Patients' experience of and participation in a stroke self-management programme, My Life After Stroke (MLAS): a multimethod study.

OBJECTIVE: A self-management programme, My Life After Stroke (MLAS), was developed to support stroke survivors. This evaluation reports patients' experience. DESIGN: Multimethod, involving interviews and questionnaires. SETTING: 23 general practices in the intervention arm of a cluster randomised controlled trial in East of England and East Midlands, UK. PARTICIPANTS: People on the stroke registers of participating general practices were invited to attend an MLAS programme. INTERVENTIONS: MLAS comprises one-to-one and group-based sessions to promote independence, confidence and hope. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was uptake of the programme. Participants who declined MLAS were sent a questionnaire to ascertain why. Attendees of four programmes completed evaluation forms. Attendees and non-attendees of MLAS were interviewed. Ad-hoc email conversations with the lead author were reviewed. Thematic analysis was used for qualitative data. RESULTS: 141/420 (34%) participants (mean age 71) attended an MLAS programme and 103 (73%) completed 1. 64/228 (28%) participants who declined MLAS gave reasons as: good recovery, ongoing health issues, logistical issues and inappropriate. Nearly all attendees who completed questionnaires felt that process criteria such as talking about their stroke and outcomes such as developing a strong understanding of stroke had been achieved. CONCLUSIONS: MLAS was a positive experience for participants but many stroke survivors did not feel it was appropriate for them. Participation in self-management programmes after stroke might be improved by offering them sooner after the stroke and providing a range of delivery options beyond group-based, face-to-face learning. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03353519, NIH.

Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) trial: protocol of a randomised controlled trial to evaluate a novel model of care for stroke survivors living in the community.

INTRODUCTION: Survival after stroke is improving, leading to increased demand on primary care and community services to meet the long-term care needs of people living with stroke. No formal primary care-based holistic model of care with clinical trial evidence exists to support stroke survivors living in the community, and stroke survivors report that many of their needs are not being met. We have developed a multifactorial primary care model to address these longer term needs. We aim to evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of this new model of primary care for stroke survivors compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Improving Primary Care After Stroke (IPCAS) is a two-arm cluster-randomised controlled trial with general practice as the unit of randomisation. People on the stroke registers of general practices will be invited to participate. One arm will receive the IPCAS model of care including a structured review using a checklist; a self-management programme; enhanced communication pathways between primary care and specialist services; and direct point of contact for patients. The other arm will receive usual care. We aim to recruit 920 people with stroke registered with 46 general practices. The primary endpoint is two subscales (emotion and handicap) of the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS) as coprimary outcomes at 12 months (adjusted for baseline). Secondary outcomes include: SIS Short Form, EuroQol EQ-5D-5L, ICEpop CAPability measure for Adults, Southampton Stroke Self-management Questionnaire, Health Literacy Questionnaire and medication use. Cost-effectiveness of the new model will be determined in a within-trial economic evaluation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Favourable ethical opinion was gained from Yorkshire and the Humber-Bradford Leeds NHS Research Ethics Committee. Approval to start was given by the Health Research Authority prior to recruitment of participants at any NHS site. Data will be presented at national and international conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals. Patient and public involvement helped develop the dissemination plan. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03353519.

Impact of socioeconomic deprivation on screening for cardiovascular disease risk in a primary prevention population: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: Investigate the association between socioeconomic deprivation and completeness of cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk factor recording in primary care, uptake of screening in people with incomplete risk factor recording and with actual CVD risk within the screened subgroup. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Nine UK general practices. PARTICIPANTS: 7987 people aged 50-74 years with no CVD diagnosis. METHODS: CVD risk was estimated using the Framingham equation from data extracted from primary care electronic health records. Where there was insufficient information to calculate risk, patients were invited to attend a screening assessment. ANALYSIS: Proportion of patients for whom clinical data were sufficiently complete to enable CVD risk to be calculated; proportion of patients invited to screening who attended; proportion of patients who attended screening whose 10-year risk of a cardiovascular event was high (>20%). For each outcome, a set of logistic regression models were run. Crude and adjusted ORs were estimated for person-level deprivation, age, gender and smoking status. We included practice-level deprivation as a continuous variable and practice as a random effect to account for clustering. RESULTS: People who had lower Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) scores (less deprived) had significantly worse routine CVD risk factor recording (adjusted OR 0.97 (0.95 to 1.00) per IMD decile; p=0.042). Screening attendance was poorer in those with more deprivation (adjusted OR 0.89 (0.86 to 0.91) per IMD decile; p<0.001). Among those who attended screening, the most deprived were more likely to have CVD risk >20% (OR 1.09 (1.03 to 1.15) per IMD decile; p=0.004). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that those who had the most to gain from screening were least likely to attend, potentially exacerbating existing health inequalities. Future research should focus on tailoring the delivery of CVD screening to ensure engagement of socioeconomically deprived groups.

Implementing stratified primary care management for low back pain: cost-utility analysis alongside a prospective, population-based, sequential comparison study.

STUDY DESIGN: Within-study cost-utility analysis. OBJECTIVE: To explore the cost-utility of implementing stratified care for low back pain (LBP) in general practice, compared with usual care, within risk-defined patient subgroups (that is, patients at low, medium, and high risk of persistent disabling pain). SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Individual-level data collected alongside a prospective, sequential comparison of separate patient cohorts with 6-month follow-up. METHODS: Adopting a cost-utility framework, the base case analysis estimated the incremental LBP-related health care cost per additional quality-adjusted life year (QALY) by risk subgroup. QALYs were constructed from responses to the 3-level EQ-5D, a preference-based health-related quality of life instrument. Uncertainty was explored with cost-utility planes and acceptability curves. Sensitivity analyses examined alternative methodological approaches, including a complete case analysis, the incorporation of non-back pain-related health care use and estimation of societal costs relating to work absence. RESULTS: Stratified care was a dominant treatment strategy compared with usual care for patients at high risk, with mean health care cost savings of £124 and an incremental QALY estimate of 0.023. The likelihood that stratified care provides a cost-effective use of resources for patients at low and medium risk is no greater than 60% irrespective of a decision makers' willingness-to-pay for additional QALYs. Patients at medium and high risk of persistent disability in paid employment at 6-month follow-up reported, on average, 6 fewer days of LBP-related work absence in the stratified care cohort compared with usual care (associated societal cost savings per employed patient of £736 and £652, respectively). CONCLUSION: At the observed level of adherence to screening tool recommendations for matched treatments, stratified care for LBP is cost-effective for patients at high risk of persistent disabling LBP only. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.

Effect of stratified care for low back pain in family practice (IMPaCT Back): a prospective population-based sequential comparison.

PURPOSE: We aimed to determine the effects of implementing risk-stratified care for low back pain in family practice on physician's clinical behavior, patient outcomes, and costs. METHODS: The IMPaCT Back Study (IMplementation to improve Patient Care through Targeted treatment) prospectively compared separate patient cohorts in a preintervention phase (6 months of usual care) and a postintervention phase (12 months of stratified care) in family practice, involving 64 family physicians and linked physical therapy services. A total of 1,647 adults with low back pain were invited to participate. Stratified care entailed use of a risk stratification tool to classify patients into groups at low, medium, or high risk for persistent disability and provision of risk-matched treatment. The primary outcome was 6-month change in disability as assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire. Process outcomes captured physician behavior change in risk-appropriate referral to physical therapy, diagnostic tests, medication prescriptions, and sickness certifications. A cost-utility analysis estimated incremental quality-adjusted life-years and back-related health care costs. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: The 922 patients studied (368 in the preintervention phase and 554 in the postintervention phase) had comparable baseline characteristics. At 6 months follow-up, stratified care had a small but significant benefit relative to usual care as seen from a mean difference in Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire scores of 0.7 (95% CI, 0.1-1.4), with a large, clinically important difference in the high risk group of 2.3 (95% CI, 0.8-3.9). Mean time off work was 50% shorter (4 vs 8 days, P = .03) and the proportion of patients given sickness certifications was 30% lower (9% vs 15%, P = .03) in the postintervention cohort. Health care cost savings were also observed. CONCLUSIONS: Stratified care for back pain implemented in family practice leads to significant improvements in patient disability outcomes and a halving in time off work, without increasing health care costs. Wider implementation is recommended.

IMPaCT Back study protocol. Implementation of subgrouping for targeted treatment systems for low back pain patients in primary care: a prospective population-based sequential comparison.

BACKGROUND: Prognostic assessment tools to identify subgroups of patients at risk of persistent low back pain who may benefit from targeted treatments have been developed and validated in primary care. The IMPaCT Back study is investigating the effects of introducing and supporting a subgrouping for targeted treatment system in primary care. METHODS/DESIGN: A prospective, population-based, quality improvement study in one Primary Care Trust in England with a before and after design. Phases 1 and 3 collect data on current practice, attitudes and behaviour of health care practitioners, patients' outcomes and health care costs. Phase 2 introduces and supports the subgrouping for targeted treatment system, via a multi-component, quality improvement intervention that includes educational courses and outreach visits led by opinion leaders, audit/feedback, mentoring and organisational support to embed the subgrouping tools within IT and clinical management systems.We aim to recruit 1000 low back pain patients aged 18 years and over consulting 7 GP practices within one Primary Care Trust in England, UK. The study includes GPs in participating practices and physiotherapists in associated services. The primary objective is to determine the effect of the subgrouping for targeted treatment system on back pain related disability and catastrophising at 2 and 6 months, comparing data from phase 1 with phase 3. Key secondary objectives are to determine the impact on: a) GPs' and physiotherapists' attitudes and behaviour regarding low back pain; b) The process of care that patients receive; c) The cost-effectiveness and sustainability of the new clinical system. DISCUSSION: This paper details the rationale, design, methods, planned analysis and operational aspects of the IMPaCT Back study. We aim to determine whether the new subgrouping for targeted treatment system is implemented and sustained in primary care, and evaluate its impact on clinical decision-making, patient outcomes and costs. STUDY REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register ISRCTN55174281.