Effectiveness of a web-based intervention for injured claimants: a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of Interventions on Work Outcomes After Road Traffic Crash-Related Musculoskeletal Injuries: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Musculoskeletal injuries are common after road traffic crash (RTC) and can lead to poor work-related outcomes. This review evaluated the impact of interventions on work-related (e.g. sick leave), health, and functional outcomes in individuals with a RTC-related musculoskeletal injury, and explored what factors were associated with work-related outcomes.

METHODS

Searches of seven databases were conducted up until 9/03/2023. Eligible interventions included adults with RTC-related musculoskeletal injuries, a comparison group, and a work-related outcome, and were in English. Meta-analyses were conducted using RevMan and meta-regressions in Stata.

RESULTS

Studies (n = 27) were predominantly conducted in countries with third-party liability schemes (n = 26), by physiotherapists (n = 17), and in participants with whiplash injuries (94%). Pooled effects in favour of the intervention group were seen overall (SMD = - 0.14, 95% CI: - 0.29, 0.00), for time to return to work (- 17.84 days, 95% CI: - 24.94, - 10.74), likelihood of returning to full duties vs. partial duties (RR = 1.17, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.36), decreased pain intensity (- 6.17 units, 95% CI: - 11.96, - 0.39, 100-point scale), and neck disability (- 1.77 units, 95% CI: - 3.24, - 0.30, 50-point scale).

DISCUSSION

Interventions after RTC can reduce time to return to work and increase the likelihood of returning to normal duties, but the results for these outcomes were based on a small number of studies with low-quality evidence. Further research is needed to evaluate a broader range of interventions, musculoskeletal injury types, and to include better quality work-related outcomes.

Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Therapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are effective for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and have become the accepted first-line treatments. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the number of qualified therapists available to deliver the interventions; cost; and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to June 2020. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies and contacted the authors of included studies and other researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list, or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed abstracts, extracted data, and entered data into Review Manager 5. The primary outcomes were severity of PTSD symptoms and dropouts. Secondary outcomes included diagnosis of PTSD after treatment, severity of depressive and anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, adverse events, treatment acceptability, and quality of life. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data using a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. We independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias and we evaluated the certainty of available evidence using the GRADE approach; we discussed any conflicts with at least one other review author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies with 808 participants. Ten studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. One study compared guided I-C/BT with face-to-face non-C/BT. There was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies. I-C/BT compared with face-to-face non-CBT Very low-certainty evidence based on one small study suggested face-to-face non-CBT may be more effective than I-C/BT at reducing PTSD symptoms post-treatment (MD 10.90, 95% CI 6.57 to 15.23; studies = 1, participants = 40). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between treatments (RR 2.49, 95% CI 0.91 to 6.77; studies = 1, participants = 40; very low-certainty evidence). The study did not measure diagnosis of PTSD, severity of depressive or anxiety symptoms, cost-effectiveness, or adverse events. I-C/BT compared with wait list Very low-certainty evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.29; studies = 10, participants = 608). There may be no evidence of a difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.60; studies = 9, participants = 634; low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-certainty evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression post-treatment (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.06; studies = 7, participants = 473; very low-certainty evidence). Very low-certainty evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.33; studies = 5, participants = 345). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse events were uncertain, as only one study reported an absence of adverse events. I-C/BT compared with I-non-C/BT There may be no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms post-treatment between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-certainty evidence). There may be no evidence of a difference between dropout rates from the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (RR 2.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 4.73; studies = 2, participants = 132; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-certainty evidence). Two studies found no evidence of a difference in post-treatment symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-certainty evidence). There were no data regarding cost-effectiveness. Data regarding adverse effects were uncertain, as it was not discernible whether adverse effects reported were attributable to the intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the certainty of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. This review update found many planned and ongoing studies, which is encouraging since further work is required to establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

Health and return to work in the first two years following road traffic injury: a comparison of outcomes between compensation claimants in Victoria and New South Wales, Australia

BACKGROUND

People who sustain road traffic injuries often have poor health outcomes. While outcomes are often worse in people with a compensation claim, especially in fault-based schemes versus no-fault schemes, few studies have directly compared outcomes across scheme types.

OBJECTIVE

To compare health and work outcomes between people who had no compensation claim, a fault-based claim, or "no-fault" transport or workers compensation claim after hospitalisation for a road traffic injury.

METHODS

Participants aged >=18 years admitted to hospital in New South Wales or Victoria for >24 hours were recruited in two separate prospective cohort studies (N=1,034). People who died or sustained minor or very severe injuries were excluded. Groups included Compulsory Third Party (fault-based, n=128), no-fault Transport Accident Commission (TAC; n=454) and workers compensation claimants (n=73), or no claim (n=226). Outcomes at six, 12- and 24-months post-injury included health [SF-12 Mental Component Score (MCS) and Physical Component Score (PCS)], and return to work for people working pre-injury. Multivariable mixed effects linear and logistic regressions, adjusting for demographic and injury covariates, examined differences in health and work outcomes between claimant groups, with fixed effects of time and random effects of participant ID.

RESULTS

Health status was better in people with a no-fault TAC claim (MCS: m=50.62, 95%CI:49.62,51.62; PCS: m=40.49, 95%CI:39.46,41.52) or no claim (MCS: m=49.99, 95%CI:49.62,51.62; PCS: m=44.36, 95%CI:43.00,45.72), than people with a workers compensation (MCS: m=45.73, 95%CI:43.46,48.00; PCS: m=38.94, 95%CI:36.59,41.30) or fault-based CTP claim (MCS: m=41.34, 95%CI:39.54,43.13; PCS: m=35.64, 95%CI:33.78,37.49). Relative to fault-based CTP claimants, the odds of returning to work were higher for people with no claim (AOR=6.84, 95%CI:1.73,27.05) but did not differ for no-fault TAC (AOR=1.21, 95%CI:0.36,4.05) or workers compensation claimants (AOR=0.83,95%CI: 0.17,3.99). While people with a fault-based CTP claim had poorer mental and physical health and return to work after injury, they showed greater improvements in mental health, and similar levels of improvement in physical health and work participation over time to the other groups.

CONCLUSION

The patterns of health and work across scheme types provide important insights against which we can contrast the effects of future scheme designs on client outcomes.

An App-Based Intervention for Caregivers to Prevent Unintentional Injury Among Preschoolers: Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

App-based interventions have the potential to reduce child injury in countries with limited prevention resources, but their effectiveness has not been rigorously examined.

Objective

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of an app-based intervention for caregivers of preschoolers to prevent unintentional injury among Chinese preschoolers.

Methods

A 6-month cluster randomized controlled trial was conducted from December 2017 to June 2018. Recruitment was conducted through preschools, which were randomly allocated to either the control group (ie, app-based parenting education excluding unintentional injury prevention) or the intervention group (ie, app-based parenting education including unintentional injury prevention). A total of 2920 caregivers of preschoolers aged 3-6 years from 20 preschools in Changsha, China, were recruited offline through the schools. The primary outcome was unintentional injury incidences among preschoolers in the past 3 months; this measure was assessed through an online caregiver-report at the baseline visit and at 3-month and 6-month follow-up visits. Secondary outcome measures included caregivers’ self-reported attitudes and behaviors concerning child supervision during the last week. Generalized estimating equations (GEEs) were used to assess the effectiveness of the app-based intervention on responses at 3 and 6 months after adjusting for sociodemographic variables, baseline level of the outcome variable, and engagement with interventions in the assigned group. All analyses were intention-to-treat. A per-protocol sensitivity analysis was also conducted.

Results

In total, 1980 of the 2920 caregivers completed the study. The mean age of participants was 32.0 years (SD 5.5) and 68.99% (1366/1980) of them were female. During the 6-month follow-up visit, unintentional injury incidence did not change significantly in either group: incidence in the intervention group went from 8.76% (94/1073) to 8.11% (87/1073), P=.59; incidence in the control group went from 9.4% (85/907) to 7.5% (69/907), P=.15. The changes did not differ between the groups (odds ratio [OR] 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.62). Changes in the average score in attitude concerning unintentional injury prevention were also similar between the groups (B .05, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.13). Changes in unintentional injury prevention behaviors were greater in the intervention group than in the control group after the intervention (B .87, 95% CI 0.33-1.42). Analyses of individual injury prevention behaviors showed that the intervention reduced three risky behaviors: unsafe feeding of children (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89); incorrectly placing children in cars (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93); and allowing children to ride bicycles, electric bicycles, or motorcycles unsupervised (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.64-0.99). The intervention also improved scores on three safety-focused behaviors: testing water temperature before giving children a bath (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.52); properly storing sharp objects (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.01-1.52); and safely storing medicines, detergents, and pesticides (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.02-1.51).

Conclusions

The app-based intervention did not reduce unintentional injury incidence among preschoolers but significantly improved caregivers’ safety behaviors. This app-based intervention approach to improve caregiver behaviors surrounding child injury risk offers promise to be modified and ultimately disseminated broadly.

Trial Registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ChiCTR-IOR-17010438; http://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.aspx?proj=17376 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/75jt17X84)

International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)

RR2-10.1186/s12889-018-5790-1

Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Therapist-delivered trauma-focused psychological therapies are an effective treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). These have become the accepted first-line treatments for the disorder. Despite the established evidence-base for these therapies, they are not always widely available or accessible. Many barriers limit treatment uptake, such as the limited number of qualified therapists to deliver the interventions, cost, and compliance issues, such as time off work, childcare, and transportation, associated with the need to attend weekly appointments. Delivering cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) on the Internet is an effective and acceptable alternative to therapist-delivered treatments for anxiety and depression. However, fewer Internet-based therapies have been developed and evaluated for PTSD, and uncertainty surrounds the efficacy of Internet-based cognitive and behavioural therapy (I-C/BT) for PTSD.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of I-C/BT for PTSD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Common Mental Disorders Group's Specialised Register (CCMDCTR) to June 2016 and identified four studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The CCMDCTR includes relevant randomised controlled trials (RCT) from MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched online clinical trial registries and reference lists of included studies, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional and ongoing studies. We ran an update search on 1 March 2018, and identified four additional completed studies, which we added to the analyses along with two that were previously awaiting classification.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for RCTs of I-C/BT compared to face-to-face or Internet-based psychological treatment, psychoeducation, wait list or care as usual. We included studies of adults (aged over 16 years or over), in which at least 70% of the participants met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) or the International Classification of Diseases (ICD).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We entered data into Review Manager 5 software. We analysed categorical outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MD) or standardised mean differences (SMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We pooled data with a fixed-effect meta-analysis, except where heterogeneity was present, in which case we used a random-effects model. Two review authors independently assessed the included studies for risk of bias; any conflicts were discussed with a third author, with the aim of reaching a unanimous decision.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 studies with 720 participants in the review. Eight of the studies compared I-C/BT delivered with therapist guidance to a wait list control. Two studies compared guided I-C/BT with I-non-C/BT. There was considerable heterogeneity among the included studies.Very low-quality evidence showed that, compared with wait list, I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in PTSD post-treatment (SMD -0.60, 95% CI -0.97 to -0.24; studies = 8, participants = 560). However, there was no evidence of a difference in PTSD symptoms when follow-up was less than six months (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -1.41 to 0.56; studies = 3, participants = 146). There may be little or no difference in dropout rates between the I-C/BT and wait list groups (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.88; studies = 8, participants = 585; low-quality evidence). I-C/BT was no more effective than wait list at reducing the risk of a diagnosis of PTSD after treatment (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.28 to 1.00; studies = 1, participants = 62; very low-quality evidence). I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of depression both post-treatment (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.05; studies = 5, participants = 425; very low-quality evidence). Very low-quality evidence also suggested that I-C/BT may be associated with a clinically important reduction in symptoms of anxiety post-treatment (SMD -0.67, 95% CI -0.98 to -0.36; studies = 4, participants = 305), and at follow-up less than six months (MD -12.59, 95% CI -20.74 to -4.44; studies = 1, participants = 42; very low-quality evidence). The effects of I-C/BT on quality of life were uncertain (SMD 0.60, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.12; studies = 2, participants = 221; very low-quality evidence).Two studies found no difference in PTSD symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD -0.08, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 82; very low-quality evidence), or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.57; studies = 2, participants = 65; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their PTSD symptoms were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.83, 95% CI -17.32 to -0.34; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found no difference in depressive symptoms between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD -0.12, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 84; very low-quality evidence) or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD 0.20, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.71; studies = 2, participants = 61; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their depressive symptoms were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.34, 95% CI -15.83 to -0.85; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence). Two studies found no difference in symptoms of anxiety between the I-C/BT and I-non-C/BT groups when measured post-treatment (SMD 0.08, 95% CI -0.78 to 0.95; studies = 2, participants = 74; very low-quality evidence) or when follow-up was less than six months (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.35; studies = 2, participants = 60; very low-quality evidence). However, those who received I-C/BT reported their symptoms of anxiety were better at six- to 12-month follow-up (MD -8.05, 95% CI -15.20 to -0.90; studies = 1, participants = 18; very low-quality evidence).None of the included studies reported on cost-effectiveness or adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

While the review found some beneficial effects of I-C/BT for PTSD, the quality of the evidence was very low due to the small number of included trials. Further work is required to: establish non-inferiority to current first-line interventions, explore mechanisms of change, establish optimal levels of guidance, explore cost-effectiveness, measure adverse events, and determine predictors of efficacy and dropout.

The effectiveness of multi-dimensional resilience rehabilitation programs after traumatic physical injuries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective: To synthesize evidence of the effectiveness of socio-ecological resilience rehabilitation programs on returning to work (RTW), self-efficacy, and stress mitigation following traumatic physical injuries.Methods: PubMed, Scopus, Proquest, Cinahl, Web of Science, Clinical Trials Database, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro tool.Study selection: Randomized interventions aimed at promoting resilience.Data extraction: Twenty one studies were reviewed (11,904 participants). Data from 19 studies of high methodological quality were pooled using a random-effects meta-analysis. Mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for binary outcomes were calculated.Data synthesis: Resilience rehabilitation programs significantly increased the likelihood of ever RTW (OR 2.09, 95% CI 0.99-4.44, p = 0.05), decreased the number of days taken to return to work (mean difference -7.80, 95% CI -13.16 to -2.45, p ≤ 0.001), and increased total self-efficacy scores (mean difference 5.19, 95% CI 3.12-7.26, p < 0.001). Subgroup analyses found that favorable return to work outcomes resulted from programs involving workplace support (p < 0.001) and for people with musculoskeletal or orthopedic injuries (p = 0.02).Conclusions: Compared to rehabilitation programs providing standard care following injuries, programs aimed at developing resilience could improve reemployment outcomes and self-efficacy.Implications for rehabilitationIndividual resilience may be an important factor promoting functional recovery after traumatic injury.Resilience rehabilitation programs are effective in enabling patients' return to work and increasing their self efficacy. In particular, programs involving the workplace are important components for enabling optimal work participation outcomes.

Psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash: A systematic review of preventative interventions

INTRODUCTION

Psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash (MVC) is prevalent, especially when the person sustains an associated physical injury. Psychological distress can exhibit as elevated anxiety and depressive mood, as well as presenting as mental disorders such as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) or Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). If unmanaged, psychological distress can contribute to, or exacerbate negative outcomes such as social disengagement (e.g., loss of employment) and poor health-related quality of life, as well as contribute to higher costs to insurers. This systematic review summarises current research concerning early psychological intervention strategies aimed at preventing elevated psychological distress occurring following a MVC.

METHOD

A systematic review of psychological preventative intervention studies was performed. Searches of Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Library were used to locate relevant studies published between 1985 and September 2015. Included studies were those investigating MVC survivors who had received an early psychological intervention aimed at preventing psychological distress, and which had employed pre- and post- measures of constructs such as depression, anxiety and disorders such as PTSD.

RESULTS

Searches resulted in 2608 records. Only six studies investigated a psychological preventative intervention post-MVC. Interventions such as injury health education, physical activity and health promotion, and therapist-assisted problem solving did not result in significant treatment effects. Another six studies investigated psychological interventions given to MVC survivors who were assessed as sub-clinically psychologically distressed prior to their randomisation. Efficacy was varied, however three studies employing cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) found significant reductions in psychological distress compared to wait-list controls.

CONCLUSION

Psychological interventions aimed at preventing psychological distress post-MVC are limited, often involving small samples, with subsequent poor statistical power and subsequent high risk of bias. These factors make it difficult to draw conclusions, however CBT appears encouraging and therefore worthy of consideration as a preventative intervention.

Psychological impact of injuries sustained in motor vehicle crashes: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to determine the psychological impact associated with motor vehicle crash (MVC)-related physical injuries.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Multiple search engines included MEDLINE (via OVID), PsycINFO and Embase, and studies were sourced from scientific journals, conference papers and doctoral theses.

STUDY SELECTION

A high-yield search strategy was employed. Terms like 'psychological distress', 'depression', 'PTSD' and 'motor vehicle accident' were employed. These key words were run primarily and secondary searches were then conducted in association with the major injury types. Studies needed to compare psychological distress in people injured in an MVC with uninjured controls who had not recently experienced an MVC.

DATA EXTRACTION

Searches resulted in the identification of 2537 articles, and after eliminating duplicates and studies not meeting inclusion criteria, 24 studies were selected involving 4502 injured participants. These studies were entered into separate meta-analyses for mild to moderate traumatic brain injury (mTBI), whiplash-associated disorder (WAD) and spinal cord injury (SCI).

RESULTS

Elevated psychological distress was associated with MVC-related injuries with a large summary effect size in WAD (0.90), medium to large effect size in SCI (0.69) and small to medium effect size in mTBI (0.23). No studies meeting inclusion criteria were found for burns, fractures and low back injury. Increased psychological distress remains elevated in SCI, mTBI and WAD for at least 3 years post-MVC.

CONCLUSIONS

Rehabilitation strategies are needed to minimise distress subsequent to MVC-related physical injuries and the scientific robustness of studies requires improvement.

Prevention of the development of psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

It is estimated that up to 50 % of motor vehicle crash survivors develop significant psychological distress, such as depressive mood and anxiety, within 6 months of the crash. Associated impacts include loss of employment, delayed return to work, financial and familial stress, and increased medical and compensation costs. The major aim of this research is to investigate the efficacy of interventions for preventing the development of psychological distress following a motor vehicle crash. The efficacy of two brief interventions will be examined: a cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) programme, targeting mood and anxiety, and a lifestyle programme, targeting sleep, diet and physical activity.

Methods/design

This is a randomized, controlled multisite study. Participants include at least 180 adults injured in a motor vehicle crash who have entered a compensation process. Research will compare outcomes in three groups randomly assigned to: one group of 60 adults, who receive a brief email-delivered CBT programme, with one session every 2 weeks for 10 weeks and telephone contact every 2 weeks; a second group of 60 adults, who receive a brief email-delivered lifestyle intervention involving one session every 2 weeks for 10 weeks with telephone contact; and an active waiting-list control group of 60 adults who are provided claims processing-related reading material along with telephone contact every 2 weeks for 10 weeks. Participants will be recruited within 12 weeks of the motor vehicle crash, and will be comprehensively assessed before and after treatment, and 6 and 12 months post-injury. Assuming an α probability level of 0.05 and a power of 80 %, at least 180 participants will be recruited. The primary outcome measure is the presence and severity of psychological distress or disorder. Secondary outcome measures include assessment of self-efficacy, resilience employment status, social activity and support, lifestyle and physical health factors, along with process outcome measures of treatment acceptability, feasibility and generalizability.

Discussion

This study will determine whether brief email-delivered interventions distributed soon after the injury and entry into the claims process can be effective in preventing the development of psychological distress.

Trial registration

ANZCTR, ACTRN12615000326594. Registered on 9 April 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-016-1455-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.