1
|
Ashton KE, Price C, Fleming L, Blom AW, Culliford L, Evans RN, Foster NE, Hollingworth W, Jameson C, Jeynes N, Moore AJ, Orpen N, Palmer C, Reeves BC, Rogers CA, Wylde V. Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of radiofrequency denervation versus placebo for chronic and moderate to severe low back pain: study protocol for the RADICAL randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open 2024; 14:e079173. [PMID: 39067879 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079173] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/30/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Low back pain (LBP) is the leading global cause of disability. Patients with moderate to severe LBP who respond positively to a diagnostic medial nerve branch block can be offered radiofrequency denervation (RFD). However, high-quality evidence on the effectiveness of RFD is lacking. METHODS AND ANALYSIS RADICAL (RADIofrequenCy denervAtion for Low back pain) is a double-blind, parallel-group, superiority randomised controlled trial. A total of 250 adults listed for RFD will be recruited from approximately 20 National Health Service (NHS) pain and spinal clinics. Recruitment processes will be optimised through qualitative research during a 12-month internal pilot phase. Participants will be randomised in theatre using a 1:1 allocation ratio to RFD or placebo. RFD technique will follow best practice guidelines developed for the trial. Placebo RFD will follow the same protocol, but the electrode tip temperature will not be raised. Participants who do not experience a clinically meaningful improvement in pain 3 months after randomisation will be offered the alternative intervention to the one provided at the outset without disclosing the original allocation. The primary clinical outcome will be pain severity, measured using a pain Numeric Rating Scale, at 3 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes will be assessed up to 2 years after randomisation and include disability, health-related quality of life, psychological distress, time to pain recovery, satisfaction, adverse events, work outcomes and healthcare utilisation. The primary statistical analyses will be by intention to treat and will follow a prespecified analysis plan. The primary economic evaluation will take an NHS and social services perspective and estimate the discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year and incremental net benefit of RFD over the 2-year follow-up period. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION Ethics approval was obtained from the London-Fulham Research Ethics Committee (21/LO/0471). Results will be disseminated in open-access publications and plain language summaries. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN16473239.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate E Ashton
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | | | - Leah Fleming
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Ashley W Blom
- Faculty of Health, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Lucy Culliford
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Rebecca Nicole Evans
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nadine E Foster
- STARS Education and Research Alliance, Surgical Treatment and Rehabilitation Service (STARS), The University of Queensland, Saint Lucia, Queensland, Australia
| | - William Hollingworth
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Catherine Jameson
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Nouf Jeynes
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Andrew J Moore
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Neil Orpen
- BMI Healthcare, The Ridgeway Hospital, Swindon, UK
| | - Cecily Palmer
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Barnaby C Reeves
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Chris A Rogers
- Bristol Trials Centre, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Vikki Wylde
- Musculoskeletal Research Unit, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
- NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust and University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Baxter H, Bearne L, Stone T, Thomas C, Denholm R, Redwood S, Purdy S, Huntley AL. The effectiveness of knowledge-sharing techniques and approaches in research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR): a systematic review. Health Res Policy Syst 2024; 22:41. [PMID: 38566127 PMCID: PMC10988883 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-024-01127-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Accepted: 03/05/2024] [Indexed: 04/04/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR), funds, enables and delivers world-leading health and social care research to improve people's health and wellbeing. To achieve this aim, effective knowledge sharing (two-way knowledge sharing between researchers and stakeholders to create new knowledge and enable change in policy and practice) is needed. To date, it is not known which knowledge sharing techniques and approaches are used or how effective these are in creating new knowledge that can lead to changes in policy and practice in NIHR funded studies. METHODS In this restricted systematic review, electronic databases [MEDLINE, The Health Management Information Consortium (including the Department of Health's Library and Information Services and King's Fund Information and Library Services)] were searched for published NIHR funded studies that described knowledge sharing between researchers and other stakeholders. One researcher performed title and abstract, full paper screening and quality assessment (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist) with a 20% sample independently screened by a second reviewer. A narrative synthesis was adopted. RESULTS In total 9897 records were identified. After screening, 17 studies were included. Five explicit forms of knowledge sharing studies were identified: embedded models, knowledge brokering, stakeholder engagement and involvement of non-researchers in the research or service design process and organisational collaborative partnerships between universities and healthcare organisations. Collectively, the techniques and approaches included five types of stakeholders and worked with them at all stages of the research cycle, except the stage of formation of the research design and preparation of funding application. Seven studies (using four of the approaches) gave examples of new knowledge creation, but only one study (using an embedded model approach) gave an example of a resulting change in practice. The use of a theory, model or framework to explain the knowledge sharing process was identified in six studies. CONCLUSIONS Five knowledge sharing techniques and approaches were reported in the included NIHR funded studies, and seven studies identified the creation of new knowledge. However, there was little investigation of the effectiveness of these approaches in influencing change in practice or policy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Helen Baxter
- Evidence and Dissemination, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Twickenham, United Kingdom.
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC WEST), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom.
| | - Lindsay Bearne
- Evidence and Dissemination, National Institute for Health and Care Research, Twickenham, United Kingdom
- Population Health Research Institute, St George's, University of London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Tracey Stone
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC WEST), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Clare Thomas
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC WEST), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Health Protection Research Unit in Behaviour Science and Evaluation (NIHR HPRU BSE), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Rachel Denholm
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Bristol Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR BRC), University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Sabi Redwood
- National Institute for Health and Care Research, Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC WEST), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah Purdy
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| | - Alyson Louise Huntley
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
- Centre for Academic Primary Care, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fitzpatrick PJ. Improving health literacy using the power of digital communications to achieve better health outcomes for patients and practitioners. Front Digit Health 2023; 5:1264780. [PMID: 38046643 PMCID: PMC10693297 DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2023.1264780] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/21/2023] [Accepted: 10/20/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Digital communication tools have demonstrated significant potential to improve health literacy which ultimately leads to better health outcomes. In this article, we examine the power of digital communication tools such as mobile health apps, telemedicine and online health information resources to promote health and digital literacy. We outline evidence that digital tools facilitate patient education, self-management and empowerment possibilities. In addition, digital technology is optimising the potential for improved clinical decision-making, treatment options and communication among providers. We also explore the challenges and limitations associated with digital health literacy, including issues related to access, reliability and privacy. We propose leveraging digital communication tools is key to optimising engagement to enhance health literacy across demographics leading to transformation of healthcare delivery and driving better outcomes for all.
Collapse
|
4
|
Chandler J, Darnton P, Sibley A. Very rapid insight generation to support UK health and care systems: An AHSN approach. FRONTIERS IN SOCIOLOGY 2023; 8:993342. [PMID: 37056460 PMCID: PMC10088506 DOI: 10.3389/fsoc.2023.993342] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/13/2022] [Accepted: 03/01/2023] [Indexed: 06/19/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION COVID-19 challenges are well documented. Academic Health Science Networks (AHSNs) are a key partner to NHS and care organizations. In response to managing COVID-19 challenges, Wessex AHSN offered rapid insight generation and rapid evaluation to local NHS and care systems to capture learning during this period. This novel "Rapid Insight" approach involved one-off online deliberative events with stakeholders to generate insights linked to specific, priority areas of interest, followed by rapid analysis and dissemination of the findings. CONTEXT Key objectives were to enable system leaders to build their adaptive leadership capability and learn from the experience of COVID-19 to inform recovery planning and system support. Rapid Insight (RI) gathered together health and care professionals into a tightly managed, virtual forum to share system intelligence. APPROACH Focused questions asked about the systems' response to the pandemic, what changes to continue and sustain, or discontinue. Participants responded simultaneously to each question using the virtual chat function. Immediate thematic analysis of the chat conducted in 48-72 h by paired analysts for each question strengthened analytical integrity. Mind maps, the key output, provided easily assimilated information and showed linkages between themes. Telephone or virtual interviews of key informants (health and care professionals and patients) and routinely collected data were synthesized into short reports alongside several RI events. However, insufficient time limited the opportunities to engage diverse participants (e.g., mental health users). Data from RI can scope the problem and immediate system needs, to stimulate questions for future evaluative work. IMPACT RI facilitated a shared endeavor to discover "clues in the system" by including diverse opinions and experience across NHS and care organizations. Although these rapid virtual events saved on travel time, digital exclusion might constrain participation for some stakeholders which needs other ways to ensure inclusion. Successful rapid engagement required Wessex AHSN's existing system relationships to champion RI and facilitate participant recruitment. RI events "opened the door" to conversations between up to 150 multi-professional clinicians to share their collective response to COVID-19. This paper focuses on the RI approach with a case example and its further development.
Collapse
|