The clinical and cost-effectiveness of the BRinging Information and Guided Help Together (BRIGHT) intervention for the self-management support of people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease in primary care: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Trials

Anne Rogers³  Eldon Spackman⁴  Nicola Small²  Hannah Gaffney²  Evan Kontopantelis²  Angela Swallow²  Praksha Jariwala²  Rahena Mossabir²  Shoba Dawson²  Helen Brooks²  Gerry Richardson⁴  Carolyn Chew-Graham¹  Victoria Lee²  Caroline Gardner²  David Reeves²  Peter Bower²  Anne Kennedy³  Tom Blakeman²  Christian Blickem² 

[1]Primary Care & Health Services, University of Keele, ST5 5BG, Staffordshire, UK

[2]Centre for Primary Care, Institute of Population Health, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK

[3]Health Sciences, University of Southampton, Highfield Campus, 12 University Road, SO17 1BJ, Southampton, UK

[4]Centre for Health Economics, University of York, YO10 5DD, York, Heslington, UK

关键词: Minimally disruptive medicine;    Social prescribing;    Social networks;    Social disadvantage;    Randomized controlled trial;    Self-management;    Chronic kidney disease;    Vascular disease;   

Others  :  1094874
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-28

 received in 2012-09-20, accepted in 2013-01-11,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Improving the quality of care for people with vascular disease is a key priority. Chronic kidney disease (CKD) has recently been included as a target condition for general practices to add to registers of chronic conditions as part of the Quality and Outcome Framework. This paper outlines the implementation and evaluation of a self-management intervention involving an information guidebook, tailored access to local resources and telephone support for people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease.

Methods/Design

The study involves a multi-site, longitudinal patient-level randomized controlled trial. The study will evaluate the clinical use and cost-effectiveness of a complex self-management intervention for people with stage 3 chronic kidney disease in terms of self-management capacity, health-related quality of life and blood pressure control compared to care as usual. We describe the methods of the patient-level randomized controlled trial.

Discussion

The management of chronic kidney disease is a developing area of research. The BRinging Information and Guided Help Together (BRIGHT) trial aims to provide evidence that a complementary package of support for people with vascular disease that targets both clinical and social need broadens the opportunities of self-management support by addressing problems related to social disadvantage.

Trial registration

Trial registration reference: ISRCTN45433299

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Blickem et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Department of Health: Vascular Disease Briefing Pack. 2009. http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsPolicyAndGuidance/DH_098627 webcite
• [2]Glazier R, Bajcar J, Kennie NR, Willson K: A systematic review of interventions to improve diabetes care in socially disadvantaged populations. Diabetes Care 2006, 29:1675-1688.
• [3]Rogers A, Kennedy A, Bower P, Gardner C, Gately C, Lee V, Reeves D, Richardson G: The United Kingdom Expert Patients Programme: results and implications from a national evaluation. Med J Australia 2008, 189:S21-S24.
• [4]Blickem C, Bower P, Protheroe J, Kennedy A, Vassilev I, Sanders C, Kirk S, Chew-Graham C, Rogers A: The role of information in supporting self-care in vascular conditions: a conceptual and empirical review. Health Soc Care Community 2011, 19:449-459.
• [5]Dutta-Bergman M: Developing a profile of consumer intention to seek out additional information beyond a doctor: the role of communicative and motivation variables. Health Commun 2005, 17:1-16.
• [6]Vassilev I, Rogers A, Sanders C, Kennedy A, Blickem C, Protheroe J, Bower P, Kirk S, Chew-Graham C, Morris R: Social networks, social capital and chronic illness self-management: a realist review. Chronic Illness 2011, 7:60-86.
• [7]Kennedy A, Rogers A: The needs of others: self-management skills training and the differing priorities of gay men and asylum seekers with HIV. Heal Sociol Rev 2009, 18:145-158.
• [8]Kennedy AP, Rogers AE, Bower P: Support for self care for patients with chronic disease. Br Med J 2007, 335:968-970.
• [9]Wagner EH, Austin BT, Davis C, Hindmarsh M, Schaefer J, Bonomi A: Improving chronic illness care: translating evidence into action. Health Aff 2001, 20:64-78.
• [10]Kennedy AP, Robinson A, Hann M: A cluster-randomised controlled trial of a patient-centred guidebook for patients with ulcerative colitis: effect on knowledge, anxiety and quality of life. Health Soc Care Commun 2003, 11:64-72.
• [11]Kennedy AP, Nelson E, Reeves D, Richardson G, Roberts C, Robinson A: A randomized controlled trial to assess effectiveness and cost of a patient orientated self-management approach to chronic inflammatory bowel disease. Gut 2004, 53:1639-1645.
• [12]Robinson A, Lee V, Kennedy A, Middleton L, Rogers A, Thompson DG: A randomised controlled trial of self-help interventions in patients with a primary care diagnosis of irritable bowel syndrome. Gut 2006, 55(5):643-648.
• [13]Rogers A, Vassilev I, Sanders C, Kirk S, Chew-Graham C, Kennedy A, Protheroe J, Bower P, Blickem C, Reeves D, Kapadia D, Brooks H, Fullwood C, Richardson G: Social networks, work and network-based resources for the management of long-term conditions: a framework and study protocol for developing self-management support. Implement Sci 2011, 6:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [14]Blakeman T, Protheroe J, Chew-Graham C, Rogers A, Kennedy A: Understanding the management of early-stage chronic kidney disease in primary care: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2012, 62:e233-e242.
• [15]Kennedy A, Robinson A, Rogers A: Incorporating patients’ views and experiences of life with IBS in the development of an evidence based self-help guidebook. Patient Educ Couns 2003, 50:303-310.
• [16]Kennedy A, Rogers A: Improving patient involvement in chronic disease management: the views of patients, GPs and specialists on a guidebook for ulcerative colitis. Patient Educ Couns 2002, 47:257-263.
• [17]Kennedy AP, Robinson JA, Thompson DG: Development of a guidebook to promote patient participation in the management of ulcerative colitis. Health Soc Care Commun 1999, 7:177-186.
• [18]Protheroe J, Rogers A, Kennedy AP, Macdonald W, Lee V: Promoting patient engagement with self-management support information: a qualitative meta-synthesis of processes influencing uptake. Implement Sci 2008, 3:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Abdi Z, Gallagher H, Donoghue D: Telling the truth: why disclosure matters in chronic kidney disease. Br J Gen Pract 2012, 62:172-173.
• [20]De Lusignan S, Gallagher H, Stevens P, Harris K, Dmitrieva O, Tahir A, Rafi I, Tomson C, O' Donoghue D: Chronic kidney disease frequently asked questions. London: NHS Employers and BMA; 2011. http://www.nhsemployers.org/SiteCollectionDocuments/Chronic_kidney_disease_FAQs%20-%20ja040711.pdf webcite
• [21]Stevens PE, O'Donoghue D, de Luignan S, Van Vlymen J, Klebe B, Middleton R, Hague N, New J, Farmer CK: Chronic Kidney Disease management in the United Kingdom: NEOERICA project results. Kidney Int 2007, 72:92-99.
• [22]Chadban SJ, Briganti EM, Kerr PG, Dunstan DW, Welborn TA, Zimmet PZ, Atkins RC: Prevalence of kidney damage in Australian adults: the AusDiab kidney study. J Am Soc Nephrol 2003, 14:S131-S138.
• [23]Coresh J, Selvin E, Stevens LA: Prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the United States. JAMA 2007, 298(17):2038-2047.
• [24]Hossain MP, Palmer D, Goyder E, El Nahas AM: Social deprivation and prevalence of chronic kidney disease in the UK: workload implications for primary care. Int J Med 2012, 105:167-175.
• [25]Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey AS, de Jong PE, Coresh J, Gansevoort RT, Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium: Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis. Lancet 2010, 375:2073-2081.
• [26]National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Chronic kidney disease early identification and management of chronic kidney disease in adults in primary and secondary care. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence; 2008.
• [27]McIntyre MJ, Fluck R, McIntyre C, Taal M: Treatment needs and diagnosis awareness in primary care patients with chronic kidney disease. Br J Gen Pract 2012, 62:e227-e232.
• [28]Crinson I, Gallagher H, Thomas N, de Lusignan S: How ready is general practice to improve quality in chronic kidney disease? A diagnostic analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2010, 60:403-409.
• [29]Molzahn A, Bruce A, Sheilds L: Learning from stories of people with chronic kidney disease. Nephrol Nurs J 2008, 35(1):13-20.
• [30]Tong A, Sainsbury P, Chadban S, Walker RG, Harris DC, Carter SM, Hall B, Hawley C, Craig JC: Patients' experiences and perspectives of living with CKD. Am J Kidney Dis 2009, 53:689-700.
• [31]Salisbury C: Multimorbidity: redesigning health care for people who use it. Lancet 2012, 380(9836):7-9.
• [32]Year of Care: Thanks for the Petunias – a guide to developing and commissioning non-traditional providers to support the self management of people with long termz conditions. 2011.
• [33]South J, Higgins TJ, Woodall J, White SM: Can social prescribing provide the missing link? Prim Health Care Res Develop 2008, 9(4):310-318.
• [34]Brandling J, House W: Social prescribing in general practice: adding meaning to medicine. Br J Gen Pract 2009, 59(563):454-456.
• [35]Woodall J, South J: The Evaluation of the CHAT Social Prescribing Scheme in Bradford South & West PCT. Leeds, England: Centre for Health Promotion Research: Leeds Metropolitan University; 2005.
• [36]May C, Finch T: Implementing, embedding and integrating practices: an outline of normalization process theory. Sociology 2009, 43:535-554.
• [37]May C, Ballini L, Finch T, Macfarlane A, Murray E, Mair F, Rapley T, Treweek S: Normalization Process Theory On-line Users’ Manual and Toolkit. 2010. [accessed 5th September 2011]; Available from: http://normalizationprocess.org webcite
• [38]May C, Montori V, Mair F: We need minimally disruptive medicine. Br Med J 2009, 339:485-487.
• [39]Batik O, Phelan EA, Walwick JA, Wang G, LoGerfo JP: Translating a community-based motivational support program to increase physical activity among older adults with diabetes at community clinics: a pilot study of Physical Activity for a Lifetime of Success (PALS). Prev Chronic Dis 2008, 5(1):1-7.
• [40]Medical Research Council: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance MRC. London; 2008.
• [41]Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, Horton R, Moher D, Olkin I, Pitkin R, Rennie D, Schulz KF, Simel D, Stroup DF: Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. J Am Med Assoc 1996, 276:637-639.
• [42]Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, for the CONSORT Group: The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2001, 134:657-662.
• [43]Schultz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Int J Surg 2011, 9:672-677.
• [44]Bower P, Kennedy A, Reeves D, Rogers A, Blakeman T, Chew-Graham C, Bowen R, Eden M, Gardner C, Hann M, Lee V, Morris R, Protheroe J, Richardson G, Sanders C, Swallow A, Thompson D: A cluster randomised controlled trial of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a 'whole systems' model of self-management support for the management of long- term conditions in primary care: trial protocol. Implement Sci 2012, 7:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [45]Heisler M: Different models to mobilise peer support to improve diabetes self-management and clinical outcomes: evidence, logistics, evaluation considerations and needs for future research. Fam Pract 2009, 27:i23-i32.
• [46]Dale J: Telephone peer-delivered intervention for diabetes motivation and support: the telecare exploratory RCT. Patient Educ Couns 2009, 75(1):91-98.
• [47]Chen SH, Tsai YF, Sun CY, Wu IW, Lee CC, Wu MS: The impact of self-management support on the progression of chronic kidney disease – a prospective randomized controlled trial. Nephrol Dial Transplant 2011, 26:3560-3566.
• [48]Carroll DL, Rankin SH, Cooper BA: The effects of a collaborative peer advisor/advanced practice nurse intervention: cardiac rehabilitation participation and rehospitalization in older adults after a cardiac event. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2007, 22(4):313-319.
• [49]Parry MJ, Watt-Watson J, Hodnett E, Tranmer J, Dennis CL, Brooks D: Cardiac Home Education and Support Trial (CHEST): a pilot study. Can J Cardiol 2009, 25(12):e393-e398.
• [50]Kim S, Koniak-Griffin D, Flaskerund JH, Guarnero PA: The impact of lay health advisors on cardiovascular health promotion. J Cardiovasc Nurs 2004, 19:192-199.
• [51]Wu CJJ, Chang AM, Courtney M, Kostner K: Peer supporters for cardiac patients with diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. Int Nurs Rev 2012, 59(3):345-352.
• [52]Dale J, Caramlau IO, Lindenmeyer A, Williams SM: Peer support telephone calls for improving health (Review). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008., (4) Oct 8
• [53]Samuel-Hodge CD, Keyserling TC, Park S, Johnston LF, Gizlice Z, Bangdiwala SI: A randomized trial of a church-based diabetes self-management program for African Americans with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Educ 2009, 35(3):439-454.
• [54]Heisler M, Vijan S, Makki F, Piette JD: Diabetes control with reciprocal peer support versus nurse care management. Ann Intern Med 2010, 153:507-515.
• [55]National Institute for Health Research: Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Greater Manchester: phase1 The CLAHRC Chronic Kidney Disease Collaborative: improving care for people with chronic kidney disease: report on phase 1 of the CKD Collaborative September 2009–September 2010). Manchester: CLAHRC; 2010. http://clahrcgm.nihr.ac.uk/projects/implementation/chronic-kidneydisease# webcite (accessed 16 february 2012
• [56]Euroqol Copyright Group:: Euroqol - a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990, 16:199-208.
• [57]Department of Health: Investing in general practice: the new General Medical Services Contract. London: Department of Health; 2003.
• [58]NHS Information centre: Quality and outcomes framework achievement data 2010/11. and http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/002_Audits/QOF_2010-11/QOF_Achievement_and_Prevalence_Bulletin webcite 2010_11_v1.0.pdf (accessed 9 September 2012)
• [59]Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, Whitfield K: The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2007, 66(2):192-201.
• [60]Kind P: The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health-related quality of life, in Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia: LippincottRaven; 1996.
• [61]Toobert D, Hanson S, Glasgow R: The summary of diabetes selfcare activities measure. Diabetes Care 2000, 23(7):943-950.
• [62]Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361-370.
• [63]Broadbent E, Petrie KJ, Main J, Weinman J: The brief illness perception questionnaire. J Psychosom Res 2006, 60:631-637.
• [64]Ware JE, Sherbourne CD: The MOS 36 item Short Form health survey (SF36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care 1992, 30(6):473-483.
• [65]Russell DW: UCLA loneliness scale (Version 3): reliability, validity, and factor structure. J Pers Assess 1996, 66(1):20-40.
• [66]Morisky DE, Green LW, Levine DM: Concurrent and predictive validity of a self-reported measure of medication adherence. Medical Care 1986, 24(1):67-74.
• [67]Pescosolido BA, Levy J: The role of social networks in health, illness, disease and healing: the accepting present, the forgotten past, and the dangerous potential for a complacent future. In Social Networks and Health. Edited by Cabassa LJ, Pescosolido BA. New York: JAI; 2002.
• [68]Petrou S, Kupek E: Social capital and its relationship with measures of health status: evidence from the health survey for England 2003. Health Econ 2008, 17:127-143.
• [69]Bajekal M, Purdon S: Social capital and social exclusion: development of a condensed module for the Health Survey for England. London; 2011. http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4058955.pdf webcite
• [70]Fiori KL, Antonucci TC, Cortina KS: Social network typologies and mental health among older adults. Journal of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 2006, 61(1):P25-P32.
• [71]Strauss A, Fagerhaugh S, Suczek B, Weiner C: Sentimental work in the technologized hospital. Sociology of Health and Illness 1982, 4(3):254-278.
• [72]Strauss A: Work and the division of labor. Sociol Q 1985, 26:1-19.
• [73]Corbin J, Strauss A: Managing chronic illness at home: three lines of work. Qual Sociol 1985, 8:224-247.
• [74]Kennedy AP, Reeves D, Bower P, Lee V, Middleton E, Richardson G, Gardner C, Gately C, Rogers A: The effectiveness and cost effectiveness of a national lay-led self care support programme for patients with long-term conditions: a pragmatic randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2007, 61(3):254-261.
• [75]Lorig K, Stewart A, Ritter P, Gonzalez V, Laurent D, Lynch J: Outcome measures for health education and other health care interventions. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1996.
• [76]Van Der Gaag M, Snijders TAB: The Resource Generator: social capital quantification with concrete items. Social Networks 2005, 27:1-29.
• [77]Adler NE, Epel ES, Castellazzo G, Ickovics JR: Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: preliminary data in healthy white women. Health Psychol 2000, 19(6):586-592.
• [78]Pahl R, Spencer L: Capturing personal communities, Social networks and social exclusion. Edited by Phillipson GAC, Morgan D. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate; 2004.