Dataset Information

Treatment success of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation in general practice: development and internal validation of a prediction model.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To develop and internally validate prediction models to assess treatment success of both stand-alone and blended online vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome.

Design

Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Setting

59 general practices in The Netherlands.

Participants

202 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome who received either stand-alone VR (98) or blended VR (104). Stand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, the same intervention was supplemented with physiotherapy support.

Main outcome measures

Successful treatment was defined as: clinically relevant improvement of (1) vestibular symptoms (≥3 points improvement Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form); (2) vestibular-related disability (>11 points improvement Dizziness Handicap Inventory); and (3) both vestibular symptoms and vestibular-related disability. We assessed performance of the predictive models by applying calibration plots, Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and applied internal validation.

Results

Improvement of vestibular symptoms, vestibular-related disability or both was seen in 121, 81 and 64 participants, respectively. We generated predictive models for each outcome, resulting in different predictors in the final models. Calibration for all models was adequate with non-significant Hosmer-Lemeshow statistics, but the discriminative ability of the final predictive models was poor (AUC 0.54 to 0.61). None of the identified models are therefore suitable for use in daily general practice to predict treatment success of online VR.

Conclusion

It is difficult to predict treatment success of internet-based VR and it remains unclear who should be treated with stand-alone VR or blended VR. Because we were unable to develop a useful prediction model, the decision to offer stand-alone or blended VR should for now be based on availability, cost effectiveness and patient preference.

Trial registration number

The Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

SUBMITTER: van Vugt VA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7569931 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Treatment success of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation in general practice: development and internal validation of a prediction model.

van Vugt Vincent A VA Heymans Martijn W MW van der Wouden Johannes C JC van der Horst Henriëtte E HE Maarsingh Otto R OR

BMJ open 20201016 10

<h4>Objectives</h4>To develop and internally validate prediction models to assess treatment success of both stand-alone and blended online vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in patients with chronic vestibular syndrome.<h4>Design</h4>Secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>59 general practices in The Netherlands.<h4>Participants</h4>202 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome who received either stand-alone VR (98) or blended VR (104). Stand-alo ...[more]

PMID: 33067287

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the cost-effectiveness of stand-alone and blended internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in comparison with usual care (UC) for chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice.DesignEconomic evaluation alongside a three-armed, individually randomised controlled trial.Setting59 Dutch general practices.Participants322 adults, aged 50 years and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.InterventionsStand-alone VR consisted of a 6-week, internet-based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises. In blended VR, this intervention was supplemented with face-to-face physiotherapy support. UC group participants received usual general practice care without restrictions.Main outcome measuresSocietal costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), Vertigo Symptom Scale-Short Form (VSS-SF), clinically relevant response (≥3 points VSS-SF improvement).ResultsMean societal costs in both the stand-alone and blended VR groups were statistically non-significantly higher than in the UC group (mean difference (MD) €504, 95% CI -1082 to 2268; and €916, 95% CI -663 to 2596). Both stand-alone and blended VR groups reported non-significantly more QALYs than the UC group (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.04; and 0.01, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.03), and significantly better VSS-SF Scores (MD 3.8 points, 95% CI 1.7 to 6.0; and 3.3 points, 95% CI 1.3 to 5.2). For stand-alone VR compared with UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €24 161/QALY, €600/point improvement in VSS-SF and €8000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF. For blended VR versus UC, the probability of cost-effectiveness was 0.95 at a willingness-to-pay ratio of €123 335/QALY, €900/point improvement in VSS-SF and €24 000/clinically relevant responder in VSS-SF.ConclusionStand-alone and blended internet-based VR non-significantly increased QALYs and significantly reduced vestibular symptoms compared with UC, while costs in both groups were non-significantly higher. Stand-alone VR has the highest probability to be cost-effective compared with UC.Trial registration numberThe Netherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of stand alone and blended internet based vestibular rehabilitation (VR) in the management of chronic vestibular syndromes in general practice.DesignPragmatic, three armed, parallel group, individually randomised controlled trial.Setting59 general practices in the Netherlands.Participants322 adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome.InterventionsStand alone VR comprising a six week, internet based intervention with weekly online sessions and daily exercises (10-20 minutes a day). In the blended VR group, the same internet based intervention was supplemented by face-to-face physiotherapy support (home visits in weeks 1 and 3). Participants in the usual care group received standard care from a general practitioner, without any restrictions.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was vestibular symptoms after six months as measured by the vertigo symptom scale-short form (VSS-SF range 0-60, clinically relevant difference ≥3 points). Secondary outcomes were dizziness related impairment, anxiety, depressive symptoms, subjective improvement of vestibular symptoms after three and six months, and adverse events.ResultsIn the intention-to-treat analysis, participants in the stand alone and blended VR groups had lower VSS-SF scores at six months than participants in the usual care group (adjusted mean difference -4.1 points, 95% confidence interval -5.8 to -2.5; and -3.5 points, -5.1 to -1.9, respectively). Similar differences in VSS-SF scores were seen at three months follow-up. Participants in the stand alone and blended VR groups also experienced less dizziness related impairment, less anxiety, and more subjective improvement of vestibular symptoms at three and six months. No serious adverse events related to online VR occurred during the trial.ConclusionStand alone and blended internet based VR are clinically effective and safe interventions to treat adults aged 50 and older with a chronic vestibular syndrome. Online VR is an easily accessible form of treatment, with the potential to improve care for an undertreated group of patients in general practice.Trial registrationNetherlands Trial Register NTR5712.

Project description:BackgroundPolypharmacy interventions are resource-intensive and should be targeted to those at risk of negative health outcomes. Our aim was to develop and internally validate prognostic models to predict health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and the combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs, in older patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in general practices.MethodsDesign: two independent data sets, one comprising health insurance claims data (n=592 456), the other data from the PRIoritising MUltimedication in Multimorbidity (PRIMUM) cluster randomised controlled trial (n=502). Population: ≥60 years, ≥5 drugs, ≥3 chronic diseases, excluding dementia. Outcomes: combined outcome of falls, hospitalisation, institutionalisation and nursing care needs (after 6, 9 and 24 months) (claims data); and HRQoL (after 6 and 9 months) (trial data). Predictor variables in both data sets: age, sex, morbidity-related variables (disease count), medication-related variables (European Union-Potentially Inappropriate Medication list (EU-PIM list)) and health service utilisation. Predictor variables exclusively in trial data: additional socio-demographics, morbidity-related variables (Cumulative Illness Rating Scale, depression), Medication Appropriateness Index (MAI), lifestyle, functional status and HRQoL (EuroQol EQ-5D-3L). Analysis: mixed regression models, combined with stepwise variable selection, 10-fold cross validation and sensitivity analyses.ResultsMost important predictors of EQ-5D-3L at 6 months in best model (Nagelkerke's R² 0.507) were depressive symptoms (-2.73 (95% CI: -3.56 to -1.91)), MAI (-0.39 (95% CI: -0.7 to -0.08)), baseline EQ-5D-3L (0.55 (95% CI: 0.47 to 0.64)). Models based on claims data and those predicting long-term outcomes based on both data sets produced low R² values. In claims data-based model with highest explanatory power (R²=0.16), previous falls/fall-related injuries, previous hospitalisations, age, number of involved physicians and disease count were most important predictor variables.ConclusionsBest trial data-based model predicted HRQoL after 6 months well and included parameters of well-being not found in claims. Performance of claims data-based models and models predicting long-term outcomes was relatively weak. For generalisability, future studies should refit models by considering parameters representing well-being and functional status.

Project description:BackgroundVestibular rehabilitation is a safe and effective exercise-based treatment for patients with chronic vestibular symptoms. However, it is underused in general practice. Internet-based vestibular rehabilitation (Vertigo Training), which has proven to be effective as well, was developed to increase uptake. We now aim to improve the quality of care for patients with vestibular symptoms by carrying out a nationwide implementation of Vertigo Training. We will evaluate the effect of this implementation on primary care.MethodsOur implementation study consists of three successive phases: 1) We will perform a retrospective observational cohort study and a qualitative interview study to evaluate the current management of patients with vestibular symptoms in primary care, in particular anti-vertigo drug prescriptions, and identify areas for improvement. We will use the results of this phase to tailor our implementation strategy to the needs of general practitioners (GPs) and patients. 2) This phase entails the implementation of Vertigo Training using a multicomponent implementation strategy, containing: guideline adaptations; marketing strategy; pharmacotherapeutic audit and feedback meetings; education; clinical decision support; and local champions. 3) In this phase, we will evaluate the effect of the implementation in three ways. a. Interrupted time series. We will use routine primary care data from adult patients with vestibular symptoms to compare the number of GP consultations for vestibular symptoms, referrals for vestibular rehabilitation, prescriptions for anti-vertigo drugs, and referrals to physiotherapy and secondary care before and after implementation. b. Prospective observational cohort study. We will extract data from Vertigo Training to investigate the usage and the characteristics of participants. We will also determine whether these characteristics are associated with successful treatment. c. Qualitative interview study. We will conduct interviews with GPs to explore their experiences with the implementation.DiscussionThis is one of the first studies to evaluate the effect of a nationwide implementation of an innovative treatment on Dutch primary care. Implementation strategies have been researched before, but it remains unclear which ones are the most effective and under what conditions. We therefore expect to gain relevant insights for future projects that aim to implement innovations in primary care.

Project description:Vestibular rehabilitation (VR) is practiced across Europe but little in this area has been quantified. The aim of this study was to investigate current VR assessment, treatment, education, and research practices. This was an online, cross-sectional survey with 39 VR specific questions and four sections: demographics, current practice, education, and research. The survey was disseminated through the Dizzynet network to individual therapists through country-specific VR special interest groups. Results were analysed descriptively. A thematic approach was taken to analyse open questions. A total of 471 individuals (median age 41, range 23 - 68 years, 73.4% women), predominately physiotherapists (89.4%) from 20 European countries responded to the survey. They had worked for a median of 4 years (range < 1 - 35) in VR. The majority (58.7%) worked in hospital in-patient or out-patient settings and 21.4% in dedicated VR services. Most respondents specialized in neurology, care of the elderly (geriatrics), or otorhinolaryngology. VR was reported as hard/very hard to access by 48%, with the main barriers to access identified as lack of knowledge of health care professionals (particularly family physicians), lack of trained therapists, and lack of local services. Most respondents reported to know and treat benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV 87.5%), unilateral vestibular hypofunction (75.6%), and cervicogenic dizziness (63%). The use of vestibular assessment equipment varied widely. Over 70% used high-density foam and objective gait speed testing. Over 50% used dynamic visual acuity equipment. Infrared systems, Frenzel lenses, and dynamic posturography were not commonly employed (< 20%). The most frequently used physical outcome measures were the Clinical Test of the Sensory Interaction of Balance, Functional Gait Assessment/Dynamic Gait Index, and Romberg/Tandem Romberg. The Dizziness Handicap Inventory, Visual Analogue Scale, Falls Efficacy Scale, and the Vertigo Symptom Scale were the most commonly used patient reported outcome measures. Adaptation, balance, and habituation exercises were most frequently used (> 80%), with virtual reality used by 15.6%. Over 70% reported knowledge/use of Semont, Epley and Barbeque-Roll manoeuvres for the treatment of BPPV. Most education regarding VR was obtained at post-registration level (89.5%) with only 19% reporting pre-registration education. There was strong (78%) agreement that therapists should have professionally accredited postgraduate certification in VR, with blended learning the most popular mode. Three major research questions were identified for priority: management of specific conditions, effectiveness of VR, and mechanisms/factors influencing vestibular compensation and VR. In summary, the survey quantified current clinical practice in VR across Europe. Knowledge and treatment of common vestibular diseases was high, but use of published subjective and objective outcome measures as well as vestibular assessment varied widely. The results stress the need of improving both training of therapists and standards of care. A European approach, taking advantage of best practices in some countries, seems a reasonable approach.

Dataset Information

Treatment success of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation in general practice: development and internal validation of a prediction model.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Main outcome measures

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration number

Publications

Treatment success of internet-based vestibular rehabilitation in general practice: development and internal validation of a prediction model.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets