Dataset Information

The acceptability and cost of a home-based chlamydia retesting strategy: findings from the REACT randomised controlled trial.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Smith KS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4730759 | biostudies-other | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEvery year, 2·9 million newborn babies die worldwide. A meta-analysis of four cluster-randomised controlled trials estimated that home visits by trained community members in programme settings in Ghana and south Asia reduced neonatal mortality by 12% (95% CI 5-18). We aimed to estimate the costs and cost-effectiveness of newborn home visits in a programme setting.MethodsWe prospectively collected detailed cost data alongside the Newhints trial, which tested the effect of a home-visits intervention in seven districts in rural Ghana and showed a reduction of 8% (95% CI -12 to 25%) in neonatal mortality. The intervention consisted of a package of home visits to pregnant women and their babies in the first week of life by community-based surveillance volunteers. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) with Monte Carlo simulation and one-way sensitivity analyses and characterised uncertainty with cost-effectiveness planes and cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. We then modelled the potential cost-effectiveness for baseline neonatal mortality rates of 20-60 deaths per 1000 livebirths with use of a meta-analysis of effectiveness estimates.FindingsIn the 49 zones randomly allocated to receive the Newhints intervention, a mean of 407 (SD 18) community-based surveillance volunteers undertook home visits for 7848 pregnant women who gave birth to 7786 live babies in 2009. Annual economic cost of implementation was US$203 998, or $0·53 per person. In the base-case analysis, the Newhints intervention cost a mean of $10 343 (95% CI 2963 to -7674) per newborn life saved, or $352 (95% CI 104 to -268) per discounted life-year saved, and had a 72% chance of being highly cost effective with respect to Ghana's 2009 gross domestic product per person. Key determinants of cost-effectiveness were the discount rate, protective effectiveness, baseline neonatal mortality rate, and implementation costs. In the scenarios modelled with the meta-analysis results, the ICER increased from $127 per life-year saved at a neonatal mortality rate of 60 deaths per 1000 livebirths, to $379 per life-year saved at a rate of 20 deaths per 1000 livebirths. The strategy had at least a 99% probability of being highly cost effective for lower-middle-income countries in all neonatal mortality rate scenarios modelled, and at least a 95% probability of being highly cost effective for low-income countries at neonatal mortality rates of 30 or more deaths per 1000 livebirths.InterpretationOur findings show that the seemingly modest mortality reductions achieved by a newborn home-visit strategy might in fact be cost effective. In Ghana, such strategies are also likely to be affordable. Our findings support recommendations from WHO and UNICEF that low-income and middle-income countries implement newborn home visits.FundingThe Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Department for International Development, WHO.

Project description: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

Project description:BackgroundBehaviours such as agitation impact on the quality of life of care-home residents with dementia and increase healthcare use. Interventions to prevent these behaviours have little evidence supporting their effectiveness or cost-effectiveness. We conducted an economic evaluation alongside a trial assessing Dementia Care Mapping™ (DCM) versus usual care for reducing agitation, and highlight methodological challenges of conducting evaluations in this population and setting.MethodsRCT data over 16 months from English care-home residents with dementia (intervention n = 418; control n = 308) were analysed. We conducted a cost-utility analysis from the healthcare provider perspective. We gathered resource use and utility (EQ-5D-5L and DEMQoL-Proxy-U) from people living with dementia and proxy informants (staff and relatives). Data were analysed using seemingly unrelated regression, accounting for care-home clustering and bootstrapping used to capture sampling uncertainty.ResultsCosts were higher in the intervention arm than in the control arm (incremental = £1479) due in part to high cost outliers. There were small QALY gains (incremental = 0.024) in favour of DCM. The base-case ICER (£64,380 per QALY) suggests DCM is not cost-effective versus usual care. With the exception of analyses excluding high cost outliers, which suggested a potential for DCM to be cost-effective, sensitivity analyses corroborated the base-case findings. Bootstrapped estimates suggested DCM had a low probability (< 0.20 where λ = £20,000) of being cost-effective versus control.ConclusionDCM does not appear to be a cost-effective intervention versus usual care in this group and setting. The evaluation highlighted several methodological challenges relating to validity of utility assessments, loss to follow-up and compliance. Further research is needed on handling high-cost individuals and capturing utility in this group. ISRCTN reference 82288852.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the costs and cost effectiveness of phototherapy with ultraviolet B light provided at home compared with outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis.DesignCost utility, cost effectiveness, and cost minimisation analyses performed alongside a pragmatic randomised clinical trial (the PLUTO study) at the end of phototherapy (mean 17.6 weeks) and at one year after the end of phototherapy (mean 68.4 weeks).SettingSecondary care, provided by a dermatologist in the Netherlands.Participants196 adults with psoriasis who were clinically eligible for narrowband (TL-01) ultraviolet B phototherapy were recruited from the dermatology departments of 14 hospitals and were followed until the end of phototherapy. From the end of phototherapy onwards, follow-up was continued for an unselected, consecutive group of 105 patients for one year after end of phototherapy.InterventionsUltraviolet B phototherapy provided at home (intervention) and conventional outpatient ultraviolet B phototherapy (control) in a setting reflecting routine practice in the Netherlands. Both treatments used narrowband ultraviolet B lamps (TL-01).Main outcome measuresTotal costs to society, quality adjusted life years (QALYs) as calculated using utilities measured by the EQ-5D questionnaire, and the number of days with a relevant treatment effect (>/=50% improvement of the baseline self administered psoriasis area and severity index (SAPASI)).ResultsHome phototherapy is at least as effective and safe as outpatient phototherapy, therefore allowing cost minimisation analyses (simply comparing costs). The average total costs by the end of phototherapy were euro800 for home treatment and euro752 for outpatient treatment, showing an incremental cost per patient of euro48 (95% CI euro-77 to euro174). The average total costs by one year after the end of phototherapy were euro1272 and euro1148 respectively (difference euro124, 95% CI euro-155 to euro403). Cost utility analyses revealed that patients experienced equal health benefits-that is, a gain of 0.296 versus 0.291 QALY (home v outpatient) by the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0052, -0.0244 to 0.0348) and 1.153 versus 1.126 QALY by one year after the end of phototherapy (difference 0.0267, -0.024 to 0.078). Incremental costs per QALY gained were euro9276 and euro4646 respectively, both amounts well below the normally accepted standard of euro20 000 per QALY. Cost effectiveness analyses indicated that the mean number of days with a relevant treatment effect was 42.4 versus 55.3 by the end of phototherapy (difference -12.9, -23.4 to -2.4). By one year after the end of phototherapy the number of days with a relevant treatment effect were 216.5 and 210.4 respectively (6.1, -41.1 to 53.2), yielding an incremental cost of euro20 per additional day with a relevant treatment effect.ConclusionsHome ultraviolet B phototherapy for psoriasis is not more expensive than phototherapy in an outpatient setting and proved to be cost effective. As both treatments are at least equally effective and patients express a preference for home treatment, the authors conclude that home phototherapy should be the primary treatment option for patients who are eligible for phototherapy with ultraviolet B light.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN83025173 and Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00150930.

Project description:BackgroundHyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia are common in preterm infants and have been associated with increased risk of mortality and morbidity. Interventions to reduce risk associated with these exposures are particularly challenging due to the infrequent measurement of blood glucose concentrations, with the potential of causing more harm instead of improving outcomes for these infants. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) is widely used in adults and children with diabetes to improve glucose control, but has not been approved for use in neonates. The REACT trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of CGM in preterm infants requiring intensive care.MethodsThis international, open-label, randomised controlled trial was done in 13 neonatal intensive care units in the UK, Spain, and the Netherlands. Infants were included if they were within 24 h of birth, had a birthweight of 1200 g or less, had a gestational age up to 33 weeks plus 6 days, and had parental written informed consent. Infants were randomly assigned (1:1) to real-time CGM or standard care (with masked CGM for comparison) using a central web randomisation system, stratified by recruiting centre and gestational age (<26 or ≥26 weeks). The primary efficacy outcome was the proportion of time sensor glucose concentration was 2·6-10 mmol/L for the first week of life. Safety outcomes related to hypoglycaemia (glucose concentrations <2·6 mmol/L) in the first 7 days of life. All outcomes were assessed on the basis of intention to treat in the full analysis set with available data. The study is registered with the International Standard Randomised Control Trials Registry, ISRCTN12793535.FindingsBetween July 4, 2016, and Jan 27, 2019, 182 infants were enrolled, 180 of whom were randomly assigned (85 to real-time CGM, 95 to standard care). 70 infants in the real-time CGM intervention group and 85 in the standard care group had CGM data and were included in the primary analysis. Compared with infants in the standard care group, infants managed using CGM had more time in the 2·6-10 mmol/L glucose concentration target range (mean proportion of time 84% [SD 22] vs 94% [11]; adjusted mean difference 8·9% [95% CI 3·4-14·4]), equivalent to 13 h (95% CI 5-21). More infants in the standard care group were exposed to at least one episode of sensor glucose concentration of less than 2·6 mmol/L for more than 1 h than those in the intervention group (13 [15%] of 85 vs four [6%] of 70). There were no serious adverse events related to the use of the device or episodes of infection.InterpretationReal-time CGM can reduce exposure to prolonged or severe hyperglycaemia and hypoglycaemia. Further studies using CGM are required to determine optimal glucose targets, strategies to obtain them, and the potential effect on long-term health outcomes.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanisms Evaluation Programme.

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:IntroductionHyperglycaemia is common in the very preterm infant and has been associated with adverse outcomes. Preventing hyperglycaemia without increasing the risk of hypoglycaemia has proved challenging. The development of real-time continuous glucose monitors (CGM) to inform treatment decisions provides an opportunity to reduce this risk. This study aims to assess the feasibility of CGM combined with a specifically designed paper guideline to target glucose control in the preterm infant.Methods and analysesThe Real Time Continuous Glucose Monitoring in Neonatal Intensive Care (REACT) trial is an international multicentre randomised controlled trial. 200 preterm infants ≤1200 g and ≤24 hours of age will be randomly allocated to either real-time CGM or standard care (with blinded CGM data collection). The primary outcome is time in target 2.6-10 mmol/L during the study intervention assessed using CGM. Secondary outcomes include efficacy relating to glucose control, utility including staff acceptability, safety outcomes relating to incidence and prevalence of hypoglycaemia and health economic analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe REACT trial has been approved by the National Health Service Health Research Authority National Research Ethics Service Committee East of England (Cambridge Central); Medical Ethics Review Committee, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands and the Research Ethics Committee, Sant Joan de Déu Research Foundation, Barcelona, Spain. Recruitment began in July 2016 and will continue until mid-2018. The trial has been adopted by the National Institute of Health Research Clinical Research Network portfolio (ID: 18826) and is registered with anInternational Standard Randomised Control Number (ISRCTN registry ID: 12793535). Dissemination plans include presentations at scientific conferences, scientific publications and efforts at stakeholder engagement.Trial registration numberISRCTN12793535; Pre-results.

Project description:BackgroundUrinary incontinence (UI) is prevalent in more than half of residents of nursing and residential care homes and can have a detrimental impact on dignity and quality of life. Care homes predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous tibial nerve stimulation (TTNS) is a non-invasive, safe, low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. We examined the costs and consequences of delivering TTNS to care home residents in comparison to sham (inactive) electrical stimulation.MethodsA cost consequence analysis approach was used to assemble and present the resource use and outcome data for the ELECTRIC trial which randomised 406 residents with UI from 37 care homes in the United Kingdom to receive 12 sessions of 30 min of either TTNS or sham (inactive) TTNS. TTNS was administered by care home staff over 6 weeks. Health state utility was measured using DEMQOL-U and DEMQOL-PROXY-U at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up. Staff completed a resource use questionnaire at baseline, 6 weeks and 18 weeks follow-up, which also assessed use of absorbent pads.ResultsHRQoL did not change significantly in either randomised group. Delivery of TTNS was estimated to cost £81.20 per participant, plus training and support costs of £121.03 per staff member. 85% of participants needed toilet assistance as routine, on average requiring one or two staff members to be involved 4 or 5 times in each 24 h. Daily use of mobility aids and other assistive devices to use the toilet were reported. The value of staff time to assist residents to use the toilet (assuming an average of 5 min per resident per visit) was estimated as £19.17 (SD 13.22) for TTNS and £17.30 (SD 13.33) for sham (per resident in a 24-hour period).ConclusionsUse of TTNS to treat UI in care home residents did not lead to changes in resource use, particularly any reduction in the use of absorbent pads and no cost benefits for TTNS were shown. Managing continence in care homes is labour intensive, requiring both high levels of staff time and use of equipment aids.Trial registrationISRCTN98415244, registered 25/04/2018. NCT03248362 (Clinical trial.gov number), registered 14/08//2017.

Dataset Information

The acceptability and cost of a home-based chlamydia retesting strategy: findings from the REACT randomised controlled trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets