Randomized feasibility trial of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program.

BACKGROUND: The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed an online self-management program (SPIN-SELF) designed to improve disease-management self-efficacy in people with systemic sclerosis (SSc, or scleroderma). The aim of this study was to evaluate feasibility aspects for conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF Program. METHODS: This feasibility trial was embedded in the SPIN Cohort and utilized the cohort multiple RCT design. In this design, at the time of cohort enrollment, cohort participants consent to be assessed for trial eligibility and randomized prior to being informed about the trial. Participants in the intervention arm are informed and provide consent, but not the control group. Forty English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants from Canada, the USA, or the UK with low disease-management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale [SEMCD] score ≤ 7) who were interested in using an online self-management program were randomized (3:2 ratio) to be offered the SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. Program usage was examined via automated usage logs. User satisfaction was assessed with semi-structured interviews. Trial personnel time requirements and implementation challenges were logged. RESULTS: Of 40 SPIN Cohort participants randomized, 26 were allocated to SPIN-SELF and 14 to usual care. Automated eligibility and randomization procedures via the SPIN Cohort platform functioned properly, except that two participants with SEMCD scores > 7 (scores of 7.2 and 7.3, respectively) were included, which was caused by a system programming error that rounded SEMCD scores. Of 26 SPIN Cohort participants offered the SPIN-SELF Program, only 9 (35%) consented to use the program. Usage logs showed that use of the SPIN-SELF Program was low: 2 of 9 users (22%) logged into the program only once (median = 3), and 4 of 9 (44%) accessed none or only 1 of the 9 program's modules (median = 2). CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study will lead to substantial changes for the planned full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF Program that we will incorporate into a planned additional feasibility trial with progression to a full-scale trial. These changes include transitioning to a conventional RCT design with pre-randomization consent and supplementing the online self-help with peer-facilitated videoconference-based groups to enhance engagement. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov , NCT03914781 . Registered 16 April 2019.

The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program: protocol for a two-arm parallel partially nested randomized controlled feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (scleroderma; SSc) is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. We completed an initial feasibility trial of an online self-administered version of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Self-Management (SPIN-SELF) Program using the cohort multiple randomized controlled trial (RCT) design. Due to low intervention offer uptake, we will conduct a new feasibility trial with progression to full-scale trial, using a two-arm parallel, partially nested RCT design. The SPIN-SELF Program has also been revised to include facilitator-led videoconference group sessions in addition to online material. We will test the group-based intervention delivery format, then evaluate the effect of the SPIN-SELF Program on disease management self-efficacy (primary) and patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes (secondary). METHODS: This study is a feasibility trial with progression to full-scale RCT, pending meeting pre-defined criteria, of the SPIN-SELF Program. Participants will be recruited from the ongoing SPIN Cohort ( http://www.spinsclero.com/en/cohort ) and via social media and partner patient organizations. Eligible participants must have SSc and low to moderate disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale score ≤ 7.0). Participants will be randomized (1:1 allocation) to the group-based SPIN-SELF Program or usual care for 3 months. The primary outcome in the full-scale trial will be disease management self-efficacy based on SEMCD Scale scores at 3 months post-randomization. Secondary outcomes include SEMCD scores 6 months post-randomization plus patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. We will include 40 participants to assess feasibility. At the end of the feasibility portion, stoppage criteria will be used to determine if the trial procedures or SPIN-SELF Program need important modifications, thereby requiring a re-set for the full-scale trial. Otherwise, the full-scale RCT will proceed, and outcome data from the feasibility portion will be utilized in the full-scale trial. In the full-scale RCT, 524 participants will be recruited. DISCUSSION: The SPIN-SELF Program may improve disease management self-efficacy, patient activation, social appearance anxiety, and functional health outcomes in people with SSc. SPIN works with partner patient organizations around the world to disseminate its programs free-of-charge. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04246528 . Registered on 27 January 2020.

The Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network Self-Management Program: Protocol for a Randomized Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a rare disease that often results in significant disruptions to activities of daily living and can negatively affect physical and psychological well-being. Because there is no known cure, SSc treatment focuses on reducing symptoms and disability and improving health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Self-management programs are known to increase self-efficacy for disease management in many chronic diseases. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN) developed a Web-based self-management program (SPIN self-management; SPIN-SELF) to increase self-efficacy for disease management and to improve HRQoL for patients with SSc. OBJECTIVE: The proposed study aims to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale randomized controlled trial (RCT) of the SPIN-SELF program by evaluating the trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and participant acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. METHODS: The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will be conducted via the SPIN Cohort. The SPIN Cohort was developed as a framework for embedded pragmatic trials using the cohort multiple RCT design. In total, 40 English-speaking SPIN Cohort participants with low disease management self-efficacy (Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease Scale score ≤7), who have indicated interest in using a Web-based self-management program, will be randomized with a 3:2 ratio into the SPIN-SELF program or usual care for 3 months. Feasibility outcomes include trial implementation processes, required resources and management, scientific aspects, and patient acceptability and usage of the SPIN-SELF program. RESULTS: Enrollment of the 40 participants occurred between July 5, 2019, and July 27, 2019. By November 25, 2019, data collection of trial outcomes was completed. Data analysis is underway, and results are expected to be published in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The SPIN-SELF program is a self-help tool that may improve disease-management self-efficacy and improve HRQoL in patients with SSc. The SPIN-SELF feasibility trial will ensure that trial methodology is robust, feasible, and consistent with trial participant expectations. The results will guide adjustments that need to be implemented before undertaking a full-scale RCT of the SPIN-SELF program. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/16799.

Group sample sizes in nonregulated health care intervention trials described as randomized controlled trials were overly similar.

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated whether sample sizes in different arms of two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trials of nonregulated interventions were systematically closer in size than would plausibly occur by chance if simple randomization had been applied. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We searched PubMed for trials of nonregulated health care interventions that did not report using restricted randomization from journals in behavioral sciences and psychology, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, rehabilitation, and surgery. We emailed trial authors to clarify randomization procedures. RESULTS: We identified 148 nonregulated intervention trials that indicated they used simple randomization. Difference in trial arm sizes was smaller than would be predicted by chance if simple randomization had occurred in all trials (P < 0.001). Rather than approximately half of the trials being within a 50% prediction interval for the difference, 96% had differences within this interval. Results were similar and statistically significant (P < 0.001) for trials that were published in journals with impact factors ≥ 4 and when stratified by type of nonregulated intervention. CONCLUSION: There is a need for education and better understanding of clinical trial methods to ensure that randomization procedures are implemented as intended and reported fully and accurately.

Protocol for a partially nested randomized controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Support Group Leader EDucation (SPIN-SSLED) Program.

BACKGROUND: Some people with rare diseases rely on peer-led support groups for disease-specific education and emotional and practical support. Systemic sclerosis (SSc), or scleroderma, is a rare autoimmune connective tissue disease. Many people with SSc cannot access support groups, and, when support groups exist, they may not be sustained due to challenges that could be addressed via leader training. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network (SPIN), along with SSc patient organization partners, developed a training program for SSc patient support group leaders, the Scleroderma Support group Leader EDucation (SPIN-SSLED) Program. We recently completed a feasibility trial in which we successfully delivered the program to two groups of support group leaders who reported a high level of satisfaction with the program and its delivery. The primary objective of the full-scale SPIN-SSLED trial is to evaluate the effect of the program on support group leaders' self-efficacy for carrying out their leadership role. Secondary objectives include evaluating effects on leader burnout, leader satisfaction (participation efficacy), and emotional distress. METHODS/DESIGN: The SPIN-SSLED trial is a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) in which 180 support group leaders will be randomly allocated to training groups of 6 participants each or to a waitlist control. We will use a partially nested RCT design to reflect dependence between individuals in training groups, but not in the waitlist control. Participants allocated to the training program will receive the 13-module SPIN-SSLED Program, delivered via webinar over the course of 3 months in weekly 60-90-min sessions. The primary outcome is leader self-efficacy, measured by the Scleroderma Support Group Leader Self-efficacy Scale post-intervention. Secondary outcomes are leader self-efficacy at 3 months post-intervention, and leader burnout, volunteer job satisfaction (participation efficacy), and emotional distress post-intervention and at 3 months post-intervention. DISCUSSION: The SPIN-SSLED trial will test whether a training program for SSc patient support group leaders increases the self-efficacy of group leaders to carry out leadership tasks. The program has the potential to significantly improve the effectiveness and sustainability of existing SSc support groups, to increase the number of available support groups, and to be adapted for other chronic diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03965780. Registered on 29 May 2019.

Evaluation of Journal Registration Policies and Prospective Registration of Randomized Clinical Trials of Nonregulated Health Care Interventions.

Importance: Many interventions that are important to the health care of patients are not subject to regulation by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or comparable regulatory bodies in other nations. Objective: To determine whether specialty journals that publish trials of primarily nonregulated health care interventions require prospective registration and whether the prospective registration policies are associated with the publication of prospectively registered trials, trials with adequately registered outcomes, and trials with primary outcomes consistent with the registered primary outcomes. Design and Methods: PubMed was searched daily, from March 18, 2016, to September 17, 2016, for nonregulated intervention randomized clinical trials. The search included all journals in the Clarivate Analytics Science Citation Index Expanded categories of behavioral sciences, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, psychology, rehabilitation, and surgery. Trials of interventions not subject to FDA regulation were included. One investigator extracted journal registration policy and trial registration status. Two investigators independently extracted trial registration and publication characteristics. Main Outcomes and Measures: For journals, the main outcome was the trial registration policy. For trials, the main outcomes were prospective registration, adequacy of outcome registration, and concordance of registered with published primary outcomes. Results: In total, 953 nonregulated intervention trials published in 254 journals were identified. Prospective registration was required for publication by 29 (11.4%) of 254 journals, and an additional 12 journals (4.7%) had conditional date-based requirements. Only 189 (19.8%) of the 953 trials were registered prospectively, including 33 of 98 published in journals with prospective registration policies as compared with 156 of 855 in journals without policies (33.7% vs 18.2%; P = .004). Among the 17 journals that required prospective registration and had at least 2 included trials, none had a prospective registration of more than 50%. In journals with policies, only 3 of 98 trials included primary outcomes consistent with prospectively, adequately registered outcomes, as compared with 34 of 852 trials in journals without policies (3.1% vs 4.0%; P = .62). Conclusions and Relevance: Few journals in behavioral sciences or psychology, nursing, nutrition and dietetics, rehabilitation, and surgery require prospective trial registration, and those with existing registration policies rarely enforce them; this finding suggests that strategies for encouraging prospective registration of clinical trials not subject to FDA regulation should be developed and tested.

The Scleroderma Research Topics Survey for patients and health care professionals: A Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Project.

Involving patients and health care professionals in research has been shown to be a useful strategy to generate program development ideas and establish research priorities. Online surveys can be used to identify patient research priorities. The Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network is an international collaboration dedicated to researching problems important to people with scleroderma and developing, testing, and disseminating educational, self-management, rehabilitation, and psychological tools to support coping within the disease. The objectives of the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Scleroderma Research Topics Survey were to (1) obtain input on online programs that Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network could develop, (2) identify research topics important to members of the scleroderma community that could be addressed via the Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network Cohort, and (3) identify potentially understudied groups. Eligible survey respondents included individuals with scleroderma and their caregivers, health care professionals, and patient organization representatives. Responses were evaluated separately for online programs, possible research questions, and understudied groups. In each category, thematic analysis was used to group responses into themes. A total of 125 participants (100 patients, 24 health care professionals, and 1 caregiver) completed the survey, and responses from patients and health care professionals were reported. For online programs, frequent recommendations included Interactive Platforms to facilitate communication between patients, as well as interventions targeting physical activity, and emotions and stress. Common responses for possible research questions were related to calcinosis, accessing health care, and quality of life. The most common suggestions for understudied groups were young patients, minority patients, and patients with calcinosis. Research topic suggestions provided in the survey will inform Scleroderma Patient-centered Intervention Network priorities and can be considered by other researchers.

Comparison of Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease between patients with systemic sclerosis and other chronic conditions: a systematic review.

The complexity and burden of systemic sclerosis (SSc) pose challenges to developing and sustaining disease management self-efficacy. The objective of this systematic review was to compare scores on a commonly used self-efficacy measure, the Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease (SEMCD) Scale, between SSc and other diseases. Data sources included the CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus databases, searched through January 25, 2016, and reference lists of included articles and relevant reviews. Studies in any language that reported total SEMCD scores or individual item scores in adult non-psychiatric medical patients were eligible. We identified one eligible non-intervention study of SSc patients (n = 553), 13 other non-intervention studies, and 21 studies with pre-intervention data for patients enrolled in a self-management program or a trial of a program. Of 13 non-intervention studies with published total score means in cancer, cardiovascular disease, Parkinson's disease, spinal cord injuries, organ transplant candidates and recipients, dialysis, and lupus, SEMCD scores were statistically significantly lower (poorer self-efficacy) in SSc than 6 other disease samples, not significantly different from 6, and significantly higher than lupus patients. Compared to 18 studies of patients in self-management programs or trials with published total score means, SSc patients were similar or lower than 9 samples and significantly higher than 9 samples. Compared to patients with other diseases not enrolled in programs to improve self-efficacy, SSc patients report lower self-efficacy scores than most patient groups. Rigorously tested self-care interventions designed to meet the unique needs of patients with SSc are needed.

Giving Boys a Shot: The HPV Vaccine's Portrayal in Canadian Newspapers.

In January 2012, the National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI) of Canada recommended that males aged 9-26 years receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to protect against genital warts and HPV-associated cancers. Estimated HPV vaccine uptake rates for Canadian males are extremely low. Using a content analysis of Canadian newspaper articles, this study investigated what information about the HPV vaccine was relayed to the public, and how this content was portrayed following the 2012 male HPV vaccine recommendation. A search was conducted using Proquest Canadian Newsstand Complete for newspaper articles published between January 1, 2012, and September 1, 2014. Researchers coded 232 articles on several relevant dimensions: article information; epidemiological information; public policy information; article topic; article and title tone; and informant testimony. The majority of articles (93%) mentioned that girls are eligible for the HPV vaccine, whereas only half (49%) mentioned male eligibility. While most articles associated HPV with cervical cancer (85%), fewer indicated its relation to other HPV-associated cancers (59%) or genital warts (52%). Most articles (60%) were positive or neutral (22%) in tone toward the HPV vaccine, while few had mixed messages (11%) or were negative (6%). Less than 5% of articles reported on issues of morality, suggesting that fears that the HPV vaccine causes promiscuity have largely subsided. Notably, article tone toward male vaccination became progressively more positive over time. However, half of the articles did not mention the vaccine's approval for males, and articles tended to report HPV's relation to cervical cancer over other HPV-associated cancers. The Canadian public may thus be unaware of male eligibility and the importance of HPV vaccine for males. The collaboration of researchers, health care providers, and policymakers with journalists is critical in order to disseminate complete and accurate HPV and HPV vaccine information.