Sara Rodgers

The REFORM study protocol: a cohort randomised controlled trial of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for the prevention of falls in older people.

Introduction Falls and fall-related injuries are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to society. Foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falls; therefore podiatric interventions may play a role in reducing falls. Two Cochrane systematic reviews identified only one study of a podiatry intervention aimed to reduce falls, which was undertaken in Australia. The REFORM trial aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention in reducing falls in people aged 65 years and over in a UK and Irish setting. Methods and analysis This multicentre, cohort randomised controlled trial will recruit 2600 participants from routine podiatry clinics in the UK and Ireland to the REFORM cohort. In order to detect a 10% point reduction in falls from 50% to 40%, with 80% power 890 participants will be randomised to receive routine podiatry care and a falls prevention leaflet or routine podiatry care, a falls prevention leaflet and a multifaceted podiatry intervention. The primary outcome is rate of falls (falls/person/time) over 12 months assessed by patient self-report falls diary. Secondary self-report outcome measures include: the proportion of single and multiple fallers and time to first fall over a 12-month period; Short Falls Efficacy Scale—International; fear of falling in the past 4 weeks; Frenchay Activities Index; fracture rate; Geriatric Depression Scale; EuroQoL-five dimensional scale 3-L; health service utilisation at 6 and 12 months. A qualitative study will examine the acceptability of the package of care to participants and podiatrists. Ethics and dissemination The trial has received a favourable opinion from the East of England—Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee and Galway Research Ethics Committee. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations. Trial registration number Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461assigned 01/07/2011.

Does home oxygen therapy (HOT) in addition to standard care reduce disease severity and improve symptoms in people with chronic heart failure? A randomised trial of home oxygen therapy for patients with chronic heart failure

BACKGROUND Home oxygen therapy (HOT) is commonly used for patients with severe chronic heart failure (CHF) who have intractable breathlessness. There is no trial evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES To detect whether or not there was a quality-of-life benefit from HOT given as long-term oxygen therapy (LTOT) for at least 15 hours per day in the home, including overnight hours, compared with best medical therapy (BMT) in patients with severely symptomatic CHF. DESIGN A pragmatic, two-arm, randomised controlled trial recruiting patients with severe CHF. It included a linked qualitative substudy to assess the views of patients using home oxygen, and a free-standing substudy to assess the haemodynamic effects of acute oxygen administration. SETTING Heart failure outpatient clinics in hospital or the community, in a range of urban and rural settings. PARTICIPANTS Patients had to have heart failure from any aetiology, New York Heart Association (NYHA) class III/IV symptoms, at least moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction, and be receiving maximally tolerated medical management. Patients were excluded if they had had a cardiac resynchronisation therapy device implanted within the past 3 months, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease fulfilling the criteria for LTOT or malignant disease that would impair survival or were using a device or medication that would impede their ability to use LTOT. INTERVENTIONS Patients received BMT and were randomised (unblinded) to open-label LTOT, prescribed for 15 hours per day including overnight hours, or no oxygen therapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary end point was quality of life as measured by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLwHF) questionnaire score at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included assessing the effect of LTOT on patient symptoms and disease severity, and assessing its acceptability to patients and carers. RESULTS Between April 2012 and February 2014, 114 patients were randomised to receive either LTOT or BMT. The mean age was 72.3 years [standard deviation (SD) 11.3 years] and 70% were male. Ischaemic heart disease was the cause of heart failure in 84%; 95% were in NYHA class III; the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27.8%; and the median N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic hormone was 2203 ng/l. The primary analysis used a covariance pattern mixed model which included patients only if they provided data for all baseline covariates adjusted for in the model and outcome data for at least one post-randomisation time point (n = 102: intervention, n = 51; control, n = 51). There was no difference in the MLwHF questionnaire score at 6 months between the two arms [at baseline the mean score was 54.0 (SD 18.4) for LTOT and 54.0 (SD 17.9) for BMT; at 6 months the mean score was 48.1 (SD 18.5) for LTOT and 49.0 (SD 20.2) for BMT; adjusted mean difference -0.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.88 to 6.69; p = 0.98]. At 3 months, the adjusted mean MLwHF questionnaire score was lower in the LTOT group (-5.47, 95% CI -10.54 to -0.41; p = 0.03) and breathlessness scores improved, although the effect did not persist to 6 months. There was no effect of LTOT on any secondary measure. There was a greater number of deaths in the BMT arm (n = 12 vs. n = 6). Adherence was poor, with only 11% of patients reporting using the oxygen as prescribed. CONCLUSIONS Although the study was significantly underpowered, HOT prescribed for 15 hours per day and subsequently used for a mean of 5.4 hours per day has no impact on quality of life as measured by the MLwHF questionnaire score at 6 months. Suggestions for future research include (1) a trial of patients with severe heart failure randomised to have emergency oxygen supply in the house, supplied by cylinders rather than an oxygen concentrator, powered to detect a reduction in admissions to hospital, and (2) a study of bed-bound patients with heart failure who are in the last few weeks of life, powered to detect changes in symptom severity. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN60260702. FUNDING This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 19, No. 75. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Cohort Randomised Controlled Trial of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People (The REFORM Trial)

Background Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. A multifaceted podiatry intervention may reduce the risk of falling. This study evaluated such an intervention. Design Pragmatic cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland. 1010 participants were randomised (493 to the Intervention group and 517 to Usual Care) to either: a podiatry intervention, including foot and ankle exercises, foot orthoses and, if required, new footwear, and a falls prevention leaflet or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet. The primary outcome was the incidence rate of self-reported falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes included: proportion of fallers and those reporting multiple falls, time to first fall, fear of falling, Frenchay Activities Index, Geriatric Depression Scale, foot pain, health related quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Results In the primary analysis were 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) control participants. There was a small, non statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.05, p = 0.16). The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (49.7 vs 54.9%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00, p = 0.05) as was the proportion experiencing two or more falls (27.6% vs 34.6%, adjusted odds ratio 0.69, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.90, p = 0.01). There was an increase (p = 0.02) in foot pain for the intervention group. There were no statistically significant differences in other outcomes. The intervention was more costly but marginally more beneficial in terms of health-related quality of life (mean quality adjusted life year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314) and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at a threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion There was a small reduction in falls. The intervention may be cost-effective. Trial Registration ISRCTN ISRCTN68240461

An optimised patient information sheet did not significantly increase recruitment or retention in a falls prevention study: an embedded randomised recruitment trial

BackgroundRandomised controlled trials are generally regarded as the ‘gold standard’ experimental design to determine the effectiveness of an intervention. Unfortunately, many trials either fail to recruit sufficient numbers of participants, or recruitment takes longer than anticipated. The current embedded trial evaluates the effectiveness of optimised patient information sheets on recruitment of participants in a falls prevention trial.MethodsA three-arm, embedded randomised methodology trial was conducted within the National Institute for Health Research-funded REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) cohort randomised controlled trial. Routine National Health Service podiatry patients over the age of 65 were randomised to receive either the control patient information sheet (PIS) for the host trial or one of two optimised versions, a bespoke user-tested PIS or a template-developed PIS. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients in each group who went on to be randomised to the host trial.ResultsSix thousand and nine hundred patients were randomised 1:1:1 into the embedded trial. A total of 193 (2.8%) went on to be randomised into the main REFORM trial (control n = 62, template-developed n = 68; bespoke user-tested n = 63). Information sheet allocation did not improve recruitment to the trial (odds ratios for the three pairwise comparisons: template vs control 1.10 (95% CI 0.77–1.56, p = 0.60); user-tested vs control 1.01 (95% CI 0.71–1.45, p = 0.94); and user-tested vs template 0.92 (95% CI 0.65–1.31, p = 0.65)).ConclusionsThis embedded methodology trial has demonstrated limited evidence as to the benefit of using optimised information materials on recruitment and retention rates in the REFORM study.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, ISRCTN68240461. Registered on 01 July 2011.

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for falls prevention in older people: a multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial (the REducing Falls with ORthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention trial).

BACKGROUND Falls are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to individuals and society. Evidence suggests that foot problems and inappropriate footwear may increase the risk of falling. Podiatric interventions could help reduce falls; however, there is limited evidence regarding their clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVES To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a multifaceted podiatry intervention for preventing falls in community-dwelling older people at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN A pragmatic, multicentred, cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and qualitative study. SETTING Nine NHS trusts in the UK and one site in Ireland. PARTICIPANTS In total, 1010 participants aged ≥ 65 years were randomised (intervention, n = 493; usual care, n = 517) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their podiatrist and general practitioner. The intervention also consisted of footwear advice, footwear provision if required, foot orthoses and foot- and ankle-strengthening exercises. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the incidence rate of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. The secondary outcomes included the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to first fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS The primary analysis consisted of 484 (98.2%) intervention and 507 (98.1%) usual-care participants. There was a non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group [adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 1.05; p = 0.16]. The proportion of participants experiencing a fall was lower (50% vs. 55%, adjusted odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.00; p = 0.05). No differences were observed in key secondary outcomes. No serious, unexpected and related adverse events were reported. The intervention costs £252.17 more per participant (95% CI -£69.48 to £589.38) than usual care, was marginally more beneficial in terms of HRQoL measured via the EuroQoL-5 Dimensions [mean quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) difference 0.0129, 95% CI -0.0050 to 0.0314 QALYs] and had a 65% probability of being cost-effective at the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence threshold of £30,000 per QALY gained. The intervention was generally acceptable to podiatrists and trial participants. LIMITATIONS Owing to the difficulty in calculating a sample size for a count outcome, the sample size was based on detecting a difference in the proportion of participants experiencing at least one fall, and not the primary outcome. We are therefore unable to confirm if the trial was sufficiently powered for the primary outcome. The findings are not generalisable to patients who are not receiving podiatry care. CONCLUSIONS The intervention was safe and potentially effective. Although the primary outcome measure did not reach significance, a lower fall rate was observed in the intervention group. The reduction in the proportion of older adults who experienced a fall was of borderline statistical significance. The economic evaluation suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective. FUTURE WORK Further research could examine whether or not the intervention could be delivered in group sessions, by physiotherapists, or in high-risk patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN68240461. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 24. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Exploring the outcomes in studies of primary frozen shoulder: is there a need for a core outcome set?

PurposeIn our study we explored the need to define a core outcome set for primary frozen shoulder.MethodsWe investigated the outcomes used by studies included in a systematic review of the management of primary frozen shoulder; surveyed which primary outcome measures health care professionals considered important; and re-examined papers previously obtained for a systematic review of patients’ views of interventions for frozen shoulder to investigate their views on outcomes.ResultsThirty-one studies investigated the outcomes range of movement (28 studies), pain (22), function and disability (22), adverse events (13), quality of life (7) and other outcomes (5). Many different types of pain and ranges of movement were measured. Function and disability was measured using fifteen instruments, the content of which varied considerably. Function and disability, pain and range of movement (132, 108 and 104 respondents, respectively) were most often cited by health care professionals as the primary outcome measure that should be used. Searches identified one paper that included patients’ views. Outcomes of importance to patients were pain at night, general pain, reduced mobility (resulting in modification of activities) and the emotional impact of frozen shoulder.ConclusionsWe identified a diverse range of outcomes that have been used or are considered to be important. The development of a core outcome set would improve the design and reporting of studies and availability of data for evidence synthesis. Methods used to develop a core outcome set should be robust, transparent and reflect the views of all stakeholders.

Cost-Effectiveness of a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention for the Prevention of Falls in Older People: The REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted Podiatry Intervention Trial Findings.

Background: Falls are a major cause of morbidity among older people. Multifaceted interventions may be effective in preventing falls and related fractures. Objective: To evaluate the cost-effectiveness alongside the REducing Falls with Orthoses and a Multifaceted podiatry intervention (REFORM) trial. Methods: REFORM was a pragmatic multicentre cohort randomised controlled trial in England and Ireland; 1,010 participants (> 65 years) were randomised to receive either a podiatry intervention (n = 493), including foot and ankle strengthening exercises, foot orthoses, new footwear if required, and a falls prevention leaflet, or usual podiatry treatment plus a falls prevention leaflet (n = 517). Primary outcome: incidence of falls per participant in the 12 months following randomisation. Secondary outcomes: proportion of fallers and quality of life (EQ-5D-3L) which was converted into quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) for each participant. Differences in mean costs and QALYs at 12 months were used to assess the cost-effectiveness of the intervention relative to usual care. Cost-effectiveness analyses were conducted in accordance with National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence reference case standards, using a regression-based approach with costs expressed in GBP (2015 price). The base case analysis used an intention-to-treat approach on the imputed data set using multiple imputation. Results: There was a small, non-statistically significant reduction in the incidence rate of falls in the intervention group (adjusted incidence rate ratio 0.88, 95% CI 0.73–1.05, p = 0.16). Participants allocated to the intervention group accumulated on average marginally higher QALYs than the usual care participants (mean difference 0.0129, 95% CI –0.0050 to 0.0314). The intervention costs were on average GBP 252 more per participant compared to the usual care participants (95% CI GBP –69 to GBP 589). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios ranged between GBP 19,494 and GBP 20,593 per QALY gained, below the conventional National Health Service cost-effectiveness thresholds of GBP 20,000 to GBP 30,000 per additional QALY. The probability that the podiatry intervention is cost-effective at a threshold of GBP 30,000 per QALY gained was 0.65. The results were robust to sensitivity analyses. Conclusion: The benefits of the intervention justified the moderate cost. The intervention could be a cost-effective option for falls prevention when compared with usual care in the UK.

A nested randomised controlled trial of a newsletter and Post-it® note did not increase postal questionnaire response rates in a falls prevention trial

Background: Attrition (i.e. when participants do not return the questionnaires) is a problem for many randomised controlled trials. The resultant loss of data leads to a reduction in statistical power and can lead to bias. The aim of this study was to assess whether a pre-notification newsletter and/or a handwritten or printed Post-it® note sticker, as a reminder, increased postal questionnaire response rates for participants of randomised controlled trials. Method: This study was a factorial trial embedded within a trial of a falls-prevention intervention among men and women aged ≥65 years under podiatric care. Participants were randomised into one of six groups: newsletter plus handwritten Post-it®; newsletter plus printed Post-it®; newsletter only; handwritten Post-it® only; printed Post-it® only; or no newsletter or Post-it®. The results were combined with those from previous embedded randomised controlled trials in a meta-analysis. Results: The 12-month response rate was 803/826 (97.2%) (newsletter 95.1%, no newsletter 99.3%, printed Post-it® 97.5%, handwritten Post-it® 97.1%, no Post-it® 97.1%). Pre-notification with a newsletter had a detrimental effect on response rates (adjusted odds ratio (OR), 0.14; 95% CI, 0.04 to 0.48; p<0.01) and time to return the questionnaire (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.99; p=0.04). No other statistically significant differences were observed between the intervention groups on response rates, time to response, and the need for a reminder. Conclusions: Post-it® notes have been shown to be ineffective in three embedded trials, whereas the evidence for newsletter reminders is still uncertain.

Can occupational therapist-led home environmental assessment prevent falls in older people? A modified cohort randomised controlled trial protocol.

Introduction Falls and fall-related injuries are a serious cause of morbidity and cost to society. Environmental hazards are implicated as a major contributor to falls among older people. A recent Cochrane review found an environmental assessment, undertaken by an occupational therapist, to be an effective approach to reducing falls. However, none of the trials included a cost-effectiveness evaluation in the UK setting. This protocol describes a large multicentre trial investigating the clinical and cost-effectiveness of environmental assessment and modification within the home with the aim of preventing falls in older people. Methods and analysis A two-arm, modified cohort randomised controlled trial, conducted within England, with 1299 community-dwelling participants aged 65 years and above, who are at an increased risk of falls. Participants will be randomised 2:1 to receive either usual care or home assessment and modification. The primary outcome is rate of falls (falls/person/time) over 12 months assessed by monthly patient self-report falls calendars. Secondary self-reported outcome measures include: the proportion of single and multiple fallers, time to first fall over a 12-month period, quality of life (EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L) and health service utilisation at 4, 8 and 12 months. A nested qualitative study will examine the feasibility of providing the intervention and explore barriers, facilitators, workload implications and readiness to employ these interventions into routine practice. An economic evaluation will assess value for money in terms of cost per fall averted. Ethics and dissemination This study protocol (including the original application and subsequent amendments) received a favourable ethical opinion from National Health Service West of Scotland REC 3. The trial results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and at conference presentations. A summary of the findings will be sent to participants. Trial registration number ISRCTN22202133; Pre-results.

A randomized, embedded trial of pre-notification of trial participation did not increase recruitment rates to a falls prevention trial

OBJECTIVES To design and evaluate the effectiveness of a pre-notification leaflet about research to increase recruitment to a randomized controlled trial (RCT). METHODS A methodological, two-arm, RCT was conducted, embedded within an existing cohort RCT (REFORM). Participants were randomized for the embedded trial, using a 1:2 ratio (intervention : control) before being randomized for REFORM. Controls received a trial recruitment pack. The intervention group received an additional pre-notification leaflet 2-3 weeks before the recruitment pack. Primary and secondary analyses were conducted using relative risk, the Cox proportional hazards model and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS Of the 1436 intervention group participants, 73 (5.1%) were randomized into the REFORM trial compared with 126 (4.4%) of the 2878 control group participants. The associated relative risk (1.16) was not statistically significant [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88-1.56]. Return rate was not significantly increased (relative risk 1.10, 95% CI 0.92-1.28) nor time to return decreased (hazard ratio: 1.11, 95% CI 0.93-1.33). Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios indicated the intervention may be cost-effective if the true estimate of effect was close to the upper bound of the associated 95% CI. CONCLUSION Pre-notification for potential trial participants demonstrated a small difference to randomization (0.7% difference) and return rates (1.1% difference) in favour of the intervention. Results should however be interpreted with caution as CIs for these estimates cross the point of no effect. Nevertheless, this research enhances existing evidence for pre-notification to increase recruitment rates, with further development and assessment of this potentially cost-effective intervention being recommended.