The COVID-19 related lockdowns and distancing measures have presented families with unprecedented challenges. A UK-wide cohort study tracking changes in families' mental health since early lockdown ...(Co-SPACE) found a significant rise in primary school-aged children's behaviour problems and associated family-related stress. Three-quarters of parents in Co-SPACE also reported wanting extra support. In SPARKLE, we will examine whether providing Co-SPACE families with a smartphone application delivering information and parenting support, Parent Positive, can reverse the negative effects of the pandemic on children and parents. The efficacy on child and parent outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Parent Positive will be examined. We will also test whether the effects are moderated by pre-existing levels of child conduct problems and usage of Parent Positive. Exploratory analyses will examine whether other baseline characteristics or lockdown circumstances moderate the effects of Parent Positive.
SPARKLE is a two-arm superiority parallel group randomised controlled trial embedded in an existing large UK-wide self-selected community cohort - Co-SPACE. Those who consent to SPARKLE will be randomised 1:1 to either Parent Positive or Follow-up As Usual (FAU).
Co-SPACE (a UK-wide longitudinal cohort study) parents aged ≥18 who have children aged 4-10 years will be eligible for SPARKLE.
Parent Positive: is a digital public health intervention that can be delivered rapidly at scale to support parents in managing their children's behaviour to reduce conduct problems and levels of family conflict, which were exacerbated during the first lockdown, and which may increase further in future months as families need to cope with continuous uncertainty and further disruption to their daily lives. Co-designed with parents and based on decades of parenting research, Parent Positive consists of three elements: (i) Parenting Boosters: where advice, delivered in the form of narrated animations, videos, graphics and text is provided to help parents with eight common parenting challenges; (ii) Parenting Exchange: a facilitated parent-to-parent communication and peer support platform and; (iii) Parent Resources: giving access to carefully selected high-quality, evidence-based online parenting resources. Follow-up as Usual: FAU was selected as a comparator because the public health nature meant that an active comparator was not appropriate due to the pragmatic, rapid implementation of the trial. Individuals randomised to FAU will receive no intervention for the first two months while the data for baseline (T1), T2 and T3 are collected. They will then be given full access to the app until 30th November 2021.
Outcome measures will be collected remotely through Qualtrics according to the Co-SPACE schedule at baseline (T1), which will be the Co-SPACE survey data obtained immediately prior to randomisation, and then at one month (T2) and two months (T3) post-randomisation. Measures will be collected to assess group differences in child and parent outcomes, costs and service utilisation, and adverse events. Usage of Parent Positive will also be tracked. The primary outcome is parent-reported child conduct problems at one-month post-randomisation measured using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire conduct problems subscale.
Enrolled participants will be allocated to Parent Positive or FAU at the ratio of 1:1 by simple randomisation using the Randomizer function within the Qualtrics programme. Neither blocking nor stratification will be used.
It is not possible to blind parents enrolled in the study and Qualtrics will automatically inform parents of their group allocation. Blinded members of the research team and the senior statistician will not be given access to the Qualtrics system or the data in order to remain blinded until after the analysis is complete. We do not anticipate any serious harms associated with taking part in the intervention, therefore there will be no need to unblind any blinded staff during the study. The junior statistician will be unblinded throughout.
A total of 616 will be recruited into the trial with 308 consenting parents randomised to each treatment arm.
V1.0; 15.03.2021. Not yet recruiting. Anticipated start date: 1
April 2021. Anticipated end date for recruitment: 31
July 2021.
Clinicaltrial.gov: NCT04786080 . The trial was prospectively registered on 8 March 2021.
The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol. The study protocol has been reported in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Clinical Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guidelines (Additional file 2).
The use of electronic patient records for assessing outcomes in clinical trials is a methodological strategy intended to drive faster and more cost-efficient acquisition of results. The aim of this ...manuscript was to outline the data collection and management considerations of a maternity and perinatal clinical trial using data from electronic patient records, exemplifying the DESiGN Trial as a case study.
The DESiGN Trial is a cluster randomised control trial assessing the effect of a complex intervention versus standard care for identifying small for gestational age foetuses. Data on maternal/perinatal characteristics and outcomes including infants admitted to neonatal care, parameters from foetal ultrasound and details of hospital activity for health-economic evaluation were collected at two time points from four types of electronic patient records held in 22 different electronic record systems at the 13 research clusters. Data were pseudonymised on site using a bespoke Microsoft Excel macro and securely transferred to the central data store. Data quality checks were undertaken. Rules for data harmonisation of the raw data were developed and a data dictionary produced, along with rules and assumptions for data linkage of the datasets. The dictionary included descriptions of the rationale and assumptions for data harmonisation and quality checks.
Data were collected on 182,052 babies from 178,350 pregnancies in 165,397 unique women. Data availability and completeness varied across research sites; each of eight variables which were key to calculation of the primary outcome were completely missing in median 3 (range 1-4) clusters at the time of the first data download. This improved by the second data download following clarification of instructions to the research sites (each of the eight key variables were completely missing in median 1 (range 0-1) cluster at the second time point). Common data management challenges were harmonising a single variable from multiple sources and categorising free-text data, solutions were developed for this trial.
Conduct of clinical trials which use electronic patient records for the assessment of outcomes can be time and cost-effective but still requires appropriate time and resources to maximise data quality. A difficulty for pregnancy and perinatal research in the UK is the wide variety of different systems used to collect patient data across maternity units. In this manuscript, we describe how we managed this and provide a detailed data dictionary covering the harmonisation of variable names and values that will be helpful for other researchers working with these data.
Primary registry and trial identifying number: ISRCTN 67698474 . Registered on 02/11/16.
In the UK, children with high levels of hyperactivity, impulsivity and inattention referred to clinical services with possible attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) often wait a long time ...for specialist diagnostic assessment. Parent training (PT) has the potential to support parents during this difficult period, especially regarding the management of challenging and disruptive behaviours that often accompany ADHD. However, traditional face-to-face PT is costly and difficult to organise in a timely way. We have created a low-cost, easily accessible PT programme delivered via a phone app, Structured E-Parenting Support (STEPS), to address this problem. The overall OPTIMA programme will evaluate the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of STEPS as a way of helping parents manage their children behaviour while on the waitlist. To ensure the timely and efficient evaluation of STEPS in OPTIMA, we have worked with children's health services to implement a remote strategy for recruitment, screening and assessment of recently referred families. Part of this strategy is incorporated into routine clinical practice and part is OPTIMA specific. Here, we present the protocol for Phase 1 of OPTIMA-a study of the feasibility of this remote strategy, as a basis for a large-scale STEPS randomised controlled trial (RCT).
This is a single arm observational feasibility study. Participants will be parents of up to 100 children aged 5-11 years with high levels of hyperactivity/impulsivity, inattention and challenging behaviour who are waiting for assessment in one of five UK child and adolescent mental health or behavioural services. Recruitment, consenting and data collection will occur remotely. The primary outcome will be the rate at which the families, who meet inclusion criteria, agree in principle to take part in a full STEPS RCT. Secondary outcomes include acceptability of remote consenting and online data collection procedures; the feasibility of collecting teacher data remotely within the required timeframe, and technical difficulties with completing online questionnaires. All parents in the study will receive access to STEPS.
Establishing the feasibility of our remote recruitment, consenting and assessment strategy is a pre-requisite for the full trial of OPTIMA. It can also provide a model for future trials conducted remotely.
Background Stroke registries provide a simple way for improving patient care, and its use has been associated with a better adherence to the published guidelines. Few Latin American countries had ...established stroke registries. Our study is the first in Mexico to report the effects of implementing a stroke registry. To determine if the implementation of a systematized registry is associated with an improved adherence to the performance measures. Methods We compared prospective data (August 2008-November 2010) against historical controls (February 2005-July 2008). Our stroke registry (i-Registro Neurovascular) consists of a standardized clinical form that includes demographic and clinical variables (risk factors, medications, neuroimaging, etiology, acute and outpatient treatments, and neurologic scores National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and modified Rankin Scale). We evaluated 9 performance measures suggested by the American Heart Association and the Joint Commission. Results We analyzed the data from 574 patients, 260 from the prospective phase and 314 from historical controls. No significant statistical differences in demographic characteristics or stroke risk factors were found. The implementation of the stroke registry was associated with a statistically significant ( P < .05) improvement in almost all of the acute performance measures. The composite measure also showed an improvement form 52.6%-68.8% ( P < .001). Conclusions The implementation of a systematized registry significantly improved our clinical practice. This intervention is a low cost and readily achievable and a viable option for encouraging an increased report of guidelines adherence of other hospitals in Latin America.
The National Early Warning Score (NEWS2) is currently recommended in the UK for the risk stratification of COVID-19 patients, but little is known about its ability to detect severe cases. We aimed to ...evaluate NEWS2 for the prediction of severe COVID-19 outcome and identify and validate a set of blood and physiological parameters routinely collected at hospital admission to improve upon the use of NEWS2 alone for medium-term risk stratification.
Training cohorts comprised 1276 patients admitted to King's College Hospital National Health Service (NHS) Foundation Trust with COVID-19 disease from 1 March to 30 April 2020. External validation cohorts included 6237 patients from five UK NHS Trusts (Guy's and St Thomas' Hospitals, University Hospitals Southampton, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, University College London Hospitals, University Hospitals Birmingham), one hospital in Norway (Oslo University Hospital), and two hospitals in Wuhan, China (Wuhan Sixth Hospital and Taikang Tongji Hospital). The outcome was severe COVID-19 disease (transfer to intensive care unit (ICU) or death) at 14 days after hospital admission. Age, physiological measures, blood biomarkers, sex, ethnicity, and comorbidities (hypertension, diabetes, cardiovascular, respiratory and kidney diseases) measured at hospital admission were considered in the models.
A baseline model of 'NEWS2 + age' had poor-to-moderate discrimination for severe COVID-19 infection at 14 days (area under receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) in training cohort = 0.700, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.680, 0.722; Brier score = 0.192, 95% CI 0.186, 0.197). A supplemented model adding eight routinely collected blood and physiological parameters (supplemental oxygen flow rate, urea, age, oxygen saturation, C-reactive protein, estimated glomerular filtration rate, neutrophil count, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio) improved discrimination (AUC = 0.735; 95% CI 0.715, 0.757), and these improvements were replicated across seven UK and non-UK sites. However, there was evidence of miscalibration with the model tending to underestimate risks in most sites.
NEWS2 score had poor-to-moderate discrimination for medium-term COVID-19 outcome which raises questions about its use as a screening tool at hospital admission. Risk stratification was improved by including readily available blood and physiological parameters measured at hospital admission, but there was evidence of miscalibration in external sites. This highlights the need for a better understanding of the use of early warning scores for COVID.
BackgroundAntenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the Growth ...Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care.Methods and findingsThis was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24+1 weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster-summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -6.4% to 10.7%; p = 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes.ConclusionsIn this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings.Trial registrationThis trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN67698474.
The benefit of statins on stroke incidence is well known. However, data on the relationship between pre- and post-stroke statin use, recurrence, and survival outcomes are limited. We aim to ...investigate the short- and long-term relationships between statin prescription, stroke recurrence, and survival in patients with first-ever ischemic stroke.
Data were collected from the population-based South London Stroke Register for the years 1995-2015. Patients were assessed at the time of first ever stroke, 3 months, and annually thereafter. Data on vascular risk factors, treatments prescribed, sociodemographic characteristics, stroke subtype, survival, and stroke recurrence were collected. Cox proportional hazard analyses were used to assess the relationship of statin prescriptions pre- and post-stroke on stroke severity, long-term recurrence and survival.
Patients prescribed statins both pre- and post-stroke showed a 24% reduction in mortality (adjusted Hazard Ratio aHR 0.76, 0.60-0.97), those who were prescribed statins pre-stroke and then stopped post-stroke showed greater risk of mortality (aHR 1.85, 1.10-3.12) and stroke recurrence (aHR 3.25, 1.35-7.84) compared to those that were not prescribed statins at any time. No associations were observed between pre-stroke statin and severity of the initial stroke overall, though a protective effect against moderate/severe stroke (Glasgow Coma Scale ≤12) was observed in those aged 75+ years (aOR 0.70, 0.52-0.95).
Statins play a significant role in improving the survival rates after a stroke. Adherence to the National Guidelines that promote statin treatment, primary and secondary prevention of stroke should be monitored and a focus for quality improvement programs.
Background
Antenatal detection and management of small for gestational age (SGA) is a strategy to reduce stillbirth. Large observational studies provide conflicting results on the effect of the ...Growth Assessment Protocol (GAP) in relation to detection of SGA and reduction of stillbirth; to the best of our knowledge, there are no reported randomised control trials. Our aim was to determine if GAP improves antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care.
Methods and findings
This was a pragmatic, superiority, 2-arm, parallel group, open, cluster randomised control trial. Maternity units in England were eligible to participate in the study, except if they had already implemented GAP. All women who gave birth in participating clusters (maternity units) during the year prior to randomisation and during the trial (November 2016 to February 2019) were included. Multiple pregnancies, fetal abnormalities or births before 24
+1
weeks were excluded. Clusters were randomised to immediate implementation of GAP, an antenatal care package aimed at improving detection of SGA as a means to reduce the rate of stillbirth, or to standard care. Randomisation by random permutation was stratified by time of study inclusion and cluster size. Data were obtained from hospital electronic records for 12 months prerandomisation, the washout period (interval between randomisation and data collection of outcomes), and the outcome period (last 6 months of the study). The primary outcome was ultrasound detection of SGA (estimated fetal weight <10th centile using customised centiles (intervention) or Hadlock centiles (standard care)) confirmed at birth (birthweight <10th centile by both customised and population centiles). Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal outcomes, including induction of labour, gestational age at delivery, mode of birth, neonatal morbidity, and stillbirth/perinatal mortality. A 2-stage cluster–summary statistical approach calculated the absolute difference (intervention minus standard care arm) adjusted using the prerandomisation estimate, maternal age, ethnicity, parity, and randomisation strata. Intervention arm clusters that made no attempt to implement GAP were excluded in modified intention to treat (mITT) analysis; full ITT was also reported. Process evaluation assessed implementation fidelity, reach, dose, acceptability, and feasibility. Seven clusters were randomised to GAP and 6 to standard care. Following exclusions, there were 11,096 births exposed to the intervention (5 clusters) and 13,810 exposed to standard care (6 clusters) during the outcome period (mITT analysis). Age, height, and weight were broadly similar between arms, but there were fewer women: of white ethnicity (56.2% versus 62.7%), and in the least deprived quintile of the Index of Multiple Deprivation (7.5% versus 16.5%) in the intervention arm during the outcome period. Antenatal detection of SGA was 25.9% in the intervention and 27.7% in the standard care arm (adjusted difference 2.2%, 95% confidence interval (CI) −6.4% to 10.7%;
p
= 0.62). Findings were consistent in full ITT analysis. Fidelity and dose of GAP implementation were variable, while a high proportion (88.7%) of women were reached. Use of routinely collected data is both a strength (cost-efficient) and a limitation (occurrence of missing data); the modest number of clusters limits our ability to study small effect sizes.
Conclusions
In this study, we observed no effect of GAP on antenatal detection of SGA compared to standard care. Given variable implementation observed, future studies should incorporate standardised implementation outcomes such as those reported here to determine generalisability of our findings.
Trial registration
This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry,
ISRCTN67698474
.
PDF
