Dataset Information

The Recovering Together study protocol: A single-blind RCT to prevent chronic emotional distress in patient-cargiver dyads in the Neuro-ICU.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Patients admitted to the Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit (Neuro-ICU) with acute neurological illnesses (ANI; e.g., stroke, tumor, TBI) and their informal caregivers experience high rates of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress. To address this need, we previously developed the Recovering Together (RT) dyadic intervention to help prevent chronic emotional distress in both patients and caregivers. Currently, we are conducting a fully-powered, single-blind randomized clinical trial (RCT) to evaluate the efficacy of RT versus an attention matched health education control. Here, we describe the protocol and current status of this RCT.

Methods

We aim to recruit 194 at risk patient-caregiver dyads from the Neuro-ICU at MGH. Eligible dyads include patients diagnosed with ANI, cognitively intact, at least one partner endorses emotional distress (on Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale), English speaking, age 18 or older. Dyads are randomized to the intervention (RT-1) or control condition (RT-2) (both six sessions). RT-1 teaches resiliency (e.g., coping, mindfulness) and interpersonal skills. RT-2 provides education on health-related topics (e.g., stress, self-care, adhering to medical recommendations). Blinded research assistants collect measures at baseline, post-intervention, and three months follow-up. We will conduct mixed linear, mediation, and actor-partner interdependence models to examine changes in dyads' outcomes across time.

Results

We have recruited 41 dyads and aim to recruit 194 total.

Discussion

If successful, we plan to test RT in a large-scale, multisite hybrid effectiveness-implementation study in Neuro-ICUs across the country. Enhancing psychosocial supports for patients and families could improve health outcomes, healthcare efficiency, and the culture of these units.

SUBMITTER: Vranceanu AM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10161144 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Recovering Together study protocol: A single-blind RCT to prevent chronic emotional distress in patient-cargiver dyads in the Neuro-ICU.

Vranceanu Ana-Maria AM Woodworth Emily C EC Kanaya Millan R MR Bannon Sarah S Mace Ryan A RA Manglani Heena H Duarte Brooke A BA Rush Christina L CL Choukas Nathaniel R NR Briskin Ellie A EA Cohen Joshua J Parker Robert R Macklin Eric E Lester Ethan E Traeger Lara L Rosand Jonathan J Grunberg Victoria A VA

Contemporary clinical trials 20221108

<h4>Introduction</h4>Patients admitted to the Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit (Neuro-ICU) with acute neurological illnesses (ANI; e.g., stroke, tumor, TBI) and their informal caregivers experience high rates of anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress. To address this need, we previously developed the Recovering Together (RT) dyadic intervention to help prevent chronic emotional distress in both patients and caregivers. Currently, we are conducting a fully-powered, single-blind randomized ...[more]

PMID: 36368480

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA stroke is a sudden, life-altering event with potentially devastating consequences for survivors and their loved ones. Despite advances in endovascular and neurocritical care approaches to stroke treatment and recovery, there remains a considerable unmet need for interventions targeting the emotional impact of stroke for both patients and their informal caregivers. This is important because untreated emotional distress becomes chronic and negatively impacts quality of life in both patients and caregivers. Our team previously used mixed methods to iteratively develop a six-session modular dyadic intervention to prevent chronic emotional distress in patients with stroke and their informal caregivers called "Recovering Together" (RT) using feedback from dyads and the medical team. The aim of the current study is to test the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of screening and randomization methods, acceptability of RT, satisfaction with RT, feasibility of the assessment process at all time points, and acceptability of outcome measures. Secondarily, we aimed to explore within-treatment effect sizes and change in clinically significant symptoms of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress (PTS). The larger goal was to strengthen methodological rigor before a subsequent efficacy trial.MethodsWe conducted a feasibility randomized controlled trial to evaluate the RT intervention relative to minimally enhanced usual care (MEUC) in stroke patients admitted to a Neurosciences Intensive Care Unit (Neuro-ICU). Dyads were enrolled within 1 week of hospitalization if they met specific eligibility criteria. Assessments were done via paper and pencil at baseline, and electronically via REDCap or over the phone at post-intervention (approximately 6 weeks after baseline), and 3 months later. Assessments included demographics, resiliency intervention targets (mindfulness, coping, self-efficacy, and interpersonal bond), and emotional distress (depression, anxiety, and PTS). Primary outcomes were feasibility and acceptability markers. Secondary outcomes were depression, anxiety, PTS, mindfulness, coping, self-efficacy, and interpersonal bond.ResultsWe consented 20 dyads, enrolled 17, and retained 16. Although many patients were missed before we could approach them, very few declined to participate or dropped out once study staff made initial contact. Feasibility of enrollment (87% of eligible dyads enrolled), acceptability of screening, and randomization (all RT dyads retained after randomization) were excellent. Program satisfaction (RT post-test M = 11.33/12 for patients M = 12/12 for caregivers), and adherence to treatment sessions (six of seven RT dyads attending 4/6 sessions) were high. There were no technical difficulties that affected the delivery of the intervention. There was minimal missing data. For both patients and caregivers, participation in RT was generally associated with clinically significant improvement in emotional distress symptoms from baseline to post-test. Participation in MEUC was associated with clinically significant worsening in emotional distress. Although some of the improvement in emotional distress symptoms decreased in the RT group between post-test to 3 months, these changes were not clinically significant. RT was also associated with substantial decrease in frequency of individuals who met criteria for clinically significant symptoms, while the opposite was true for MEUC. There were many lessons that informed current and future research.ConclusionsThis study provided evidence of feasibility and signal of improvement in RT, as well as necessary methodological changes to increase recruitment efficiency before the future hybrid efficacy-effectiveness trial.Trial registrationNCT02797509.

Project description:BackgroundNeuro-ICU hospitalization for an acute neurological illness is often traumatic and associated with heightened emotional distress and reduced quality of life (QoL) for both survivors and their informal caregivers (i.e., family and friends providing unpaid care). In a pilot study, we previously showed that a dyadic (survivor and caregiver together) resiliency intervention (Recovering Together [RT]) was feasible and associated with sustained improvement in emotional distress when compared with an attention placebo educational control. Here we report on changes in secondary outcomes assessing QoL.MethodsSurvivors (n = 58) and informal caregivers (n = 58) completed assessments at bedside and were randomly assigned to participate together as a dyad in the RT or control intervention (both 6 weeks, two in-person sessions at bedside and four sessions via live video post discharge). We measured QoL domain scores (physical health, psychological, social relations, and environmental), general QoL, and QoL satisfaction using the World Health Organization Quality of Life Abbreviated Instrument at baseline, post treatment, and 3 months' follow-up. We conducted mixed model analyses of variance with linear contrasts to estimate (1) within-group changes in QoL from baseline to post treatment and from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up and (2) between-group differences in changes in QoL from baseline to post treatment and from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up.ResultsWe found significant within-group improvements from baseline to post treatment among RT survivors for physical health QoL (mean difference 1.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.39-3.06; p = 0.012), environmental QoL (mean difference 1.29; 95% CI 0.21-2.36; p = 0.020), general QoL (mean difference 0.55; 95% CI 0.13-0.973; p = 0.011), and QoL satisfaction (mean difference 0.87; 95% CI 0.36-1.37; p = 0.001), and those improvements sustained through the 3-month follow-up. We found no significant between-group improvements for survivors or caregivers from baseline to post treatment or from post treatment to 3 months' follow-up for any QoL variables (i.e., domains, general QoL, and QoL satisfaction together).ConclusionsIn this pilot study, we found improved QoL among survivors, but not in caregivers, who received RT and improvements sustained over time. These RT-related improvements were not significantly greater than those observed in the control. Results support a fully powered randomized controlled trial to allow for a definitive evaluation of RT-related effects among dyads of survivors of acute brain injury and their caregivers.

Project description:IntroductionFalls have major implications for quality of life, independence, and cost of health services. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. The aims of this study were to (1) assess the feasibility of using the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" interventions to support falls rehabilitation when delivered in practice and (2) assess study design and trial procedures for the evaluation of the intervention.MethodsA two-arm pragmatic feasibility randomized controlled trial was conducted with five health service providers in the UK. Patients aged 50+ years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from community services were recruited and received either (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus the "Motivate Me" and "My Activity Programme" apps. The primary outcome was feasibility of the intervention, study design, and procedures (including recruitment rate, adherence, and dropout). Outcome measures include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use, and adherence, measured at baseline, three-month, and six-month post-randomization. Blinded assessors collected the outcome measures.ResultsTwenty four patients were randomized to control group and 26 to intervention group, with a mean age of 77.6 (range 62-92) years. We recruited 37.5% of eligible participants across the five clinical sites. 77% in the intervention group completed their full exercise programme (including the use of the app). Response rates for outcome measures at 6 months were 77-80% across outcome measures, but this was affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. There was a mean 2.6 ± 1.9 point difference between groups in change in Berg balance score from baseline to 3 months and mean 4.4 ± 2.7 point difference from baseline to 6 months in favour of the intervention group. Less falls (1.8 ± 2.8 vs. 9.1 ± 32.6) and less injurious falls (0.1 ± 0.5 vs. 0.4 ± 0.6) in the intervention group and higher adherence scores at three (17.7 ± 6.8 vs. 13.1 ± 6.5) and 6 months (15.2 ± 7.8 vs. 14.9 ± 6.1). There were no related adverse events. Health professionals and patients had few technical issues with the apps.ConclusionsThe motivational apps and trial procedures were feasible for health professionals and patients. There are positive indications from outcome measures in the feasibility trial, and key criteria for progression to full trial were met.

Project description:BackgroundConstipation is frequent in critically ill adults receiving opioids. Naloxegol (N), a peripherally acting mu-receptor antagonist (PAMORA), may reduce constipation. The objective of this trial was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of N to prevent constipation in ICU adults receiving opioids. Methods and Patients. In this single-center, double-blind, randomized trial, adults admitted to a medical ICU receiving IV opioids (≥100 mcg fentanyl/day), and not having any of 17 exclusion criteria, were randomized to N (25 mg) or placebo (P) daily randomized to receive N (25mg) or placebo (P) and docusate 100 mg twice daily until ICU discharge, 10 days, or diarrhea (≥3 spontaneous bowel movement (SBM)/24 hours) or a serious adverse event related to study medication. A 4-step laxative protocol was initiated when there was no SBM ≥3 days.ResultsOnly 318 (20.6%) of the 1542 screened adults during the 1/17-10/19 enrolment period met all inclusion criteria. Of these, only 19/381 (4.9%) met all eligibility criteria. After 7 consent refusals, 12 patients were randomized. The study was stopped early due to enrolment futility. The N (n = 6) and P (n = 6) groups were similar. The time to first SBM (N 41.4 ± 31.7 vs. P 32.5 ± 25.4 hours, P = 0.56) was similar. The maximal daily abdominal pressure was significantly lower in the N group (N 10 ± 4 vs. P 13 ± 5, P = 0.002). The median (IQR) daily SOFA scores were higher in N (N 7 (4, 8) vs. P 4 (3, 5), P < 0.001). Laxative protocol use was similar (N 83.3% vs. P 66.6%; P = 0.51). Diarrhea prevalence was high but similar (N 66.6% vs. P 66.6%; P = 1.0). No patient experienced opioid withdrawal.ConclusionsImportant recruitment challenges exist for ICU trials evaluating the use of PAMORAs for constipation prevention. Despite being underpowered, our results suggest time to first SBM with naloxegol, if different than P, may be small. The effect of naloxegol on abdominal pressure, SOFA, and the interaction between the two requires further research.

Project description:IntroductionFalls have major implications for quality of life, independence and cost to the health service. Strength and balance training has been found to be effective in reducing the rate/risk of falls, as long as there is adequate fidelity to the evidence-based programme. Health services are often unable to deliver the evidence-based dose of exercise and older adults do not always sufficiently adhere to their programme to gain full outcomes. Smartphone technology based on behaviour-change theory has been used to support healthy lifestyles, but not falls prevention exercise. This feasibility trial will explore whether smartphone technology can support patients to better adhere to an evidence-based rehabilitation programme and test study procedures/outcome measures.Methods and analysisA two-arm, pragmatic feasibility randomised controlled trial will be conducted with health services in Manchester, UK. Seventy-two patients aged 50+years eligible for a falls rehabilitation exercise programme from two community services will receive: (1) standard service with a smartphone for outcome measurement only or (2) standard service plus a smartphone including the motivational smartphone app. The primary outcome is feasibility of the intervention, study design and procedures. The secondary outcome is to compare standard outcome measures for falls, function and adherence to instrumented versions collected using smartphone. Outcome measures collected include balance, function, falls, strength, fear of falling, health-related quality of life, resource use and adherence. Outcomes are measured at baseline, 3 and 6-month post-randomisation. Interviews/focus groups with health professionals and participants further explore feasibility of the technology and trial procedures. Primarily analyses will be descriptive.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol is approved by North West Greater Manchester East Research Ethics Committee (Rec ref:18/NW/0457, 9/07/2018). User groups and patient representatives were consulted to inform trial design, and are involved in study recruitment. Results will be reported at conferences and in peer-reviewed publications. A dissemination event will be held in Manchester to present the results of the trial. The protocol adheres to the recommended Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.Trial registration numberISRCTN12830220; Pre-results.

Dataset Information

The Recovering Together study protocol: A single-blind RCT to prevent chronic emotional distress in patient-cargiver dyads in the Neuro-ICU.

Introduction

Methods

Results

Discussion

Publications

The Recovering Together study protocol: A single-blind RCT to prevent chronic emotional distress in patient-cargiver dyads in the Neuro-ICU.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets