Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 270
Filtrar
1.
J Aging Phys Act ; : 1-18, 2021 Sep 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34489362

RESUMO

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of therapeutic exercise on physical and psychosocial outcomes in community-dwelling adults aged 80 years or older. Databases were searched from inception to July 8, 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened by two reviewers who extracted data and assessed study quality. Sixteen RCTs (1,660 participants) were included. Compared to nonexercise controls there was no evidence of an effect of exercise on performance based (standardized mean differences: 0.58, 95% confidence interval: [-0.19, 1.36]; I2: 89%; six RCTs; 290 participants; very low-quality evidence) or self-reported physical function (standardized mean differences: 1.35, 95% confidence interval: [-0.78, 3.48]; I2: 96%; three RCTs; 280 participants; very low-quality evidence) at short-medium term follow-up. Four RCTs reporting psychosocial outcomes could not be combined in meta-analysis and reported varying results. Exercise appeared to reduce the risk of mortality during follow-up (risk ratio: 0.47, 95% confidence interval: [0.32, 0.70]; I2: 0.0%; six RCTs; 1,222 participants; low-quality evidence).

2.
JAMA ; 326(11): 1045-1056, 2021 09 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34546296

RESUMO

Importance: Mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies can generate evidence about the mechanisms by which interventions and exposures may influence health outcomes. Publications of mediation analyses are increasing, but the quality of their reporting is suboptimal. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based guidance for the reporting of mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies (A Guideline for Reporting Mediation Analyses; AGReMA). Design, Setting, and Participants: The AGReMA statement was developed using the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) methodological framework for developing reporting guidelines. The guideline development process included (1) an overview of systematic reviews to assess the need for a reporting guideline; (2) review of systematic reviews of relevant evidence on reporting mediation analyses; (3) conducting a Delphi survey with panel members that included methodologists, statisticians, clinical trialists, epidemiologists, psychologists, applied clinical researchers, clinicians, implementation scientists, evidence synthesis experts, representatives from the EQUATOR Network, and journal editors (n = 19; June-November 2019); (4) having a consensus meeting (n = 15; April 28-29, 2020); and (5) conducting a 4-week external review and pilot test that included methodologists and potential users of AGReMA (n = 21; November 2020). Results: A previously reported overview of 54 systematic reviews of mediation studies demonstrated the need for a reporting guideline. Thirty-three potential reporting items were identified from 3 systematic reviews of mediation studies. Over 3 rounds, the Delphi panelists ranked the importance of these items, provided 60 qualitative comments for item refinement and prioritization, and suggested new items for consideration. All items were reviewed during a 2-day consensus meeting and participants agreed on a 25-item AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are the primary focus and a 9-item short-form AGReMA statement for studies in which mediation analyses are a secondary focus. These checklists were externally reviewed and pilot tested by 21 expert methodologists and potential users, which led to minor adjustments and consolidation of the checklists. Conclusions and Relevance: The AGReMA statement provides recommendations for reporting primary and secondary mediation analyses of randomized trials and observational studies. Improved reporting of studies that use mediation analyses could facilitate peer review and help produce publications that are complete, accurate, transparent, and reproducible.


Assuntos
Guias como Assunto , Análise de Mediação , Estudos Observacionais como Assunto , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Lista de Checagem , Técnica Delfos , Humanos , Revisão por Pares , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto
4.
BMJ Open ; 11(8): e052598, 2021 08 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34452970

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate whether a home-based rehabilitation programme for people assessed as being at risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty offers superior outcomes to traditional outpatient physiotherapy. DESIGN: A prospective, single-blind, two-arm randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING: 14 National Health Service physiotherapy departments in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: 621 participants identified at high risk of a poor outcome after knee arthroplasty using a bespoke screening tool. INTERVENTIONS: A multicomponent home-based rehabilitation programme delivered by rehabilitation assistants with supervision from qualified therapists versus usual care outpatient physiotherapy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the Late-Life Function and Disability Instrument (LLFDI) at 12 months. Secondary outcomes were the Oxford Knee Score (a disease-specific measure of function), Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Quality of Life subscale, Physical Activity Scale for the Elderly, 5 dimension, 5 level version of Euroqol (EQ-5D-5L) and physical function assessed using the Figure of 8 Walk test, 30 s Chair Stand Test and Single Leg Stance. RESULTS: 621 participants were randomised between March 2015 and January 2018. 309 were assigned to CORKA (Community Rehabilitation after Knee Arthroplasty) home-based rehabilitation, receiving a median five treatment sessions (IQR 4-7). 312 were assigned to usual care, receiving a median 4 sessions (IQR 2-6). The primary outcome, LLFDI function total score at 12 months, was collected for 279 participants (89%) in the home-based CORKA group and 287 participants (92%) in the usual care group. No clinically or statistically significant difference was found between the groups (intention-to-treat adjusted difference=0.49 points; 95% CI -0.89 to 1.88; p=0.48). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups on any of the patient-reported or physical secondary outcome measures at 6 or 12 months.There were 18 participants in the intervention group reporting a serious adverse event (5.8%), only one directly related to the intervention, all other adverse events recorded throughout the trial related to underlying chronic medical conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The CORKA intervention was not superior to usual care. The trial detected no significant differences, clinical or statistical, between the two groups on either primary or secondary outcomes. CORKA offers an evaluation of an intervention utilising a different service delivery model for this patient group. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13517704.


Assuntos
Artroplastia do Joelho , Idoso , Análise Custo-Benefício , Humanos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Estudos Prospectivos , Qualidade de Vida , Método Simples-Cego , Medicina Estatal
5.
J Aging Phys Act ; : 1-14, 2021 Aug 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34348224

RESUMO

Mobility is essential to maintaining independence for older adults. This systematic review aimed to summarize evidence about self-reported risk factors for self-reported mobility decline; and to provide an overview of published prognostic models for self-reported mobility decline among community-dwelling older adults. Databases were searched from inception to June 2, 2020. Studies were screened by two independent reviewers who extracted data and assessed study quality. Sixty-one studies (45,187 participants) were included, providing information on 107 risk factors. High-quality evidence and moderate/large effect sizes for the association with mobility decline were found for older age beyond 75 years, the presence of widespread pain, and mobility modifications. Moderate-high quality evidence and small effect sizes were found for a further 21 factors. Three model development studies demonstrated acceptable model performance, limited by high risk of bias. These findings should be considered in intervention development, and in developing a prediction instrument for practical application.

6.
Health Technol Assess ; 25(48): 1-158, 2021 08.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34382931

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Rotator cuff-related shoulder pain is very common, but there is uncertainty regarding which modes of exercise delivery are optimal and the long-term benefits of corticosteroid injections. OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of progressive exercise compared with best-practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic multicentre superiority randomised controlled trial (with a 2 × 2 factorial design). SETTING: Twenty NHS primary care-based musculoskeletal and related physiotherapy services. PARTICIPANTS: Adults aged ≥ 18 years with a new episode of rotator cuff-related shoulder pain in the previous 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: A total of 708 participants were randomised (March 2017-May 2019) by a centralised computer-generated 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 allocation ratio to one of four interventions: (1) progressive exercise (n = 174) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions), (2) best-practice advice (n = 174) (one physiotherapy session), (3) corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n = 182) (six or fewer physiotherapy sessions) or (4) corticosteroid injection then best-practice advice (n = 178) (one physiotherapy session). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months. Secondary outcomes included SPADI subdomains, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions, five-level version, sleep disturbance, fear avoidance, pain self-efficacy, return to activity, Global Impression of Treatment and health resource use. Outcomes were collected by postal questionnaires at 8 weeks and at 6 and 12 months. A within-trial economic evaluation was also conducted. The primary analysis was intention to treat. RESULTS: Participants had a mean age of 55.5 (standard deviation 13.1) years and 49.3% were female. The mean baseline SPADI score was 54.1 (standard deviation 18.5). Follow-up rates were 91% at 8 weeks and 87% at 6 and 12 months. There was an overall improvement in SPADI score from baseline in each group over time. Over 12 months, there was no evidence of a difference in the SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and the best-practice advice intervention in shoulder pain and function (adjusted mean difference between groups over 12 months -0.66, 99% confidence interval -4.52 to 3.20). There was also no difference in SPADI scores between the progressive exercise intervention and best-practice advice intervention when analysed at the 8-week and 6- and 12-month time points. Injection resulted in improvement in shoulder pain and function at 8 weeks compared with no injection (adjusted mean difference -5.64, 99% confidence interval -9.93 to -1.35), but not when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -1.11, 99% confidence interval -4.47 to 2.26), or at 6 and 12 months. There were no serious adverse events. In the base-case analysis, adding injection to best-practice advice gained 0.021 quality-adjusted life-years (p = 0.184) and increased the cost by £10 per participant (p = 0.747). Progressive exercise alone was £52 (p = 0.247) more expensive per participant than best-practice advice, and gained 0.019 QALYs (p = 0.220). At a ceiling ratio of £20,000 per quality-adjusted life-year, injection plus best-practice advice had a 54.93% probability of being the most cost-effective treatment. LIMITATIONS: Participants and physiotherapists were not blinded to group allocation. Twelve-month follow-up may be insufficient for identifying all safety concerns. CONCLUSIONS: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best-practice advice session with a physiotherapist. Subacromial corticosteroid injection improved shoulder pain and function, but provided only modest short-term benefit. Best-practice advice in combination with corticosteroid injection was expected to be most cost-effective, although there was substantial uncertainty. FUTURE WORK: Longer-term follow-up, including any serious adverse effects of corticosteroid injection. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN16539266 and EudraCT 2016-002991-28. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 48. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

7.
Trials ; 22(1): 467, 2021 Jul 20.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34284802

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Total hip (THR) and total knee replacements (TKR) are two highly successful orthopaedic procedures that reduce pain for people with osteoarthritis. Previous evidence suggests that physical activity, at best, remains the same pre- to post-operatively, and in some instances declines. The PEP-TALK trial evaluates the effects of a group-based, behaviour change intervention on physical activity following a THR or TKR. METHODS: PEP-TALK is an open, phase III, pragmatic, multi-centre, parallel, two-arm, two-way superiority randomised controlled trial investigating the effectiveness of usual care plus a behaviour change therapy compared with usual care alone following primary THR or TKR. The primary outcome is the UCLA Activity Score at 12 months post-randomisation which will be analysed using a linear mixed effects model. Secondary outcomes measured at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation include the UCLA Activity Score, Lower Extremity Functional Scale, Oxford Hip/Knee Score, Numerical Rating Scale for Pain, Generalised Self-Efficacy Scale, Tampa Scale for Kinesiophobia, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, EuroQoL EQ-5D-5L index and EQ-VAS and complications or adverse events. Full details of the planned analysis approaches for the primary and secondary outcomes, as well as the planned sensitivity analyses to be undertaken due to the COVID-19 pandemic, are described here. The PEP-TALK study protocol has been published previously. DISCUSSION: This paper provides details of the planned statistical analyses for the PEP-TALK trial. This is aimed to reduce the risk of outcome reporting bias and enhance transparency in reporting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials database, ISRCTN Number: 29770908 . Registered on October 2018.


Assuntos
COVID-19 , Pandemias , Exercício Físico , Humanos , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , SARS-CoV-2 , Resultado do Tratamento
8.
Lancet ; 398(10298): 416-428, 2021 07 31.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34265255

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Corticosteroid injections and physiotherapy exercise programmes are commonly used to treat rotator cuff disorders but the treatments' effectiveness is uncertain. We aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a progressive exercise programme with a single session of best practice physiotherapy advice, with or without corticosteroid injection, in adults with a rotator cuff disorder. METHODS: In this pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial (2 × 2 factorial), we recruited patients from 20 UK National Health Service trusts. We included patients aged 18 years or older with a rotator cuff disorder (new episode within the past 6 months). Patients were excluded if they had a history of significant shoulder trauma (eg, dislocation, fracture, or full-thickness tear requiring surgery), neurological disease affecting the shoulder, other shoulder conditions (eg, inflammatory arthritis, frozen shoulder, or glenohumeral joint instability), received corticosteroid injection or physiotherapy for shoulder pain in the past 6 months, or were being considered for surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (centralised computer-generated system, 1:1:1:1) to progressive exercise (≤6 sessions), best practice advice (one session), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise, or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice. The primary outcome was the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI) score over 12 months, analysed on an intention-to-treat basis (statistical significance set at 1%). The trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ISRCTN16539266, and EuDRACT, 2016-002991-28. FINDINGS: Between March 10, 2017, and May 2, 2019, we screened 2287 patients. 708 patients were randomly assigned to progressive exercise (n=174), best practice advice (n=174), corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise (n=182), or corticosteroid injection then best practice advice (n=178). Over 12 months, SPADI data were available for 166 (95%) patients in the progressive exercise group, 164 (94%) in the best practice advice group, 177 (97%) in the corticosteroid injection then progressive exercise group, and 175 (98%) in the corticosteroid injection then best practice advice group. We found no evidence of a difference in SPADI score between progressive exercise and best practice advice when analysed over 12 months (adjusted mean difference -0·66 [99% CI -4·52 to 3·20]). We also found no evidence of a difference between corticosteroid injection compared with no injection when analysed over 12 months (-1·11 [-4·47 to 2·26]). No serious adverse events were reported. INTERPRETATION: Progressive exercise was not superior to a best practice advice session with a physiotherapist in improving shoulder pain and function. Subacromial corticosteroid injection provided no long-term benefit in patients with rotator cuff disorders. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Technology Assessment Programme.


Assuntos
Corticosteroides/administração & dosagem , Terapia por Exercício/métodos , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto , Lesões do Manguito Rotador/terapia , Síndrome de Colisão do Ombro/terapia , Adulto , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Injeções Intra-Articulares , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Resultado do Tratamento
9.
Health Technol Assess ; 25(46): 1-118, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34254934

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Falls and fall-related fractures are highly prevalent among older people and are a major contributor to morbidity and costs to individuals and society. Only one small pilot trial has evaluated the effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification in the UK. This trial reported a reduction in falls as a secondary outcome, and no economic evaluation was undertaken. Therefore, the results need to be confirmed and a cost-effectiveness analysis needs to be undertaken. OBJECTIVE: To determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a home hazard assessment and environmental modification delivered by occupational therapists for preventing falls among community-dwelling people aged ≥ 65 years who are at risk of falling, relative to usual care. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, modified cohort randomised controlled trial with an economic evaluation and a qualitative study. SETTING: Eight NHS trusts in primary and secondary care in England. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 1331 participants were randomised (intervention group, n = 430; usual-care group, n = 901) via a secure, remote service. Blinding was not possible. INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a falls prevention leaflet and routine care from their general practitioner. The intervention group were additionally offered one home environmental assessment and modifications recommended or provided to identify and manage personal fall-related hazards, delivered by an occupational therapist. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the number of falls per participant during the 12 months from randomisation. The secondary outcomes were the proportion of fallers and multiple fallers, time to fall, fear of falling, fracture rate, health-related quality of life and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: The primary analysis included all 1331 randomised participants and indicated weak evidence of a difference in fall rate between the two groups, with an increase in the intervention group relative to usual care (adjusted incidence rate ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.38; p = 0.07). A similar proportion of participants in the intervention group (57.0%) and the usual-care group (56.2%) reported at least one fall over 12 months. There were no differences in any of the secondary outcomes. The base-case cost-effectiveness analysis from an NHS and Personal Social Services perspective found that, on average per participant, the intervention was associated with additional costs (£18.78, 95% confidence interval £16.33 to £21.24), but was less effective (mean quality-adjusted life-year loss -0.0042, 95% confidence interval -0.0041 to -0.0043). Sensitivity analyses demonstrated uncertainty in these findings. No serious, related adverse events were reported. The intervention was largely delivered as intended, but recommendations were followed to a varying degree. LIMITATIONS: Outcome data were self-reported by participants, which may have led to inaccuracies in the reported falls data. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence that an occupational therapist-delivered home assessment and modification reduced falls in this population of community-dwelling participants aged ≥ 65 years deemed at risk of falling. The intervention was more expensive and less effective than usual care, and therefore it does not provide a cost-effective alternative to usual care. FUTURE WORK: An evaluation of falls prevention advice in a higher-risk population, perhaps those previously hospitalised for a fall, or given by other professional staff could be justified. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN22202133. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 46. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

10.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e045741, 2021 06 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34155073

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: We will evaluate the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial to estimate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a rehabilitation intervention on pain, function and health-related quality of life following neck dissection (ND) after head and neck cancer (HNC). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a pragmatic, multicentred, feasibility study. Participants are randomised to usual care (control) or usual care plus an individualised, rehabilitation programme (Getting Recovery Right After Neck Dissection, GRRAND intervention). Adults aged over 18 with HNC for whom ND is part of their care will be recruited from specialist clinics. Participants are randomised in 1:1 ratio using a web-based service. The target sample size is 60 participants. Usual care will be received by all participants during their postoperative inpatient stay consisting standard National Health Service care supplemented with a booklet advising on postoperative self-management strategies. The GRRAND intervention programme consists of usual care plus up to six individual physiotherapy sessions including neck and shoulder range of motion (ROM) and progressive resistance exercises, advice and education. Between sessions participants will be advised to complete a home exercise programme. The primary outcome is to determine recruitment and retention rates from study participants across sites. Outcomes will be measured at 6 and 12 months. Participants and physiotherapists will be invited to an optional qualitative interview at the completion of their involvement in the study. The target qualitative sample size is 15 participants and 12 physiotherapists. Interviews aim to further investigate the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and to determine wider experiences of the study design and intervention from patient and physiotherapist perspectives. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was given on 29 October 2019 (National Research Ethics Committee Number: 19/SC/0457). Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN11979997. STATUS: Trial recruitment is ongoing and is expected to be completed by 30 August 2021.


Assuntos
Qualidade de Vida , Medicina Estatal , Adulto , Análise Custo-Benefício , Terapia por Exercício , Estudos de Viabilidade , Humanos , Esvaziamento Cervical , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto
11.
BMJ Open ; 11(6): e040829, 2021 06 11.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34117042

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences and perceptions of trial participants and healthcare professionals in the UK Frozen Shoulder Trial (UK FROST), a multicentre randomised controlled trial that compared manipulation under anaesthesia (MUA), arthroscopic capsular release (ACR) with a 12-week early structured physiotherapy programme (ESP) in people with unilateral frozen shoulder referred to secondary care. DESIGN: Nested qualitative study with semistructured interviews. We used constant comparison method to develop our themes. SETTING: This qualitative study was nested within the UK FROST. PARTICIPANTS: 44 trial participants (ESP: 14; MUA: 15; ACR: 15), and 8 surgeons and 8 physiotherapists who delivered the treatments in the trial. RESULTS: Trial participants found UK FROST treatments acceptable and satisfactory in terms of content, delivery and treatment benefits. Participants in all arms experienced improvements in pain, shoulder movements, and function. Participants said they would choose the same treatment that they received in the trial.Surgeons and physiotherapists felt that the content and delivery of UK FROST treatments was not significantly different to their routine practice except for the additional number of physiotherapy sessions offered in the trial. They had mixed feelings about the effectiveness of UK FROST treatments. Both stressed the value of including hydrodilatation as a comparator of other treatment options. Physiotherapists raised concerns about the capacity to deliver the number of UK FROST physiotherapy sessions in routine clinical settings.Shared perceptions of trial participants, surgeons and physiotherapists were: (1) Pain relief and return of shoulder movements and function are important outcomes and (2) Adherence to exercises leads to better outcomes. CONCLUSION: In general, our findings indicated that trial participants, and surgeons and physiotherapists who delivered the treatments had positive experiences and perceptions in the UK FROST. Early qualitative investigations to explore the feasibility of delivering treatments in real-world settings are suggested in future trials in the frozen shoulder. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register, ID: ISRCTN48804508. Registered on 25 July 2014; Results.


Assuntos
Bursite , Humanos , Percepção , Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Atenção Secundária à Saúde , Reino Unido
12.
Health Technol Assess ; 25(34): 1-114, 2021 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34075875

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Falls and fractures are a major problem. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternative falls prevention interventions. DESIGN: Three-arm, pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel economic analysis. The unit of randomisation was the general practice. SETTING: Primary care. PARTICIPANTS: People aged ≥ 70 years. INTERVENTIONS: All practices posted an advice leaflet to each participant. Practices randomised to active intervention arms (exercise and multifactorial falls prevention) screened participants for falls risk using a postal questionnaire. Active treatments were delivered to participants at higher risk of falling. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was fracture rate over 18 months, captured from Hospital Episode Statistics, general practice records and self-report. Secondary outcomes were falls rate, health-related quality of life, mortality, frailty and health service resource use. Economic evaluation was expressed in terms of incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net monetary benefit. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, we randomised 63 general practices (9803 participants): 21 practices (3223 participants) to advice only, 21 practices (3279 participants) to exercise and 21 practices (3301 participants) to multifactorial falls prevention. In the active intervention arms, 5779 out of 6580 (87.8%) participants responded to the postal fall risk screener, of whom 2153 (37.3%) were classed as being at higher risk of falling and invited for treatment. The rate of intervention uptake was 65% (697 out of 1079) in the exercise arm and 71% (762 out of 1074) in the multifactorial falls prevention arm. Overall, 379 out of 9803 (3.9%) participants sustained a fracture. There was no difference in the fracture rate between the advice and exercise arms (rate ratio 1.20, 95% confidence interval 0.91 to 1.59) or between the advice and multifactorial falls prevention arms (rate ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval 0.99 to 1.71). There was no difference in falls rate over 18 months (exercise arm: rate ratio 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.86 to 1.14; multifactorial falls prevention arm: rate ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.98 to 1.30). A lower rate of falls was observed in the exercise arm at 8 months (rate ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 0.96), but not at other time points. There were 289 (2.9%) deaths, with no differences by treatment arm. There was no evidence of effects in prespecified subgroup comparisons, nor in nested intention-to-treat analyses that considered only those at higher risk of falling. Exercise provided the highest expected quality-adjusted life-years (1.120), followed by advice and multifactorial falls prevention, with 1.106 and 1.114 quality-adjusted life-years, respectively. NHS costs associated with exercise (£3720) were lower than the costs of advice (£3737) or of multifactorial falls prevention (£3941). Although incremental differences between treatment arms were small, exercise dominated advice, which in turn dominated multifactorial falls prevention. The incremental net monetary benefit of exercise relative to treatment valued at £30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year is modest, at £191, and for multifactorial falls prevention is £613. Exercise is the most cost-effective treatment. No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS: The rate of fractures was lower than anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Screen-and-treat falls prevention strategies in primary care did not reduce fractures. Exercise resulted in a short-term reduction in falls and was cost-effective. FUTURE WORK: Exercise is the most promising intervention for primary care. Work is needed to ensure adequate uptake and sustained effects. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN71002650. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 34. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

13.
Health Technol Assess ; 25(25): 1-166, 2021 04.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33861194

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Adrenaline has been used as a treatment for cardiac arrest for many years, despite uncertainty about its effects on long-term outcomes and concerns that it may cause worse neurological outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to evaluate the effects of adrenaline on survival and neurological outcomes, and to assess the cost-effectiveness of adrenaline use. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, randomised, allocation-concealed, placebo-controlled, parallel-group superiority trial and economic evaluation. Costs are expressed in Great British pounds and reported in 2016/17 prices. SETTING: This trial was set in five NHS ambulance services in England and Wales. PARTICIPANTS: Adults treated for an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest were included. Patients were ineligible if they were pregnant, if they were aged < 16 years, if the cardiac arrest had been caused by anaphylaxis or life-threatening asthma, or if adrenaline had already been given. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomised to either adrenaline (1 mg) or placebo in a 1 : 1 allocation ratio by the opening of allocation-concealed treatment packs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was survival to 30 days. The secondary outcomes were survival to hospital admission, survival to hospital discharge, survival at 3, 6 and 12 months, neurological outcomes and health-related quality of life through to 6 months. The economic evaluation assessed the incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained from the perspective of the NHS and Personal Social Services. Participants, clinical teams and those assessing patient outcomes were masked to the treatment allocation. RESULTS: From December 2014 to October 2017, 8014 participants were assigned to the adrenaline (n = 4015) or to the placebo (n = 3999) arm. At 30 days, 130 out of 4012 participants (3.2%) in the adrenaline arm and 94 out of 3995 (2.4%) in the placebo arm were alive (adjusted odds ratio for survival 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.09 to 1.97). For secondary outcomes, survival to hospital admission was higher for those receiving adrenaline than for those receiving placebo (23.6% vs. 8.0%; adjusted odds ratio 3.83, 95% confidence interval 3.30 to 4.43). The rate of favourable neurological outcome at hospital discharge was not significantly different between the arms (2.2% vs. 1.9%; adjusted odds ratio 1.19, 95% confidence interval 0.85 to 1.68). The pattern of improved survival but no significant improvement in neurological outcomes continued through to 6 months. By 12 months, survival in the adrenaline arm was 2.7%, compared with 2.0% in the placebo arm (adjusted odds ratio 1.38, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.92). An adjusted subgroup analysis did not identify significant interactions. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for adrenaline was estimated at £1,693,003 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest event and £81,070 per quality-adjusted life-year gained over the lifetime of survivors. Additional economic analyses estimated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for adrenaline at £982,880 per percentage point increase in overall survival and £377,232 per percentage point increase in neurological outcomes over the first 6 months after the cardiac arrest. LIMITATIONS: The estimate for survival with a favourable neurological outcome is imprecise because of the small numbers of patients surviving with a good outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Adrenaline improved long-term survival, but there was no evidence that it significantly improved neurological outcomes. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life-year exceeds the threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year usually supported by the NHS. FUTURE WORK: Further research is required to better understand patients' preferences in relation to survival and neurological outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and to aid interpretation of the trial findings from a patient and public perspective. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN73485024 and EudraCT 2014-000792-11. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

14.
Rheumatol Int ; 41(6): 1151-1160, 2021 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33870452

RESUMO

To design and develop a smartphone application for a structured hand exercise programme for patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in Turkey and to test its usability. We followed a two-stage process: (1) Design and Development and (2) Usability testing. In stage 1, we used a qualitative user-centered design approach. We conducted a focus group (8 therapists and people with RA) to discuss the content, features and design to produce a prototype of the application. In a second focus group session, the participants tested the prototype, provided feedback and further revisions were made. In stage 2, 17 participants with RA used the app for 4 to 6 weeks. The System Usability Scale and the adapted Usability, Satisfaction and Ease to Use Questionnaires were used to measure usability, ease of use. Semi-structured interviews were conducted to explore user experiences with the application with 17 participants. In stage 1, the following themes were identified from the focus groups (a) login techniques (b) self-monitoring (c) exercises, (d) exercise diary, (e) information, (f) behavioral change and encouragement (g) exercise adherence. In stage 2, 3 themes were determined from interviews: (a) learning and accuracy, (b) ease of use, (c) motivation and adherence. USE and SUS scores indicated that users reported a high level of usability, satisfaction and ease of use. A mobile app for hand exercise for people with RA was developed using a mixed-method and iterative design. Participants perceived the mobile app as easy to use with high levels of satisfaction.

15.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33917097

RESUMO

(1) Background: Life-space mobility assessments for institutionalized settings are scarce and there is a lack of comprehensive validation and focus on persons with cognitive impairment (CI). This study aims to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Life-Space Assessment for Institutionalized Settings by proxy informants (LSA-IS-proxy) for institutionalized, older persons, with and without CI. (2) Methods: Concurrent validity against the self-reported version of the LSA-IS, construct validity with established construct variables, test-retest reliability, sensitivity to change during early multidisciplinary geriatric rehabilitation treatment, and feasibility (completion rate, floor/ceiling effects) of the LSA-IS-proxy, were assessed in 94 hospitalized geriatric patients (83.3 ± 6.1 years), with and without CI. (3) Results: The LSA-IS-proxy total score showed good-to-excellent agreement with the self-reported LSA-IS (Intraclass Correlations Coefficient, ICC3,1 = 0.77), predominantly expected small-to-high correlations with construct variables (r = 0.21-0.59), good test-retest reliability (ICC3,1 = 0.74), significant sensitivity to change over the treatment period (18.5 ± 7.9 days; p < 0.001, standardized response mean = 0.44), and excellent completion rates (100%) with no floor/ceiling effects. These results were predominantly confirmed for the sub-scores of the LSA-IS-proxy and were comparable between the sub-groups with different cognitive status. (4) Conclusions: The LSA-IS-proxy has proven to be feasible, valid, reliable, and sensitive to change in hospitalized, geriatric patients with and without CI.


Assuntos
Atividades Cotidianas , Disfunção Cognitiva , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Humanos , Psicometria , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Inquéritos e Questionários
16.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 135: 176-181, 2021 07.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33662512

RESUMO

'Blinding' involves concealing knowledge of which trial participants received the interventions from participants themselves and other trial personnel throughout the trial. Blinding reduces bias arising from the beliefs and expectations of these groups. It is agreed that where possible, blinding should be attempted, for example by ensuring that experimental and control treatments look the same. However, there is a debate about if we should measure whether blinding has been successful, this manuscript will discuss this controversy, including the benefits and risks of measuring blinding within the randomised controlled trial.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Efeito Placebo , Projetos de Pesquisa , Método Duplo-Cego , Humanos , Placebos , Método Simples-Cego
18.
Health Technol Assess ; 25(9): 1-378, 2021 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33629950

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cognitive-behavioural therapy aims to increase quality of life by changing cognitive and behavioural factors that maintain problematic symptoms. A previous overview of cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic reviews suggested that cognitive-behavioural therapy was effective for many conditions. However, few of the included reviews synthesised randomised controlled trials. OBJECTIVES: This project was undertaken to map the quality and gaps in the cognitive-behavioural therapy systematic review of randomised controlled trial evidence base. Panoramic meta-analyses were also conducted to identify any across-condition general effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy. DATA SOURCES: The overview was designed with cognitive-behavioural therapy patients, clinicians and researchers. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Child Development & Adolescent Studies, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and OpenGrey databases were searched from 1992 to January 2019. REVIEW METHODS: Study inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) fulfil the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination criteria; (2) intervention reported as cognitive-behavioural therapy or including one cognitive and one behavioural element; (3) include a synthesis of cognitive-behavioural therapy trials; (4) include either health-related quality of life, depression, anxiety or pain outcome; and (5) available in English. Review quality was assessed with A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR)-2. Reviews were quality assessed and data were extracted in duplicate by two independent researchers, and then mapped according to condition, population, context and quality. The effects from high-quality reviews were pooled within condition groups, using a random-effect panoramic meta-analysis. If the across-condition heterogeneity was I 2 < 75%, we pooled across conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted for age, delivery format, comparator type and length of follow-up, and a sensitivity analysis was performed for quality. RESULTS: A total of 494 reviews were mapped, representing 68% (27/40) of the categories of the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision, Mortality and Morbidity Statistics. Most reviews (71%, 351/494) were of lower quality. Research on older adults, using cognitive-behavioural therapy preventatively, ethnic minorities and people living outside Europe, North America or Australasia was limited. Out of 494 reviews, 71 were included in the primary panoramic meta-analyses. A modest effect was found in favour of cognitive-behavioural therapy for health-related quality of life (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.05 to 0.50, I 2 = 32%), anxiety (standardised mean difference 0.30, 95% confidence interval 0.18 to 0.43, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.88, I 2 = 62%) and pain (standardised mean difference 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.05 to 0.41, prediction interval -0.28 to 0.74, I 2 = 64%) outcomes. All condition, subgroup and sensitivity effect estimates remained consistent with the general effect. A statistically significant interaction effect was evident between the active and non-active comparator groups for the health-related quality-of-life outcome. A general effect for depression outcomes was not produced as a result of considerable heterogeneity across reviews and conditions. LIMITATIONS: Data extraction and analysis were conducted at the review level, rather than returning to the individual trial data. This meant that the risk of bias of the individual trials could not be accounted for, but only the quality of the systematic reviews that synthesised them. CONCLUSION: Owing to the consistency and homogeneity of the highest-quality evidence, it is proposed that cognitive-behavioural therapy can produce a modest general, across-condition benefit in health-related quality-of-life, anxiety and pain outcomes. FUTURE WORK: Future research should focus on how the modest effect sizes seen with cognitive-behavioural therapy can be increased, for example identifying alternative delivery formats to increase adherence and reduce dropout, and pursuing novel methods to assess intervention fidelity and quality. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017078690. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

19.
BMC Musculoskelet Disord ; 22(1): 191, 2021 Feb 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33593341

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Proven treatments for low back pain, at best, only provide modest overall benefits. Matching people to treatments that are likely to be most effective for them may improve clinical outcomes and makes better use of health care resources. METHODS: We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials of three types of therapist delivered interventions for low back pain (active physical, passive physical and psychological treatments). We applied two statistical methods (recursive partitioning and adaptive risk group refinement) to identify potential subgroups who might gain greater benefits from different treatments from our individual participant data meta-analysis. RESULTS: We pooled data from 19 randomised controlled trials, totalling 9328 participants. There were 5349 (57%) females with similar ratios of females in control and intervention arms. The average age was 49 years (standard deviation, SD, 14). Participants with greater psychological distress and physical disability gained most benefit in improving on the mental component scale (MCS) of SF-12/36 from passive physical treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 4.3; 95% confidence interval, CI, 3.39 to 5.15). Recursive partitioning method found that participants with worse disability at baseline gained most benefit in improving the disability (Roland Morris Disability Questionnaire) outcome from psychological treatment than non-active usual care (treatment effects, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.31). Adaptive risk group refinement did not find any subgroup that would gain much treatment effect between psychological and non-active usual care. Neither statistical method identified any subgroups who would gain an additional benefit from active physical treatment compared to non-active usual care. CONCLUSIONS: Our methodological approaches worked well and may have applicability in other clinical areas. Passive physical treatments were most likely to help people who were younger with higher levels of disability and low levels of psychological distress. Psychological treatments were more likely to help those with severe disability. Despite this, the clinical importance of identifying these subgroups is limited. The sizes of sub-groups more likely to benefit and the additional effect sizes observed are small. Our analyses provide no evidence to support the use of sub-grouping for people with low back pain.


Assuntos
Dor Lombar , Pessoal Técnico de Saúde , Feminino , Humanos , Dor Lombar/diagnóstico , Dor Lombar/terapia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade
20.
BMJ Open ; 11(2): e044462, 2021 02 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33593786

RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: To review the reporting of monitoring and implementation of interventions in a selection of trials that assessed the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of shoulder subacromial pain. DESIGN: A review of trials assessing the effectiveness of manual therapy and exercise in the management of patients with shoulder subacromial pain. METHODS: We included in our review a selection of 10 trials that were included in a Cochrane review and compared manual therapy and exercise intervention with another intervention. Trials were assessed independently by two reviewers using two checklists: the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and the Health Behavior Change Consortium treatment fidelity (National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium/NIHBCC). RESULTS: TIDieR overall scores for individual trials ranged from 11.1% to 45% and fidelity scores ranged from 7% to 50%. On average, trials scored the following within each domain of NIHBCC: study design 51%; training of providers 8%; treatment delivery 15%; treatment receipt 14% and treatment enactment 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: Little information about the monitoring, implementation and reporting of interventions was provided by trials and that is a barrier for implementing or replicating these interventions. The lack of information regarding the implementation of interventions needs to be taken into account when assessing whether effectiveness of interventions was impacted by their design or due to deviations from the protocol within trials.


Assuntos
Manipulações Musculoesqueléticas , Ombro , Estudos Transversais , Terapia por Exercício , Humanos , Dor de Ombro/terapia
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...