence of an effect in public facility attenders (369 [65·9%] vs 267 [42·5%], risk ratio 1·55, 95% CI 1·02-2·35) but no evidence for an effect in private facility attenders (251 [64·1%] vs 286 [65·9%], risk ratio 0·95, 0·74-1·22). There were three deaths and four suicide attempts in the collaborative stepped-care group and six deaths and six suicide attempts in the enhanced usual care group. None of the deaths were from suicide.InterpretationA trained lay counsellor-led collaborative care intervention can lead to an improvement in recovery from CMD among patients attending public primary care facilities.FundingThe Wellcome Trust.

Project description:BackgroundBrisk walking in older people can increase step-counts and moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MVPA) in ≥10-minute bouts, as advised in World Health Organization guidelines. Previous interventions have reported step-count increases, but not change in objectively measured MVPA in older people. We assessed whether a primary care nurse-delivered complex intervention increased objectively measured step-counts and MVPA.Methods and findingsA total of 988 60-75 year olds, able to increase walking and randomly selected from three UK family practices, were invited to participate in a parallel two-arm cluster randomised trial; randomisation was by household. Two-hundred-ninety-eight people from 250 households were randomised between 2011 and 2012; 150 individuals to the intervention group, 148 to the usual care control group. Intervention participants received four primary care nurse physical activity (PA) consultations over 3 months, incorporating behaviour change techniques, pedometer step-count and accelerometer PA intensity feedback, and an individual PA diary and plan. Assessors were not blinded to group status, but statistical analyses were conducted blind. The primary outcome was change in accelerometry assessed average daily step-counts between baseline and 3 months, with change at 12 months a secondary outcome. Other secondary outcomes were change from baseline in time in MVPA weekly in ≥10-minute bouts, accelerometer counts, and counts/minute at 3 months and 12 months. Other outcomes were adverse events, anthropometric measures, mood, and pain. Qualitative evaluations of intervention participants and practice nurses assessed the intervention's acceptability. At 3 months, eight participants had withdrawn or were lost to follow-up, 280 (94%) individuals provided primary outcome data. At 3 months changes in both average daily step-counts and weekly MVPA in ≥10-minute bouts were significantly higher in the intervention than control group: by 1,037 (95% CI 513-1,560) steps/day and 63 (95% CI 40-87) minutes/week, respectively. At 12 months corresponding differences were 609 (95% CI 104-1,115) steps/day and 40 (95% CI 17-63) minutes/week. Counts and counts/minute showed similar effects to steps and MVPA. Adverse events, anthropometry, mood, and pain were similar in the two groups. Participants and practice nurses found the intervention acceptable and enjoyable.ConclusionsThe PACE-Lift trial increased both step-counts and objectively measured MVPA in ≥10-minute bouts in 60-75 year olds at 3 and 12 months, with no effect on adverse events. To our knowledge, this is the first trial in this age group to demonstrate objective MVPA increases and highlights the value of individualised support incorporating objective PA assessment in a primary care setting.Trial registrationControlled-Trials.com ISRCTN42122561.

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 the nurse-led Activate intervention in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Background

Aim

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effectiveness of the nurse-led Activate intervention in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease in primary care: a cluster-randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets