ELECtric Tibial nerve stimulation to Reduce Incontinence in Care homes: protocol for the ELECTRIC randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Urinary incontinence (UI) is highly prevalent in nursing and residential care homes (CHs) and profoundly impacts on residents' dignity and quality of life. CHs predominantly use absorbent pads to contain UI rather than actively treat the condition. Transcutaneous posterior tibial nerve stimulation (TPTNS) is a non-invasive, safe and low-cost intervention with demonstrated effectiveness for reducing UI in adults. However, the effectiveness of TPTNS to treat UI in older adults living in CHs is not known. The ELECTRIC trial aims to establish if a programme of TPTNS is a clinically effective treatment for UI in CH residents and investigate the associated costs and consequences. METHODS: This is a pragmatic, multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised parallel-group trial comparing the effectiveness of TPTNS (target n = 250) with sham stimulation (target n = 250) in reducing volume of UI in CH residents. CH residents (men and women) with self- or staff-reported UI of more than once per week are eligible to take part, including those with cognitive impairment. Outcomes will be measured at 6, 12 and 18 weeks post randomisation using the following measures: 24-h Pad Weight Tests, post void residual urine (bladder scans), Patient Perception of Bladder Condition, Minnesota Toileting Skills Questionnaire and Dementia Quality of Life. Economic evaluation based on a bespoke Resource Use Questionnaire will assess the costs of providing a programme of TPTNS. A concurrent process evaluation will investigate fidelity to the intervention and influencing factors, and qualitative interviews will explore the experiences of TPTNS from the perspective of CH residents, family members, CH staff and managers. DISCUSSION: TPTNS is a non-invasive intervention that has demonstrated effectiveness in reducing UI in adults. The ELECTRIC trial will involve CH staff delivering TPTNS to residents and establish whether TPTNS is more effective than sham stimulation for reducing the volume of UI in CH residents. Should TPTNS be shown to be an effective and acceptable treatment for UI in older adults in CHs, it will provide a safe, low-cost and dignified alternative to the current standard approach of containment and medication. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03248362. Registered on 14 August 2017. ISRCTN, ISRCTN98415244. Registered on 25 April 2018. https://www.isrctn.com/.

Impact of speed change on estimated journey time: failure of drivers to appreciate relevance of initial speed.

Higher speeds are associated with increases in the probability of crashing and the severity of the outcome. Logically drivers speed to save time, and research evidence supports this assertion. It is therefore important to investigate drivers' understanding of how speed change impacts on journey time. Since it is likely that drivers do not appreciate the reciprocal nature of the function which links these two variables, and its implications, two predictions can be made: the impact of a speed change will be underestimated at low speeds and overestimated at high speeds. This issue was addressed through four questions generated by manipulating Speed Change (increase versus decrease) and Starting Speed (30 mph versus 60 mph) with the participants being asked how they felt these variables would impact on journey time. These were included in a large survey addressing speed-related issues. Participants were a representative quota sample of 1005 UK drivers, interviewed by questionnaire. The findings indicated that three of the four questions produced results consistent with the predictions made. Furthermore, a repeated measures factorial ANOVA indicated that there was no real appreciation of how starting speed impacted on journey time. A disordinal interaction provided evidence that drivers wrongly believed that as starting speed increased the impact of a speed rise also increased; the opposite is true. For speed decreases, drivers appeared to think that starting speed had little impact on the amount of time saved. It is recommended that these findings be integrated into driver training and speed awareness courses.