Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

LIFELAX – diet and LIFEstyle versus LAXatives in the management of chronic constipation in older people: randomised controlled trial

By C. Speed, B. Heaven, A. Adamson, J. Bond, S. Corbett, A.A. Lake, C. May, A. Vanoli, P. McMeekin, P. Moynihan, G. Rubin, I.N. Steen and E. McColl


Objectives: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of laxatives versus dietary and lifestyle advice, and standardised versus personalised dietary and lifestyle advice.<br/><br/>Design: A prospective, pragmatic, three-armed cluster randomised trial with an economic evaluation.<br/><br/>Setting: General practices in England and Scotland, UK.<br/><br/>Participants: People aged ? 55 years with chronic constipation, living in private households. Participants were identified as those who had been prescribed laxatives three or more times in the previous 12 months, or with a recorded diagnosis of chronic functional constipation.<br/><br/>Interventions: Prescription of laxatives, with class of laxative and dose at the discretion of the GP and patient (standard care control arm); standardised, non-personalised dietary and lifestyle advice; and, personalised dietary and lifestyle advice, with reinforcement.<br/><br/>Outcome measures: The primary outcome was the constipation-specific Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM)/Patient Assessment of Constipation-Quality of Life (PAC-QOL).<br/><br/>Results: The trial planned to recruit and retain 1425 patients from 57 practices (19 per arm); however, only 154 patients were recruited from 19 practices. Due to these low recruitment rates it was not possible to report the conventional trial findings. Baseline characteristics of the sample from data gathered from both postal self-completion questionnaires and face-to-face interviews suggest that our sample experienced very few symptoms of constipation (PAC-SYM) and that the condition itself did not have a major impact upon their quality of life (PAC-QOL). The low level of symptoms of constipation is most likely explained by 90% of the sample using a laxative in the previous week. Most participants in our sample were satisfied with the performance of their laxatives, and levels of anxiety and depression were low. Their fibre consumption was classified as 'moderate' but their average water consumption fell below the recommended guidelines. Daily diaries, completed each day for a period of 6 months, were analysed primarily in terms of overall response rate and item response rates, and the participants accepted this method of data collection. For the economic evaluation, all of the trial arms experienced a reduction in utility, as measured by EQ-5D. There was no statistical evidence to suggest that either the personalised intervention arm or the standardised intervention arm was associated with significant changes in utility at 3 months compared with the control arm. Data on related health-care costs show a cost saving of £13.34 for those in the personalised arm, compared with the control arm, and a smaller cost saving for the standardised arm. These savings primarily occurred because of reduced hospital costs. There was no significant change measured in utility, so the personalised arm appeared to be the preferred course, producing the greatest cost savings.<br/><br/>Conclusions: Due to the low number of participants in the trial, no firm conclusions could be drawn about the effectiveness of the interventions. However, a number of factors that contributed to the conduct and progress of the trial are highlighted, which may be relevant to others conducting research on a similar topic or population.<br/><br/>Trial registration: ISRCTN73881345.<br/><br/>Funding: This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 14, No. 52. See the HTA programme website for further project information.<br/><br/

Topics: RA, RM
Year: 2010
OAI identifier:
Provided by: e-Prints Soton
Download PDF:
Sorry, we are unable to provide the full text but you may find it at the following location(s):
  • (external link)
  • Suggested articles


    1. (2002). A cure for clinical trials. McKinsey Quarterly
    2. (2003). A qualitative evaluation of implementing a randomised controlled trial in general practice. Fam Pract
    3. (2010). A rational model for assessing and evaluating complex interventions in health care.
    4. (1998). Act. doi
    5. (1999). Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. doi
    6. Behavioural counselling in general practise for the promotion of healthy behaviour among adults at increased risk of coronary heart disease: randomised trial. doi
    7. Bureaucracy of ethics applications. doi
    8. (1992). Clinical trials and physicians as double agents.
    9. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. doi
    10. Counseling to promote a healthy diet in adults. doi
    11. (2002). Counselling to promote a healthy diet. Systematic evidence review no.
    12. Did changes in the NHS guidance and application procedures shorten time taken for research governance approval? NoReN (Northern Primary Care Research Network), Annual Research Presentation Day,
    13. Efficient management of randomised controlled trials: nature or nurture. doi
    14. Ensuring that research governance supports rather than stifles research.
    15. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health.
    16. (1990). Frequency of constipation in major depression: relationship to other clinical variables. Psychosomatics doi
    17. (2002). Health behaviour change. A guide for practitioners. doi
    18. (2005). Health. Research governance framework for health and social care. London: Department of Health; doi
    19. Helping smokers make decisions: enhancement of brief intervention for general medical practice. Patient Educ Couns 1997;31:191–203. doi
    20. (2001). House of Commons Social Security Committee. The Royal Liverpool children’s inquiry report.
    21. (2003). How evidence based are recruitment strategies to randomized controlled trials in primary care? Experience from seven studies. Fam Pract
    22. How to do it: get patients’ consent to enter clinical trials. doi
    23. (1996). Intestinal transit in anxiety and depression. doi
    24. (1997). Making sense of randomization: responses of parents of critically ill babies to random allocation of treatment in a clinical trial. Soc Sci Med doi
    25. Marketing and clinical trials: a case study. doi
    26. (1987). Methods for the economic analysis of health care programmes. doi
    27. (1997). Modeling Valuations for EuroQol Health States. Med Care doi
    28. Overcoming barriers to recruitment in health research. doi
    29. (1995). Patient-centred medicine: transforming the clinical method. Thousand Oaks,
    30. (2006). Patients or research subjects? A qualitative study of participation in a randomised controlled trial of a complex intervention. Patient Educ Couns doi
    31. (2007). Peering through the barriers in GPs’ explanations for declining to participate in research: the role of professional autonomy and the economy of time. Fam Pract doi
    32. (2004). Press. Cambridge dictionaries online. doi
    33. Quality of informed consent: a new measure of understanding among research subjects. doi
    34. (1998). R&D in primary care: an NHS priority.
    35. Random allocation or allocation at random? Patients’ perspective of participation in a randomised controlled trial. doi
    36. (2004). Recruiting patients into a primary care based study of palliative care: why is it so difficult? Palliat Med doi
    37. (2004). Recruitment in primary care research. Primary Care Alliance for Clinical Trials (PACT). Aust Fam Physician
    38. Recruitment to randomised trials: strategies for trial enrollment and participation study. The STEPS study. doi
    39. (2004). Research governance: a barrier to ethical research? doi
    40. (2010). Self-management in ulcerative colitis: a report of a randomised controlled trial with economic evaluation and qualitative assessment.
    41. Site-specific assessments: yet another barrier to research.
    42. Site-specific assessments: yet another barrier to research. Rapid response to: David S Wald, Bureaucracy of Ethics Applications.
    43. (1985). Social organization of medical work. doi
    44. (1990). The EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy doi
    45. The experience of trial participation. doi
    46. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand doi
    47. The requirement for prior consent to participate on survey response rates: a population based survey in Grampian.
    48. (1999). Transition from paediatric to adult care. Bridging the gaps or passing the buck? Arch Dis Child doi
    49. (2006). Volunteer human subjects’ understandings of their participation in a biomedical research experiment. Soc Sci Med doi
    50. (2006). What influences recruitment to randomised controlled trials? A review of trials funded by two UK funding agencies. Trials
    51. When free condoms and spermicide are not enough: barriers and solutions to participant recruitment to community-based trials. Control Clin Trials 2004;25:388–99. doi
    52. (2002). Why don’t they just tell me straight, why allocate it?’ The struggle to make sense of participating in a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med doi

    To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.