DIgital Alcohol Management ON Demand (DIAMOND) feasibility randomised controlled trial of a web-based intervention to reduce alcohol consumption in people with hazardous and harmful use versus a face-to-face intervention: protocol

DIAMOND (DIgital Alcohol Management ON Demand): a feasibility RCT and embedded process evaluation of a digital health intervention to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol use recruiting in hospital emergency departments and online

BACKGROUND

The harmful use of alcohol is a causal factor in more than 200 disease and injury conditions and leads to over 3 million deaths every year worldwide. Relatively few problem alcohol users access treatment due to stigma and lack of services. Alcohol-specific digital health interventions (DHI) may help them, but trial data comparing DHI with face-to-face treatment are lacking.

METHODS

We conducted a feasibility RCT of an alcohol DHI, testing recruitment, online data-collection and randomisation processes, with an embedded process evaluation. Recruitment ran from October 2015 for 12 months. Participants were adults, drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, recruited from hospital emergency departments (ED) in London or recruited online. Participants were randomised to HeLP-Alcohol, a six module DHI with weekly reminder prompts (phone, email or text message), or to face-to-face treatment as usual (TAU). Participants were invited to take part in qualitative interviews after the trial.

RESULTS

The trial website was accessed 1074 times: 420 people completed online eligibility questionnaires; 350 did not meet eligibility criteria, 51 declined to participate, and 19 were recruited and randomised. Follow-up data were collected from three participants (retention 3/19), and four agreed to be interviewed for the process evaluation. The main themes of the interviews were:Participants were not at equipoise. They wanted to try the website and were disappointed to be randomised to face-to-face, so they were less engaged and dropped out.Other reasons for drop out included not accepting that they had a drink problem; problem drinking interfering with their ability to take part in a trial or forgetting appointments; having a busy life and being randomised to TAU made it difficult to attend appointments.

CONCLUSIONS

This feasibility RCT aimed to test recruitment, randomisation, retention, and data collection methods, but recruited only 19 participants. This illustrates the importance of undertaking feasibility studies prior to fully powered RCTs. From the qualitative interviews we found that potential recruits were not at equipoise for recruitment. An alternative methodology, for example a preference RCT recruiting from multiple locations, needs to be explored in future trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN31789096.

DIAMOND (DIgital Alcohol Management ON Demand): a mixed methods feasibility RCT and embedded process evaluation of a digital health intervention to reduce hazardous and harmful alcohol use

Background

Alcohol is a major risk factor for preventable illness, with huge cost to healthcare economies. There is a role for alcohol-specific digital health interventions (DHI), but there have been few randomised controlled trials (RCT) comparing DHI with face-to-face treatment. Such trials are complex and face obstacles in recruitment and retention.

Methods

Mixed-methods feasibility RCT of an alcohol DHI, testing recruitment, online data-collection and randomisation processes, with an embedded process evaluation. Recruitment ran from October 2014 for 9 months. Participants were adults drinking at hazardous and harmful levels, attending four community drug and alcohol services (CDAS) in London. Participants completed baseline demographic, alcohol-related and other psychological questionnaires online and were randomised to HeLP-Alcohol, a six-module DHI with weekly reminder prompts (phone, email or text message), which mirrors face-to-face treatment, or to face-to-face treatment at CDAS. Alcohol counsellors took part in qualitative interviews at the end of the study.

Results

Alcohol counsellors screened 1253 patients. One thousand one hundred eighty-nine did not meet inclusion criteria so were excluded: 579 were dependent drinkers, 548 had health conditions that made them ineligible to take part and 62 were ineligible for other reasons including homelessness. Of the 64 patients who were eligible to take part, 54 declined to participate, with 36 stating a preference for face-to-face treatment, 13 gave no reason, and 5 gave other reasons including not wanting to use a computer. Ten consented but then 3 changed their minds, so we were able to randomise 7 participants to the study (11% of eligible).

Five alcohol counsellors agreed to be interviewed for the process evaluation and provided the following feedback: Although most of their colleagues were enthusiastic about the trial, some were not at equipoise in recruiting; potential participants also declared strong preference to intervention arm from the outset. These factors affected recruitment. Counsellors also lacked time to undertake the data inputting and follow-up of participants in addition to their everyday work.

Conclusions

This feasibility study aimed to test recruitment, randomisation, retention and data collection methods but recruited only 7 participants so these aims were not fully achieved. This illustrates to all researchers of complex interventions the importance of conducting feasibility studies and is generalisable to areas other than alcohol research.

CDAS were seeing larger numbers of non-dependent drinkers with complex additional problems than alcohol commissioners expected. CDAS clients and some counsellors were not at equipoise for recruitment. Alternative settings for recruitment need to be explored in future trials.

Trial registration

International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN31789096, DOI 10.1186/ISRCTN31789096

Evaluating Digital Health Interventions: Key Questions and Approaches

Digital health interventions have enormous potential as scalable tools to improve health and healthcare delivery by improving effectiveness, efficiency, accessibility, safety, and personalization. Achieving these improvements requires a cumulative knowledge base to inform development and deployment of digital health interventions. However, evaluations of digital health interventions present special challenges. This paper aims to examine these challenges and outline an evaluation strategy in terms of the research questions needed to appraise such interventions. As they are at the intersection of biomedical, behavioral, computing, and engineering research, methods drawn from all of these disciplines are required. Relevant research questions include defining the problem and the likely benefit of the digital health intervention, which in turn requires establishing the likely reach and uptake of the intervention, the causal model describing how the intervention will achieve its intended benefit, key components, and how they interact with one another, and estimating overall benefit in terms of effectiveness, cost effectiveness, and harms. Although RCTs are important for evaluation of effectiveness and cost effectiveness, they are best undertaken only when: (1) the intervention and its delivery package are stable; (2) these can be implemented with high fidelity; and (3) there is a reasonable likelihood that the overall benefits will be clinically meaningful (improved outcomes or equivalent outcomes at lower cost). Broadening the portfolio of research questions and evaluation methods will help with developing the necessary knowledge base to inform decisions on policy, practice, and research.

CONSORT 2010 statement: extension to randomised pilot and feasibility trials

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement is a guideline designed to improve the transparency and quality of the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this article we present an extension to that statement for randomised pilot and feasibility trials conducted in advance of a future definitive RCT. The checklist applies to any randomised study in which a future definitive RCT, or part of it, is conducted on a smaller scale, regardless of its design (eg, cluster, factorial, crossover) or the terms used by authors to describe the study (eg, pilot, feasibility, trial, study). The extension does not directly apply to internal pilot studies built into the design of a main trial, non-randomised pilot and feasibility studies, or phase II studies, but these studies all have some similarities to randomised pilot and feasibility studies and so many of the principles might also apply. The development of the extension was motivated by the growing number of studies described as feasibility or pilot studies and by research that has identified weaknesses in their reporting and conduct. We followed recommended good practice to develop the extension, including carrying out a Delphi survey, holding a consensus meeting and research team meetings, and piloting the checklist. The aims and objectives of pilot and feasibility randomised studies differ from those of other randomised trials. Consequently, although much of the information to be reported in these trials is similar to those in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing effectiveness and efficacy, there are some key differences in the type of information and in the appropriate interpretation of standard CONSORT reporting items. We have retained some of the original CONSORT statement items, but most have been adapted, some removed, and new items added. The new items cover how participants were identified and consent obtained; if applicable, the prespecified criteria used to judge whether or how to proceed with a future definitive RCT; if relevant, other important unintended consequences; implications for progression from pilot to future definitive RCT, including any proposed amendments; and ethical approval or approval by a research review committee confirmed with a reference number. This article includes the 26 item checklist, a separate checklist for the abstract, a template for a CONSORT flowchart for these studies, and an explanation of the changes made and supporting examples. We believe that routine use of this proposed extension to the CONSORT statement will result in improvements in the reporting of pilot trials. Editor's note: In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Pilot and Feasibility Studies journal websites.