Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Kate Homer is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Kate Homer.


The Clinical Journal of Pain | 2012

Effective delivery styles and content for self-management interventions for chronic musculoskeletal pain: a systematic literature review

Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Clare L. Miles; Tamar Pincus; Martin Underwood; Anisur Rahman; Stephanie Jc Taylor

Objectives:The objective of the study was to report the evidence for effectiveness of different self-management course characteristics and components for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods:We searched 9 relevant electronic databases for randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). Two reviewers selected studies against inclusion criteria and assessed their quality. We classified RCTs according to type of course delivery (group, individual, mixed or remote), tutor (healthcare professional, lay or mixed), setting (medical, community or occupational), duration (more or less than 8 weeks), and the number and type of components (psychological, lifestyle, pain education, mind body therapies, and physical activity). We extracted data on pain intensity, physical function, self-efficacy, global health, and depression and compared these outcomes for self-management and usual care or waiting list control. We used random effects standardized mean difference meta-analysis. We looked for patterns of clinically important and statistically significant beneficial effects for courses with different delivery characteristics and the presence or absence of components across outcomes over 3 follow-up intervals. Results:We included 46 RCTs (N=8539). Group-delivered courses that had healthcare professional input showed more beneficial effects. Longer courses did not necessarily give better outcomes. There was mixed evidence of effectiveness for components of courses, but data for courses with a psychological component showed slightly more consistent beneficial effects over each follow-up period. Discussion:Serious consideration should be given to the development of short (<8 weeks) group and healthcare professional-delivered interventions but more research is required to establish the most effective and cost-effective course components.


European Journal of Pain | 2011

Can we identify how programmes aimed at promoting self-management in musculoskeletal pain work and who benefits? A systematic review of sub-group analysis within RCTs

Clare L. Miles; Tamar Pincus; Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Stephen Bremner; Anisur Rahman; Martin Underwood

Background: There are now several systematic reviews of RCTs testing self‐management for those with chronic musculoskeletal pain. Evidence for the effectiveness of self‐management interventions in chronic musculoskeletal pain is equivocal and it is not clear for which sub‐groups of patients SM is optimally effective.


British Journal of Cancer | 2014

Interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer: a systematic review.

Liam Bourke; Kate Homer; M. A. Thaha; Liz Steed; Derek J. Rosario; Karen Robb; John Saxton; Stephanie Jc Taylor

Background:To systematically review the effects of interventions to improve exercise behaviour in sedentary people living with and beyond cancer.Methods:Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an exercise intervention to a usual care comparison in sedentary people with a homogeneous primary cancer diagnosis, over the age of 18 years were eligible. The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials MEDLINE; EMBASE; AMED; CINAHL; PsycINFO; SportDiscus; PEDro from inception to August 2012.Results:Fourteen trials were included in this review, involving a total of 648 participants. Just six trials incorporated prescriptions that would meet current recommendations for aerobic exercise. However, none of the trials included in this review reported intervention adherence of 75% or more for a set prescription that would meet current aerobic exercise guidelines. Despite uncertainty around adherence in many of the included trials, the interventions caused improvements in aerobic exercise tolerance at 8–12 weeks (SMD=0.73, 95% CI=0.51–0.95) in intervention participants compared with controls. At 6 months, aerobic exercise tolerance is also improved (SMD=0.70, 95% CI=0.45–0.94), although four of the five trials had a high risk of bias; hence, caution is warranted in its interpretation.Conclusion:Expecting the majority of sedentary survivors to achieve the current exercise guidelines is likely to be unrealistic. As with all well-designed exercise programmes, prescriptions should be designed around individual capabilities and frequency, duration and intensity or sets, repetitions, intensity of resistance training should be generated on this basis.


BMJ Open | 2013

Fidelity in complex behaviour change interventions: a standardised approach to evaluate intervention integrity

Tom S Mars; David R. Ellard; Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Martin Underwood; Stephanie Jc Taylor

Objectives The aim of this study was to (1) demonstrate the development and testing of tools and procedures designed to monitor and assess the integrity of a complex intervention for chronic pain (COping with persistent Pain, Effectiveness Research into Self-management (COPERS) course); and (2) make recommendations based on our experiences. Design Fidelity assessment of a two-arm randomised controlled trial intervention, assessing the adherence and competence of the facilitators delivering the intervention. Setting The intervention was delivered in the community in two centres in the UK: one inner city and one a mix of rural and urban locations. Participants 403 people with chronic musculoskeletal pain were enrolled in the intervention arm and 300 attended the self-management course. Thirty lay and healthcare professionals were trained and 24 delivered the courses (2 per course). We ran 31 courses for up to 16 people per course and all were audio recorded. Interventions The course was run over three and a half days; facilitators delivered a semistructured manualised course. Outcomes We designed three measures to evaluate fidelity assessing adherence to the manual, competence and overall impression. Results We evaluated a random sample of four components from each course (n=122). The evaluation forms were reliable and had good face validity. There were high levels of adherence in the delivery: overall adherence was two (maximum 2, IQR 1.67–2.00), facilitator competence exhibited more variability, and overall competence was 1.5 (maximum 2, IQR 1.25–2.00). Overall impression was three (maximum 4, IQR 2.00–3.00). Conclusions Monitoring and assessing adherence and competence at the point of intervention delivery can be realised most efficiently by embedding the principles of fidelity measurement within the design stage of complex interventions and the training and assessment of those delivering the intervention. More work is necessary to ensure that more robust systems of fidelity evaluation accompany the growth of complex interventions. Trial Registration ISRCTN No ISRCTN24426731.


BMJ Open | 2013

Evidence for non-communicable diseases: analysis of Cochrane reviews and randomised trials by World Bank classification

Carl Heneghan; Claire Blacklock; Rafael Perera; R Davis; Amitava Banerjee; Peter Gill; Su May Liew; L Chamas; J Hernandez; Kamal R Mahtani; Gail Hayward; Sian Harrison; Daniel Lasserson; Sharon Mickan; C Sellers; Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Liz Steed; J Ross; N Denny; Clare Goyder; Matthew Thompson; Alison Ward

Introduction Prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) is increasing globally, with the greatest projected increases in low-income and middle-income countries. We sought to quantify the proportion of Cochrane evidence relating to NCDs derived from such countries. Methods We searched the Cochrane database of systematic reviews for reviews relating to NCDs highlighted in the WHO NCD action plan (cardiovascular, cancers, diabetes and chronic respiratory diseases). We excluded reviews at the protocol stage and those that were repeated or had been withdrawn. For each review, two independent researchers extracted data relating to the country of the corresponding author and the number of trials and participants from countries, using the World Bank classification of gross national income per capita. Results 797 reviews were analysed, with a reported total number of 12 340 trials and 10 937 306 participants. Of the corresponding authors 90% were from high-income countries (41% from the UK). Of the 746 reviews in which at least one trial had met the inclusion criteria, only 55% provided a summary of the country of included trials. Analysis of the 633 reviews in which country of trials could be established revealed that almost 90% of trials and over 80% of participants were from high-income countries. 438 (5%) trials including 1 145 013 (11.7%) participants were undertaken in low-middle income countries. We found that only 13 (0.15%) trials with 982 (0.01%) participants were undertaken in low-income countries. Other than the five Cochrane NCD corresponding authors from South Africa, only one other corresponding author was from Africa (Gambia). Discussion The overwhelming body of evidence for NCDs pertains to high-income countries, with only a small number of review authors based in low-income settings. As a consequence, there is an urgent need for research infrastructure and funding for the undertaking of high-quality trials in this area.


BMJ Open | 2013

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a novel, group self-management course for adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain: study protocol for a multicentre, randomised controlled trial (COPERS)

Dawn Carnes; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Kate Homer; Sandra Eldridge; Stephen Bremner; Tamar Pincus; Anisur Rahman; Martin Underwood

Introduction Chronic musculoskeletal pain is a common condition that often responds poorly to treatment. Self-management courses have been advocated as a non-drug pain management technique, although evidence for their effectiveness is equivocal. We designed and piloted a self-management course based on evidence for effectiveness for specific course components and characteristics. Methods/analysis COPERS (coping with persistent pain, effectiveness research into self-management) is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial testing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an intensive, group, cognitive behavioural-based, theoretically informed and manualised self-management course for chronic pain patients against a control of best usual care: a pain education booklet and a relaxation CD. The course lasts for 15 h, spread over 3 days, with a –2 h follow-up session 2 weeks later. We aim to recruit 685 participants with chronic musculoskeletal pain from primary, intermediate and secondary care services in two UK regions. The study is powered to show a standardised mean difference of 0.3 in the primary outcome, pain-related disability. Secondary outcomes include generic health-related quality of life, healthcare utilisation, pain self-efficacy, coping, depression, anxiety and social engagement. Outcomes are measured at 6 and 12 months postrandomisation. Pain self-efficacy is measured at 3 months to assess whether change mediates clinical effect. Ethics/dissemination Ethics approval was given by Cambridgeshire Ethics 11/EE/046. This trial will provide robust data on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an evidence-based, group self-management programme for chronic musculoskeletal pain. The published outcomes will help to inform future policy and practice around such self-management courses, both nationally and internationally. Trial registration ISRCTN24426731.


PLOS Medicine | 2016

Novel three-day, community-based, nonpharmacological group intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain (COPERS): a randomised clinical trial

Stephanie Jc Taylor; Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Brennan C Kahan; Natalia Hounsome; Sandra Eldridge; Anne Spencer; Tamar Pincus; Anisur Rahman; Martin Underwood

Background Chronic musculoskeletal pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide. The effectiveness of pharmacological treatments for chronic pain is often limited, and there is growing concern about the adverse effects of these treatments, including opioid dependence. Nonpharmacological approaches to chronic pain may be an attractive alternative or adjunctive treatment. We describe the effectiveness of a novel, theoretically based group pain management support intervention for chronic musculoskeletal pain. Methods and Findings We conducted a multi-centre, pragmatic, randomised, controlled effectiveness and cost-effectiveness (cost–utility) trial across 27 general practices and community musculoskeletal services in the UK. We recruited 703 adults with musculoskeletal pain of at least 3 mo duration between August 1, 2011, and July 31, 2012, and randomised participants 1.33:1 to intervention (403) or control (300). Intervention participants were offered a participative group intervention (COPERS) delivered over three alternate days with a follow-up session at 2 wk. The intervention introduced cognitive behavioural approaches and was designed to promote self-efficacy to manage chronic pain. Controls received usual care and a relaxation CD. The primary outcome was pain-related disability at 12 mo (Chronic Pain Grade [CPG] disability subscale); secondary outcomes included the CPG disability subscale at 6 mo and the following measured at 6 and 12 mo: anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [HADS]), pain acceptance (Chronic Pain Acceptance Questionnaire), social integration (Health Education Impact Questionnaire social integration and support subscale), pain-related self-efficacy (Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire), pain intensity (CPG pain intensity subscale), the census global health question (2011 census for England and Wales), health utility (EQ-5D-3L), and health care resource use. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle, accounted for clustering by course in the intervention arm, and used multiple imputation for missing or incomplete primary outcome data. The mean age of participants was 59.9 y, with 81% white, 67% female, 23% employed, 85% with pain for at least 3 y, and 23% on strong opioids. Symptoms of depression and anxiety were common (baseline mean HADS scores 7.4 [standard deviation 4.1] and 9.2 [4.6], respectively). Overall, 282 (70%) intervention participants met the predefined intervention adherence criterion. Primary outcome data were obtained from 88% of participants. There was no significant difference between groups in pain-related disability at 6 or 12 mo (12 mo: difference −1.0, intervention versus control, 95% CI −4.9 to 3.0), pain intensity, or the census global health question. Anxiety, depression, pain-related self-efficacy, pain acceptance, and social integration were better in the intervention group at 6 mo; at 12 mo, these differences remained statistically significant only for depression (−0.7, 95% CI −1.2 to −0.2) and social integration (0.8, 95% CI 0.4 to 1.2). Intervention participants received more analgesics than the controls across the 12 mo. The total cost of the course per person was £145 (US


npj Primary Care Respiratory Medicine | 2016

Asthma prescribing, ethnicity and risk of hospital admission: an analysis of 35,864 linked primary and secondary care records in East London

Sally Hull; Shauna McKibben; Kate Homer; Stephanie Jc Taylor; Katy Pike; Chris Griffiths

214). The cost–utility analysis showed there to be a small benefit in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) (0.0325, 95% CI −0.0074 to 0.0724), and on the cost side the intervention was a little more expensive than usual care (i.e., £188 [US


BMJ Open | 2013

Pain management for chronic musculoskeletal conditions: the development of an evidence-based and theory-informed pain self-management course.

Dawn Carnes; Kate Homer; Martin Underwood; Tamar Pincus; Anisur Rahman; Stephanie Jc Taylor

277], 95% CI −£125 [−US


British Journal of General Practice | 2015

Statin prescribing for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional, observational study

Kate Homer; Kambiz Boomla; Sally Hull; Isabel Dostal; Rohini Mathur; John Robson

184] to £501 [US

Collaboration


Dive into the Kate Homer's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Stephanie Jc Taylor

Queen Mary University of London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Anisur Rahman

University College London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Natalia Hounsome

Queen Mary University of London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Brennan C Kahan

Queen Mary University of London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Chris Griffiths

Queen Mary University of London

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jens Foell

Queen Mary University of London

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge