Pragmatic evaluation of a coproduced physical activity referral scheme:a UK quasi-experimental study

Contains fulltext : 226129.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access

Treatment of lower urinary tract symptoms in men in primary care using a conservative intervention: Cluster randomised controlled trial

Objective: To determine whether a standardised and manualised care intervention in men in primary care could achieve superior improvement of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) compared with usual care. Design: Cluster randomised controlled trial. Setting: 30 National Health Service general practice sites in England. Participants: Sites were randomised 1:1 to the intervention and control arms. 1077 men (≥18 years) with bothersome LUTS recruited between June 2018 and August 2019: 524 were assigned to the intervention arm (n=17 sites) and 553 were assigned to the usual care arm (n=13 sites). Intervention: Standardised information booklet developed with patient and expert input, providing guidance on conservative and lifestyle interventions for LUTS in men. After assessment of urinary symptoms (manualised element), general practice nurses and healthcare assistants or research nurses directed participants to relevant sections of the manual and provided contact over 12 weeks to assist with adherence. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was patient reported International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS) measured 12 months after participants had consented to take part in the study. The target reduction of 2.0 points on which the study was powered reflects the minimal clinically important difference where baseline IPSS is <20. Secondary outcomes were patient reported quality of life, urinary symptoms and perception of LUTS, hospital referrals, and adverse events. The primary intention-to-treat analysis included 887 participants (82% of those recruited) and used a mixed effects multilevel linear regression model adjusted for site level variables used in the randomisation and baseline scores. Results: Participants in the intervention arm had a lower mean IPSS at 12 months (adjusted mean difference −1.81 points, 95% confidence interval −2.66 to −0.95) indicating less severe urinary symptoms than those in the usual care arm. LUTS specific quality of life, incontinence, and perception of LUTS also improved more in the intervention arm than usual care arm at 12 months. The proportion of urology referrals (intervention 7.3%, usual care 7.9%) and adverse events (intervention seven events, usual care eight events) were comparable between the arms. Conclusions: A standardised and manualised intervention in primary care showed a sustained reduction in LUTS in men at 12 months. The mean difference of −1.81 points (95% confidence interval −0.95 to −2.66) on the IPSS was less than the predefined target reduction of 2.0 points. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN11669964

Lower urinary tract symptoms in men: The TRIUMPH cluster RCT

Conservative therapies are recommended as initial treatment for male lower urinary tract symptoms. However, there is a lack of evidence on effectiveness and uncertainty regarding approaches to delivery. The objective was to determine whether or not a standardised and manualised care intervention delivered in primary care achieves superior symptomatic outcome for lower urinary tract symptoms to usual care. This was a two-arm cluster randomised controlled trial. The trial was set in 30 NHS general practice sites in England. Participants were adult men (aged ≥ 18 years) with bothersome lower urinary tract symptoms. Sites were randomised 1 : 1 to deliver the TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions trial intervention or usual care to all participants. The TReatIng Urinary symptoms in Men in Primary Health care using non-pharmacological and non-surgical interventions intervention comprised a standardised advice booklet developed for the trial from the British Association of Urological Surgeons' patient information sheets, with patient and expert input. Patients were directed to relevant sections by general practice or research nurses/healthcare assistants following urinary symptom assessment, providing the manualised element. The healthcare professional provided follow-up contacts over 12 weeks to support adherence to the intervention. The primary outcome was the validated patient-reported International Prostate Symptom Score 12 months post consent. Rather than the minimal clinically important difference of 3.0 points for overall International Prostate Symptom Score, the sample size aimed to detect a difference of 2.0 points, owing to the recognised clinical impact of individual symptoms. A total of 1077 men consented to the study: 524 in sites randomised to the intervention arm ( = 17) and 553 in sites randomised to the control arm ( = 13). A difference in mean International Prostate Symptom Score at 12 months was found (adjusted mean difference of -1.81 points, 95% confidence interval -2.66 to -0.95 points), with a lower score in the intervention arm, indicating less severe symptoms. Secondary outcomes of patient-reported urinary symptoms, quality of life specific to lower urinary tract symptoms and perception of lower urinary tract symptoms all showed evidence of a difference between the arms favouring the intervention. No difference was seen between the arms in the proportion of urology referrals or adverse events. In qualitative interviews, participants welcomed the intervention, describing positive effects on their symptoms, as well as on their understanding of conservative care and their attitude towards the experience of lower urinary tract symptoms. The interviews highlighted that structured, in-depth self-management is insufficiently embedded within general practitioner consultations. From an NHS perspective, mean costs and quality-adjusted life-years were similar between trial arms. The intervention arm had slightly lower mean costs (adjusted mean difference of -£29.99, 95% confidence interval -£109.84 to £22.63) than the usual-care arm, and a small gain in quality-adjusted life-years (adjusted mean difference of 0.001, 95% confidence interval -0.011 to 0.014). The intervention showed a small, sustained benefit for men's lower urinary tract symptoms and quality of life across a range of outcome measures in a UK primary care setting. Qualitative data showed that men highly valued the intervention. Intervention costs were marginally lower than usual-care costs. Limitations of the study included that trial participants were unmasked, with limited diversity in ethnicity and deprivation level. Additional research is needed to assess the applicability of the intervention for a more ethnically diverse population.. This trial is registered as ISRCTN11669964. This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme (NIHR award ref: 16/90/03) and is published in full in ; Vol. 28, No. 13. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information

Protocol to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an environmental nutrition and physical activity intervention in nurseries (Nutrition and Physical Activity Self Assessment for Child Care - NAP SACC UK): a multicentre cluster randomised controlled trial

Background: One in seven UK children have obesity when starting school, with higher prevalence associated with deprivation. Most pre-school children do not meet UK recommendations for physical activity and nutrition. Formal childcare settings provide opportunities to deliver interventions to improve nutritional quality and physical activity to the majority of 3–4-year-olds. The nutrition and physical activity self-assessment for childcare (NAP SACC) intervention has demonstrated effectiveness in the USA with high acceptability in the UK. The study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the NAP SACC UK intervention to increase physical activity, reduce sedentary time and improve nutritional intake. Methods: Multi-centre cluster RCT with process and economic evaluation. Participants are children aged 2 years or over, attending UK early years settings (nurseries) for ≥ 12 h/week or ≥ 15 h/week during term time and their parents, and staff at participating nurseries. The 12-month intervention involves nursery managers working with a Partner (public health practitioner) to self-assess policies and practices relating to physical activity and nutrition; nursery staff attending one physical activity and one nutrition training workshop and setting goals to be achieved within 6 months. The Partner provides support and reviews progress. Nursery staff receive a further workshop and new goals are set, with Partner support for a further 6 months. The comparator is usual practice. Up to 56 nurseries will be stratified by area and randomly allocated to intervention or comparator arm with minimisation of differences in level of deprivation. Primary outcomes: accelerometer-assessed mean total activity time on nursery days and average total energy (kcal) intake per eating occasion of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks consumed within nurseries. Secondary outcomes: accelerometer-assessed mean daily minutes of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity and sedentary time per nursery day, total physical activity on nursery days compared to non-nursery days, average serving size of lunch and morning/afternoon snacks in nursery per day, average percentage of core and non-core food in lunch and morning/afternoon snacks, zBMI, proportion of children who are overweight/obese and child quality-of-life. A process evaluation will examine fidelity, acceptability, sustainability and context. An economic evaluation will compare costs and consequences from the perspective of the local government, nursery and parents. Trial registration: ISRCTN33134697, 31/10/2019

Sertraline for anxiety in adults with a diagnosis of autism (STRATA) : study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial

Background: Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) are commonly prescribed to manage anxiety in adults with an autism diagnosis. However, their effectiveness and adverse effect profile in the autistic population are not well known. This trial aims to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the SSRI sertraline in reducing symptoms of anxiety and improving quality of life in adults with a diagnosis of autism compared with placebo and to quantify any adverse effects. Methods: STRATA is a two-parallel group, multi-centre, pragmatic, double-blind, randomised placebo-controlled trial with allocation at the level of the individual. It will be delivered through recruiting sites with autism services in 4 regional centres in the United Kingdom (UK) and 1 in Australia. Adults with an autism diagnosis and a Generalised Anxiety Disorder Assessment (GAD-7) score ≥ 10 at screening will be randomised 1:1 to either 25 mg sertraline or placebo, with subsequent flexible dose titration up to 200 mg. The primary outcome is GAD-7 scores at 16 weeks post-randomisation. Secondary outcomes include adverse effects, proportionate change in GAD-7 scores including 50% reduction, social anxiety, obsessive-compulsive symptoms, panic attacks, repetitive behaviours, meltdowns, depressive symptoms, composite depression and anxiety, functioning and disability and quality of life. Carer burden will be assessed in a linked carer sub-study. Outcome data will be collected using online/paper methods via video call, face-to-face or telephone according to participant preference at 16, 24 and 52 weeks post-randomisation, with brief safety checks and data collection at 1–2, 4, 8, 12 and 36 weeks. An economic evaluation to study the cost-effectiveness of sertraline vs placebo and a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment and informed consent are embedded within the trial. Qualitative interviews at various times during the study will explore experiences of participating and taking the trial medication. Discussion: Results from this study should help autistic adults and their clinicians make evidence-based decisions on the use of sertraline for managing anxiety in this population. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15984604. Registered on 08 February 2021. EudraCT 2019-004312-66. ANZCTR ACTRN12621000801819. Registered on 07 April 2021