Background: A pragmatic, stepped wedge trial design can be an appealing design to evaluate complex interventions in real-life settings. However, there are certain pitfalls that need to be considered. This paper reports on the experiences and lessons learned from the conduct of a cluster randomized, stepped wedge trial evaluating the effect of the Hospital Elder Life Program (HELP) in a Dutch hospital setting to prevent older patients from developing delirium. Methods: We evaluated our trial which was conducted in eight departments in two hospitals in hospitalized patients aged 70 years or older who were at risk for delirium by reflecting on the assumptions that we had and on what we intended to accomplish when we started, as compared to what we actually realized in the different phases of our study. Lessons learned on the design, the timeline, the enrollment of eligible patients and the use of routinely collected data are provided accompanied by recommendations to address challenges. Results: The start of the trial was delayed which caused subsequent time schedule problems. The requirement for individual informed consent for a quality improvement project made the inclusion more prone to selection bias. Most units experienced major difficulties in including patients, leading to excluding two of the eight units from participation. This resulted in failing to include a similar number of patients in the control condition versus the intervention condition. Data on outcomes routinely collected in the electronic patient records were not accessible during the study, and appeared to be often missing during analyses. Conclusions: The stepped wedge, cluster randomized trial poses specific risks in the design and execution of research in real-life settings of which researchers should be aware to prevent negative consequences impacting the validity of their results. Valid conclusions on the effectiveness of the HELP in the Dutch hospital setting are hampered by the limited quantity and quality of routine clinical data in our pragmatic trial. Executing a stepped wedge design in a daily practice setting using routinely collected data requires specific attention to ethical review, flexibility, a spacious time schedule, the availability of substantial capacity in the research team and early checks on the data availability and quality.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVES: to test the effects of an intervention involving sensor monitoring-informed occupational therapy on top of a cognitive behavioural treatment (CBT)-based coaching therapy on daily functioning in older patients after hip fracture.DESIGN, SETTING AND PATIENTS: three-armed randomised stepped wedge trial in six skilled nursing facilities, with assessments at baseline (during admission) and after 1, 4 and 6 months (at home). Eligible participants were hip fracture patients ≥ 65 years old.INTERVENTIONS: patients received care as usual, CBT-based occupational therapy or CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring. Interventions comprised a weekly session during institutionalisation, followed by four home visits and four telephone consultations over three months.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: the primary outcome was patient-reported daily functioning at 6 months, assessed with the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure.RESULTS: a total of 240 patients (mean[SD] age, 83.8[6.9] years were enrolled. At baseline, the mean Canadian Occupational Performance Measure scores (range 1-10) were 2.92 (SE 0.20) and 3.09 (SE 0.21) for the care as usual and CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring groups, respectively. At six months, these values were 6.42 (SE 0.47) and 7.59 (SE 0.50). The mean patient-reported daily functioning in the CBT-based occupational therapy with sensor monitoring group was larger than that in the care as usual group (difference 1.17 [95% CI (0.47-1.87) P = 0.001]. We found no significant differences in daily functioning between CBT-based occupational therapy and care as usual.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: among older patients recovering from hip fracture, a rehabilitation programme of sensor monitoring-informed occupational therapy was more effective in improving patient-reported daily functioning at six months than to care as usual.TRIAL REGISTRATION: Dutch National Trial Register, NTR 5716.
DOCUMENT
Severe mental illness (SMI) imposes a significant burden on individuals, resulting in long-lasting symptoms, lower social functioning and impaired physical health. Physical activity (PA) interventions can improve both mental and physical health and care workers can serve as healthy role models. Yet, individuals with SMI face barriers to PA participation. This study evaluated the effects of Muva, and assessed if mental health worker’s (MHW) characteristics were associated with clients’ change in social functioning. Muva, an intervention package primarily created to increase PA of people with SMI, places a special focus on MHWs as they might play a key role in overcoming barriers. Other PA barrier-decreasing elements of Muva were a serious game app, lifestyle education, and optimization of the medication regime. Method: This study is a pragmatic stepped wedge cluster controlled trial. Controls received care as usual. Mixedeffects linear regressions were performed to assess changes in the primary outcome social functioning, and secondary outcomes quality of life, psychiatric symptoms, PA, body mass index, waist circumference, and blood pressure. Results: 84 people with SMI were included in three intervention clusters, and 38 people with SMI in the control cluster. Compared to the control condition, there was significant clinical improvement of social functioning in interpersonal communication (p=<0.01) and independent competence (p=<0.01) in people receiving Muva. These outcomes were not associated with MHW’s characteristics. There were no changes in the other outcome measures. Conclusions: Muva improved social functioning in people with SMI compared to care as usual.
DOCUMENT
