Shamaila Anwar

A cluster randomized controlled trial of a structured training programme for caregivers of inpatients after stroke (TRACS)

Rationale The majority of stroke patients are discharged home dependent on informal caregivers, usually family members, to provide assistance with activities of daily living, including bathing, dressing, and toileting. Many caregivers feel unprepared for this role, and this may have a detrimental effect on both the patient and caregiver. Aims To evaluate whether a structured, competency-based training programme for caregivers improves physical and psychological outcomes for patients and their caregivers after disabling stroke, and to determine if such a training programme is cost-effective. Design A cluster randomized controlled trial. The trial aims to recruit 25 patient and caregiver dyads from each of the 36 participating stroke rehabilitation units. Stroke units have been randomized to either the intervention or control group with randomization stratified by geographical region and quality of care. The intervention is the London Stroke Carer Training Course developed and evaluated in a previous single-centre study. The London Stroke Carer Training Course comprises a number of caregiver training sessions and competency assessment delivered while the patient is in the hospital and one follow-up session after discharge. The multidisciplinary teams in the units randomized to the intervention group have been trained to incorporate delivery of the London Stroke Carer Training Course into ward practice, while those randomized to the control group have continued to provide usual care according to national guidelines. Study outcomes The primary outcomes are extended activities of daily living for the patient and caregiver burden measured at six-months after recruitment. Secondary outcomes include mood and cost-effectiveness, with final follow-up at 12 months.

Delivering an Optimised Behavioural Intervention (OBI) to people with low back pain with high psychological risk; results and lessons learnt from a feasibility randomised controlled trial of Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) vs. Physiotherapy

BackgroundLow Back Pain (LBP) remains a common and costly problem. Psychological obstacles to recovery have been identified, but psychological and behavioural interventions have produced only moderate improvements. Reviews of trials have suggested that the interventions lack clear theoretical basis, are often compromised by low dose, lack of fidelity, and delivery by non-experts. In addition, interventions do not directly target known risk mechanisms. We identified a theory driven intervention (Contexual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, CCBT) that directly targets an evidence-based risk mechanism (avoidance and ensured dose and delivery were optimised. This feasibility study was designed to test the credibility and acceptability of optimised CCBT against physiotherapy for avoidant LBP patients, and to test recruitment, delivery of the intervention and response rates prior to moving to a full definitive trial.MethodsA randomised controlled feasibility trial with patients randomised to receive CCBT or physiotherapy. CCBT was delivered by trained supervised psychologists on a one to one basis and comprised up to 8 one-hour sessions. Physiotherapy comprised back to fitness group exercises with at least 60 % of content exercise-based. Patients were eligible to take part if they had back pain for more than 3 months, and scored above a threshold indicating fear avoidance, catastrophic beliefs and distress.Results89 patients were recruited. Uptake rates were above those predicted. Scores for credibility and acceptability of the interventions met the set criteria. Response rates at three and six months fell short of the 75 % target. Problems associated with poor response rates were identified and successfully resolved, rates increased to 77 % at 3 months, and 68 % at 6 months. Independent ratings of treatment sessions indicated that CCBT was delivered to fidelity. Numbers were too small for formal analysis. Although average scores for acceptance were higher in the CCBT group than in the group attending physiotherapy (increase of 7.9 versus 5.1) and change in disability and pain from baseline to 6 months were greater in the CCBT group than in the physiotherapy group, these findings should be interpreted with caution.ConclusionsCCBT is a credible and acceptable intervention for LBP patients who exhibit psychological obstacles to recovery.Trial registrationISRCTN43733490, registered 15/12/2010.

Testing the credibility, feasibility and acceptability of an optimised behavioural intervention (OBI) for avoidant chronic low back pain patients: protocol for a randomised feasibility study

BackgroundChronic back pain continues to be a costly and prevalent condition. The latest NICE guidelines issued in 2009 state that for patients with persistent back pain (of between six weeks and twelve months duration), who are highly distressed and/or disabled and for whom exercise, manual therapy and acupuncture has not been beneficial, the evidence supports a combination of around 100 hours of combined physical and psychological treatment. This is costly, and may prove unacceptable to many patients. A key recommendation of these guidelines was for further randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological treatment and to target treatment to specific sub-groups of patients. Recent trials that have included psychological interventions have shown only moderate improvement at best, and results are not maintained long term. There is therefore a need to test theoretically driven interventions that focus on specific high-risk sub-groups, in which the intervention is delivered at full integrity against a credible control.Methods/designA feasibility study of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial comparing psychologist-delivered Contextual Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CCBT) against Treatment As Usual (TAU) physiotherapy delivered by physiotherapists for the treatment of chronic lower back pain in ‘avoidant’ patients. Ninety-two patients referred for physiotherapy will be recruited and randomised on a 1:1 basis to receive CCBT or TAU. Treatment groups will be balanced by centre and pain interference score. Primary outcomes include assessing the credibility and acceptability of the intervention, and to demonstrate proof of principle through a greater change in pain acceptance in the CCBT arm, measured by the Acceptance and Action –II and the Chronic Pain Acceptance questionnaires. In addition, the feasibility of carrying out a full trial will be explored with reference to recruitment and follow-up rates including the assessment of the burden of outcome measure completion. Secondary patient outcomes include disability, pain, fear of movement, mood, quality of life, and global recovery. Outcomes are measured at three and six months post-randomisation.DiscussionThis paper details the rationale, design, therapist training system and recruitment methods to be used in a feasibility study which will inform the design and efficient implementation of a future definitive RCT.Trial registrationISRCTN43733490

Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial: Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of a System of Longer-Term Stroke Care

Background and Purpose— We developed a new postdischarge system of care comprising a structured assessment covering longer-term problems experienced by patients with stroke and their carers, linked to evidence-based treatment algorithms and reference guides (the longer-term stroke care system of care) to address the poor longer-term recovery experienced by many patients with stroke. Methods— A pragmatic, multicentre, cluster randomized controlled trial of this system of care. Eligible patients referred to community-based Stroke Care Coordinators were randomized to receive the new system of care or usual practice. The primary outcome was improved patient psychological well-being (General Health Questionnaire-12) at 6 months; secondary outcomes included functional outcomes for patients, carer outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Follow-up was through self-completed postal questionnaires at 6 and 12 months. Results— Thirty-two stroke services were randomized (29 participated); 800 patients (399 control; 401 intervention) and 208 carers (100 control; 108 intervention) were recruited. In intention to treat analysis, the adjusted difference in patient General Health Questionnaire-12 mean scores at 6 months was −0.6 points (95% confidence interval, −1.8 to 0.7; P=0.394) indicating no evidence of statistically significant difference between the groups. Costs of Stroke Care Coordinator inputs, total health and social care costs, and quality-adjusted life year gains at 6 months, 12 months, and over the year were similar between the groups. Conclusions— This robust trial demonstrated no benefit in clinical or cost-effectiveness outcomes associated with the new system of care compared with usual Stroke Care Coordinator practice. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.controlled-trials.com. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 67932305.

Protocol of a cluster randomized trial evaluation of a patient and carer-centered system of longer-term stroke care (LoTS care)

Rationale Despite recognition of the importance of the longer-term consequences of stroke, services addressing these needs remain poorly developed. There are persuasive arguments that a community-based orientation to poststroke care, to assess, support, and coordinate relevant services, might be more helpful in minimizing longer-term stroke morbidity. To address this, an evidence-based system of care has been developed that aims to meet the longer-term needs for stroke survivors and their carers living at home in the community. Aims The study aims to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a purposely developed system of care for stroke patients and their carers living in the community. Design This is a cluster randomized, controlled trial. The trial aimed to recruit 800 patients (and their carers, if appropriate) in 32 stroke services across the United Kingdom. The system of care is delivered by health professionals undertaking a community-based liaison or coordinating role for stroke patients (termed ‘stroke care coordinators’). Stroke care coordinators in stroke services randomized to the intervention group were trained to deliver the system of care, while those randomised to the control group continued to deliver current practice. Study outcomes The primary outcome is patient emotional health measured using the General Health Questionnaire 12 at six-months after recruitment. Secondary outcomes include cost-effectiveness, patient functional health and carer emotional health, with final follow-up at 12 months. Current status Thirty-two stroke services were randomized and 800 patients and 208 carers were recruited from 29 services. Follow-up is ongoing, and trial results are expected in early 2013.

Designing and analysing feasibility studies of complex interventions: challenges related to assessing stop/go criteria

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are time-consuming and costly so funders often require evidence of feasibility before they will fund large scale trials1. Feasibility studies can provide invaluable evidence relating to the practicalities of conducting large RCTs and can improve their likelihood of success. However, conducting feasibility studies of complex interventions and deciding whether or not to proceed to a full RCT, is not always straightforward. We will present the challenges encountered during the design and analysis of two feasibility studies: OBI (Optimised Behavioural Intervention for avoidant chronic low back pain patients) and MIDSHIPS (Multicentre Intervention Designed for Self-Harm using Interpersonal Problem Solving) and discuss the steps taken to overcome them. Recruiting and treating participants in a limited number of centres, with few therapists, is a complex challenge for both of these feasibility studies and crucial to determining their success; we will present the lessons learnt from our experience. We will also discuss the impact of missing data on our ability to assess stop/go criteria with respect to proof-of-concept. Estimating follow-up questionnaire response rates is an important objective in both studies, hence we will discuss the methods employed to maximise data collection and present our approach for providing robust estimates of response rates for the phase III trials.