Cargando…
Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis
BACKGROUND: Research evaluating lifestyle interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may not reach those most at risk. We compared the response rate to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a lifestyle intervention by CVD risk, ethnicity and level of deprivation. METHODS: Primary...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30180833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y |
_version_ | 1783352950900391936 |
---|---|
author | Bayley, Adam Stahl, Daniel Ashworth, Mark Cook, Derek G. Whincup, Peter H. Treasure, Janet Greenough, Anne Ridge, Katie Winkley, Kirsty Ismail, Khalida |
author_facet | Bayley, Adam Stahl, Daniel Ashworth, Mark Cook, Derek G. Whincup, Peter H. Treasure, Janet Greenough, Anne Ridge, Katie Winkley, Kirsty Ismail, Khalida |
author_sort | Bayley, Adam |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Research evaluating lifestyle interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may not reach those most at risk. We compared the response rate to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a lifestyle intervention by CVD risk, ethnicity and level of deprivation. METHODS: Primary care patients with a QRisk2 score ≥ 20% were invited to participate in a RCT of an intensive lifestyle intervention versus usual care. This cross-sectional analysis compares anonymised data of responders and non-responders with multiple logistic regression, using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for QRisk2 score, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010) quintile, age and sex. RESULTS: From 60 general practices, 8902 patients were invited and 1489 responded. The mean age was 67.3 years and 21.0% were female. Of all patients invited, 69.9% were of white ethnic background, 13.9% ethnic minority backgrounds and 16.2% had no ethnicity data recorded in their medical records. Likelihood of response decreased as QRisk2 score increased (AOR 0.82 per 5 percentage points, 95% CI 0.77–0.88). Black African or Caribbean patients (AOR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45–0.98) and those with missing ethnicity data (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.46–0.66) were less likely to respond compared to participants of white ethnicity, but there was no difference in the response rates between south Asian and white ethnicity (AOR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84–1.38). Patients residing in the fourth (AOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56–0.87) and fifth (AOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40–0.68) most deprived IMD quintile were less likely to respond compared to the least deprived quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations of interventions intended for those at high risk of CVD may fail to reach those at highest risk. Hard to reach patient groups may require different recruitment strategies to maximise participation in future trials. Improvements in primary care ethnicity data recording is required to aid understanding of how successfully study samples represent the target population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN84864870. Registered 15 May 2012, 10.1186/ISRCTN84864870. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6124010 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61240102018-09-10 Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis Bayley, Adam Stahl, Daniel Ashworth, Mark Cook, Derek G. Whincup, Peter H. Treasure, Janet Greenough, Anne Ridge, Katie Winkley, Kirsty Ismail, Khalida BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: Research evaluating lifestyle interventions for prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) may not reach those most at risk. We compared the response rate to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of a lifestyle intervention by CVD risk, ethnicity and level of deprivation. METHODS: Primary care patients with a QRisk2 score ≥ 20% were invited to participate in a RCT of an intensive lifestyle intervention versus usual care. This cross-sectional analysis compares anonymised data of responders and non-responders with multiple logistic regression, using adjusted odds ratios (AORs) for QRisk2 score, ethnicity, Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD 2010) quintile, age and sex. RESULTS: From 60 general practices, 8902 patients were invited and 1489 responded. The mean age was 67.3 years and 21.0% were female. Of all patients invited, 69.9% were of white ethnic background, 13.9% ethnic minority backgrounds and 16.2% had no ethnicity data recorded in their medical records. Likelihood of response decreased as QRisk2 score increased (AOR 0.82 per 5 percentage points, 95% CI 0.77–0.88). Black African or Caribbean patients (AOR 0.67; 95% CI 0.45–0.98) and those with missing ethnicity data (AOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.46–0.66) were less likely to respond compared to participants of white ethnicity, but there was no difference in the response rates between south Asian and white ethnicity (AOR 1.08; 95% CI 0.84–1.38). Patients residing in the fourth (AOR 0.70; 95% CI 0.56–0.87) and fifth (AOR 0.52; 95% CI 0.40–0.68) most deprived IMD quintile were less likely to respond compared to the least deprived quintile. CONCLUSIONS: Evaluations of interventions intended for those at high risk of CVD may fail to reach those at highest risk. Hard to reach patient groups may require different recruitment strategies to maximise participation in future trials. Improvements in primary care ethnicity data recording is required to aid understanding of how successfully study samples represent the target population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN84864870. Registered 15 May 2012, 10.1186/ISRCTN84864870. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2018-09-04 /pmc/articles/PMC6124010/ /pubmed/30180833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y Text en © The Author(s). 2018 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Bayley, Adam Stahl, Daniel Ashworth, Mark Cook, Derek G. Whincup, Peter H. Treasure, Janet Greenough, Anne Ridge, Katie Winkley, Kirsty Ismail, Khalida Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title | Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_full | Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_fullStr | Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_short | Response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
title_sort | response bias to a randomised controlled trial of a lifestyle intervention in people at high risk of cardiovascular disease: a cross-sectional analysis |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6124010/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30180833 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5939-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bayleyadam responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT stahldaniel responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT ashworthmark responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT cookderekg responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT whincuppeterh responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT treasurejanet responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT greenoughanne responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT ridgekatie responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT winkleykirsty responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis AT ismailkhalida responsebiastoarandomisedcontrolledtrialofalifestyleinterventioninpeopleathighriskofcardiovasculardiseaseacrosssectionalanalysis |