Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a group self-management support program versus treatment-as-usual for anxiety disorders: study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The integration of a personal recovery-oriented practice in mental health services is an emerging principle in policy planning. Self-management support (SMS) is an intervention promoting recovery that aims at educating patients on the nature of their mental disorder, improving their strategies to manage their day-to-day symptoms, fostering self-efficacy and empowerment, preventing relapse, and promoting well-being. While SMS is well established for chronic physical conditions, there is a lack of evidence to support the implementation of structured SMS programs for common mental disorders, and particularly for anxiety disorders. This study aims to examine the effectiveness of a group-based self-management support program for anxiety disorders as an add-on to treatment-as-usual in community-based care settings.

Methods/design

We will conduct a multicentre pragmatic randomized controlled trial with a pre-treatment, post-treatment (4-month post-randomization), and follow-ups at 8, 12 and 24-months. TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS: a) group self-management support (10 weekly 2.5-h group web-based sessions with 10-15 patients with two trained facilitators); b) treatment-as-usual. Participants will include adults meeting DSM-5 criteria for Panic Disorder, Agoraphobia, Social Anxiety Disorder, and/or Generalized Anxiety Disorder. The primary outcome measure will be the Beck Anxiety Inventory; secondary outcome measures will comprise self-reported instruments for anxiety and depressive symptoms, recovery, self-management, quality of life, and service utilisation.

Statistical analysis

Data will be analysed based on intention-to-treat with a mixed effects regression model accounting for between and within-subject variations in the effects of the intervention.

Discussion

This study will contribute to the limited knowledge base regarding the effectiveness of structured group self-management support for anxiety disorders. It is expected that changes in patients' self-management behaviour will lead to better anxiety management and, consequently, to improved patient outcomes.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05124639 . Prospectively registered 18 November 2021.

SUBMITTER: Roberge P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8862538 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a group self-management support program versus treatment-as-usual for anxiety disorders: study protocol.

Roberge Pasquale P Houle Janie J Provost Jean-Rémy JR Coulombe Simon S Beaudin Annie A Bower Peter P Lemyre Félix Camirand FC Drapeau Martin M Drouin Marc-Simon MS Hudon Catherine C Provencher Martin D MD Vasiliadis Helen-Maria HM

BMC psychiatry 20220221 1

<h4>Background</h4>The integration of a personal recovery-oriented practice in mental health services is an emerging principle in policy planning. Self-management support (SMS) is an intervention promoting recovery that aims at educating patients on the nature of their mental disorder, improving their strategies to manage their day-to-day symptoms, fostering self-efficacy and empowerment, preventing relapse, and promoting well-being. While SMS is well established for chronic physical conditions, ...[more]

PMID: 35189848

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultimorbidity, the co-existence of 2+ (or 3+) chronic diseases in an individual, is an increasingly common global phenomenon leading to reduced quality of life and functional status, and higher healthcare service use and mortality. There is an urgent need to develop and test new models of care that incorporate the components of multimorbidity interventions recommended by international organizations, including care coordination, interdisciplinary teams, and care plans developed with patients that are tailored to their needs and preferences.PurposeTo determine the effectiveness of a 6-month, community-based, multimorbidity intervention compared to usual home care services for community-dwelling older adults (age 65+ years) with multimorbidity (3+ chronic conditions) that were newly referred to and receiving home care services.MethodsA pragmatic, parallel, two-arm randomized controlled trial evaluated the intervention, which included in-home visits by an interdisciplinary team, personal support worker visits, and monthly case conferences. The study took place in two sites in central Ontario, Canada. Eligible and consenting participants were randomly allocated to the intervention and control group using a 1:1 ratio. The participants, statistician/analyst, and research assistants collecting assessment data were blinded. The primary outcome was the Physical Component Summary (PCS) score of the 12-Item Short-Form health survey (SF-12). Secondary outcomes included the SF-12 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score, Center for Epidemiological Studies of Depression (CESD-10), Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7), Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease, and service use and costs. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) tested group differences using multiple imputation to address missing data, and non-parametric methods explored service use and cost differences.Results59 older adults were randomized into the intervention (n = 30) and control (n = 29) groups. At baseline, groups were similar for the primary outcome and number of chronic conditions (mean of 8.6), but the intervention group had lower mental health status. The intervention was cost neutral and no significant group differences were observed for the primary outcome of PCS from SF-12 (mean difference: -4.94; 95% CI: -12.53 to 2.66; p = 0.20) or secondary outcomes.ConclusionWe evaluated a 6-month, self-management intervention for older adults with multimorbidity. While the intervention was cost neutral in comparison to usual care, it was not found to improve the PCS from SF-12 or secondary health outcomes. Recruitment and retention challenges were significant obstacles limiting our ability to assess intervention effectiveness. Yet, the intervention was grounded in internationally-endorsed recommendations and implemented in a practice setting (home care) viewed as a key upstream resource fostering independence in older adults. These features collectively support the identification of ways to recruit/retain older adults and test alternative implementation strategies for interventions that are based on sound principles of multimorbidity management.

Project description:IntroductionThe use of adequate self-management strategies for people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may increase the level of physical activity (PA), improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and reduce healthcare use. Whether web-based support in addition to prompts (email and SMS) could be used to promote self-management strategies to facilitate behaviour change in people with COPD is not clear. This clinical trial aims to generate evidence on the effect of a web-based solution, the COPD Web, in a cohort of people with COPD in a primary healthcare context.Methods and analysisThe overall design is a pragmatic randomised controlled trial with preassessments and postassessments (3 and 12 months) and an implementation and user experience evaluation. People with a diagnosis of COPD, treated in primary healthcare will be eligible for the study. A total of 144 participants will be enrolled through advertisment or by healthcare professionals at included primary healthcare units and, after fulfilled baseline assessment, randomised to either control or intervention group. All participants will receive usual care, a pedometer and a leaflet about the importance of PA. Participants in the intervention will, in addition, get access to the COPD Web, an interactive self-managed website that aims to support people with COPD in self-management strategies. They will also continuously get support from prompts with a focus on behaviour change.The effect on participants' PA, dyspnoea, COPD-related symptoms, HRQoL and health economics will be assessed using accelerometer and questionnaires. To identify enablers and barriers for the use of web-based support to change behaviour, semistructured interviews will be conducted in a subgroup of participants at the 3 months follow-up.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received from the Regional Ethical Review Board in Umeå, Sweden. Dnr 2018-274 and dnr 2019-05572. Findings will be presented at conferences, submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented to the involved healthcare professionals, participants and patient organisations.Trial registration numberNCT03746873.

Project description:BackgroundThe self-management of osteoarthritis (OA) and low back pain (LBP) through activity and skills (SOLAS) theory-driven group-based complex intervention was developed primarily for the evaluation of its acceptability to patients and physiotherapists and the feasibility of trial procedures, to inform the potential for a definitive trial.MethodsThis assessor-blinded multicentre two-arm parallel cluster randomised controlled feasibility trial compared the SOLAS intervention to usual individual physiotherapy (UP; pragmatic control group). Patients with OA of the hip, knee, lumbar spine and/or chronic LBP were recruited in primary care physiotherapy clinics (i.e. clusters) in Dublin, Ireland, between September 2014 and November 2015. The primary feasibility objectives were evaluated using quantitative methods and individual telephone interviews with purposive samples of participants and physiotherapists. A range of secondary outcomes were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (behaviour change only), 2 months and 6 months to explore the preliminary effects of the intervention. Analysis was by intention-to-treat according to participants' cluster allocation and involved descriptive analysis of the quantitative data and inductive thematic analysis of the qualitative interviews. A linear mixed model was used to contrast change over time in participant secondary outcomes between treatment arms, while adjusting for study waves and clusters.ResultsFourteen clusters were recruited (7 per trial arm), each cluster participated in two waves of recruitment, with the average cluster size below the target of six participants (intervention: mean (SD) = 4.92 (1.31), range 2-7; UP: mean (SD) = 5.08 (2.43), range 1-9). One hundred twenty participants (83.3% of n = 144 expected) were recruited (intervention n = 59; UP n = 61), with follow-up data obtained from 80.8% (n = 97) at 6 weeks, 84.2% (n = 101) at 2 months and 71.7% (n = 86) at 6 months. Most participants received treatment as allocated (intervention n = 49; UP n = 54). The qualitative interviews (12 participants; 10 physiotherapists (PTs) found the intervention and trial procedures acceptable and appropriate, with minimal feasible adaptations required. Linear mixed methods showed improvements in most secondary outcomes at 2 and 6 months with small between-group effects.ConclusionsWhile the SOLAS intervention and trial procedures were acceptable to participants and PTs, the recruitment of enough participants is the biggest obstacle to a definitive trial.Trial registrationISRCTN ISRCTN49875385 . Registered on 26 March 2014.

Project description:BackgroundTraumatic injuries, defined as physical injuries with sudden onset, are a major cause of distress and disability, with far-reaching societal consequences. A significant proportion of trauma survivors report persistent symptoms and difficulties after the injury, and studies show unmet health care needs. Self-management programs delivered in the sub-acute phase after traumatic injuries are scarcely evaluated. The aim of the present study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-management program (SEMPO), delivered 3-4 months after moderate-to-severe traumatic injury.MethodsThis study protocol describes a pragmatic randomized controlled trial (RCT) with two classical RCT arms (intervention and control) and an explorative self-selection arm. 220 patients will be recruited from Oslo University Hospital, the largest Trauma Referral Centre in Norway. Patients aged 18-72 years residing in the south-east region of Norway, admitted to the Trauma Centre directly or within 72 h after having sustained a moderate to severe traumatic injury, defined as a New Injury Severity Score > 9, having at least 2 days hospital stay, and reporting injury-related symptoms and impairment at discharge from the acute hospital will be included. Patients will be randomly assigned to either a classical RCT randomization arm (intervention or control arm) or to a self-selection arm. In the randomization arm, participants are further randomized into intervention or control group. Participants allocated to the self-selection arm will choose to partake either in the intervention or control arm. The primary outcome is the level of self-efficacy in trauma coping assessed 6 months after completion of the intervention, with a similar time point for the control group. Secondary outcomes include symptom burden, physical functioning and disability, return to work and health care utilization, health-related quality of life, and communication competency. In addition, patients will be asked to nominate one domain-related measurement as their preferred outcome measure.DiscussionThis RCT will determine the effect of a self-management program tailored to patients with moderate to severe physical trauma, and the self-selection arm incorporates the potential influence of patient treatment preferences on intervention results. If the intervention proves effective, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses will be performed and thereby provide important information for clinicians and policy makers.Trial registrationThe study is registered in Clinical Trials with the identifier: NCT06305819. Registered on March 05, 2004.

Project description:BACKGROUND: All mothers in South Australia are offered a clinic or home-visit by a Child and Family Health community nurse in the initial postnatal weeks. Subsequent support is available on request from staff in community clinics and from a telephone helpline. The aim of the present study is to compare equivalence of a single clinic-based appointment plus a nurse-moderated group-based internet intervention when infants were aged 0-6 months versus a single home-visit together with subsequent standard services (the latter support was available to mothers in both study groups). METHODS/DESIGN: The evaluation utilised a pragmatic preference randomised trial comparing the equivalence of outcomes for mothers and infants across the two study groups. Eligible mothers were those whose services were provided by nurses working in one of six community clinics in the metropolitan region of Adelaide. Mothers were excluded if they did not have internet access, required an interpreter, or their nurse clinician recommended that they not participate due to issues such as domestic violence or substance abuse. Randomisation was based on the service identification number sequentially assigned to infants when referred to the Child and Family Health Services from birthing units (this was done by administrative staff who had no involvement in recruiting mothers, delivering the intervention, or analyzing results for the study). Consistent with design and power calculations, 819 mothers were recruited to the trial. The primary outcomes for the trial are parents' sense of competence and self-efficacy measured using standard self-report questionnaires. Secondary outcomes include the quality of mother-infant relationships, maternal social support, role satisfaction and maternal mental health, infant social-emotional and language development, and patterns of service utilisation. Maternal and infant outcomes will be evaluated using age-appropriate questionnaires when infants are aged <2 months (pre-intervention), 9, 15, and 21 months. DISCUSSION: We know of no previous study that has evaluated an intervention that combines the capacity of nurse and internet-based services to improve outcomes for mothers and infants. The knowledge gained from this study will inform the design and conduct of community-based postnatal mother and child support programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613000204741.

Project description:Fatigue is a common yet difficult to treat condition in primary care. The objective of this study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a brief cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) based fatigue self-management (FSM) intervention as compared to usual care among patients with chronic fatigue in primary care.An economic evaluation alongside of a parallel randomized controlled study design was used. Computer-generated variable-sized block randomization plan was used to assign patients into treatment groups and data collection staff were blinded to group assignments. Patients aged between 18 and 65 years with at least six months of persistent fatigue and no medical or psychiatric exclusions were enrolled from a large primary care practice in Stony Brook, New York. The FSM group (n = 37) received two sessions of a nurse-delivered, fatigue self-management protocol and a self-help book and the usual care group (n = 36) received regular medical care. The effectiveness measure was the Fatigue Severity Scale and the cost measure was total health care expenditures derived from monthly health services use diaries during follow-up. A societal perspective was adopted and bootstrapped incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) and net monetary benefit (NMB) were calculated as measures of cost-effectiveness.The ICER for FSM was -$$2358, indicating that FSM dominates UC and it may generate societal cost savings as compared to usual care. Complete case analysis yielded smaller ICER (-$1199) with greater uncertainties. Net monetary benefit analysis showed that FSM has a probability of 0.833 (95% CI: 0.819, 0.847) to achieve positive NMB and the favorable results were not sensitive to assumptions about informal care or treatment costs.This economic evaluation found initial evidence that a two-session brief CBT-based FSM may be cost-effective as compared to usual care over 12 months. The FSM intervention is potentially a promising intervention for chronic fatigue patients in primary care. Additional research is needed to examine the reproducibility and generalizability of these findings.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00997451, March 28, 2009).

Project description:BackgroundAdolescent antisocial behaviour is a major health and social problem. Studies in the USA have shown that multisystemic therapy reduces such behaviour and the number of criminal offences committed by this group. However, findings outside the USA are equivocal. We aimed to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of multisystemic therapy versus management as usual in the treatment of adolescent antisocial behaviour.MethodsWe did an 18 month, multisite, pragmatic, randomised controlled, superiority trial in England. Eligible participants aged 11-17 years with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour had at least three severity criteria indicating past difficulties across several settings and one of five general inclusion criteria for antisocial behaviour. We randomly assigned families (1:1) using stochastic minimisation, stratifying for treatment centre, sex, age at enrolment to study, and age at onset of antisocial behaviour, to receive either management as usual or 3-5 months of multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual. Research assistants and investigators were masked to treatment allocation; the participants could not be masked. The primary outcome was out-of-home placement at 18 months. The primary analysis included all randomised participants for whom data were available. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN77132214. Follow-up of the trial is still ongoing.FindingsBetween Feb 4, 2010, and Sept 1, 2012, 1076 families were referred to nine multi-agency panels, 684 of whom were assigned to management as usual (n=342) or multisystemic therapy followed by management as usual (n=342). At 18 months, the proportion of participants in out-of-home placement was not significantly different between the groups (13% [43/340] in the multisystemic therapy group vs 11% [36/335] in the management-as-usual group; odds ratio 1·25, 95% CI 0·77-2·05; p=0·37).InterpretationThe findings do not support that multisystemic therapy should be used over management as usual as the intervention of choice for adolescents with moderate-to-severe antisocial behaviour.FundingDepartment for Children, Schools and Families, Department of Health.

Dataset Information

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a group self-management support program versus treatment-as-usual for anxiety disorders: study protocol.

Background

Methods/design

Statistical analysis

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of a group self-management support program versus treatment-as-usual for anxiety disorders: study protocol.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets