722 resultados para Randomised trial
Resumo:
Objective. Despite widespread adoption of home care services, few randomised trials have compared health outcomes in the hospital and at home. We report a prospective, randomised trial of home versus hospital therapy in adults receiving intravenous (IV) antibiotics. Our objective was to show that home care is a feasible alternative to hospitalisation over a broad range of infections, without compromise to quality of life (QOL) or clinical outcomes. Methods. Consenting adults requiring IV antibiotics were randomised to complete therapy at home or in hospital. Short Form 36 and Perceived Health Competence Scale (PHCS) were used for assessment of QOL. Statistical analysis used unpaired t-tests, Mann-Whitney tests and ANOVA. Results. One hundred and twenty-nine admissions were referred. Recruitment was hampered by patient preference for one therapy over another. 82 (62%) were included and randomised: 44 to home, 38 to hospital; the two groups had comparable characteristics. There were no differences in improvements in QOL and PHCS scores between the two groups after treatment. Treatment duration was median 11.5 days (range 3 - 57) and 11 days (range 4 - 126) for home and hospital groups, respectively. Home therapy costs, approximately, half that of hospital therapy. Time to readmission was longer after hospital therapy. Conclusion. Out study showed that home IV therapy is welt tolerated, is less costly, is not associated with any major disadvantage to QOL or clinical outcomes compared to hospital therapy, and is an appropriate treatment option for selected patients. (C) 2003 The British Infection Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
A randomised controlled trial was conducted to determine if physicians' advice to promote physical activity to patients was more effective if the advice was tailored to the management of hypertension, compared with more general health promotion advice. Participants included inactive 40- to 70-year-old patients visiting the physicians' during study recruitment period. Physicians provided verbal physical activity advice and written materials, both tailored to either general health promotion messages or specifically as a means for treating or managing hypertension. Seventy-five physicians and 98% (767/780) of screened eligible patients participated in the study. Differences between intervention and control groups self-reported physical activity were assessed over 6 months. Follow-up response rates were 92 and 84% at the 2- and 6-month assessments. There were no consistent, significant differences between groups at the 2- or 6-month assessments. Thus, neither intervention strategy resulted in significant changes in patients self-reported physical activity, regardless of the whether the advice was tailored to hypertension management or general health promotion advice. (c) 2004 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.
Resumo:
Background: Fetal pulse oximetry (FPO) may improve the assessment of the fetal well-being in labour. Reports of health-care provider's evaluations of new technology are important in the overall evaluation of that technology. Aims: To determine doctors' and midwives' perceptions of their experience placing FPO sensors. Methods: We surveyed clinicians (midwives and doctors) following placement of a FPO sensor during the FOREMOST trial (multicentre randomised trial of fetal pulse oximetry). Clinicians rated ease of sensor placement (poor, fair, good and excellent). Potential influences on ease of sensor placement (staff category, prior experience in Birth Suite, prior experience in placing sensors, epidural analgesia, cervical dilatation and fetal station) were examined by ordinal regression. Results: There were 281 surveys returned for the 294 sensor placement attempts (response rate 96%). Sensors were placed by midwives (29%), research midwives (48%), registrars (22%) and obstetricians (1%). The majority of clinicians had 1 or more years' Birth Suite experience, had placed six or more sensors previously, and rated ease of sensor placement as good. Advancing fetal station (P < 0.001) and the presence of epidural analgesia prior to sensor placement (P = 0.029) predicted improved ease of sensor placement. Having a clinician placing a sensor for the first time predicted a lower rating for ease of sensor placement (P = 0.001), compared to having placed one or more sensors previously. Conclusions: Clinicians with varying levels of Birth Suite experience successfully placed fetal oxygen saturation sensors, with the majority rating ease of sensor placement as good.
Resumo:
Background Chaperonin 10 (heat shock protein 10, XToll(TM)) has anti-inflammatory properties related to the inhibition of Toll-like receptor signalling pathways. Our aim was to establish whether chaperonin 10 is safe and effective in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. Methods in this randomised, double-blind, multicentre study, 23 patients with moderate to severe active rheumatoid arthritis receiving disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs were randomly allocated to three treatment groups receiving intravenous chaperonin 10 twice weekly for 12 weeks at doses of 5 mg (n=8), 7.5 mg (8), or 10 mg (7). The primary outcomes were change in disease activity score (DAS28) and improvement of core disease measures (American College of Rheumatology response score) from baseline to week 12. All analyses were done by intention to treat. This study is registered with the Australian Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRNO12606000041550. Findings Primary endpoint measures improved from day 14 in all groups and continued to improve to day 84. By end of study, a 20% improvement of core disease measures was seen in six (86%, 95% Cl 43-100), a 50% improvement in four (57%, 14-86), and a 70% improvement in two (29%, 0-57) patients given the highest dose of chaperonin 10. Clinical remission (as defined by a DAS28
Resumo:
Background: Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation (AF), most commonly with warfarin, requires maintenance of a narrow therapeutic target (INR 2.0 to 3.0) and is often poorly controlled in practice. Poor patient-understanding surrounding AF and its’ treatment may contribute to patient’s willingness to adhere to recommendations. Method: A theory-driven intervention, developed using patient interviews and focus groups, consisting of a one-off group session (1-6 patients) utilising an ‘expert-patient’ focussed DVD, educational booklet, self-monitoring diary and worksheet, was compared in a randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN93952605) against usual care, with patient postal follow-ups at 1, 2, 6, and 12-months. Ninety-seven warfarin-naïve AF patients were randomised to intervention (n=46, mean age (SD) 72.0 (8.2), 67.4% men), or usual care (n=51, mean age (SD) 73.7 (8.1), 62.7% men), stratified by age, sex, and recruitment centre. Primary endpoint was time within therapeutic range (TTR); secondary endpoints included knowledge, quality of life, anxiety/depression, beliefs about medication, and illness perceptions. Main findings: Intervention patients had significantly higher TTR than usual care at 6-months (76.2% vs. 71.3%; p=0.035); at 12-months these differences were not significant (76.0% vs. 70.0%; p=0.44). Knowledge increased significantly across time (F (3, 47) = 6.4; p<0.01), but there were no differences between groups (F (1, 47) = 3.3; p = 0.07). At 6-months, knowledge scores predicted TTR (r=0.245; p=0.04). Patients’ scores on subscales representing their perception of the general harm and overuse of medication, as well as the perceived necessity of their AF specific medications predicted TTR at 6- and 12-months. Conclusions: A theory-driven educational intervention significantly improves TTR in AF patients initiating warfarin during the first 6-months. Adverse clinical outcomes may potentially be reduced by improving patients’ understanding of the necessity of warfarin and reducing their perception of treatment harm. Improving education provision for AF patients is essential to ensure efficacious and safe treatment.
Resumo:
Objective: Heavy menstrual bleeding (menorrhagia) is a common problem, yet evidence is limited to inform therapeutic decisions.We compared the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine system(LNG-IUS) to usual medical treatment in a pragmatic randomised trial in primary care. Methods: We randomly assigned 571 women consulting their primary care providers with menorrhagia to LNG-IUS or to usual medical treatment as clinically appropriate (tranexamic acid, mefenamic acid, combined estrogen/progestogen or progestogen only). The primary outcome was a patient-reported measure ofimpact of menorrhagia, the validated Menorrhagia Multi-Attribute Scale (MMAS), assessed over 2 years. Secondary measures included generic quality of life (SF-36), sexual activity and surgical intervention.Results MMAS scores improved from baseline in both the LNG-IUS and usual medical treatment groups by 6 months (mean increases 32.7 points versus 21.4 points, respectively; P < 0.001for both) and were maintained over 2 years, but improvements were significantly greater with LNG-IUS (mean between-group difference 13.4 points, 95%CI, 9.9–16.9; P < 0.001).All domains of MMAS (practical difficulties, social life, family life,work/daily routine, psychological well being and physical health)improved significantly more with LNG-IUS, as were seven of the eight domains of SF-36. More women were still using LNG-IUSthan usual medical treatment at 2 years (64% versus 38%,P < 0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in surgical intervention rates or sexual activity scores. There were no serious adverse events in either group.Conclusions Among women presenting to primary care providers with menorrhagia, LNG-IUS was more effective than usual medical treatment at reducing the impact of this problem on their quality of life. In practice therefore, conventional treatments, such as tranexamic and mefenamic acid, remain helpful choices in women for whom LNG-IUS is considered unsuitable, or due to individual preference. For other women, LNG-IUS can be confidently recommended as an effective initial medical therapy for menorrhagia. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programme (project number 02/06/02)
Resumo:
We are grateful for the co-operation and assistance that we received from NHS staff in the co-ordinating centres and clinical sites. We thank the women who participated in TOMBOLA. The TOMBOLA trial was supported by the Medical Research Council (G9700808) and the NHS in England and Scotland. The TOMBOLA Group comprises the following: Grant-holders: University of Aberdeen and NHS Grampian, Aberdeen, Scotland: Maggie Cruickshank, Graeme Murray, David Parkin, Louise Smart, Eric Walker, Norman Waugh (Principal Investigator 2004–2008) University of Nottingham and Nottingham NHS, Nottingham, England: Mark Avis, Claire Chilvers, Katherine Fielding, Rob Hammond, David Jenkins, Jane Johnson, Keith Neal, Ian Russell, Rashmi Seth, Dave Whynes University of Dundee and NHS Tayside, Dundee, Tayside: Ian Duncan, Alistair Robertson (deceased) University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada: Julian Little (Principal Investigator 1999–2004) National Cancer Registry, Cork, Ireland: Linda Sharp Bangor University, Bangor, Wales: Ian Russell University of Hull, Hull, England: Leslie G Walker Staff in clinical sites and co-ordinating centres Grampian Breda Anthony, Sarah Bell, Adrienne Bowie, Katrina Brown (deceased), Joe Brown, Kheng Chew, Claire Cochran, Seonaidh Cotton, Jeannie Dean, Kate Dunn, Jane Edwards, David Evans, Julie Fenty, Al Finlayson, Marie Gallagher, Nicola Gray, Maureen Heddle, Alison Innes, Debbie Jobson, Mandy Keillor, Jayne MacGregor, Sheona Mackenzie, Amanda Mackie, Gladys McPherson, Ike Okorocha, Morag Reilly, Joan Rodgers, Alison Thornton, Rachel Yeats Tayside Lindyanne Alexander, Lindsey Buchanan, Susan Henderson, Tine Iterbeke, Susanneke Lucas, Gillian Manderson, Sheila Nicol, Gael Reid, Carol Robinson, Trish Sandilands Nottingham Marg Adrian, Ahmed Al-Sahab, Elaine Bentley, Hazel Brook, Claire Bushby, Rita Cannon, Brenda Cooper, Ruth Dowell, Mark Dunderdale, Dr Gabrawi, Li Guo, Lisa Heideman, Steve Jones, Salli Lawson, Zoë Philips, Christopher Platt, Shakuntala Prabhakaran, John Rippin, Rose Thompson, Elizabeth Williams, Claire Woolley Statistical analysis Seonaidh Cotton, Kirsten Harrild, John Norrie, Linda Sharp External Trial Steering Committee Nicholas Day (chair, 1999–2004), Theresa Marteau (chair 2004-), Mahesh Parmar, Julietta Patnick and Ciaran Woodman.
Resumo:
This project was funded by the NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Resumo:
Background
The OPTI-SCRIPT cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) found that a three-phase multifaceted intervention including academic detailing with a pharmacist, GP-led medicines reviews, supported by web-based pharmaceutical treatment algorithms, and tailored patient information leaflets, was effective in reducing potentially inappropriate prescribing (PIP) in Irish primary care. We report a process evaluation exploring the implementation of the intervention, the experiences of those participating in the study and lessons for future implementation.
Methods
The OPTI-SCRIPT trial included 21 GP practices and 196 patients. The process evaluation used mixed methods. Quantitative data were collected from all GP practices and semi-structured interviews were conducted with GPs from intervention and control groups, and a purposive sample of patients from the intervention group. All interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic analysis.
Results
Despite receiving a standardised academic detailing session, intervention delivery varied among GP practices. Just over 70 % of practices completed medicines review as recommended with the patient present. Only single-handed practices conducted reviews without patients present, highlighting the influence of practice characteristics and resources on variation. Medications were more likely to be completely stopped or switched to another more appropriate medication when reviews were conducted with patients present. The patient information leaflets were not used by any of the intervention practices. Both GP (32 %) and patient (40 %) recruitment rates were modest. For those who did participate, overall, the experience was positively viewed, with GPs and patients referring to the value of medication reviews to improve prescribing and reduce unnecessary medications. Lack of time in busy GP practices and remuneration were identified as organisational barriers to future implementation.
Conclusions
The OPTI-SCRIPT intervention was positively viewed by both GPs and patients, both of whom valued the study’s objectives. Patient information leaflets were not a successful component of the intervention. Academic detailing and medication reviews are important components in changing PIP, and having patients present during the review process seems to be a more effective approach for decreasing PIP.
Resumo:
Background Individual placement and support (IPS) is effective in helping patients return to work but is poorly implemented because of clinical ambivalence and fears of relapse. Aims To assess whether a motivational intervention (motivational interviewing) directed at clinical staff to address ambivalence about employment improved patients’ occupational outcomes. Method Two of four early intervention teams that already provided IPS were randomised to receive motivational interviewing training for clinicians, focused on attitudinal barriers to employment. The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register (ISRCTN71943786). Results Of 300 eligible participants, 159 consented to the research. Occupational outcomes were obtained for 134 patients (85%) at 12-month follow-up. More patients in the intervention teams than in the IPS-only teams achieved employment by 12 months (29/68 v. 12/66). A random effects logistic regression accounting for clustering by care coordinator, and adjusted for participants’ gender, ethnicity, educational and employment history and clinical status scores, confirmed superiority of the intervention (odds ratio = 4.3, 95% CI 1.5-16.6). Conclusions Employment outcomes were enhanced by addressing clinicians’ ambivalence about their patients returning to work.
Resumo:
Objective: Real-time functional magnetic resonance imaging (rt-fMRI) neurofeedback (NF) uses feedback of the patient’s own brain activity to self-regulate brain networks which in turn could lead to a change in behaviour and clinical symptoms. The objective was to determine the effect of neurofeedback and motor training and motor training (MOT) alone on motor and non-motor functions in Parkinson’s disease (PD) in a 10-week small Phase I randomised controlled trial. Methods: 30 patients with PD (Hoehn & Yahr I-III) and no significant comorbidity took part in the trial with random allocation to two groups. Group 1 (NF: 15 patients) received rt-fMRI-NF with motor training. Group 2 (MOT: 15 patients) received motor training alone. The primary outcome measure was the Movement Disorder Society – Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale-Motor scale (MDS-UPDRS-MS), administered pre- and post-intervention ‘off-medication’. The secondary outcome measures were the ‘on-medication’ MDS-UPDRS, the Parkinson’s disease Questionnaire-39, and quantitative motor assessments after 4 and 10 weeks. Results: Patients in the NF group were able to upregulate activity in the supplementary motor area by using motor imagery. They improved by an average of 4.5 points on the MDS-UPDRS-MS in the ‘off-medication’ state (95% confidence interval: -2.5 to -6.6), whereas the MOT group improved only by 1.9 points (95% confidence interval +3.2 to -6.8). However, the improvement did not differ significantly between the groups. No adverse events were reported in either group. Interpretation: This Phase I study suggests that NF combined with motor training is safe and improves motor symptoms immediately after treatment, but larger trials are needed to explore its superiority over active control conditions. Clinical Trial website : Unique Identifier: NCT01867827 URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01867827?term=NCT01867827&rank=1