OBJECTIVE: PRECIS - 2 is a tool that could improve design insight for trialists. Our aim was to validate the PRECIS - 2 tool, unlike its predecessor, testing the discriminant validity and inter-rater reliability.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Over 80 international trialists, methodologists, clinicians and policymakers created PRECIS - 2 helping to ensure face and content validity. The inter-rater reliability of PREC IS - 2 was measured using 19 experienced trialists who used PRECIS - 2 to score a diverse sample of 15 RCT protocols. Discriminant validity was tested with two raters to independently determine if the trial protocols were more pragmatic or more explanatory, with scores from the 19 raters for the 15 trials as predictors of pragmatism.RESULTS: Inter-rater reliability was generally good, with seven out of nine domains having an ICC over 0.65. Flexibility (Adherence) and Recruitment had wide confidence intervals but raters found these difficult to rate and wanted more information. Each of the nine PRECIS - 2 domains could be used to differentiate between trials taking more pragmatic or more explanatory approaches with better than chance discrimination for all domains.CONCLUSION: We have assessed the validity and reliability of PRECIS - 2. An elaboration paper and website provide guidance to help future users of the tool which is continuing to be tested by trial teams, systematic reviewers and funders.
Background: Neck and shoulder complaints are common in primary care physiotherapy. These patients experience pain and disability, resulting in high societal costs due to, for example, healthcare use and work absence. Content and intensity of physiotherapy care can be matched to a patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain. Mode of care delivery can be matched to the patient’s suitability for blended care (integrating eHealth with physiotherapy sessions). It is hypothesized that combining these two approaches to stratified care (referred to from this point as Stratified Blended Approach) will improve the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of physiotherapy for patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints compared to usual physiotherapy. Methods: This paper presents the protocol of a multicenter, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, cluster randomized controlled trial. A total of 92 physiotherapists will be recruited from Dutch primary care physiotherapy practices. Physiotherapy practices will be randomized to the Stratified Blended Approach arm or usual physiotherapy arm by a computer-generated random sequence table using SPSS (1:1 allocation). Number of physiotherapists (1 or > 1) will be used as a stratification variable. A total of 238 adults consulting with neck and/or shoulder complaints will be recruited to the trial by the physiotherapy practices. In the Stratified Blended Approach arm, physiotherapists will match I) the content and intensity of physiotherapy care to the patient’s risk of persistent disabling pain, categorized as low, medium or high (using the Keele STarT MSK Tool) and II) the mode of care delivery to the patient’s suitability and willingness to receive blended care. The control arm will receive physiotherapy as usual. Neither physiotherapists nor patients in the control arm will be informed about the Stratified Blended Approach arm. The primary outcome is region-specific pain and disability (combined score of Shoulder Pain and Disability Index & Neck Pain and Disability Scale) over 9 months. Effectiveness will be compared using linear mixed models. An economic evaluation will be performed from the societal and healthcare perspective. Discussion: The trial will be the first to provide evidence on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the Stratified Blended Approach compared with usual physiotherapy in patients with neck and/or shoulder complaints.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of psychosomatic therapy versus care as usual in primary care for patients with persistent somatic symptoms (PSS).MethodsWe conducted a pragmatic, two-armed, randomised controlled trial among primary care patients with PSS in the Netherlands that included 39 general practices and 34 psychosomatic therapists. The intervention, psychosomatic therapy, consisted of 6–12 sessions delivered by specialised exercise- and physiotherapists. Primary outcome measure: patient's level of functioning. Secondary outcomes: severity of physical and psychosocial symptoms, health-related quality of life, health-related anxiety, illness behaviour and number of GP contacts.ResultsCompared to usual care (n = 85), the intervention group (n = 84) showed no improvement in patient's level of functioning (mean difference − 0.50 [95% CI -1.10 to 0.10]; p = .10), and improvement in health-related anxiety (mean difference − 1.93 [95% CI -3.81 to −0.04]; p = .045), over 12 months. At 5-month follow-up, we found improvement in physical functioning, somatisation, and health-related anxiety. The 12-month follow-up revealed no therapy effects. Subgroup analyses showed an overall effect in patient's level of functioning for the group with moderate PSS (mean difference − 0.91 [95% CI -1.78 to −0.03]; p = .042). In the year after the end of therapy, the number of GP contacts did not differ significantly between the two groups.ConclusionWe only found effects on some secondary outcome measures, and on our primary outcome measure especially in patients with moderate PSS, the psychosomatic therapy appears promising for further study.Trial registration: the trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Registry, https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR7356 under ID NTR7356.
MULTIFILE
