Dataset Information

Treating common mental disorder including psychotic experiences in the primary care improving access to psychological therapies programme (the TYPPEX study): protocol for a stepped wedge cluster randomised controlled trial with nested economic and process evaluation of a training package for therapists.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

At least one in four people treated by the primary care improving access to psychological therapies (IAPT) programme in England experiences distressing psychotic experiences (PE) in addition to common mental disorder (CMD). These individuals are less likely to achieve recovery. IAPT services do not routinely screen for nor offer specific treatments for CMD including PE. The Tailoring evidence-based psychological therapY for People with common mental disorder including Psychotic EXperiences study will evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an enhanced training for cognitive behavioural therapists that aims to address this clinical gap.

Methods and analysis

This is a multisite, stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial. The setting will be IAPT services within three mental health trusts. The participants will be (1) 56-80 qualified IAPT cognitive behavioural therapists and (2) 600 service users who are triaged as appropriate for cognitive behavioural therapy in an IAPT service and have PE according to the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences-Positive 15-items Scale. IAPT therapists will be grouped into eight study clusters subsequently randomised to the control-intervention sequence. We will obtain pseudonymous clinical outcome data from IAPT clinical records for eligible service users. We will invite service users to complete health economic measures at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12-month follow-up. The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients with common mental disorder psychotic experiences who have recovered by the end of treatment as measured by the official IAPT measure for recovery.

Ethics and dissemination

The study received the following approvals: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee on 28 April 2020 (REC reference 20/SC/0135) and Health Research Authority (HRA) on 23 June 2020. An amendment was approved by the Ethics Committee on 01 October 2020 and HRA on 27 October 2020. Results will be made available to patients and the public, the funders, stakeholders in the IAPT services and other researchers.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN93895792.

SUBMITTER: Ashford PA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9226877 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background2·6 million pregnancies were estimated to have ended in stillbirth in 2015. The aim of the AFFIRM study was to test the hypothesis that introduction of a reduced fetal movement (RFM), care package for pregnant women and clinicians that increased women's awareness of the need for prompt reporting of RFM and that standardised management, including timely delivery, would alter the incidence of stillbirth.MethodsThis stepped wedge, cluster-randomised trial was done in the UK and Ireland. Participating maternity hospitals were grouped and randomised, using a computer-generated allocation scheme, to one of nine intervention implementation dates (at 3 month intervals). This date was concealed from clusters and the trial team until 3 months before the implementation date. Each participating hospital had three observation periods: a control period from Jan 1, 2014, until randomised date of intervention initiation; a washout period from the implementation date and for 2 months; and the intervention period from the end of the washout period until Dec 31, 2016. Treatment allocation was not concealed from participating women and caregivers. Data were derived from observational maternity data. The primary outcome was incidence of stillbirth. The primary analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle, with births analysed according to whether they took place during the control or intervention periods, irrespective of whether the intervention had been implemented as planned. This study is registered with www.ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01777022.Findings37 hospitals were enrolled in the study. Four hospitals declined participation, and 33 hospitals were randomly assigned to an intervention implementation date. Between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec, 31, 2016, data were collected from 409 175 pregnancies (157 692 deliveries during the control period, 23 623 deliveries in the washout period, and 227 860 deliveries in the intervention period). The incidence of stillbirth was 4·40 per 1000 births during the control period and 4·06 per 1000 births in the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·75-1·07; p=0·23).InterpretationThe RFM care package did not reduce the risk of stillbirths. The benefits of a policy that promotes awareness of RFM remains unproven.FundingChief Scientist Office, Scottish Government (CZH/4/882), Tommy's Centre for Maternal and Fetal Health, Sands.

Project description:BackgroundMelioidosis, 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 findingsFrom 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/significanceClear 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 registrationThis trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02089152.

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.

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:BackgroundStepped wedge randomised trial designs involve sequential roll-out of an intervention to participants (individuals or clusters) over a number of time periods. By the end of the study, all participants will have received the intervention, although the order in which participants receive the intervention is determined at random. The design is particularly relevant where it is predicted that the intervention will do more good than harm (making a parallel design, in which certain participants do not receive the intervention unethical) and/or where, for logistical, practical or financial reasons, it is impossible to deliver the intervention simultaneously to all participants. Stepped wedge designs offer a number of opportunities for data analysis, particularly for modelling the effect of time on the effectiveness of an intervention. This paper presents a review of 12 studies (or protocols) that use (or plan to use) a stepped wedge design. One aim of the review is to highlight the potential for the stepped wedge design, given its infrequent use to date.MethodsComprehensive literature review of studies or protocols using a stepped wedge design. Data were extracted from the studies in three categories for subsequent consideration: study information (epidemiology, intervention, number of participants), reasons for using a stepped wedge design and methods of data analysis.ResultsThe 12 studies included in this review describe evaluations of a wide range of interventions, across different diseases in different settings. However the stepped wedge design appears to have found a niche for evaluating interventions in developing countries, specifically those concerned with HIV. There were few consistent motivations for employing a stepped wedge design or methods of data analysis across studies. The methodological descriptions of stepped wedge studies, including methods of randomisation, sample size calculations and methods of analysis, are not always complete.ConclusionWhile the stepped wedge design offers a number of opportunities for use in future evaluations, a more consistent approach to reporting and data analysis is required.

Project description:IntroductionAntimicrobial resistance is a growing global health threat, driven by increasing inappropriate use of antimicrobials. High prevalence of unnecessary use of antimicrobials in residential aged care facilities (RACFs) has driven demand for the development and implementation of antimicrobial stewardship (AMS) programmes. The Stepped-wedge Trial to increase antibiotic Appropriateness in Residential aged care facilities and model Transmission of antimicrobial resistance (START) will implement and evaluate the impact of a nurse-led AMS programme on antimicrobial use in 12 RACFs.Methods and analysisThe START trial will implement and evaluate a nurse-led AMS programme via a stepped-wedge cluster randomised controlled trial design in 12 RACFs over 16 months. The AMS programme will incorporate education, aged care-specific treatment guidelines, documentation forms, and audit and feedback strategies that will target aged care staff, general practitioners, pharmacists, and residents and their families. The intervention will primarily focus on urinary tract infections, lower respiratory tract infections, and skin and soft tissue infections. RACFs will transition from control to intervention phases in random order, two at a time, every 2 months, with a 2-month transition, wash-in period. The primary outcome is the cumulative proportion of residents within each facility prescribed an antibiotic during each month and total days of antibiotic use per 1000 occupied bed days. Secondary outcomes include the number of courses of systemic antimicrobial therapy, antimicrobial appropriateness, antimicrobial resistant organisms, Clostridioides difficile infection, change in antimicrobial susceptibility profiles, hospitalisations and all-cause mortality. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval has been granted by the Alfred Hospital Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/Alfred/591). Research findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications, conferences and summarised reports provided to participating RACFs.Trial registration numberNCT03941509.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Improving quality of intrapartum care will reduce intrapartum stillbirth and neonatal mortality, especially in resource-poor settings. Basic neonatal resuscitation can reduce intrapartum stillbirth and early neonatal mortality, if delivered in a high-quality health system, but there is a dearth of evidence on how to scale up such evidence-based interventions. We evaluated the scaling up of a quality improvement (QI) package for neonatal resuscitation on intrapartum-related mortality (intrapartum stillbirth and first day mortality) at hospitals in Nepal. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We conducted a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial in 12 hospitals over a period of 18 months from April 14, 2017, to October 17, 2018. The hospitals were assigned to one of four wedges through random allocation. The QI package was implemented in a stepped-wedge manner with a delay of three months for each step. The QI package included improving hospital leadership on intrapartum care, building health workers' competency on neonatal resuscitation, and continuous facilitated QI processes in clinical units. An independent data collection system was set up at each hospital to gather data on mortality through patient case note review and demographic characteristics of women using semi-structured exit interviews. The generalized linear mixed model (GLMM) and multivariate logistic regression were used for analyses. During this study period, a total of 89,014 women-infant pairs were enrolled. The mean age of the mother in the study period was 24.0 ± 4.3 years, with 54.9% from disadvantaged ethnic groups and 4.0% of them illiterate. Of the total birth cohort, 54.4% were boys, 16.7% had gestational age less than 37 weeks, and 17.1% had birth weight less than 2,500 grams. The incidence of intrapartum-related mortality was 11.0 per 1,000 births during the control period and 8.0 per 1,000 births during the intervention period (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.92; p = 0.002; intra-cluster correlation coefficient [ICC], 0.0286). The incidence of early neonatal mortality was 12.7 per 1,000 live births during the control period and 10.1 per 1,000 live births during the intervention period (aOR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.02; p = 0.09; ICC, 0.1538). The use of bag-and-mask ventilation for babies with low Apgar score (<7 at 1 minute) increased from 3.2% in the control period to 4.0% in the intervention period (aOR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.32-1.77, p = 0.003). There were two major limitations to the study; although a large sample of women-infant pairs were enrolled in the study, the clustering reduced the power of the study. Secondly, the study was not sufficiently powered to detect reduction in early neonatal mortality with the number of clusters provided. CONCLUSION:These results suggest scaled-up implementation of a QI package for neonatal resuscitation can reduce intrapartum-related mortality and improve clinical care. The QI intervention package is likely to be effective in similar settings. More implementation research is required to assess the sustainability of QI interventions and quality of care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN30829654.