1
|
Hollis C, Hall CL, Khan K, Le Novere M, Marston L, Jones R, Hunter R, Brown BJ, Sanderson C, Andrén P, Bennett SD, Chamberlain LR, Davies EB, Evans A, Kouzoupi N, McKenzie C, Heyman I, Kilgariff J, Glazebrook C, Mataix-Cols D, Serlachius E, Murray E, Murphy T. Online remote behavioural intervention for tics in 9- to 17-year-olds: the ORBIT RCT with embedded process and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2023; 27:1-120. [PMID: 37924247 PMCID: PMC10641713 DOI: 10.3310/cpms3211] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Behavioural therapy for tics is difficult to access, and little is known about its effectiveness when delivered online. Objective To investigate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of an online-delivered, therapist- and parent-supported therapy for young people with tic disorders. Design Single-blind, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial, with 3-month (primary end point) and 6-month post-randomisation follow-up. Participants were individually randomised (1 : 1), using on online system, with block randomisations, stratified by site. Naturalistic follow-up was conducted at 12 and 18 months post-randomisation when participants were free to access non-trial interventions. A subset of participants participated in a process evaluation. Setting Two hospitals (London and Nottingham) in England also accepting referrals from patient identification centres and online self-referrals. Participants Children aged 9-17 years (1) with Tourette syndrome or chronic tic disorder, (2) with a Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score of 15 or more (or > 10 with only motor or vocal tics) and (3) having not received behavioural therapy for tics in the past 12 months or started/stopped medication for tics within the past 2 months. Interventions Either 10 weeks of online, remotely delivered, therapist-supported exposure and response prevention therapy (intervention group) or online psychoeducation (control). Outcome Primary outcome: Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score 3 months post-randomisation; analysis done in all randomised patients for whom data were available. Secondary outcomes included low mood, anxiety, treatment satisfaction and health resource use. Quality-adjusted life-years are derived from parent-completed quality-of-life measures. All trial staff, statisticians and the chief investigator were masked to group allocation. Results Two hundred and twenty-four participants were randomised to the intervention (n = 112) or control (n = 112) group. Participants were mostly male (n = 177; 79%), with a mean age of 12 years. At 3 months the estimated mean difference in Yale Global Tic Severity Scale-total tic severity score between the groups adjusted for baseline and site was -2.29 points (95% confidence interval -3.86 to -0.71) in favour of therapy (effect size -0.31, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to -0.10). This effect was sustained throughout to the final follow-up at 18 months (-2.01 points, 95% confidence interval -3.86 to -0.15; effect size -0.27, 95% confidence interval -0.52 to -0.02). At 18 months the mean incremental cost per participant of the intervention compared to the control was £662 (95% confidence interval -£59 to £1384), with a mean incremental quality-adjusted life-year of 0.040 (95% confidence interval -0.004 to 0.083) per participant. The mean incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year gained was £16,708. The intervention was acceptable and delivered with high fidelity. Parental engagement predicted child engagement and more positive clinical outcomes. Harms Two serious, unrelated adverse events occurred in the control group. Limitations We cannot separate the effects of digital online delivery and the therapy itself. The sample was predominately white and British, limiting generalisability. The design did not compare to face-to-face services. Conclusion Online, therapist-supported behavioural therapy for young people with tic disorders is clinically and cost-effective in reducing tics, with durable benefits extending up to 18 months. Future work Future work should compare online to face-to-face therapy and explore how to embed the intervention in clinical practice. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN70758207; ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03483493). The trial is now complete. Funding This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Technology Assessment programme (project number 16/19/02) and will be published in full in Health and Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 18. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Chris Hollis
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, South Block Level E, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Charlotte L Hall
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- NIHR Nottingham Biomedical Research Centre, Institute of Mental Health, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Kareem Khan
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Marie Le Novere
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health and Priment CTU, University College London, London, UK
| | - Louise Marston
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health and Priment CTU, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca Jones
- Division of Psychiatry and Priment CTU, University College London, London, UK
| | - Rachael Hunter
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health and Priment CTU, University College London, London, UK
| | - Beverley J Brown
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Charlotte Sanderson
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Per Andrén
- Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Sophie D Bennett
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Liam R Chamberlain
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - E Bethan Davies
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Amber Evans
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Natalia Kouzoupi
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Caitlin McKenzie
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Isobel Heyman
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Joseph Kilgariff
- Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, South Block Level E, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - Cristine Glazebrook
- NIHR MindTech MedTech Co-operative, Institute of Mental Health, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
- Mental Health and Clinical Neurosciences, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Queen's Medical Centre, Nottingham, UK
| | - David Mataix-Cols
- Centre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institutet, and Stockholm Health Care Services, Region Stockholm, Stockholm, Sweden
| | - Eva Serlachius
- Department of Clinical Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden
| | - Elizabeth Murray
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health and Priment CTU, University College London, London, UK
| | - Tara Murphy
- UCL Great Ormond Street Institute of Child Health (ICH), London, UK/Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust, London, UK
- Psychological and Mental Health Services, Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lobban F, Akers N, Appelbe D, Iraci Capuccinello R, Chapman L, Collinge L, Dodd S, Flowers S, Hollingsworth B, Honary M, Johnson S, Jones SH, Mateus C, Mezes B, Murray E, Panagaki K, Rainford N, Robinson H, Rosala-Hallas A, Sellwood W, Walker A, Williamson PR. A web-based, peer-supported self-management intervention to reduce distress in relatives of people with psychosis or bipolar disorder: the REACT RCT. Health Technol Assess 2021; 24:1-142. [PMID: 32608353 DOI: 10.3310/hta24320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Relatives caring for people with severe mental health problems find information and emotional support hard to access. Online support for self-management offers a potential solution. OBJECTIVE The objective was to determine the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an online supported self-management tool for relatives: the Relatives' Education And Coping Toolkit (REACT). DESIGN AND SETTING This was a primarily online (UK), single-blind, randomised controlled trial, comparing REACT plus a resource directory and treatment as usual with the resource directory and treatment as usual only, by measuring user distress and other well-being measures at baseline and at 12 and 24 weeks. PARTICIPANTS A total of 800 relatives of people with severe mental health problems across the UK took part; relatives who were aged ≥ 16 years, were experiencing high levels of distress, had access to the internet and were actively seeking help were recruited. INTERVENTION REACT comprised 12 psychoeducation modules, peer support through a group forum, confidential messaging and a comprehensive resource directory of national support. Trained relatives moderated the forum and responded to messages. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE The main outcome was the level of participants' distress, as measured by the General Health Questionnaire-28 items. RESULTS Various online and offline strategies, including social media, directed potential participants to the website. Participants were randomised to one of two arms: REACT plus the resource directory (n = 399) or the resource directory only (n = 401). Retention at 24 weeks was 75% (REACT arm, n = 292; resource directory-only arm, n = 307). The mean scores for the General Health Questionnaire-28 items reduced substantially across both arms over 24 weeks, from 40.2 (standard deviation 14.3) to 30.5 (standard deviation 15.6), with no significant difference between arms (mean difference -1.39, 95% confidence interval -3.60 to 0.83; p = 0.22). At 12 weeks, the General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores were lower in the REACT arm than in the resource directory-only arm (-2.08, 95% confidence interval -4.14 to -0.03; p = 0.027), but this finding is likely to be of limited clinical significance. Accounting for missing data, which were associated with higher distress in the REACT arm (0.33, 95% confidence interval -0.27 to 0.93; p = 0.279), in a longitudinal model, there was no significant difference between arms over 24 weeks (-0.56, 95% confidence interval -2.34 to 1.22; p = 0.51). REACT cost £142.95 per participant to design and deliver (£62.27 for delivery only), compared with £0.84 for the resource directory only. A health economic analysis of NHS, health and Personal Social Services outcomes found that REACT has higher costs (£286.77), slightly better General Health Questionnaire-28 items scores (incremental General Health Questionnaire-28 items score adjusted for baseline, age and gender: -1.152, 95% confidence interval -3.370 to 1.065) and slightly lower quality-adjusted life-year gains than the resource directory only; none of these differences was statistically significant. The median time spent online was 50.8 minutes (interquartile range 12.4-172.1 minutes) for REACT, with no significant association with outcome. Participants reported finding REACT a safe, confidential environment (96%) and reported feeling supported by the forum (89%) and the REACT supporters (86%). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS The sample comprised predominantly white British females, 25% of participants were lost to follow-up and dropout in the REACT arm was not random. CONCLUSIONS An online self-management support toolkit with a moderated group forum is acceptable to relatives and, compared with face-to-face programmes, offers inexpensive, safe delivery of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence-recommended support to engage relatives as peers in care delivery. However, currently, REACT plus the resource directory is no more effective at reducing relatives' distress than the resource directory only. FUTURE WORK Further research in improving the effectiveness of online carer support interventions is required. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN72019945. FUNDING This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 32. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Lobban
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Nadia Akers
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Duncan Appelbe
- Clinical Trials Research Centre, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK
| | | | - Lesley Chapman
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Lizzi Collinge
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Susanna Dodd
- Clinical Trials Research Centre, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK
| | - Sue Flowers
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Bruce Hollingsworth
- Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Mahsa Honary
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Sonia Johnson
- Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK
| | - Steven H Jones
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Ceu Mateus
- Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Barbara Mezes
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Elizabeth Murray
- Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Katerina Panagaki
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Naomi Rainford
- Clinical Trials Research Centre, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK
| | - Heather Robinson
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Anna Rosala-Hallas
- Clinical Trials Research Centre, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK
| | - William Sellwood
- Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Andrew Walker
- Spectrum Centre for Mental Health Research, Division of Health Research, Faculty of Health and Medicine, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK
| | - Paula R Williamson
- Clinical Trials Research Centre, Department of Biostatistics, University of Liverpool (a member of Liverpool Health Partners), Liverpool, UK
| |
Collapse
|