Cargando…
A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors
BACKGROUND: Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604353/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31262317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5 |
_version_ | 1783431695125446656 |
---|---|
author | Hewitt, Jonathan Pennington, Anna Smith, Alexander Gething, Stephanie Price, Michelle White, James Dewar, Richard Carter, Ben |
author_facet | Hewitt, Jonathan Pennington, Anna Smith, Alexander Gething, Stephanie Price, Michelle White, James Dewar, Richard Carter, Ben |
author_sort | Hewitt, Jonathan |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up. METHODS: In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen’s designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made. RESULTS: Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161. Registered on 6 June 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6604353 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66043532019-07-12 A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors Hewitt, Jonathan Pennington, Anna Smith, Alexander Gething, Stephanie Price, Michelle White, James Dewar, Richard Carter, Ben BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Recovery following a stroke is a long and ongoing process. Post-stroke follow-up after leaving the hospital is recommended. Methods for follow-up patients include face-to-face, via the telephone, post or online (internet). However, there is a debate which method is preferred by patients. This study aimed to determine whether telephone interview, online questionnaire and postal questionnaire were as acceptable as face-to-face follow-up. METHODS: In a blinded, UK-wide, multi-centre, Zelen’s designed, 4-arm (postal, online, telephone, compared to face-to-face), pragmatic non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of the mode of administration, stroke survivors were randomised to postal, online, telephone and face-to-face assessment, in an equal ratio (1:1:1:1). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants that responded to the three allocation groups, compared to the face-to-face group. Subgroup analyses for age, aphasia and type and severity of stroke were carried out. A non-inferiority margin of 0.025 was used, and Holm-Bonferroni multiplicity adjustment was made. RESULTS: Of the 2074 eligible patients randomised, 55% were male (1142/2074), with an average age of 73.0 years old (SD = 13.2). Of those randomised, 22% (116/525), 9% (47/515) and 20% (101/513) responded in postal, online and telephone, respectively, compared to 17% (89/521) in the face-to-face group. The reduction in the online response rate compared to face-to-face was found to be both inferior and not non-inferior and estimated as an 8% reduction (95% CI 3.9 to 12.0%; p < 0.001). The association with lower online completion was present regardless of age, stroke type (haemorrhage or infarct) and stroke severity. In haemorrhagic stroke, the reduction in response online, compared to face-to-face, was 21% (95% CI 10 to 32%; p value = 0.002). A secondary analysis found non-aphasic stroke survivors preferred postal completion adjusted odds ratio of 1.43 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.95; p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: The study found that fewer stroke survivors completed follow-up assessment using an online method, compared to face-to-face. This finding was present in all age groups. Caution should be employed when considering online follow-up methods in stroke survivors, particularly in those who have experienced a cerebrovascular haemorrhage. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03177161. Registered on 6 June 2017. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-07-02 /pmc/articles/PMC6604353/ /pubmed/31262317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 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 Hewitt, Jonathan Pennington, Anna Smith, Alexander Gething, Stephanie Price, Michelle White, James Dewar, Richard Carter, Ben A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title | A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title_full | A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title_fullStr | A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title_full_unstemmed | A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title_short | A multi-centre, UK-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
title_sort | multi-centre, uk-based, non-inferiority randomised controlled trial of 4 follow-up assessment methods in stroke survivors |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6604353/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31262317 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1350-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hewittjonathan amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT penningtonanna amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT smithalexander amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT gethingstephanie amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT pricemichelle amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT whitejames amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT dewarrichard amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT carterben amulticentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT hewittjonathan multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT penningtonanna multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT smithalexander multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT gethingstephanie multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT pricemichelle multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT whitejames multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT dewarrichard multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors AT carterben multicentreukbasednoninferiorityrandomisedcontrolledtrialof4followupassessmentmethodsinstrokesurvivors |