护士主导的预防性心理干预降低危重患者PTSD症状严重程度:POPPI可行性研究及聚类随机对照试验

P. Mouncey, D. Wade, Alvin Richards-Belle, Z. Sadique, J. Wulff, R. Grieve, Lydia M. Emerson, C. Brewin, S. Harvey, D. Howell, Nicholas Hudson, I. Khan, M. Mythen, Deborah Smyth, J. Weinman, J. Welch, D. Harrison, K. Rowan
{"title":"护士主导的预防性心理干预降低危重患者PTSD症状严重程度:POPPI可行性研究及聚类随机对照试验","authors":"P. Mouncey, D. Wade, Alvin Richards-Belle, Z. Sadique, J. Wulff, R. Grieve, Lydia M. Emerson, C. Brewin, S. Harvey, D. Howell, Nicholas Hudson, I. Khan, M. Mythen, Deborah Smyth, J. Weinman, J. Welch, D. Harrison, K. Rowan","doi":"10.3310/hsdr07300","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n High numbers of patients experience severe acute stress in critical care units. Acute stress has been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previously, a preventive, complex psychological intervention [Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI)] was developed by this research team, to be led by nurses, to reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months.\n \n \n \n The objectives were to (1) standardise and refine the POPPI intervention, and, if feasible, (2) evaluate it in a cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT).\n \n \n \n Two designs were used – (1) two feasibility studies to test the delivery and acceptability (to patients and staff) of the intervention, education package and support tools, and to test the trial procedures (i.e. recruitment and retention), and (2) a multicentre, parallel-group, cluster RCT with a baseline period and staggered roll-out of the intervention.\n \n \n \n This study was set in NHS adult, general critical care units.\n \n \n \n The participants were adult patients who were > 48 hours in a critical care unit, receiving level 3 care and able to consent.\n \n \n \n The intervention comprised three elements – (1) creating a therapeutic environment in critical care, (2) three stress support sessions for patients identified as acutely stressed and (3) a relaxation and recovery programme for patients identified as acutely stressed.\n \n \n \n Primary outcome – patient-reported symptom severity using the PTSD Symptom Scale – Self Report (PSS-SR) questionnaire (to measure clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit at 6 months (to measure cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes – days alive and free from sedation to day 30; duration of critical care unit stay; PSS-SR score of > 18 points; depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life at 6 months; and lifetime cost-effectiveness.\n \n \n \n (1) A total of 127 participants were recruited to the intervention feasibility study from two sites and 86 were recruited to the RCT procedures feasibility study from another two sites. The education package, support tools and intervention were refined. (2) A total of 24 sites were randomised to the intervention or control arms. A total of 1458 participants were recruited. Twelve sites delivered the intervention during the intervention period: > 80% of patients received two or more stress support sessions and all 12 sites achieved the target of > 80% of clinical staff completing the POPPI online training. There was, however, variation in delivery across sites. There was little difference between baseline and intervention periods in the development of PTSD symptom severity (measured by mean PSS-SR score) at 6 months for surviving patients in either the intervention or the control group: treatment effect estimate −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.58 to 2.52; p = 0.98. On average, the intervention decreased costs and slightly improved QALYs, leading to a positive incremental net benefit at 6 months (£835, 95% CI −£4322 to £5992), but with considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding these results. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the prespecified subgroup analyses.\n \n \n \n There was a risk of bias because different consent processes were used and as a result of the lack of blinding, which was mitigated as far as possible within the study design. The intervention started later than anticipated. Patients were not routinely monitored for delirium.\n \n \n \n Among level 3 patients who stayed > 48 hours in critical care, the delivery of a preventive, complex psychological intervention, led by nurses, did not reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months, when compared with usual care.\n \n \n \n Prior to development and evaluation of subsequent psychological interventions, there is much to learn from post hoc analyses of the cluster RCT rich quantitative and qualitative data.\n \n \n \n This trial is registered as ISRCTN61088114 and ISRCTN53448131.\n \n \n \n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 23, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\n","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A nurse-led, preventive, psychological intervention to reduce PTSD symptom severity in critically ill patients: the POPPI feasibility study and cluster RCT\",\"authors\":\"P. Mouncey, D. Wade, Alvin Richards-Belle, Z. Sadique, J. Wulff, R. Grieve, Lydia M. Emerson, C. Brewin, S. Harvey, D. Howell, Nicholas Hudson, I. Khan, M. Mythen, Deborah Smyth, J. Weinman, J. Welch, D. Harrison, K. Rowan\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/hsdr07300\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n \\n High numbers of patients experience severe acute stress in critical care units. Acute stress has been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previously, a preventive, complex psychological intervention [Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI)] was developed by this research team, to be led by nurses, to reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months.\\n \\n \\n \\n The objectives were to (1) standardise and refine the POPPI intervention, and, if feasible, (2) evaluate it in a cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT).\\n \\n \\n \\n Two designs were used – (1) two feasibility studies to test the delivery and acceptability (to patients and staff) of the intervention, education package and support tools, and to test the trial procedures (i.e. recruitment and retention), and (2) a multicentre, parallel-group, cluster RCT with a baseline period and staggered roll-out of the intervention.\\n \\n \\n \\n This study was set in NHS adult, general critical care units.\\n \\n \\n \\n The participants were adult patients who were > 48 hours in a critical care unit, receiving level 3 care and able to consent.\\n \\n \\n \\n The intervention comprised three elements – (1) creating a therapeutic environment in critical care, (2) three stress support sessions for patients identified as acutely stressed and (3) a relaxation and recovery programme for patients identified as acutely stressed.\\n \\n \\n \\n Primary outcome – patient-reported symptom severity using the PTSD Symptom Scale – Self Report (PSS-SR) questionnaire (to measure clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit at 6 months (to measure cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes – days alive and free from sedation to day 30; duration of critical care unit stay; PSS-SR score of > 18 points; depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life at 6 months; and lifetime cost-effectiveness.\\n \\n \\n \\n (1) A total of 127 participants were recruited to the intervention feasibility study from two sites and 86 were recruited to the RCT procedures feasibility study from another two sites. The education package, support tools and intervention were refined. (2) A total of 24 sites were randomised to the intervention or control arms. A total of 1458 participants were recruited. Twelve sites delivered the intervention during the intervention period: > 80% of patients received two or more stress support sessions and all 12 sites achieved the target of > 80% of clinical staff completing the POPPI online training. There was, however, variation in delivery across sites. There was little difference between baseline and intervention periods in the development of PTSD symptom severity (measured by mean PSS-SR score) at 6 months for surviving patients in either the intervention or the control group: treatment effect estimate −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.58 to 2.52; p = 0.98. On average, the intervention decreased costs and slightly improved QALYs, leading to a positive incremental net benefit at 6 months (£835, 95% CI −£4322 to £5992), but with considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding these results. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the prespecified subgroup analyses.\\n \\n \\n \\n There was a risk of bias because different consent processes were used and as a result of the lack of blinding, which was mitigated as far as possible within the study design. The intervention started later than anticipated. Patients were not routinely monitored for delirium.\\n \\n \\n \\n Among level 3 patients who stayed > 48 hours in critical care, the delivery of a preventive, complex psychological intervention, led by nurses, did not reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months, when compared with usual care.\\n \\n \\n \\n Prior to development and evaluation of subsequent psychological interventions, there is much to learn from post hoc analyses of the cluster RCT rich quantitative and qualitative data.\\n \\n \\n \\n This trial is registered as ISRCTN61088114 and ISRCTN53448131.\\n \\n \\n \\n This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 23, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":12880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07300\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Services and Delivery Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr07300","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

大量患者在重症监护室经历严重的急性压力。急性压力与重症监护后的心理发病率有关,包括创伤后应激障碍(PTSD)。此前,该研究团队在护士的领导下开发了一种预防性复杂心理干预[护士领导的危重患者预防性心理干预(POPPI)后的心理结果],以减少6个月时PTSD症状严重程度的发展。目标是(1)标准化和完善POPPI干预,如果可行,(2)在一项集群随机临床试验(RCT)中对其进行评估。使用了两种设计——(1)两项可行性研究,以测试干预措施、教育包和支持工具的交付和可接受性(对患者和工作人员),并测试试验程序(即招募和保留);(2)一项多中心、平行组、集群随机对照试验,具有基线期和交错推出干预措施。这项研究是在英国国家医疗服务体系的成人普通重症监护室进行的。参与者是成年患者,他们> 在重症监护室48小时,接受3级护理并能够同意。干预措施包括三个要素——(1)在重症监护中创造一个治疗环境,(2)为被确定为急性压力患者提供三次压力支持,(3)为被认定为急性压力的患者提供放松和恢复计划。主要结果-患者使用创伤后应激障碍症状量表-自我报告(PSS-SR)问卷报告症状严重程度(以衡量临床有效性)和增量成本、质量调整生命年(QALYs)和6个月时的净货币收益(以衡量成本效益)。次要结果——存活天数和无镇静状态至第30天;重症监护室的住院时间;PSS-SR得分> 18分;6个月时抑郁、焦虑和健康相关的生活质量;以及终身成本效益。(1) 共有127名参与者从两个地点被招募到干预可行性研究,86名参与者从另外两个地点招募到随机对照试验程序可行性研究。完善了一揽子教育、支助工具和干预措施。(2) 共有24个部位被随机分配到干预组或对照组。共招募了1458名参与者。在干预期内有12个站点进行了干预:> 80%的患者接受了两次或两次以上的压力支持,所有12个部位都达到了> 80%的临床工作人员完成了POPPI在线培训。然而,各站点的交付情况存在差异。干预组或对照组中存活患者在6个月时PTSD症状严重程度(通过平均PSS-SR评分测量)的发展在基线期和干预期之间几乎没有差异:治疗效果估计值为-0.03,95%置信区间(CI)为-2.58至2.52;p = 0.98。平均而言,干预降低了成本,QALYs略有改善,在6个月时带来了正的净收益增量(835英镑,95%置信区间4322英镑至5992英镑),但这些结果存在相当大的统计不确定性。两组之间在任何次要结果或预先指定的亚组分析中均无显著差异。存在偏见的风险,因为使用了不同的同意程序,并且由于缺乏盲法,在研究设计中尽可能减轻了盲法。干预开始的时间比预期的要晚。没有对患者进行常规的谵妄监测。在停留的3级患者中> 与常规护理相比,在重症监护48小时后,由护士领导的预防性复杂心理干预并没有降低6个月时PTSD症状严重程度的发展。在制定和评估后续心理干预措施之前,从对集群随机对照试验的事后分析中可以学到很多东西——丰富的定量和定性数据。该试验注册为ISRCTN61088114和ISRCTN53448131。该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和分娩研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务和交付研究》上全文发表;第23卷,第30期。有关更多项目信息,请访问NIHR期刊图书馆网站。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A nurse-led, preventive, psychological intervention to reduce PTSD symptom severity in critically ill patients: the POPPI feasibility study and cluster RCT
High numbers of patients experience severe acute stress in critical care units. Acute stress has been linked to post-critical care psychological morbidity, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Previously, a preventive, complex psychological intervention [Psychological Outcomes following a nurse-led Preventative Psychological Intervention for critically ill patients (POPPI)] was developed by this research team, to be led by nurses, to reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months. The objectives were to (1) standardise and refine the POPPI intervention, and, if feasible, (2) evaluate it in a cluster randomised clinical trial (RCT). Two designs were used – (1) two feasibility studies to test the delivery and acceptability (to patients and staff) of the intervention, education package and support tools, and to test the trial procedures (i.e. recruitment and retention), and (2) a multicentre, parallel-group, cluster RCT with a baseline period and staggered roll-out of the intervention. This study was set in NHS adult, general critical care units. The participants were adult patients who were > 48 hours in a critical care unit, receiving level 3 care and able to consent. The intervention comprised three elements – (1) creating a therapeutic environment in critical care, (2) three stress support sessions for patients identified as acutely stressed and (3) a relaxation and recovery programme for patients identified as acutely stressed. Primary outcome – patient-reported symptom severity using the PTSD Symptom Scale – Self Report (PSS-SR) questionnaire (to measure clinical effectiveness) and incremental costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) and net monetary benefit at 6 months (to measure cost-effectiveness). Secondary outcomes – days alive and free from sedation to day 30; duration of critical care unit stay; PSS-SR score of > 18 points; depression, anxiety and health-related quality of life at 6 months; and lifetime cost-effectiveness. (1) A total of 127 participants were recruited to the intervention feasibility study from two sites and 86 were recruited to the RCT procedures feasibility study from another two sites. The education package, support tools and intervention were refined. (2) A total of 24 sites were randomised to the intervention or control arms. A total of 1458 participants were recruited. Twelve sites delivered the intervention during the intervention period: > 80% of patients received two or more stress support sessions and all 12 sites achieved the target of > 80% of clinical staff completing the POPPI online training. There was, however, variation in delivery across sites. There was little difference between baseline and intervention periods in the development of PTSD symptom severity (measured by mean PSS-SR score) at 6 months for surviving patients in either the intervention or the control group: treatment effect estimate −0.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) −2.58 to 2.52; p = 0.98. On average, the intervention decreased costs and slightly improved QALYs, leading to a positive incremental net benefit at 6 months (£835, 95% CI −£4322 to £5992), but with considerable statistical uncertainty surrounding these results. There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the prespecified subgroup analyses. There was a risk of bias because different consent processes were used and as a result of the lack of blinding, which was mitigated as far as possible within the study design. The intervention started later than anticipated. Patients were not routinely monitored for delirium. Among level 3 patients who stayed > 48 hours in critical care, the delivery of a preventive, complex psychological intervention, led by nurses, did not reduce the development of PTSD symptom severity at 6 months, when compared with usual care. Prior to development and evaluation of subsequent psychological interventions, there is much to learn from post hoc analyses of the cluster RCT rich quantitative and qualitative data. This trial is registered as ISRCTN61088114 and ISRCTN53448131. This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 23, No. 30. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
53 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信