Wordless intervention for people with epilepsy and learning disabilities (WIELD): a randomised controlled feasibility trial

Evaluating the usefulness of a wordless picture book for adults with intellectual disabilities about the COVID-19 vaccination programme using co-production: The CAREVIS study

AIM

To explore the usefulness of a co-designed wordless book showing processes of receiving COVID-19 vaccines designed by, and for, adults with intellectual disabilities.

METHODS

A qualitative evaluation of the resource using mixed methods. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people with intellectual disabilities, carers and health professionals about resource content, and use. This was analysed thematically. A survey was circulated to intellectual disabilities networks to understand resource need, use, sharing and content.

RESULTS

Understanding the COVID-19 vaccine was a process, not a single event using one resource. A visual resource had a place in facilitating conversations about vaccines between people with intellectual disabilities and carers. Differing perspectives were expressed regarding personal needs, existing awareness of vaccine programmes and communication preferences. Changes were suggested to improve the suggested storyline and relevance around COVID-19 restrictions changing.

CONCLUSION

A visual resource may help conversations about the COVID-19 vaccine for people with intellectual disabilities.

Impact of a health literacy intervention combining general practitioner training and a consumer facing intervention to improve colorectal cancer screening in underserved areas: protocol for a multicentric cluster randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer burden worldwide. In France, it is the second most common cause of cancer death after lung cancer. Systematic uptake of CRC screening can improve survival rates. However, people with limited health literacy (HL) and lower socioeconomic position rarely participate. Our aim is to assess the impact of an intervention combining HL and CRC screening training for general practitioners (GPs) with a pictorial brochure and video targeting eligible patients, to increase CRC screening and other secondary outcomes, after 1 year, in several underserved geographic areas in France.

METHODS

We will use a two-arm multicentric randomized controlled cluster trial with 32 GPs primarily serving underserved populations across four regions in France with 1024 patients recruited. GPs practicing in underserved areas (identified using the European Deprivation Index) will be block-randomized to: 1) a combined intervention (HL and CRC training + brochure and video for eligible patients), or 2) usual care. Patients will be included if they are between 50 and 74 years old, eligible for CRC screening, and present to recruited GPs. The primary outcome is CRC screening uptake after 1 year. Secondary outcomes include increasing knowledge and patient activation. After trial recruitment, we will conduct semi-structured interviews with up to 24 GPs (up to 8 in each region) and up to 48 patients (6 to 12 per region) based on data saturation. We will explore strategies that promote the intervention's sustained use and rapid implementation using Normalization Process Theory. We will follow a community-based participatory research approach throughout the trial. For the analyses, we will adopt a regression framework for all quantitative data. We will also use exploratory mediation analyses. We will analyze all qualitative data using a framework analysis guided by Normalization Process Theory.

DISCUSSION

Limited HL and its impact on the general population is a growing public health and policy challenge worldwide. It has received limited attention in France. A combined HL intervention could reduce disparities in CRC screening, increase screening rates among the most vulnerable populations, and increase knowledge and activation (beneficial in the context of repeated screening).

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registry: ClinicalTrials.gov.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

2020-A01687-32 . Date of registration: 17th November 2020.

Adjusted Indirect and Mixed Comparisons of Interventions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) of Disabled Adults: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis

This systematic review adopted the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) guidelines and used the method of network meta-analysis to compare the effects of different types of interventions from different perspectives which were abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality. The eligibility criteria were: (1) Participants were adults above 18 years old with disabilities; (2) Interventions could be classified into active exercise, passive therapy, psychological education, psychosocial support program, multi-disciplinary program, and usual care; (3) Outcomes should be the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that could be classified into abilities of daily life activity, psychological health, social functioning, and overall life quality; (4) Randomized designed and published in English. The keywords and their search field were: (1) “people with disabilities/disability”, “disabled”, “handicapped”, or “disable people” in titles or abstracts; (2) AND “randomized” or “randomised” in titles or abstracts; (3) NOT “design”, “protocol”, or “review” in titles. After searching in databases of Medline (EBSCO), PubMed, CINAHL, and Ovid, 16 studies were included. As a result, active exercise and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for overall life quality, psychological education and passive therapy are most likely to be the best interventions for abilities of daily life activity, and psychosocial support programs are most likely to be the best intervention for psychological health and social functioning.

Pain education for patients with non-specific low back pain in Nepal: protocol of a feasibility randomised clinical trial (PEN-LBP Trial)

INTRODUCTION

Low back pain (LBP) is the leading cause of years lived with disability in Nepal and elsewhere. Management of LBP that is evidence-based, easily accessible, cost-effective and culturally appropriate is desirable. The primary aim of this feasibility study is to determine if it is feasible to conduct a full randomised clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of pain education as an intervention for individuals with LBP in Nepal, relative to guideline-based physiotherapy treatment. The findings of the study will inform the planning of a full clinical trial and if any modifications are required to the protocol before undertaking a full trial.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

This protocol describes an assessor-blinded feasibility clinical trial investigating feasibility of the pain education intervention in patients with non-specific LBP in a physiotherapy hospital in Kathmandu, Nepal. Forty patients with LBP will be randomly allocated to either pain education or guideline-based physiotherapy treatment (control). Outcomes will be assessed at baseline and at a 1 week post-treatment. The primary outcomes are related to feasibility, including: (1) participant willingness to participate in a randomised clinical trial, (2) feasibility of assessor blinding, (3) eligibility and recruitment rates, (4) acceptability of screening procedures and random allocation, (5) possible contamination between the groups, (6) intervention credibility, (7) intervention adherence, (8) treatment satisfaction and (9) difficulty in understanding the interventions being provided.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

The protocol was approved by Nepal Health Research Council (NHRC; registration number: 422/2017) and University of Otago Human Ethics Committee for Health (registration number: H17/157). The results of the study will be presented at national and international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03387228; Pre-results.

"Sometimes, it just stops me from doing anything": A qualitative exploration of epilepsy management in people with intellectual disabilities and their carers

PURPOSE

Epilepsy affects 1 in 5 people with an intellectual disability (ID), but little is known about their experiences of living with epilepsy. A qualitative study was conducted to investigate the impact and management of epilepsy in people with ID.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

People with epilepsy and ID and their carers were invited to take part in semi-structured interviews. Eleven participants with ID and their carers were interviewed together, one participant with ID and their carer were interviewed separately, two interviews took place with the participant with ID only, and one interview took place with the carer only. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed thematically (dual independent coding for 30% of the transcripts).

RESULTS

Three themes emerged (participant characteristics, living with epilepsy, epilepsy management and information needs) which indicated the following: 1) diversity regarding health profiles, communication abilities, severity of epilepsy, perceived control of epilepsy, and support needs; 2) a reduction in severity and frequency of seizures for a sizeable proportion of participants through antiepileptic drugs; 3) the lifelong impact of epilepsy and related seizures on participants' activities and quality of life; 4) the perceived burden of epilepsy and difficulty managing the condition for a large proportion of participants; 5) high levels of satisfaction with epilepsy-related services and care; and 6) an overall lack of written accessible information about epilepsy.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has highlighted a significant impact of epilepsy and related seizures on the daily lives and quality of life of people with ID. Although a sizeable proportion of participants and their carers considered their epilepsy to be well controlled, the majority reported difficulties managing epilepsy and minimizing its impact on their wellbeing. Excluding care staff and the support provided by epilepsy clinics, the participants had not accessed any adapted self-management or information resources about epilepsy.