急诊室癫痫患者及其重要他人的癫痫急救培训:SAFE干预和可行性随机对照试验

A. Noble, S. Nevitt, Emily Holmes, L. Ridsdale, M. Morgan, C. Tudur-Smith, D. Hughes, S. Goodacre, T. Marson, Darlene A Snape
{"title":"急诊室癫痫患者及其重要他人的癫痫急救培训:SAFE干预和可行性随机对照试验","authors":"A. Noble, S. Nevitt, Emily Holmes, L. Ridsdale, M. Morgan, C. Tudur-Smith, D. Hughes, S. Goodacre, T. Marson, Darlene A Snape","doi":"10.3310/hsdr08390","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits. Objectives The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy. Design The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery. Setting The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England. Participants Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility. Interventions Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only. Main outcome measures Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations. Results (1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites. Limitations Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits. Conclusions An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible. Future work Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327. Funding 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. 8, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.","PeriodicalId":12880,"journal":{"name":"Health Services and Delivery Research","volume":"8 1","pages":"1-190"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Seizure first aid training for people with epilepsy attending emergency departments and their significant others: the SAFE intervention and feasibility RCT\",\"authors\":\"A. Noble, S. Nevitt, Emily Holmes, L. Ridsdale, M. Morgan, C. Tudur-Smith, D. Hughes, S. Goodacre, T. Marson, Darlene A Snape\",\"doi\":\"10.3310/hsdr08390\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits. Objectives The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy. Design The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery. Setting The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England. Participants Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility. Interventions Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only. Main outcome measures Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations. Results (1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites. Limitations Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits. Conclusions An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible. Future work Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327. Funding 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. 8, No. 39. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12880,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"1-190\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Services and Delivery Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3310/hsdr08390\",\"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/hsdr08390","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

背景没有针对定期去急诊室就诊的癫痫患者及其重要他人的癫痫急救培训干预,尽管这种干预有可能减少临床上不必要和昂贵的就诊。目的目的:(1)通过采用更广泛的干预措施,开发癫痫发作急救培训(SAFE);(2)确定最终随机对照试验的可行性和最佳设计,以测试SAFE的疗效。设计该研究涉及(1)通过具有定性反馈的联合设计方法制定干预措施,以及(2)一项试点随机对照试验,在3、6和12个月时进行随访,并评估治疗保真度和SAFE的交付成本。设置该设置是(1)第三部门的患者支持团体和专业医疗保健组织,以及(2)英格兰的三个NHS急诊部门。参与者是(1)在过去2年中去过急诊科的癫痫患者、他们的重要他人以及急诊科、护理人员、全科医生、调试人员、神经病学和护理代表,以及(2)年龄≥ 16年来被诊断为≥ 1岁,在过去12个月内去过两次或两次以上急诊科,以及其中一次重要的其他人。急诊科从就诊记录中确定了表面上符合条件的癫痫患者,患者确认了他们的资格。干预措施试点随机对照试验的参与者被随机分配1 : 1至SAFE加上照常治疗或仅照常治疗。主要结果指标12个月时急诊科使用的同意率和常规数据的可用性是主要结果指标。其他感兴趣的指标包括合格率、癫痫患者的识别和常规数据的安全性、自我报告的急诊科数据的可用性、自报告的急诊部门数据与常规数据的可比性、SAFE对急诊部门使用的影响以及急诊部门在常规治疗中的使用,其可用于样本量计算。结果(1)9名医疗保健专业人员和23名服务使用者提供了反馈,产生了一种被认为是NHS可行的干预措施,并处于实现其目的的有利地位。(2) 同意率为12.5%,招募了53名癫痫患者和38名重要的其他患者。合格率为10.6%。从就诊记录中识别癫痫患者对急诊科工作人员来说是资源密集型的。与更广泛的癫痫人群相比,那些被招募的人因为癫痫而感到更加耻辱。94.1%的癫痫患者在12个月时获得了急诊科使用的常规数据,但申请过程耗时8.5个月。66.7%的癫痫患者有自己报告的急诊科数据,癫痫患者自我报告的急诊就诊次数比常规数据中记录的要多。大多数被随机分配到SAFE的参与者(76.9%)接受了干预。干预是以高保真度进行的。未发生相关严重不良事件。SAFE加常规治疗组在12个月时急诊科的使用率低于仅常规治疗组,但并不显著。计算表明,最终试验需要≈ 674名癫痫患者 39个急诊室。局限性与患者关于招募的陈述相反,在试点试验结束时获得的常规数据表明≈ 40%的患者可能不符合两次或两次以上急诊就诊的纳入标准。结论成功开发了一种干预措施,进行了一项试点随机对照试验,并确保了大多数参与者的结果数据。同意率不满足预定的“停止/继续”水平≥ 20%。急诊科工作人员识别符合条件的癫痫患者所需的时间不太可能复制。目前还不可能进行最终的试验。未来的工作研究需要更容易地从目标人群中识别和招募人员。试验注册当前对照试验ISRCTN13871327。资助该项目由国家卫生研究所(NIHR)卫生服务和交付研究计划资助,并将在《卫生服务与交付研究》上全文发表;第8卷,第39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。
Seizure first aid training for people with epilepsy attending emergency departments and their significant others: the SAFE intervention and feasibility RCT
Background No seizure first aid training intervention exists for people with epilepsy who regularly attend emergency departments and their significant others, despite such an intervention’s potential to reduce clinically unnecessary and costly visits. Objectives The objectives were to (1) develop Seizure first Aid training For Epilepsy (SAFE) by adapting a broader intervention and (2) determine the feasibility and optimal design of a definitive randomised controlled trial to test SAFE’s efficacy. Design The study involved (1) the development of an intervention informed by a co-design approach with qualitative feedback and (2) a pilot randomised controlled trial with follow-ups at 3, 6 and 12 months and assessments of treatment fidelity and the cost of SAFE’s delivery. Setting The setting was (1) third-sector patient support groups and professional health-care organisations and (2) three NHS emergency departments in England. Participants Participants were (1) people with epilepsy who had visited emergency departments in the prior 2 years, their significant others and emergency department, paramedic, general practice, commissioning, neurology and nursing representatives and (2) people with epilepsy aged ≥ 16 years who had been diagnosed for ≥ 1 year and who had made two or more emergency department visits in the prior 12 months, and one of their significant others. Emergency departments identified ostensibly eligible people with epilepsy from attendance records and patients confirmed their eligibility. Interventions Participants in the pilot randomised controlled trial were randomly allocated 1 : 1 to SAFE plus treatment as usual or to treatment as usual only. Main outcome measures Consent rate and availability of routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were the main outcome measures. Other measures of interest included eligibility rate, ease with which people with epilepsy could be identified and routine data secured, availability of self-reported emergency department data, self-reported emergency department data’s comparability with routine data, SAFE’s effect on emergency department use, and emergency department use in the treatment as usual arm, which could be used in sample size calculations. Results (1) Nine health-care professionals and 23 service users provided feedback that generated an intervention considered to be NHS feasible and well positioned to achieve its purpose. (2) The consent rate was 12.5%, with 53 people with epilepsy and 38 significant others recruited. The eligibility rate was 10.6%. Identifying people with epilepsy from attendance records was resource intensive for emergency department staff. Those recruited felt more stigmatised because of epilepsy than the wider epilepsy population. Routine data on emergency department use at 12 months were secured for 94.1% of people with epilepsy, but the application process took 8.5 months. Self-reported emergency department data were available for 66.7% of people with epilepsy, and people with epilepsy self-reported more emergency department visits than were captured in routine data. Most participants (76.9%) randomised to SAFE received the intervention. The intervention was delivered with high fidelity. No related serious adverse events occurred. Emergency department use at 12 months was lower in the SAFE plus treatment as usual arm than in the treatment as usual only arm, but not significantly so. Calculations indicated that a definitive trial would need ≈ 674 people with epilepsy and ≈ 39 emergency department sites. Limitations Contrary to patient statements on recruitment, routine data secured at the pilot trial’s end indicated that ≈ 40% may not have satisfied the inclusion criterion of two or more emergency department visits. Conclusions An intervention was successfully developed, a pilot randomised controlled trial conducted and outcome data secured for most participants. The consent rate did not satisfy a predetermined ‘stop/go’ level of ≥ 20%. The time that emergency department staff needed to identify eligible people with epilepsy is unlikely to be replicable. A definitive trial is currently not feasible. Future work Research to more easily identify and recruit people from the target population is required. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN13871327. Funding 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. 8, No. 39. 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:481959085
Book学术官方微信