Dataset Information

Effectiveness of a multifaceted prevention programme for melioidosis in diabetics (PREMEL): A stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Melioidosis, an often-fatal infectious disease caused by the environmental Gram-negative bacillus Burkholderia pseudomallei, is endemic in tropical countries. Diabetes mellitus and environmental exposure are important risk factors for melioidosis acquisition. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted prevention programme for melioidosis in diabetics in northeast Thailand.

Methodology/principal findings

From April 2014 to December 2018, we conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized controlled behaviour change trial in 116 primary care units (PCUs) in Ubon Ratchathani province, northeast Thailand. The intervention was a behavioural support group session to help diabetic patients adopt recommended behaviours, including wearing rubber boots and drinking boiled water. We randomly allocated the PCUs to receive the intervention starting in March 2016, 2017 and 2018. All diabetic patients were contacted by phone yearly, and the final follow-up was December 2018. Two primary outcomes were hospital admissions involving infectious diseases and culture-confirmed melioidosis. Of 9,056 diabetics enrolled, 6,544 (72%) received a behavioural support group session. During 38,457 person-years of follow-up, we observed 2,195 (24%) patients having 3,335 hospital admissions involved infectious diseases, 80 (0.8%) melioidosis, and 485 (5%) deaths. In the intention-to-treat analysis, implementation of the intervention was not associated with primary outcomes. In the per-protocol analysis, patients who received a behavioural support group session had lower incidence rates of hospital admissions involving infectious diseases (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.89; 95%CI 0.80-0.99, p = 0.03) and of all-cause mortality (IRR 0.54; 95%CI 0.43-0.68, p<0.001). However, the incidence rate of culture-confirmed melioidosis was not significantly lower (IRR 0.96, 95%CI 0.46-1.99, p = 0.66).

Conclusions/significance

Clear benefits of this multifaceted prevention programme for melioidosis were not observed. More compelling invitations for the intervention, modification of or addition to the behaviour change techniques used, and more frequent intervention may be needed.

Trial registration

This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089152.

SUBMITTER: Suntornsut P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8266097 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of workplace active rest programme (WARP) on chronic low back pain (LBP) among office workers.DesignA closed cohort, stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted. The total duration of the study was 16 weeks (4 weeks for each step). Sequence allocation was randomised, but no one was blinded.SettingThis study was conducted in three offices in a Japanese electronics company. One office was for the administrative department, the others are for the engineering department.ParticipantsWe recruited 29 office workers with LBP greater than 3 months. LBP due to specific injury or disease was excluded. The median age was 38 years, and 26 (90%) were male. All participants completed the study.InterventionsIn the intervention phase, participants performed WARP comprising frequent stand-up and individualised brief exercise/physical activity during work. Physical therapists held an LBP workshop and developed tailor-made programmes before introducing WARP. We instructed participants to perform WARP at five timings during work. Control phase was set before the intervention and participants stayed as usual.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome was pain intensity of LBP assessed using the Brief Pain Inventory. The secondary outcomes were work productivity loss measured using the Work Limitations Questionnaire, LBP disability assessed using the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire, psychosocial subscale assessed using the STarT Back Screening Tool and physical activity measured using triaxial accelerometers. These outcomes were collected at baseline and at 4-month follow-up evaluation.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, WARP did not show any significant effects on pain intensity (β, 0.01; 95% CI -0.50 to 0.52) and on the secondary outcomes. The median adherence to WARP was 28.6% (IQR, 16.8-41.1), which was equal to 1.43 times per day. No adverse effect was observed.ConclusionsThe present study was unable to confirm the effectiveness of active rest in improving LBP. Hence, further study needs to investigate its effectiveness.Trial registration numberUMIN000033210.

Project description:PurposeSupporting the provision of intensive care medicine through telehealth potentially improves process quality. This may improve patient recovery and long-term outcomes. We investigated the effectiveness of a multifaceted telemedical programme on the adherence to German quality indicators (QIs) in a regional network of intensive care units (ICUs) in Germany.MethodsWe conducted an investigator-initiated, large-scale, open-label, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial enrolling adult ICU patients with an expected ICU stay of ≥ 24 h. Twelve ICU clusters in Berlin and Brandenburg were randomly assigned to three sequence groups to transition from control (standard care) to the intervention condition (telemedicine). The quality improvement intervention consisted of daily telemedical rounds guided by eight German acute ICU care QIs and expert consultations. Co-primary effectiveness outcomes were patient-specific daily adherence (fulfilled yes/no) to QIs, assessed by a central end point adjudication committee. Analyses used mixed-effects logistic modelling adjusted for time. This study is completed and registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03671447).ResultsBetween September 4, 2018, and March 31, 2020, 1463 patients (414 treated on control, 1049 on intervention condition) were enrolled at ten clusters, resulting in 14,783 evaluated days. Two randomised clusters recruited no patients (one withdrew informed consent; one dropped out). The intervention, as implemented, significantly increased QI performance for "sedation, analgesia and delirium" (adjusted odds ratio (99.375% confidence interval [CI]) 5.328, 3.395-8.358), "ventilation" (OR 2.248, 1.198-4.217), "weaning from ventilation" (OR 9.049, 2.707-30.247), "infection management" (OR 4.397, 1.482-13.037), "enteral nutrition" (OR 1.579, 1.032-2.416), "patient and family communication" (OR 6.787, 3.976-11.589), and "early mobilisation" (OR 3.161, 2.160-4.624). No evidence for a difference in adherence to "daily multi-professional and interdisciplinary clinical visits" between both conditions was found (OR 1.606, 0.780-3.309). Temporal trends related and unrelated to the intervention were detected. 149 patients died during their index ICU stay (45 treated on control, 104 on intervention condition).ConclusionA telemedical quality improvement program increased adherence to seven evidence-based German performance indicators in acute ICU care. These results need further confirmation in a broader setting of regional, non-academic community hospitals and other healthcare systems.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Cluster randomised trials with unequal sized clusters often have lower precision than with clusters of equal size. To allow for this, sample sizes are inflated by a modified version of the design effect for clustering. These inflation factors are valid under the assumption that randomisation is stratified by cluster size. We investigate the impact of unequal cluster size when that constraint is relaxed, with particular focus on the stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial, where this is more difficult to achieve. METHODS:Assuming a multi-level mixed effect model with exchangeable correlation structure for a cross-sectional design, we use simulation methods to compare the precision for a trial with clusters of unequal size to a trial with clusters of equal size (relative efficiency). For a range of scenarios we illustrate the impact of various design features (the cluster-mean correlation - a function of the intracluster correlation and the cluster size, the number of clusters, number of randomisation sequences) on the average and distribution of the relative efficiency. RESULTS:Simulations confirm that the average reduction in precision, due to varying cluster sizes, is smaller in a stepped-wedge trial compared to the parallel trial. However, the variance of the distribution of the relative efficiency is large; and is larger under the stepped-wedge design compared to the parallel design. This can result in large variations in actual power, depending on the allocation of clusters to sequences. Designs with larger variations in cluster sizes, smaller number of clusters and studies with smaller cluster-mean correlations (smaller cluster sizes or smaller intra-cluster correlation) are particularly at risk. CONCLUSION:The actual realised power in a stepped-wedge trial might be substantially higher or lower than that estimated. This is particularly important when there are a small number of clusters or the variability in cluster sizes is large. Constraining the randomisation on cluster size, where feasible, might mitigate this effect.

Project description:IntroductionDue to the increase in participation and risk of anterior cruciate ligament (ACL) injuries and concussion in women's Australian Football, an injury prevention programme (Prep-to-Play) was codesigned with consumers (eg, coaches, players) and stakeholders (eg, the Australian Football League). The impact of supported and unsupported interventions on the use of Prep-to-Play (primary aim) and injury rates (secondary aim) will be evaluated in women and girls playing community Australian Football.Methods and analysisThis stepped-wedge, cluster randomised controlled trial will include ≥140 teams from U16, U18 or senior women's competitions. All 10 geographically separated clusters (each containing ≥14 teams) will start in the control (unsupported) phase and be randomised to one of five dates (or 'wedges') during the 2021 or 2022 season to sequentially transition to the intervention (supported Prep-to-Play), until all teams receive the intervention. Prep-to-Play includes four elements: a neuromuscular training warm-up, contact-focussed football skills (eg, tackling), strength exercises and education (eg, technique cues). When transitioning to supported interventions, study physiotherapists will deliver a workshop to coaches and player leaders on how to use Prep-to-Play, attend team training at least two times and provide ongoing support. In the unsupported phase, team will continue usual routines and may freely access available Prep-to-Play resources online (eg, posters and videos about the four elements), but without additional face-to-face support. Outcomes will be evaluated throughout the 2021 and 2022 seasons (~14 weeks per season).Primary outcomeuse of Prep-to-Play will be reported via a team designate (weekly) and an independent observer (five visits over the two seasons) and defined as the team completing 75% of the programme, two-thirds (67%) of the time.Secondary outcomesinjuries will be reported by the team sports trainer and/or players. Injury definition: any injury occurring during a football match or training that results in: (1) being unable to return to the field of play for that match or (2) missing ≥ one match. Outcomes in the supported and unsupported phases will be compared using a generalised linear mixed model adjusting for clustering and time. Due to the type III hybrid implementation-effectiveness design, the study is powered to detect a improvement in use of Prep-to-Play and a reduction in ACL injuries.Ethics and disseminationLa Trobe University Ethics Committee (HREC 20488) approved. Coaches provided informed consent to receive the supported intervention and players provided consent to be contacted if they sustained a head or knee injury. Results will be disseminated through partner organisations, peer-reviewed publications and scientific conferences.Trial registration numberNCT04856241.

Project description:BackgroundDespite persistent calls to measure the effectiveness of educational interventions on patient outcomes, few studies have been conducted. Within musculoskeletal physiotherapy, the effects of clinical mentoring on postgraduate physiotherapists have been explored, but its impact on patient outcomes is unknown. The objective of this trial was to assess the effectiveness of a work-based mentoring programme to facilitate physiotherapist clinical reasoning on patient outcomes.MethodsIn a stepped-wedge cluster RCT in the musculoskeletal physiotherapy outpatient departments of a large NHS organisation, 16 physiotherapists were randomised by cluster to receive the intervention-150 hours of mentored clinical practice-at one of 3 time periods; control was usual training. 441 patients submitted outcome measures: Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS) (primary outcome measure), EQ-5D-5L, patient activation and patient satisfaction (secondary outcome measures). A further secondary outcome measure of physiotherapist performance was collected by an independent assessor observing the physiotherapists practice.Results80.0% of intervention patients achieved clinically significant PSFS scores compared with 63.8% of control patients. Binary logistic regression analysis modelling for time, cluster and patient characteristics showed strong statistical evidence for this difference (p = 0.023; odds ratio 4.24, 95%CI 1.22, 14.79). Physiotherapist performance scores improved from a mean of 47.8% (SD 3.60) pre-intervention to a mean of 56.0% (SD 4.24) (p<0.001). There was no statistical evidence for differences between groups on other secondary outcomes.ConclusionThis is the first study that we aware of that provides patient outcomes measurement of an established educational intervention in physiotherapy, providing evidence that this type of intervention positively impacts patient outcomes and physiotherapist performance. This provides a basis for further research in education across other healthcare disciplines and outcome measures.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of an internet-based perioperative care programme compared with usual care for gynaecological patients. DESIGN:Economic evaluation from a societal perspective alongside a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised controlled trial with 12 months of follow-up. SETTING:Secondary care, nine hospitals in the Netherlands, 2011-2014. PARTICIPANTS:433 employed women aged 18-65 years scheduled for a hysterectomy and/or laparoscopic adnexal surgery. INTERVENTION:The intervention comprised an internet-based care programme aimed at improving convalescence and preventing delayed return to work (RTW) following gynaecological surgery and was sequentially rolled out. Depending on the implementation phase of their hospital, patients were allocated to usual care (n=206) or to the intervention (n=227). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:The primary outcome was duration until full sustainable RTW. Secondary outcomes were quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), health-related quality of life and recovery. RESULTS:At 12 months, there were no statistically significant differences in total societal costs (€-647; 95% CI €-2116 to €753) and duration until RTW (-4.1; 95% CI -10.8 to 2.6) between groups. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for RTW was 56; each day earlier RTW in the intervention group was associated with cost savings of €56 compared with usual care. The probability of the intervention being cost-effective was 0.79 at a willingness-to-pay (WTP) of €0 per day earlier RTW, which increased to 0.97 at a WTP of €76 per day earlier RTW. The difference in QALYs gained over 12 months between the groups was clinically irrelevant resulting in a low probability of cost-effectiveness for QALYs. CONCLUSIONS:Considering that on average the costs of a day of sickness absence are €230, the care programme is considered cost-effective in comparison with usual care for duration until sustainable RTW after gynaecological surgery for benign disease. Future research should indicate whether widespread implementation of this care programme has the potential to reduce societal costs associated with gynaecological surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NTR2933; Results.

Project description:IntroductionThere is an epidemic of opioid use related to adverse events and deaths in the USA. The rates of chronic pain, mental illness and substance use disorder are higher at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) compared with the general US population. The 2016 Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act requires the VHA to improve opioid therapy strategies in treating patients and to ensure responsible prescribing practices. The Stratification Tool for Opioid Risk Mitigation (STORM) is a web-based dashboard that prioritises review of VHA patients receiving opioids based on their risk. The VHA Partnered Evidence-based Policy Resource Center is coordinating a multiyear evaluation of STORM and aspects of the VHA policy that mandate case review of patients identified by STORM as very high risk.Methods and analysisThis stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial will test two hypotheses: (1) VHA medical centres randomised to facilitation for not meeting the targeted case review rate will achieve lower opioid-related serious adverse events (SAEs), relative to facilities not randomised to facilitation and (2) Patients whose cases are required to be reviewed will have a lower rate of opioid-related SAEs compared with comparable risk patients whose cases are not required to be reviewed. Patients who receive an opioid prescription at VHA medical centres will be followed for a minimum of 3 months after their first opioid prescription. Follow-up will continue until the last day of the project or death. The data will be analysed using an intention-to-treat approach with patient-month-level Cox proportional hazards models for both interventions.Ethics and disseminationEvaluation of the randomised roll-out was approved by the VA Boston Healthcare System Institutional Review Board (IRB) and Research & Development Committees (Protocol # 3069). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national conference meetings.Trial registration numberISRCTN16012111.