Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based pain self-management intervention for patients undergoing total hip replacement: feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial

Trials

Rachael Gooberman-Hill²  Ashley Blom²  Neil Artz²  Elsa Marques¹  Vikki Wylde² 

[1] School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK;Musculoskeletal Research Unit, University of Bristol, Learning and Research Building, Southmead Hospital, Bristol BS10 5NB, UK

关键词: Total hip replacement;    Randomized controlled trial;    Pain self-management;    Group intervention;    Feasibility;   

Others  :  806101
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-176

 received in 2013-10-28, accepted in 2014-05-06,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Total hip replacement (THR) is a common elective surgical procedure and can be effective for reducing chronic pain. However, waiting times can be considerable. A pain self-management intervention may provide patients with skills to more effectively manage their pain and its impact during their wait for surgery. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of conducting a randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a group-based pain self-management course for patients undergoing THR.

Methods

Patients listed for a THR at one orthopedic center were posted a study invitation pack. Participants were randomized to attend a pain self-management course plus standard care or standard care only. The lay-led course was delivered by Arthritis Care and consisted of two half-day sessions prior to surgery and one full-day session after surgery. Participants provided outcome and resource-use data using a diary and postal questionnaires prior to surgery and one month, three months and six months after surgery. Brief telephone interviews were conducted with non-participants to explore barriers to participation.

Results

Invitations were sent to 385 eligible patients and 88 patients (23%) consented to participate. Interviews with 57 non-participants revealed the most common reasons for non-participation were views about the course and transport difficulties. Of the 43 patients randomized to the intervention group, 28 attended the pre-operative pain self-management sessions and 11 attended the post-operative sessions. Participant satisfaction with the course was high, and feedback highlighted that patients enjoyed the group format. Retention of participants was acceptable (83% of recruited patients completed follow-up) and questionnaire return rates were high (72% to 93%), with the exception of the pre-operative resource-use diary (35% return rate). Resource-use completion rates allowed for an economic evaluation from the health and social care payer perspective.

Conclusions

This study highlights the importance of feasibility work prior to a randomized controlled trial to assess recruitment methods and rates, barriers to participation, logistics of scheduling group-based interventions, acceptability of the intervention and piloting resource use questionnaires to improve data available for economic evaluations. This information is of value to researchers and funders in the design and commissioning of future research.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN52305381.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wylde et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]National Joint Registry: 9th annual report. Hemel Hempstead: NJR Centre; 2012.
• [2]Beswick AD, Wylde V, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom A, Dieppe P: What proportion of patients report long-term pain after total hip or knee replacement for osteoarthritis? A systematic review of prospective studies in unselected patients. BMJ Open 2012, 2(1):e000435.
• [3]Marques E, Noble S, Blom AW, Hollingworth W: Disclosing total waiting times for joint replacement: evidence from the English NHS using linked HES data. Health Econ 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
• [4]Parsons GE, Godfrey H, Jester RF: Living with severe osteoarthritis while awaiting hip and knee joint replacement surgery. Musculoskeletal Care 2009, 7(2):121-135.
• [5]McHugh GA, Luker KA, Campbell M, Kay PR, Silman AJ: A longitudinal study exploring pain control, treatment and service provision for individuals with end-stage lower limb osteoarthritis. Rheumatology 2007, 46(4):631-637.
• [6]Yip YB, Sit JW, Wong DY, Chong SY, Chung LH: A 1-year follow-up of an experimental study of a self-management arthritis programme with an added exercise component of clients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Psychol Health Med 2008, 13(4):402-414.
• [7]Heuts PH, de Bie R, Drietelaar M, Aretz K, Hopman-Rock M, Bastiaenen CH, Metsemaker JF, van Weel C, van Schayck O: Self-management in osteoarthritis of hip or knee: a randomized clinical trial in a primary healthcare setting. J Rheumatol 2005, 32(3):543-549.
• [8]Buszewicz M, Rait G, Griffin M, Nazareth I, Patel A, Atkinson A, Barlow J, Haines A: Self management of arthritis in primary care: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2006, 333(7574):879.
• [9]Barlow JH, Turner AP, Wright CC: A randomized controlled study of the Arthritis Self-Management Programme in the UK. Health Educ Res 2000, 15(6):665-680.
• [10]Barlow J, Turner A, Swaby L, Gilchrist M, Wright C, Doherty M: An 8-yr follow-up of arthritis self-management programme participants. Rheumatology 2009, 48(2):128-133.
• [11]Crotty M, Prendergast J, Battersby MW, Rowett D, Graves SE, Leach G, Giles LC: Self-management and peer support among people with arthritis on a hospital joint replacement waiting list: a randomised controlled trial. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2009, 17(11):1428-1433.
• [12]Berge DJ, Dolin SJ, Williams AC, Harman R: Pre-operative and post-operative effect of a pain management programme prior to total hip replacement: a randomized controlled trial. Pain 2004, 110(1–2):33-39.
• [13]Wallis JA, Taylor NF: Pre-operative interventions (non-surgical and non-pharmacological) for patients with hip or knee osteoarthritis awaiting joint replacement surgery–a systematic review and meta-analysis. Osteoarthritis Cartilage 2011, 19(12):1381-1395.
• [14]Ackerman IN, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH: Challenges in evaluating an Arthritis Self-Management Program for people with hip and knee osteoarthritis in real-world clinical settings. J Rheumatol 2012, 39(5):1047-1055.
• [15]Ackerman IN, Buchbinder R, Osborne RH: Factors limiting participation in arthritis self-management programmes: an exploration of barriers and patient preferences within a randomized controlled trial. Rheumatology 2013, 52(3):472-479.
• [16]Newman S, Steed L, Mulligan K: Self-management interventions for chronic illness. Lancet 2004, 364(9444):1523-1537.
• [17]Bruce B, Lorig K, Laurent D: Participation in patient self-management programs. Arthritis Rheum 2007, 57(5):851-854.
• [18]Lancaster GA, Dodd S, Williamson PR: Design and analysis of pilot studies: recommendations for good practice. J Eval Clin Pract 2004, 10(2):307-312.
• [19]Arain M, Campbell MJ, Cooper CL, Lancaster GL: What is a pilot or feasibility study? A review of current practice and editorial policy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2010, 10:67. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]McMurran M, Cox WM, Whitham D, Hedges L: The addition of a goal-based motivational interview to treatment as usual to enhance engagement and reduce dropouts in a personality disorder treatment service: results of a feasibility study for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 2013, 14:50. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Farrin A, Russell I, Torgerson D, Underwood M, UK BEAM Trial Team: Differential recruitment in a cluster randomized trial in primary care: the experience of the UK back pain, exercise, active management and manipulation (UK BEAM) feasibility study. Clin Trials 2005, 2(2):119-124.
• [22]Eldridge SM, Ashby D, Feder GS, Rudnicka AR, Ukoumunne OC: Lessons for cluster randomized trials in the twenty-first century: a systematic review of trials in primary care. Clin Trials 2004, 1(1):80-90.
• [23]Lancaster GA, Campbell MJ, Eldridge S, Farrin A, Marchant M, Muller S, Perera R, Peters TJ, Prevost AT, Rait G: Trials in primary care: statistical issues in the design, conduct and evaluation of complex interventions. Stat Methods Med Res 2010, 19(4):349-377.
• [24]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M, Medical Research Council Guidance: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337:a1655.
• [25]Cramer H, Salisbury C, Conrad J, Eldred J, Araya R: Group cognitive behavioural therapy for women with depression: pilot and feasibility study for a randomised controlled trial using mixed methods. BMC Psychiatry 2011, 11:82. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]McCracken LM, Sato A, Wainwright D, House W, Taylor GJ: A feasibility study of brief group-based acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain in general practice: recruitment, attendance, and patient views. Prim Health Care Res Dev 2013. [Epub ahead of print]
• [27]Poston L, Briley AL, Barr S, Bell R, Croker H, Coxon K, Essex HN, Hunt C, Hayes L, Howard LM, Khazaezadeh N, Kinnunen T, Nelson SM, Oteng-Ntim E, Robson SC, Sattar N, Seed PT, Wardle J, Sanders TA, Sandall J: Developing a complex intervention for diet and activity behaviour change in obese pregnant women (the UPBEAT trial); assessment of behavioural change and process evaluation in a pilot randomised controlled trial. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 2013, 13(1):148. BioMed Central Full Text
• [28]Gooberman-Hill R, Burston A, Clark E, Johnson E, Nolan S, Wells V, Betts L, PEP-R: Involving patients in research: considering good practice. Musculoskel Care 2013, 11(4):187-190.
• [29]Evans S, Royston P, Day S: Minim: allocation by minimisation in clinical trials. http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~mb55/guide/minim.htm webcite
• [30]Bellamy N, Buchanan WW, Goldsmith CH, Campbell J, Stitt LW: Validation study of WOMAC: a health status instrument for measuring clinically important patient relevant outcomes to antirheumatic drug therapy in patients with osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. J Rheumatol 1988, 15(12):1833-1840.
• [31]Nicholas MK: The pain self-efficacy questionnaire: taking pain into account. Eur J Pain 2007, 11(2):153-163.
• [32]Carver CS: You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 1997, 4(1):92-100.
• [33]Horne R, Weinman J: Patients' beliefs about prescribed medicines and their role in adherence to treatment in chronic physical illness. J Psychosom Res 1999, 47(6):555-567.
• [34]Williams A, Kind P: The present state of play about QALYs. In Measure of the quality of life: the uses to which they may be put. Edited by Hopkins A. London: RCP Publications; 1992.
• [35]Groll DL, To T, Bombardier C, Wright JG: The development of a comorbidity index with physical function as the outcome. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58(6):595-602.
• [36]National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guide to the methods of technology appraisal 2013. London: NICE; 2013.
• [37]Marques E, Johnson EC, Gooberman-Hill R, Blom AW, Noble S: Using resource use logs to reduce the amount of missing data in economic evaluations alongside trials. Value Health 2013, 16(1):195-201.
• [38]Arthritis care http://www.arthritiscare.org.uk/ webcite
• [39]Andreae-Jones S, Cowlard J, Taylor M, Taylor A, Undy MB: A pilot study to assess the effectiveness of a brief lay-led self-management education programme for patients with chronic pain. London: Arthritis Care; 2006–2007.
• [40]Billingham SA, Whitehead AL, Julious SA: An audit of sample sizes for pilot and feasibility trials being undertaken in the United Kingdom registered in the United Kingdom clinical research network database. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013, 13(1):104. BioMed Central Full Text
• [41]Ritchie J, Spencer L: Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In Analysing qualitative data. Edited by Bryman A, Burgess R. London: Routledge; 1993:173-194.
• [42]Shanyinde M, Pickering RM, Weatherall M: Questions asked and answered in pilot and feasibility randomized controlled trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2011, 11:117. BioMed Central Full Text
• [43]Ross S, Grant A, Counsell C, Gillespie W, Russell I, Prescott R: Barriers to participation in randomised controlled trials: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 1999, 52(12):1143-1156.
• [44]Stafford L, Foley E, Judd F, Gibson P, Kiropoulos L, Couper J: Mindfulness-based cognitive group therapy for women with breast and gynecologic cancer: a pilot study to determine effectiveness and feasibility. Support Care Canc 2013, 21(11):3009-3019.
• [45]Lansdown H, Howard K, Brealey S, MacPherson H: Acupuncture for pain and osteoarthritis of the knee: a pilot study for an open parallel-arm randomised controlled trial. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2009, 10:130.
• [46]Treweek S, Lockhart P, Pitkethly M, Cook JA, Kjeldstrom M, Johansen M, Taskila TK, Sullivan FM, Wilson S, Jackson C, Jones R, Mitchell ED: Methods to improve recruitment to randomised controlled trials: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open 2013, 3(2):e002360.
• [47]Klitzman R: How IRBs view and make decisions about coercion and undue influence. J Med Ethics 2013, 39(4):224-229.
• [48]Noble SM, Hollingworth W, Tilling K: Missing data in trial-based cost-effectiveness analysis: the current state of play. Health Econ 2012, 21(2):187-200.
• [49]Chambers SK, Foley E, Galt E, Ferguson M, Clutton S: Mindfulness groups for men with advanced prostate cancer: a pilot study to assess feasibility and effectiveness and the role of peer support. Support Care Canc 2012, 20(6):1183-1192.
• [50]Wang OJ, Krumholz HM: Clinical trial participation: are we studying the patients we are trying to treat? Eur J Heart Fail 2009, 11(11):1021-1022.